THE UK Government’s controversial proposals for English Votes for English Laws(Evel) have been branded an “incomprehensible mess” and an "absurd solution" as MPs today say the proposal must be run as a pilot scheme in its first year.
But the interim report on Evel by the Commons Procedure Committee failed to get the backing of its two SNP members, who feel the policy does not recognise Westminster as a UK parliament.
The report also says that where there is a “political necessity” to demonstrate an English majority on a particular policy, then all MPs should debate and, if necessary, vote on whether or not Evel should be applied.
The highly contentious issue is due to be debated and voted on by MPs this Thursday.
The UK Government believes Evel creates a sensible constitutional balance in the light of more powers going to Holyrood as it will ensure England-only legislation has the consent of a majority of English MPs. However, its critics, including Labour and the SNP, argue that it will create two class of MPs and could restrict Scottish MPs voting on issues that have an indirect financial consequence on Scotland.
The proposed changes by the Conservative administration mean that while Scottish MPs would be banned from voting on a key scrutiny stage of an England-only Bill, the final vote would include all UK Members.
Earlier this week, Chris Grayling, the Commons Leader overseeing Evel, dismissed the idea of a pilot yet said that, after a year, there would be a “proper stock-take” to see how the policy was doing. But he also made clear the Conservative Government had no intention of dropping it.
With the issue of finance a key one and what the committee says are the “less than satisfactory arrangements for the House to consider changes in block grants to the devolved institutions arising from the Barnett Formula”, it says its members will examine the House’s procedures for approving the Government’s spending plans.
Charles Walker, the committee chairman, said the MPs’ review found elements of the Evel proposals “over-engineered and potentially burdensome” and its recommendations would seek to streamline the process.
“Clearly, the proposals represent a substantial change to the House’s procedures and they ought to be piloted on statutory instruments and a small number of Bills before they are fully implemented.”
But the committee’s SNP members Patrick Grady, representing Glasgow North, and Patricia Gibson, North Ayrshire and Arran, voted against the report.
Their leader at Westminster, Angus Robertson, said it showed the “utter confusion and total inadequacy of what the UK Government is proposing on Evel. The Tories have got themselves into a first class muddle and are trying to force this through – with too many flaws - too quickly”.
He added: “Evel puts forward an absurd solution to the UK’s current constitutional inequalities and it is clear that the proposals need to go right back to the drawing board so that they can be examined properly.”
Ian Murray for Labour branded the UK Government reforms “an incomprehensible mess”.
The Shadow Scottish Secretary added: “David Cameron's proposals will weaken our democracy, weaken Scotland's voice in Parliament and for the first time create two classes of MPs.
“It could lead to the perverse situation where some unelected members of the House of Lords will be more powerful than elected MPs. Labour will put forward our own proposals that will simplify this process but not threaten the way the UK's democracy works."
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel