ITS critics have described it as “a dog’s breakfast” and “constitutional bilge”, its supporters “sensible and pragmatic” and “justice for England”.
English Votes for English Laws(Evel) has opened up a parliamentary chasm that, it seems, David Cameron is having increasing difficulty bridging.
A year ago, it seemed such a clever wheeze to the Prime Minister, having won the Scottish independence referendum, to emerge into Downing Street and insist it was now England’s turn.
The vanquished Alex Salmond noted the Tory leader, “having put Scotland in its box”, had unwittingly planted the seed for the SNP’s subsequent landslide election victory.
It was quite clear Mr Cameron had been contemplating for some time how to move the constitutional argument on if, as he hoped, Scotland voted No.
Right-wingers, agitating on Europe, had demanded the constitutional anomaly on England had to be fixed once and for all; particularly, if Holyrood were to be given more tax powers.
So Evel was born within hours of the referendum result. “What’s good for the goose is good for the gander,” insisted one senior Tory at the time, adding: “England’s voice must be heard.”
But, hold on, at Westminster England’s voice is represented by 82 per cent of MPs; it would be very hard for it not to be heard in anything that is debated in the Commons.
Gordon Brown believes Evel threatens the Union by making Scots second class citizens. Mr Cameron, the ex-PM argues, has “turned on the tap” of English nationalism.
The biggest fear is Scottish MPs could be barred from key Budgetary matters and, of course, Evel could tie the hands of any future Labour leader, who, failing to have a Tory majority in England, could face the unappetising prospect of never getting their main economic policies through.
Also, if there were ever to be a Scottish Chancellor, he or she might face the bizarre prospect of being barred from voting on parts of his or her own Budget.
But David Mundell, the Scottish Secretary, has argued Evel is a fair mechanism, which would actually strengthen the Union by addressing genuine English concerns.
Yet it seems the UK Government’s plan to have an English veto on English-only laws – whatever they may turn out to be - has run into trouble.
Having bigged up Evel, the Tory Party then abstained on a vote to support it. Subsequently, Chris Grayling, the Commons Leader, told MPs before the summer recess that, er, proposals would be “modified” and once the House returned it would be debated at an “early opportunity”.
The reality is the Commons vote was pulled because not only were Scottish MPs going to oppose Evel but so too were Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionists and as many as 20 English Tory rebels, who feared Evel would give the PM a larger majority on key issues and weaken their negotiating hand.
Given Mr Cameron has only a working majority of 12, the numbers simply did not stack up.
That “early opportunity” came and went. MPs returned for two weeks but there was not a squeak from Downing Street about Evel.
A DUP source noted how Mr Cameron’s Government “really does need to get its act together if it wants to cut deals". There’s the rub. The PM, with such a slim majority, might, in future sticky situations, have to rely on his Northern Irish chums.
Dog’s breakfast or justice for England? Watch this space.
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