West Lothian Q

As delegates decanted from Manchester recently, many will have reflected on what they view as a successful conference. The gathering, the biggest seen for a long time, contributed to the on-going rebranding and definition of ‘modern Conservatism'. The conference also proved instructive for those who seek to understand how the Conservatives will approach issues of citizenship, identity and constitutional reform. And what the last five days has highlighted is that Conservatives, progressive or traditionalists alike, have little time for or comprehension of the complexities, dilemmas and subtleties of post-devolution politics in the UK. The conference instead revealed a party which remains Anglo-centric in its political outlook and language.

In his keynote address David Cameron again stated his commitment to the defence of the Union, claiming he would never do anything to put it at risk. However the view that emerged from the conference is one which is confused, often contradictory and likely to further undermine the cohesion of the UK. The Conservatives gave scant attention to issues linked to constitutional matters either in the main debating hall or at fringe events. The only session scheduled in the main conference hall which explicitly dealt with the Union had representatives from Scotland and Wales, plus Sir Reg Empey, leader of the Ulster Unionist Party. Empey's party is now again formally linked to the Conservatives, even though the memory of the previous connection, from the 1920s until the 1970s, is a bitter one for many Catholic nationalists.

The promotion of ‘Britishness' in Northern Ireland is set against a Good Friday Agreement which explicitly acknowledges the equal legitimacy of its two traditions. Owen Paterson, Shadow Secretary for Northern Ireland, claimed that the Conservatives were the only political party who campaigned in all four nations, yet it was instructive that the session was mis-titled ‘Great Britain' rather the ‘United Kingdom'. Although the Conservatives claimed to seek to build ‘a stronger union' and ‘a greater Britain', it was not felt necessary to provide representation for England, thus suggesting that the quasi-colonialist Thatcherite view of Anglo-Britishness still shapes the Conservative thinking.

During the conference, the Party avoided discussion of the central plank of their constitutional reform platform, namely English votes for English Laws. This is presented as solution to the vacuum created by New Labour radical constitutional programme, the West Lothian or English Question, whereby power has been devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland but not England. David Mundell, the Conservatives' only Scottish MP, described such reforms as ‘sensible proposals' to give English MPs equitable powers of decision-making as those afforded to the Scottish Parliament and the other devolved assemblies.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): In the latest edition of Parliamentary Brief, Arthur Aughey looks at how Ken Clarke's Democracy Task Force has attempted to answer the English Question. Although sceptical on the details, he suggests that Clarke's approach reflects distinctive conservative principles that may point the way to a solution.

English nationalism is still a mood, not a movement, if only because the Conservative Party refuses to mobilise it as such. The taskforce’s objective is to prevent that mood becoming a movement, confirming the Unionism of the Conservative Party, something David Cameron has taken every opportunity to confirm since becoming leader.

If the report becomes party policy, which seems very likely, then the trajectory of Conservative thinking on the ‘English Question’ since 1997 is from constitutional maximalism to constitutional minimalism. It has gone from tentative support for an English parliament, through ‘English votes on English laws’ and Sir Malcolm Rifkind’s idea of an English grand committee,to this taskforce’s present recommendation of certified English bills being considered and voted on by English MPs only in committee and at the report stage.

The Constitution Unit has this week produced two new contributions to its invaluable series of devolution monitoring reports.

Akash Paun and Edward Calow provide a good one-stop overview of the state of devolution across the UK:

Moderator: Cross posted from Normal Mouth's blog.

Normal Mouth (Rhondda, blogger): At the turn of the nineteenth century the very idea of a “Welsh question” was largely inconceivable. This was not so in Scotland and Ireland, where a strong sense of nationhood was buttressed by the relative novelties of their respective unions with England. Welshness, by contrast was identified with little more than the backward retention of an ancient language, and a wild and uninviting hinterland. Little wonder that the likes of Bishop Basil Jones of St David's declared as late as 1886 that Wales survived only as a "geographical expression".*

Industrialisation and Nonconformism gave birth to Wales’s national movement, and franchise reform gave it the means to press itself upon the consciousness of Britain's leaders. With a voice, Welsh sentiment was harder to ignore in Parliament. So emerged the radical Nonconformist wing of the Liberal Party, and through that those essential precursors of devolution - disestablishment, educational reform and Sunday closing.

The current devolution settlement contains long-term risks to the Union. The Democracy Task Force recommends to David Cameron a modified version of ‘English Votes for English Laws’, incorporating English-only Committee and Report stages but a vote of all MPs at Second and Third Reading. We believe that this proposal can remove the main source of English grievance at the current devolution settlement without some of the risks to political stability that critics have seen in proposals for a completely English procedure. (Answering the West Lothian Question)

Gareth is none too happy with this "crude technical" solution, but how have others reacted?

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): BBC Northern Ireland's Mark Devenport picked up a potential West Lothian issue ahead of last nights Commons vote on the Embryology Bill: 

One of our local MPs told me he was getting some flak from English MPs. He said they took the view that if Northern Ireland MPs wanted to interfere in the time limits for abortion in England, then maybe English MPs should interfere in the ban on abortion here.

In the event, the majority of Northern Ireland MPs who take their seats were not deterred. 6 of the 9 DUP MPs and all 3 SDLP MPs voted to cut the time limit for abortion to 12 weeks. The change would not have affected Northern Ireland where the 1967 Abortion Act does not apply.

Recent reports that the Act could be extended provoked the united opposition of the North's four main parties. Although abortion is currently a reserved matter, Ministers have said it will become the responsibility of the Northern Ireland Assembly once policing and justice is devolved.

Gareth Young (Lewes, CEP): During Prime Minister's Question Time on 21st November 2007 Gordon Brown misled Parliament when he claimed that the Barnett Formula was based on need. His error was highlighted at the press briefing afterwards, but just two weeks ago he did it again:

Gavin Yates (Edinburgh, GYmedia): With Gordon Brown’s historic statement on constitutional reform resounding round OK and many other blogs the question north of the border might be best characterised not by what was left in the statement but rather what was left out.

The West Lothian question – a hardy perennial for politics watchers in Scotland - was dealt with firmly by the PM, saying that he did not want to have two tiers of MPs. However, as The Herald’s political editor Catherine McLeod points out in a brisk run through yesterday’s debate, English votes on English laws is “an issue that, however much he might wish it to be different, will not go away.”

Anthony Barnett (London, OK): Last night I commented on Brown's speech for The World Tonight on Radio 4. The programme also featured a lively debate between Michael Connarty and Boris Johnson on the West Lothian question. Listen to it here.

Tom Griffin (London, The Green Ribbon): Brown's statement today marks a genuinely historic return to the constitutional reform agenda of Labour’s first term, so it may seem churlish to point to the one major issue that Gordon Brown has explicitly refused to address – the West Lothian Question.

Guy Lodge (London, ippr): OurKingdom is right to attach particular importance to the issue of England. The ‘English Question’, which has its roots in the unravelling of the historic conflation between Englishness and Britishness, has prompted the English to reflect on who they are and their position in the Union. The constitutional dimension – my ippr colleague Rick Muir has raised some of the social issues - has arisen due to the asymmetry of the devolution settlement, and it is this which is forcing the issue up the political agenda. Here opinion towards the Union is changing most dramatically, not in Scotland, where support for independence has barely altered in 20 years (hovering between 20-30%), but in England, where support for policies like an English Parliament has recently shot up: from around 20% between 1997-2004, to over 50% today (see Newsnight poll, pdf ). Some polls (opens in pdf) even suggest that a majority in England want Scotland to go it alone.

Peter Oborne (Whitehall): The victory of the SNP has an historic importance which stretches way beyond Scotland. It has created a new architecture for British politics. Specifically, I do not think it is possible any longer for a Labour Party which has been rejected north of the border to use its Scottish MPs to enforce its will in English issues. Last autumn Scottish MPs helped the Labour government secure a narrow majority of 35 in a Bill abolishing the right to jury trial in serious fraud cases. They did so even though this did not apply in Scotland which has a separate legal system. I felt this removal of ancient English liberties very keenly indeed. It seemed to me casual and presumptuous that it was made possible by a group of people who had no personal stake in the matter: precisely the kind of thoughtless and disrespectful exercise of power which so inflamed the Scots when the English did it to them. I am not writing this as an English nationalist. On the contrary, I believe very strongly in the union. But a basic equity is involved here. The SNP win has precipitated a constitutional crisis. Gordon Brown has been very unlucky indeed. He will have to find a solution to the conundrum thrown up by the SNP victory, or he will not be able to govern.