Gareth Young (Lewes, CEP): At the end of his Telegraph article Philip Johnston sums up the English Question rather well: "It is about identity and governance." Which makes it all the more surprising that he bills the Democracy Task Force's recommendations as "an answer to the English Question."
After 33 months of deliberation the Democracy Task Force, headed by Ken Clarke, has recommended ditching English Votes on English Laws, a policy first mentioned by William Hague in 1999 and adopted officially in the 2001 Conservative Manifesto (we always told them that it wouldn't work).
But from an English perspective the new recommendations are even worse. To quote from Johnston:
The task force...thinks it has an answer and has finished its report, which has yet to be published. It is a compromise between those who want English votes for English laws and those who would leave things be.
Legislation affecting only England, an education Bill, for instance, would receive a second reading by the entire Commons; but its committee stage, where the measure is subjected to line-by-line scrutiny and can be amended, would be for English MPs only.
When the Bill came back to the Commons for its report stage and third reading, all MPs would again have a vote. But the Government would be bound to accept amendments agreed by the committee, or risk losing the legislation.
English Votes on English Laws sounded straight-forward, and it commanded public support across the UK, but English Pauses for English Clauses will make little sense to the public. Not only does it appear illogical, it also asks us to compromise between the gerrymandered asymmetric democracy of New Labour and English Votes on English Laws, which was itself a messy compromise. Why compromise at all?
In 1999 William Hague warned that "We must provide this [emerging] English consciousness with a legitimate political outlet." English Pauses for English Clauses does not provide a legitimate voice for England, it does not address the question of who speaks for England, and on whose behalf. England will be governed still as the UK, and for the UK, with Scottish ministers exercising power without responsibility, presiding over the formulation and introduction of laws that do not affect the people that elected them. The principle of 'the sovereignty of the people' that underpinned the Scottish and Welsh settlements is nowhere to be seen, because to most Conservative minds what is best for Britain is also best for England. Though I am minded of the words of David Davis MP:
The people of England deserve no less than the same choice as the peoples of Wales and Scotland last September: a referendum on whether they want a parliament of their own. In their own words, Labour should trust the people - in this case the people of England. An English parliament, on the same basis as the Scottish one, will be the minimum that the English people are likely to be satisfied with.
Anything less will lead to disaffection and discontent, to a belief that the English are being treated as second class citizens in their own land. If Labour wanted to bring about the dissolution of the United Kingdom, that disaffection would be the way to do it.
My guess is that the Conservative Party will decide to kick Clarke's 'answer' into touch. MPs like David Davis, Roger Gale, Malcolm Rifkind, John Redwood and Mark Field will have their say, and Jack Straw will pop up and ask inconvenient questions about 'farcical divisions.' But the real difficulty will be encountered when they attempt to explain, justify and sell such an obvious fudge to the English public.
