Alexandra Runswick (London, Unlock Democracy): Last week the Justice Committee took evidence on the English Questions as part of their inquiry Devolution 10 years on (watch the video here - available for 28 days only!). What was interesting about this particular evidence session was the way it was neatly divided into establishment figures and pressure groups, and the contrasts this showed, both in the issues raised and the style of the session.
The first half saw Prof. Vernon Bogdanor, Rt Hon Ken Clarke MP and Lord Tyler outline their views on what the English questions are and what should be done about them. Whilst none of them were suggesting that the questions should not be asked, there was a sense that they are inevitable, and to some extent simply have to be lived with.
Bogdanor started by outlining two aspects of the English question; the constitutional, essentially the West Lothian question, and the political. He argued that until England devolved legislative powers to the regions, which he accepted would not be happening anytime soon, there was nothing that could be done about the constitutional aspect. However the sense of alienation and disconnect from politics within England, what he termed the political question, could and should be urgently addressed. Bogdanor was particularly interested in devolving power to directly elected Mayors as has already been done in London.
Ken Clarke saw the English Questions very much as a parliamentary anomaly that required a parliamentary solution. He recognised that there is a sense of unfairness that needs to be addressed, but felt that English votes for English Laws would do this. Significantly, although he didn't support regional governance, he was interested in devolving powers to existing tiers of governance such as counties.
Paul Tyler highlighted the fact that it is not just the English question it is also a Cornish question, and a question for all of England outside London that already has some devolved powers. He called for decentralisation of power and reform of the electoral system.
None of the speakers supported an English Parliament which they thought would address neither the centralisation of England nor the sense of alienation, and would only undermine the union. Significantly both Lord Tyler and Prof Bogdanor had very serious concerns about the English votes for English Laws proposal and the use of an English Grand Committee. Bogdanor called the proposals "profoundly dangerous to the future of the UK."
Although the speakers disagreed with each other, the evidence session was very good natured and relaxed. They all understood the rules of parliamentary interaction and were comfortable with the format. There was very much a sense that they knew each other, had discussed this all before and probably would again. The only dissonant notes were a few members of the audience, tutting when they disagreed with what was being said.
It did feel different when the Committee was questioning Michael Knowles of the Campaign for an English Parliament and Peter Facey, Director of Unlock Democracy. I don't mean that the MPs were in any way rude, far from it. Select Committee clerks often go to great lengths to brief witnesses on what the evidence session will be like and the issues that may be raised. It's just that there wasn't the easy banter of the Establishment talking amongst itself. In part at least this was because the issues that were being raised were more confrontational, there was more sense of urgency and less confidence that this could simply be solved at a parliamentary level. There was also less camaraderie between the witnesses. Although there was some agreement about the need for decentralisation and, significantly, about the need for a constitutional convention, the two campaigns are both coming from very different positions.
Michael Knowles forcefully raised the sense of unfairness and alienation that many supporters of an English Parliament feel. There was a sense that he felt MPs had created a problem and he, or rather English people in general, were being left to find the solution. Although the Committee tried to engage thoughtfully with the issues and explore how an English Parliament might work in practice, the discussion was not particularly productive. Partly this is because committees expect campaign groups to have detailed, worked through policy solutions that it is not always possible for them to provide.
Peter Facey had a balancing act to do, both in the sense of differentiating himself from the Campaign for an English Parliament and in recommending more than just a parliamentary solution. He added to the definition of the English questions by saying that there are also cultural elements to the question, in particular the flying of flags. He also raised the issue of enabling existing units of governance, such as county councils or groups of local authorities being able to draw down powers, rather than simply letting central government determine what the appropriate level is for which powers.
Campaigning groups giving evidence to select committees can greatly add to the parliamentary process but by definition it's only ever a few who are able to participate in this way. There is potential for select committees to be used as part of a parliamentary outreach programme and take their inquiries to community groups outside the confines of Parliament. I would also like to see select committees evolve into specialist committees with greater powers, particularly in relation to war powers and treaty ratification. However, reform of parliamentary procedure is never quick, and select committees themselves are a relatively new development; so in the meantime it's important for us to continue to take the debate to them.
