House of Commons · General Debate
13 July 2021 · 22 other contributors
Opened by Jacob Rees-Mogg Con North East Somerset
Summarised by AI from the official record, so it can contain mistakes.
Jacob Rees-Mogg raised concerns about english votes for english laws in the House of Commons. Other MPs contributed to the debate.
Key points
MPs spoke in turn to share their views and ask questions. Here's what each person said.
Opened the debate
Mr. Rees-Mogg moved to rescind Standing Orders Nos. 83J to 83X and make related changes across the House’s Standing Orders, aiming to remove the English votes for English laws—EVEL—process from the legislative process. He argued that EVEL added complexity and delay to the legislative process, constrained the ability of Parliament to legislate effectively, undermined equal representation of all Members, and was poorly attended and ineffective in practice.
Asked if the Leader of the House has an answer to the West Lothian question.
Asked about voting rights on matters affecting border regions like the Countess of Chester Hospital, which serves both Welsh and English residents.
Inquired how many contributions were made to the Legislative Grand Committee by a specific Member who was most active in them.
Asked why England should have no devolved powers at all, given that it uniquely among the four main parts of the UK lacks such powers.
Speculated on the situation if the 2015 election scenario had come to pass and asked about the consequences for English constituents.
Reminded Mr. Rees-Mogg of Hanover Street, a common street name in Germany, suggesting historical ties between countries.
Asked if the logic that makes it unsatisfactory for this House to be both UK and English implies a similar need for devolution within England. He also questioned the fairness of consultations involving only Scottish, Welsh, and Northern Irish Governments without an English voice.
Ms Debbonaire argues that the current EVEL system undermines equality among MPs and creates different classes of MP. She cites earlier warnings from Labour MPs about these issues and criticises the Government for failing to heed their advice. She emphasises the need for a cross-party approach to constitutional reform, referencing the McKay commission report.
Mr Redwood questions Labour's stance on single category of MPs and the differences between Scottish and English constituencies in terms of powers and responsibilities. He challenges Ms Debbonaire to explain why Scottish devolution did not prevent an SNP Government from demanding a referendum.
Mr Carmichael reminds the House that constitutional conventions were about better governance and bringing control closer to people, rather than national identity. He argues for considering who should speak for various parts of England.
Ms Baldwin points out that Conservative manifestos from 2010 and 2015 pledged to address English votes for English laws, which they implemented after winning a majority in 2015. She urges Ms Debbonaire to respect the democratic mandate.
EVEL was an attempt to answer the West Lothian question but it is now clear that it has introduced a layer of complex bureaucracy and won few friends. Abolishing EVEL would simplify procedures and reaffirm the fundamental constitutional principle that we are one United Kingdom with a sovereign Parliament.
Redwood criticises the Government for dismissing English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) without offering alternatives. He asserts that Labour's devolution has been unfair to England and calls on the Government to support Unionists throughout the UK, rather than appeasing those who wish to dismantle it.
Grady expresses skepticism about the removal of EVEL, arguing that it was introduced by previous governments to strengthen the Union. He questions why the current Government wishes to abolish it and suggests that they are increasingly enacting laws for Scotland without legislative consent motions.
Williams discusses the instability of the devolution settlement since the 1990s, criticising EVEL as a temporary fix rather than a solution. He calls for clarity on what is devolved and proposes that Westminster seek devolved Government consent when introducing legislation affecting Welsh law or policy.
Supports the motion to abolish EVEL but argues against its initial creation. He acknowledges the good intentions behind EVEL as a corrective measure but suggests it did not address root causes and diminishes non-English MPs' standing, calling for clarity in governance and sovereignty with 'one Britain, one vote'.
One of two representatives objecting to the abolition of EVEL Standing Orders. She regrets this action as a broken pledge from Conservative party manifestos and emphasises the lack of a replacement proposal, highlighting potential future constitutional problems.
Expressed gratitude to fellow Members who contributed and emphasised the need for clarity in constitutional arrangements, stressing the importance of restoring uniformity in the constitution. He disagreed with John Redwood's view that removing EVEL is an attempt to appease Scottish nationalists, arguing it shows confidence in the Union Parliament. Rees-Mogg highlighted the measures taken in 2015 and mentioned his opposition to any idea of a divided parity of MPs.
Called for EVEL to be put out of its misery, reflecting on the imbalance within the devolution framework.
Reminded that Northern Irish MPs had a vote in this House when they had a devolved settlement without complaint, suggesting historical context supports reconsidering EVEL's necessity.
Emphasised the need for clarity in arrangements and stressed the importance of emphasising the sovereignty of Parliament.
Critiqued lopsided devolution and an unsettled constitution, suggesting removing EVEL could be seen as appeasing Scottish nationalists.