“For how long will English constituencies and English hon. Members tolerate not just 71 Scots, 36 Welsh and a number of Ulstermen but at least 119 hon. Members from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland exercising an important, and probably often decisive, effect on English politics while they themselves have no say in the same matters in Scotland, Wales and Ireland?”
– Tom Dalyell MP
The West Lothian question was coined by Labour MP Tom Dalyell in November 1977 during a debate on Scottish and Welsh devolution, though their devolved parliaments (and Northern Ireland’s) would only materialise twenty years later. It dealt with an anomaly in the United Kingdom’s political system. If Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland gained their own decentralised parliaments (or assemblies) there would be an imbalance in voting rights, a creation of two tiers of MPs in the House of Commons – those from England and those that do not represent English constituencies. Non-English MPs can vote on issues that predominantly affect England or England directly.
In 1998 the Labour-led House of Commons passed two acts through parliament: the Scotland Act 1998, thee Wales Act 1998, and additionally the Good Friday Agreement were formed, supported by a 71.1% Northern Irish Majority. Through this, individual countries and one province had some autonomy over their rule. Legislative powers were transferred from the Commons to the devolved bodies on issues of health, education, roads, housing, and agriculture (these do vary from nation to nation). Further additions have been made to this list since such as Holyrood’s power over income tax in 2012, while Westminster still retained control over foreign affairs, benefits and social security and trade – known as reserved matters.
The question comes into prominence with decisions on devolved matters in the Commons. The English MPs evidently have no power over these matters in other countries whereas the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish effectively can have a say on the goings on of exclusively English education or healthcare, a devolution discount. This became a particular issue during the Blair premiership where the Prime Minister scraped votes on England-only issues through the merits of having a majority in Scotland. In November 2003, the Government won a vote on Foundation Hospitals with a thin majority of 17; they won a vote a year later on top up fees by 316 to 311. Tim Yeo, a Conservative spokesperson, protested at these deplorable “Bully boy tactics,” and called for English Votes for English Laws (EVEL).
The West Lothian question has become somewhat of a specialty for the Conservative party due to its, up until the triumphs of Ruth Davidson, almost absolute English-only nature. As they became increasingly disenchanted with the Labour government “concern” for the issue began to grow. EVEL was covered in Conservative manifestos from 2001 to 2015 until an attempt at resolution was made by David Cameron in October 2015. He made a change in standing orders whereby the speaker decides whether EVEL applies to the specific piece of legislation and if so, implements a double veto right. The legislation must be passed by an English (or English and Welsh) majority and a nationwide majority. This means neither can force the legislation through against the wishes of the other.
The contrast in the two parties’ treatment of this perceived imbalance Labour’s utilisation of the anomaly and the Conservatives’ attempt at mitigation begs the question: Is the West Lothian question a partisan issue and should it be?
Labour has, in the past, benefitted from Welsh and particularly Scottish votes in the House of Commons. Their non-addressal of the question could be seen as for party political purposes. The anomaly was not detrimental to them, so it was not an issue. On the contrary, the Conservatives have proportionally won more seats in England than other areas of the country, so the West Lothian question has been to their detriment. Their inclusion of it in their manifestos for over a decade showcases their use of it as a political tool. Their concern is one of self-interest to try to prevent chances of their legislature failing in the house. The proof is in the pudding here as not a single SNP MP voted in favour of EVEL. However at the current time, this makes no sense as the Conservatives completely dominate the Commons. EVEL was “A device designed to ensnare a prospective Labour-led government at some point in the future.”*
The West Lothian question is one of constitution, representation, and voice – not to be confused with a party issue. EVEL plays with the rights of non-English (or non-English and Welsh) MPs to represent their constituencies on legislation that may indirectly affect their area. As the SNP put it, “Tory EVEL plans mean that Scottish MPs will now become second-class citizens in the House of Commons.” SNP MPs previously had a policy of self-denying ordinance: if there was no Scottish interest, they would not vote. Nevertheless, not all non-English MPs follow this informal arrangement – like those in Tony Blair’s majority – so the Conservatives would argue this is not a viable solution and EVEL is needed.
Unfortunately, this issue will not just go away tomorrow (Boris Johnson’s recent comments on Scottish devolution have rather proved the ever-growing contentiousness and politicisation of the West Lothian question by the Conservative party), but efforts should be made to reduce the extent that it is charged by party politics. Cross party discussions have been suggested to prevent one Party voting through legislature that directly benefits them. We will have to see what happens…
*From: Finding the Good in EVEL Daniel Gover and Michael Kenny.
