www.parliament.uk/commons-library | intranet.parliament.uk/commons-library | papers@parliament.uk | @commonslibrary

BRIEFING PAPER

Number 7339, 20 June 2017

English votes for English laws

By Richard Kelly

Inside: 1. “English votes for English

laws” and the legislative process

2. Government proposals for English votes for English laws

3. Debates and proceedings in the House of Commons

4. Select committee inquiries 5. EVEL and the House of Lords 6. Reviewing the operation of

the EVEL Standing Orders

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 2

Contents Summary 4

1. “English votes for English laws” and the legislative process 6 1.1 Determining whether bills are to be subject to EVEL procedures 6 1.2 England-only bills 7 1.3 England and Wales-only bills 7 1.4 Bills with provisions affecting England-only or England and Wales 8 1.5 Bills that include no provisions falling to be certified on introduction 8 1.6 Consent motions 8 1.7 Lords amendments and messages 10 1.8 Changes to the Standing Orders to take account of the Scottish Parliament’s new

powers to set main income tax rates 10 1.9 The legislative process and EVEL 11 1.10 The certification process 12

First certificates 13 1.11 Section 1 Annex: Public bill committees and Legislative Grand Committees –

composition 13

2. Government proposals for English votes for English laws 15 2.1 Commitment 15 2.2 Publication of proposals 15 2.3 Reaction 17 2.4 Background: in brief 17

3. Debates and proceedings in the House of Commons 20 3.1 Emergency debate – 7 July 2015 20 3.2 General debate – 15 July 2015 22 3.3 Debate to approve Standing Order changes – 22 October 2015 24 3.4 Barnett consequentials 25

4. Select committee inquiries 28 4.1 Procedure Committee 28

Interim Report (October 2015) 28 Government Response (October 2015) 29 Technical Evaluation (December 2016) 30 Government Response (March 2017) 31 Keeping EVEL under review in the 2017 Parliament 33

4.2 Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee 33 Government response 34

4.3 Scottish Affairs Committee 35 4.4 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee 35

5. EVEL and the House of Lords 36 5.1 Initial reaction 36

Commons response to the proposal for a joint committee 37 5.2 Constitution Committee inquiry 37

6. Reviewing the operation of the EVEL Standing Orders 38

Cover page image copyright: UK Parliament

3 English votes for English laws

6.1 Government’s technical review 38 6.2 An academic assessment of EVEL 39

Appendix: Conservative English manifesto (2015) 42

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 4

Summary On 22 October 2015, the House of Commons agreed to changes to its Standing Orders to allow members from England or England and Wales to give their consent to legislation that affected only England, or England and Wales, and that was within devolved legislative competence. The new procedures apply to Government bills and to statutory instruments.

Implementation

The new Standing Orders require the Speaker to certify bills in their entirety, or provisions within bills, and statutory instruments that relate exclusively to England or to England and Wales and are within devolved legislative competence. Different arrangements then apply to legislation that was certified. For bills there would be additional stages in the legislative process so that the consent of Members representing countries affected could be obtained. If a bill applied exclusively to England, the committee considering it at committee stage would only include Members representing seats in England. For motions relating to Lords amendments, a double majority would be required, of all Members and of those Members representing countries affected. Votes on delegated legislation and other instruments would also be subject to double majorities, when the instruments related entirely to England or England and Wales matters.

Background

The Conservative Party’s UK manifesto for the 2015 General Election included a commitment to “introduce English votes for English laws, answering the longstanding West Lothian Question in our democracy”. The way in which EVEL would be implemented was detailed in the Party’s English manifesto.

The Government’s initial proposals for Standing Orders were published in July 2015. However, there was criticism of the proposals and the speed with which the Government intended to introduce them.

A debate, on 15 July 2015, scheduled to be on a motion to implement the changes became a general debate.

Reviewing the proposals for EVEL

The delay allowed three select committees (Procedure Committee, Scottish Affairs Committee and Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee) time to take evidence on the issue, with the Procedure Committee producing a report and recommending changes.

The Procedure Committee announced that it would examine the likely practical operation of the Government’s proposals. It took evidence on 8 and 9 September 2015, and the Chair wrote to the Leader of the House on 10 September. He suggested that the new procedures be piloted by express application rather than be introduced in full and then subject to review. The Committee also suggested that bills and statutory instruments be subject to the EVEL procedures only when the House so decided; suggested that consent be given to amendments, new clauses and new schedules at Report stage (through double majorities, rather than in a legislative grand committee (or committees) considering consent motions); and that Standing Orders should specify that all Members could participate in the deliberations but not decisions of Legislative Grand Committees.

The Committee told the Leader of the House that it expected to publish a fuller report in the week of 12 October 2015. In the event, the report was agreed on 14 October 2015

5 English votes for English laws

and published on 19 October. The Government tabled motions to implement the Standing Order changes on 19 October. On 20 October, Chris Grayling made a written statement in which he set out the Government’s response to the Procedure Committee’s report. He noted that the Government had made amendments to the proposed Standing Order changes published in July, in line with some of the recommendations from the Committee. He said that the Government did not wish to pilot the changes in the way the Committee recommended nor would the Government agree to the Committee’s recommendation that the House should decide whether or not bills and instruments should be subject to the EVEL procedure.

The Government did not accept the Committee’s recommendation that double majority voting be used at Report stage – it noted that certified amendments made before Report stage would still need consent.

Reviewing the operation of the Standing Orders

Unlike the plans in the English manifesto, the changes were implemented in full at the outset, not piloted. However, when he brought forward proposals for EVEL, Chris Grayling, then Leader of the House of Commons, said that he would invite the Procedure Committee to undertake a technical review of the operation of the new rules and that the Government would review the process once bills subjected to the process had received Royal Assent.

On 26 October 2016, the Leader of the House of Commons, David Lidington, announced the launch of the Government’s technical review. The review was available online only and closed on 2 December 2016. It sought views on:

• The impact of the Standing Orders on the legislative process

• The operation of the certification test

• Any suggestions for how the process could be further improved, or how understanding of the process could be further supported.

The Procedure Committee took further evidence once the Standing Order changes had been implemented. In December 2016, the Committee published its technical review of the Standing Orders on 19 December 2016. It concluded that its evaluation was provisional and that it would undertake further evaluation later in the Parliament. It found that the role of the Speaker had not been politicised. However, it expressed concerns about legislative grand committees: they had not provided a voice for those that were affected by certified legislation and there was a need to ensure that time was always allocated for them.

The Government published its Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, on 30 March 2017. The Government proposed no substantive changes to the EVEL Standing Orders, although it identified some minor and technical changes that could be made as part of wider changes to Standing Orders. It undertook to keep the provisions under review.

Academic review

In November 2016, Daniel Gover and Michael Kenny published “an in-depth academic research project into EVEL”. They evaluated the procedures; considered arguments for and against such a reform; and made “a series of constructive proposals to improve the current system”.

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 6

1. “English votes for English laws” and the legislative process

On 22 October 2015, the House of Commons approved Standing Order changes that gave effect to the Government’s plans to introduce “English votes for English laws” (EVEL).1 The Standing Order changes affect Government bills, specified motions and instruments. This section outlines the effect of the new Standing Orders on Government bills.

The Government has said that its proposals would “provide fairness for England in our constitutional arrangements”:

They will give English MPs, and in some cases English and Welsh MPs, a power of veto to prevent any measure from being imposed on their constituents against their wishes. No law affecting England alone will able to be passed without the consent of English MPs. They will also give English MPs a power of veto over secondary legislation and a range of English public spending motions on matters that affect England only, and they will give the decisive vote on tax measures to MPs whose constituents are affected by those changes, once further planned devolution to Scotland takes place.2

For some Government bills, those affecting the whole of the UK, the legislative process will not change. However, those bills that either in their entirety, or in the case of some provisions, affect either only England or only England and Wales (and the provisions in Finance Bills that affect England, England and Wales or England, Wales and Northern Ireland) will be subject to slightly different procedures as they pass through the House of Commons, to ensure that MPs in the affected constituencies in the UK have approved provisions that affect only them.

1.1 Determining whether bills are to be subject to EVEL procedures

The Speaker must determine whether in his opinion Government Bills, elements of Bills, proposals to change Bills in the form of new clauses, new schedules and amendments (whatever their source, whether from Government or otherwise) and secondary legislative instruments are to pass through the new process. He is to do this through an act of certification. Certification may occur at a number of stages: in the primary legislative process, it may happen before Second Reading, after consideration on Report, after a new stage called Reconsideration, and on Commons consideration of Lords Amendments. In the secondary legislation process it may occur once a motion for approval of an instrument has been tabled.

A Bill, amendment, new clause, new schedule, motion relating to a Lords Amendment or affirmative instrument3 falls to be certified if, in the Speaker’s opinion, it passes two tests:

1 HC Deb 22 October 2015 cc1159-1255 2 HC Deb 2 July 2015 c1646 3 Or a negative instrument upon which proceedings may be taken

7 English votes for English laws

a) it must apply exclusively to England or to England and Wales (disregarding any minor or consequential effects outside the area in question).4

b) it must be within devolved legislative competence.

1.2 England-only bills Bills that are certified as England-only will continue to be debated at Second Reading by the whole House. If a bill is given a Second Reading, it will be committed to either a public bill committee or the Legislative Grand Committee (England).5 In the case of a public bill committee, its membership will reflect the party share of seats in England and include only Members with seats in England. (Information on the seats held by parties in the House and for seats in England is provided in the Section 1 Annex.)

Then bills will be considered on Report by the whole House, as now.

If no changes have been made to an England-only Bill up to and including Report Stage, it passes straight to the Legislative Grand Committee (England) to receive consent before passing to Third Reading.

If such a Bill has been amended, the Speaker reconsiders it and certifies it, or any clause or schedule, which passes the two tests. The Speaker will also consider any amendments made to an England-only Bill at Report stage and is required to certify amendments that either resulted in no certification when there otherwise would have been or changed the area to which certification applied. Consent to certified clauses and schedules and to certified amendments would be required by means of agreement to a Consent Motion in the appropriate Legislative Grand Committee (see below).

1.3 England and Wales-only bills Where the Speaker certifies that every provision of a Bill relates only to England and Wales, the Bill will be considered in the same way as now, at Second Reading, Committee Stage and on Report.

If no changes have been made to an England and Wales-only Bill up to and including Report Stage, it passes straight to the Legislative Grand Committee (England and Wales) to receive consent before passing to Third Reading.

If such a Bill has been amended, the Speaker reconsiders it and certifies it or any clause or schedule, which passes the two tests. The Speaker will also consider any amendments made to an England and Wales-only Bill at Committee or Report stage and is required to certify amendments that either resulted in no certification when there otherwise would have been or changed the area to which certification applied. Consent to certified clauses and schedules and to certified amendments would be

4 In the case of Finance Bills and certain financial instruments, the test is whether it

extends to England, Wales and Northern Ireland 5 The LGC(E) consists of all Members representing seats in England

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 8

required by means of agreement to a Consent Motion in the appropriate Legislative Grand Committee or Committees (see below).

1.4 Bills with provisions affecting England-only or England and Wales

Bills that include provisions that are certified as relating only to England or only to England and Wales, or which are not certified, will be considered in the same way as now, at Second Reading, Committee Stage and on Report.

Once such bills have completed Report Stage, they are reconsidered for certification by the Speaker. He certifies any clause or schedule which passes the two tests and any changes that have been made in committee and on Report to provisions that had previously been certified that remove certified material from the bill or change the countries within the UK affected and any new provisions that are certifiable. Such certified changes would require consent by means of agreement to a Consent Motion in the Legislative Grand Committee (see below).

1.5 Bills that include no provisions falling to be certified on introduction

The Speaker has to reconsider all bills that previously included no certifiable provisions but which have been amended since second reading, and certify the bill or any clause or schedule that relates to England or England and Wales and is within devolved legislative competence.6 Consent to those amendments would be required by means of agreement to a Consent Motion in the relevant Legislative Grand Committee (see below).

If no provisions fall to be certified, the bill proceeds directly to Third Reading.

1.6 Consent motions After report stage, if a bill, or clauses or schedules of it, or amendments made to it, have been certified, Members in England, England and Wales or (in a small number of cases) England, Wales and Northern Ireland vote in LGCs on motions to accept and/or reject the certified provisions, or to accept some and reject others. Where the Speaker has issued an English and an English and Welsh certification, the two LGCs are required take place successively, with both consent motions being discussed in the first LGC. The table below shows how debate and decision proceeds in LGCs.

6 For example, no provisions of the Digital Economy Bill 2016-17, as introduced [Bill

45 of 2016-17], were certified. A new clause, added at Committee stage, clause 85 of Bill 87, was certified before Report Stage (see, Votes and Proceedings, 28 November 2016)

9 English votes for English laws

Provisions affecting England only

Provisions affecting England and Wales only

Provisions affecting England and Wales, and England only

Provisions affecting England, Wales & Northern Ireland, England & Wales, and England only

Debate in LGC (E) LGC (E&W) LGC (E&W) LGC (E, W & NI)

Vote taken by

LGC (E) LGC (E&W)

LGC (E&W) LGC (E)

LGC (E, W & NI) LGC (E&W) LGC (E)

Members from any part of the United Kingdom can speak in the LGC debate but only Members from the country(ies) to which the motion applies can vote, make a motion or move an amendment. Consent to certified provisions may be withheld by the LGC through rejecting a consent motion, by amending a consent motion in respect of a particular provision or by agreeing a consent motion which includes rejection of a provision.

If all the certified provisions are consented to, the bill proceeds to third reading.

If consent is not given to particular provisions by any of the LGCs, a reconsideration stage is held (like report stage, all Members take part). The reconsideration stage is for the sole purpose of considering amendments to the bill to resolve matters in dispute as a result of the withholding of consent. The Standing Orders allow for reconsideration to take place on a subsequent day, or forthwith if a Minister so moves.

Once this reconsideration stage is complete, the Speaker must consider for certification any changes made to the bill at that stage. The relevant LGC(s) then meets again to consider the certified changes. A LGC can, at this point, either withhold consent to the whole bill: consequently the bill may not be given a third reading and shall not pass; or withhold consent to particular provisions: in which case they are removed from the bill that proceeds to third reading; or give its consent to the bill.

At this point, a “consequential consideration” stage will be entered into if, as a result of the decisions of the LGC(s), minor or technical amendments to the remaining parts of the bill are required as a consequence of provisions being removed.

After this the Bill proceeds to Third Reading.

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 10

1.7 Lords amendments and messages Although the procedures in the House of Lords will not be changed, there are implications for how the House of Commons treats amendments made by the House of Lords.

The Speaker has to consider motions relating to Lords amendments or any messages from the Lords in respect of a bill. The Speaker has to certify motions or messages that relate exclusively to England or to England and Wales that are within devolved competence; motions or messages that include such provisions; and motions or messages that include provisions that would mean that clauses or schedules that previously related exclusively to England or to England and Wales no longer did so.

Divisions held on certified motions or messages relating to Lords amendments will require a “double majority” – in other words, a majority of all Members voting and a majority of those Members voting who representing constituencies in England or in England and Wales. In some cases, because of the provisions contained in them, motions could be certified in relation to both England and to England and Wales.

Without a double majority, motions to agree to Lords amendments will be disagreed to and motions to disagree to Lords amendments will also be disagreed to; in other cases, amendments made by the Lords would be removed – a bill would revert to the form it was in before the Lords amended it (for example, if an amendment in lieu was the subject of a split vote, the Lords amendment it related to would be removed from the bill):

If a motion relating to a Lords amendment or other message is disagreed to under this order because one of the groups voting in the division has not voted in support of it while another has, the decision of the House shall be-

(a) in the case of a motion to disagree (or agree) to a Lords amendment or an item in another message, to disagree with it, and

(b) in any other case, such decision as would have the effect of leaving the bill so far as it relates to that matter in the same position as it was before the Lords amendment or other message was received from the Lords.7

1.8 Changes to the Standing Orders to take account of the Scottish Parliament’s new powers to set main income tax rates

On 7 March 2017, the House approved changes to the EVEL Standing Orders. David Lidington, the Leader of the House of Commons, explained the background to and effect of the changes:

the Scotland Act 2016 received Royal Assent last year. The Act provides the Scottish Parliament with the power to set its own rates and thresholds of income tax. For that reason, the Government announced in the 2016 Budget changes to the

7 Standing Order No 83O (9)

11 English votes for English laws

structure of income tax intended to ensure that from the Finance Bill 2017 onwards, a clause setting the main rates of income tax would be certified under the English votes procedures. In other words, the consent of hon. Members from constituencies in England, Wales and Northern Ireland would be required for any income tax matters that affected their constituents and that did not affect Scottish taxpayers. The necessary legislative changes to achieve this were made in the Finance Act 2016, and mean that from April this year, these UK main rates will no longer affect Scottish taxpayers.

The technical amendments to Standing Orders before us will ensure that provisions setting the main rates of income tax will be subject to a certification decision by the Speaker now that the Scottish rates of income tax are set by the Scottish Parliament. It will mean that the Standing Orders on which Parliament has already voted will work as originally intended, but now taking account of the new element of the Scotland Act 2016.8

The change was agreed to on a division by 287 votes to 239.9

1.9 The legislative process and EVEL As a result of the introduction of the new Standing Orders, the passage of a bill through the House of Commons is different if any of its provisions are certified. Box 1 outlines the procedure for bills that are not certified. The process, following the change to Standing Orders, was illustrated by the Cabinet Office (see Figure 1).

Box 1: Consideration of public bills – an outline of the stages before EVEL

Until the introduction of the EVEL procedures, in October 2015, the stages of Bills were largely the same in each House: (a) Introduction and First Reading (no debate); (b) Second Reading (a debate on the general principles of the Bill); (c) Committee Stage (the first opportunity to consider amendments to the Bill), either by a public bill committee or by a Committee of whole House; (d) Report Stage (in the House): the second opportunity to amend the Bill; (e) Third Reading (in the House): the final opportunity for the House to say “yes” or “no” to the Bill before it goes to the other House (and, in the House of Lords, there is a very limited provision for further amending the Bill). The Lords debates two separate motions on Third Reading and passing the Bill, but in the Commons Third Reading and passing are the same thing; (f) Consideration of Amendments made by the other House; (g) Royal Assent

8 HC Deb 7 March 2017 c762 9 HC Deb 7 March 2017 cc773-776

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 12

Figure 1: Consideration of public bills following the introduction of EVEL procedures

Source: Cabinet Office, English votes for English laws: An Explanatory Guide to

Proposals, July 2015

Note: Consequential Amendments Stage is called consequential consideration in the

Standing Orders

Another illustration of the process is available on the parliamentary website: English votes for English laws: House of Commons bill procedure.

1.10 The certification process On 26 October 2016, the Speaker made a statement, explaining how he would implement the Standing Orders and how the House would be informed of his decision:

Mr Speaker: I have a short statement to make to colleagues about how I intend to implement the Standing Orders agreed by the House on 22 October—for the benefit of those listening beyond this Chamber, this of course concerns the so-called English votes on English laws issue. After a Government Bill has been introduced, a note will be published in the appropriate place on the Order Paper to the effect that I have not yet considered it for certification. The same process will be followed for statutory instruments requiring consideration. If I sign a certificate, the note on the Order Paper will be changed accordingly. Any certification will also be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I do not propose to record a decision not to certify. The absence of any note on the Order Paper will indicate that no certification has been made. Before Report stage begins, I will seek to identify in advance those changes made in Committee which I would expect to certify,

13 English votes for English laws

together with any Government amendments tabled for Report stage which, if passed, would be likely to lead me to issue a certificate. At the end of Report stages of Bills, where I am required to consider any matter for certification I would as a matter of course expect a brief suspension of the House, so that I, or a Deputy, can leave the Chair and decide whether to certify. Similar brief suspensions may be necessary at later stages. I propose to accept the advice of the Procedure Committee not, as a rule, to give reasons for decisions on certification during this experimental phase of the new regime. Anybody wishing to make representations to me prior to any decision should send them to the Clerk of Legislation. I wish to assure the House that everything is in hand to provide for “double majority Divisions”, including deferred Divisions.

Finally, may I say that, as set out on Thursday, we are in experimental territory and I may indeed myself experiment by adjusting these arrangements as the new regime develops? Whatever the views of colleagues on their merits, I hope the House will support me and the Officers of the House in trying to give effect to these Standing Orders to the best of our ability.10

First certificates The Speaker issued the first certificates under the new Standing Orders on 28 October 2015. He examined the Housing and Planning Bill 2015-16 [Bill 75 of 2015-16]. He certified that some provisions applied to England only and were within devolved legislative competence and that some provisions applied to England and Wales and were within devolved legislative competence. The certificate he issued is reported in Box 2.

Box 2: English votes for English laws – the first certificate issued by the Speaker (28 October 2015)

Housing and Planning Bill The Speaker has certified, in respect of the Housing and Planning Bill, that Clauses 1 to 58, 60 to 70, 72 to 76, 78 to 84, 86 to 88 and 92 to 110 and Schedules 1 to 4 and 6 relate exclusively to England and are within devolved legislative competence; and that Clauses 59, 71, 85, 90, 91, 111 to 139 and Schedules 5 and 7 to 11 relate exclusively to England and Wales and are within devolved legislative competence (Standing Order No. 83J.)11t

1.11 Section 1 Annex: Public bill committees and Legislative Grand Committees – composition

Until now, the members of public bill committees have been drawn from across the House and their membership reflects the share of seats that all parties have in the House.

10 HC Deb 26 October 2015 c23 11 House of Commons, Votes and Proceedings, 28 October 2015, Appendix

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 14

Table 1: Distribution of seats between parties in the House of Commons, in the UK and in England

Ina blog post on 19 June 2017, Daniel Gover and Michael Kenny (authors of Finding the good in EVEL, see section 6.2) commented on the possible effect of the minority Government having majorities in the Legislative Grand Committees, and the possibility that, despite a small Conservative majority, Northern Ireland votes might be required to secure Great Britain legislation.12

12 Daniel Gover and Michael Kenny, “EVEL won’t worry the new government – but the

West Lothian question may well do”, Constitution Unit Blog, 19 June 2017

Conservative Labour SNP Others Total

UK Number 317 262 35 36 650Proportion (%) 48.8 40.3 5.4 5.5

England Number 296 227 0 10 533Proportion (%) 55.5 42.6 0.0 1.9

(as at 19 June 2017)

15 English votes for English laws

2. Government proposals for English votes for English laws

2.1 Commitment In the Queen’s Speech, on 27 May 2015, the Government announced that it would bring forward changes to Standing Orders to implement its proposals for English votes for English laws:

My Government will bring forward changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. These changes will create fairer procedures to ensure that decisions affecting England, or England and Wales, can be taken only with the consent of the majority of Members of Parliament representing constituencies in those parts of our United Kingdom.13

This followed a Conservative Party manifesto commitment:

we will introduce English votes for English laws, answering the longstanding West Lothian Question in our democracy.14

In its English manifesto, the Conservative Party provided further information on how it intended to address the West Lothian Question, and committed to deliver “our plan for English votes for English laws … within the first year of a new Government”.15 (The Conservative Party’s proposals are noted in the Appendix to this Briefing Paper.)

2.2 Publication of proposals On 2 July 2015, the Government published its proposals for English votes for English laws. Chris Grayling, the Leader of the House of Commons, made a statement to the House;16 and the Cabinet Office published:

• English Votes for English Laws: Proposed Changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and Explanatory Memorandum; and

• English Votes for English Laws: An Explanatory Guide to Proposals.

On 9 July 2015, Chris Grayling announced that modified proposals would be published on Monday 13 July.17 The modified proposals were published by the Cabinet Office on 14 July:

• English Votes for English Laws: Revised Proposed Changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and Explanatory Memorandum.

On 15 October 2015, the Government published the proposals with further changes, having reflected on comments and recommendations it had received:

13 HC Deb 27 May 2015 c32 14 Conservative Party, The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015, p49 15 Conservative Party, The Conservative Party English Manifesto 2015, p9 16 HC Deb 2 July 2015 cc1646-1667 17 HC Deb 9 July 2015 c451

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 16

• English Votes for English Laws: Revised Proposed Changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and Explanatory Memorandum – October 2015.

In his statement, on 2 July, Mr Grayling summarised the proposals in the following way:

… to establish whether a matter is covered by this new procedure, you, Mr Speaker, will be asked to certify whether a Bill, or elements of it, are devolved in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales, and are therefore to be treated as England only. It is very much like the way that you currently certify whether a matter is a financial one, and therefore a matter for the Commons only.

In considering such measures, we have endeavoured, where possible, to keep our proposed new process as close as possible to existing parliamentary procedures, with all Members from across the United Kingdom continuing to vote on Second Reading, in most Committees, on Report and Third Reading, and when considering Lords amendments. The key difference is that our plans provide for an English veto at different stages in the process.

There will be new stage of parliamentary consideration before Third Reading, in which English, or English and Welsh MPs will be asked to accept or veto English and Welsh provisions that meet that devolution test. For England-only bills, Committee-stage consideration will be undertaken by English MPs. That will give them a voice in shaping the content of laws that affect their constituents. All other Committees will remain unchanged.18

Chris Grayling also noted the work that had been done in developing the proposals:

Our proposals build on careful consideration and debate. I am indebted to my predecessor as Leader of the House, William Hague, and Sir William McKay and his commission, for their work, and to colleagues from throughout the House who have contributed their views and expertise.19

He confirmed that the process would be reviewed:

There will, of course, be views about the operation of the proposals in practice, and I inform the House that I have written to the newly re-elected Chair of the Procedure Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker), to signal that I intend to invite his Committee to undertake a technical assessment of the operation of the new rules. We will also involve Members on all sides of the House in assessing the new system and what else we might need to do to strengthen fairness in our constitutional arrangements. I see today’s announcement as an important first step in getting that right, and we will hold a review of the new process once the first Bills subject to it have reached Royal Assent next year. There will be a clear opportunity to assess the workings of the new rules, and consider whether and in what ways they should be adapted for the future.20

18 HC Deb 2 July 2015 c1647 19 HC Deb 2 July 2015 c1646 20 HC Deb 2 July 2015 c1648

17 English votes for English laws

2.3 Reaction Angela Eagle, then the Shadow Deputy Leader of the House of Commons, in responding to Chris Grayling’s statement argued that the proposals amounted to a “profound constitutional change”. She expressed concern that they were being implemented in a “rush” and that the Leader of the House had ignored the McKay Commission (see section 2.4):

The creation of a veto rather than a voice for English MPs on England-only Bills, and on parts of other Bills, statements and statutory instruments, appears to go much further than the McKay commission envisaged in its 2013 report.

She also asked how the proposals “avoid creating two classes of MPs in the House”.21

The Chair of the Procedure Committee, Charles Walker, told the House that his Committee would undertake a “technical review” of the proposals. Chris Grayling welcomed this and confirmed that he intended the new procedures be kept under review:

I ask him to see this as an ongoing task for his Committee. I have said I will return to this in 12 months’ time. In the meantime, I would like him to track the workings of this not simply over the next few weeks, but over the next few months. I would like the Procedure Committee to be absolutely central to deciding how this evolves as the months go by.22

Pete Wishart, the Scottish National Party’s Shadow Leader of the House, also expressed concerns that the process created “two classes of Members of Parliament” and that the Speaker would be “dragged into a political role and you will have to decide and determine, almost on your own, whether my honourable colleagues get to vote and participate in full”.23

A number of Conservative backbenchers welcomed the proposals.24

2.4 Background: in brief On 19 September 2014, the day after the Scottish independence referendum, the Prime Minister said that “The question of English votes for English laws … requires a definitive answer” and announced that a Cabinet Committee on devolution, chaired by William Hague, would consider this question.25

Labour declined an invitation to participate in the Cabinet Committee.

The Cabinet Committee did not come to a view on how to answer the English Question. In December 2014, the Government issued a Command Paper outlining three Conservative options and a Liberal

21 HC Deb 2 July 2015 cc1648-1649 22 HC Deb 2 July 2015 cc1650-1651 23 HC Deb 2 July 2015 c1651 24 HC Deb 2 July 2015 c1652, c1653 25 Scottish Independence Referendum, Statement by the Prime Minister

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 18

Democrat proposal for ensuring that English MPs consented to legislation that affected England only.26

On 3 February 2015, William Hague announced the Conservative Party’s preferred option for implementing English votes for English laws (the third option in the December 2014 Command Paper).27 Further details of the Conservative Party’s proposals were then set out in the Party’s English Manifesto for the 2015 General Election (see Appendix).

Before this the Conservative Party manifestos for the 2001, 2005 and 2010 all included commitments to support English votes for English laws. In 2010, the Party committed to “introduce new rules so that legislation referring specifically to England, or to England and Wales, cannot be enacted without the consent of MPs representing constituencies of those countries”.28

This led to a commitment in the Coalition Agreement to “establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’”.29 The Commission on the consequences of devolution for the House of Commons (known as the McKay Commission) was duly announced on 17 January 2012,30 and reported on 25 March 2013. The report called for the adoption of a constitutional convention that decisions at the United Kingdom level with a separate and distinct effect for England (or for England-and-Wales) should normally be taken only with the consent of a majority of MPs for constituencies in England (or England-and-Wales). The report considered that the principle should be adopted by a resolution of the House of Commons.31 It suggested a menu of procedural options to ensure that proposals affecting England, or England and Wales, could receive the consent of MPs representing constituencies in those countries, with provision for the UK Government to use its majority in the House, if necessary, to override an England or England and Wales majority.

In evidence to the Procedure Committee, Professor Adam Tomkins, who holds the John Millar Chair of Public Law at the University of Glasgow and is constitutional adviser to the Secretary of State for Scotland,32 argued that:

The Government are right to recognise that the United Kingdom’s asymmetrical devolution arrangements for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have opened up an English question which requires to be answered. Academic research such as the annual

26 Leader of the House of Commons, Implications of Devolution for England, Cm 8969,

December 2014 27 Rosa Prince, ”William Hague admits: English Vot4es for English Laws would thwart

future Labour government”, Telegraph, 3 February 2015; BBC News, English MPs would get tax veto under Conservative plans, 3 February 2015

28 Conservative Party, Invitation to Join the Government of Britain, 2010, p84 29 HM Government, The Coalition; our programme for government, May 2010, p27 30 HC Deb 17 January 2012 cc35WS-36WS 31 Report of the Commission on the Consequences of Devolution for the House of

Commons, March 2013; for background information, see also, House of Commons Library Standard Note, The McKay Commission: Report of the Commission on the consequences of devolution of the House of Commons, SN/PC/6821, 14 February 2014

32 Professor Tomkins was elected as an MSP for the Scottish Conservatives at the Holyrood 2016 elections

19 English votes for English laws

Future of England Surveys have amply illustrated this. These have found – over several years – that there is dissatisfaction with the way England is governed, that there is a perception in England that devolution in the UK has conferred advantages on Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that are unfair to England, and that people in England see a democratic deficit.33

33 Procedure Committee, English votes for English laws Standing Orders – Written

Evidence from Professor Adam Tomkins, para 2

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 20

3. Debates and proceedings in the House of Commons

On 2 July 2015, when he made his statement announcing the Government’s plans for EVEL, Chris Grayling also announced that Standing Order changes relating to EVEL would be debated and decided on 15 July.34

However, these plans changed. On 6 July 2015, Alistair Carmichael made an application for an Emergency Debate, under Standing Order No 24, on the process the Government proposed to use to introduce procedures to provide for English votes for English laws. He argued that using Standing Orders to implement a major constitutional change was “an abuse of process”.35

Alistair Carmichael’s application was successful and a three hour debate was held on 7 July 2015 (see below).36

Then at Business Questions on 9 July 2015, Chris Grayling announced that the scheduled debate on 15 July 2015 would go ahead but that it would be a general debate, followed by a second day of debate when motions detailing proposed Standing Order changes would be debated.37

At Business Questions on 15 October 2015, Chris Grayling announced that the motions to implement the Standing Order changes would be debated and voted on on 22 October. The motions would be tabled after he had read a report from the Procedure Committee, which would be published on Monday 19 October.38 In the meantime, he announced he had published revised proposals.

3.1 Emergency debate – 7 July 2015 In his closing speech, Alistair Carmichael, who initiated the debate, summarised his three key concerns:

First, the Government are going to create two tiers of MP: that will be the inevitable consequence of their double majority. Secondly, English Members of Parliament will have a veto, but, according to the Leader of the House, a veto will not be afforded to the Scottish Parliament, because the Government insist on the continuation of the Sewel convention.

The most important issue, and that which causes most concern, is the politicisation of your role, Mr Speaker, because you will be put in the position of having to arbitrate on these questions and then not have to give any reasons for your decision. Surely that means that we will be left to speculate on the Chair’s reasons, and such speculation cannot be sensible or, indeed, healthy in a political

34 HC Deb 2 July 2015 c1629; HC Deb 2 July 2015 c1648 35 HC Deb 6 July 2015 c56 36 HC Deb 6 July 2015 c56 37 HC Deb 9 July 2015 c451 38 HC Deb 15 October 2015 c498

21 English votes for English laws

forum. We will be excluded not from debate, but from decisions. That is no way to run a Parliament.39

Some argued that rather than using Standing Orders to implement such a far-reaching constitutional change, the Government should legislate for EVEL. In his opening speech, Alistair Carmichael had said that he would be relaxed about the use of primary legislation and that “I do not think that anybody in this House should be making any decision that would not stand up to judicial scrutiny”.40

In response to Alistair Carmichael’s concerns about two tiers of MPs, Chris Grayling argued that:

All Members of Parliament are equal, and all of them will be able to continue to debate and vote on every piece of legislation passing through the House of Commons. It is simply incorrect to say that any Member of this House will be excluded from voting on or debating any piece of legislation. That is not what the reforms say: it is absolutely clear that everyone will be able to continue to participate.41

Chris Grayling acknowledged that it would be possible to implement EVEL using primary legislation but said that “the advice we have received from the Clerks and those who have been involved in overseeing the House in the past is that such changes are normally done through Standing Orders”. He continued that “if Members have a different view when we review all this in 12 months’ time, as I have committed us to do, we will look at such an issue very carefully”.42 However, he also expressed his reluctance to use primary legislation because it was for the House, rather than the courts, to determine its own rules and procedures.43

Angela Eagle said that the official Opposition accepted that “the voice of English MPs must be heard on matters that relate purely to England” but argued that “such changes would best be achieved by the widest consideration and proper consultation with all political parties and wider civil society”. She reiterated Labour’s call for a constitutional convention.44

Later in her speech, she criticised the way that the Government had chosen to implement EVEL. She argued that substantial constitutional changes should be made by legislation and examined in both Houses of Parliament.45

Charles Walker, the elected chair of the Procedure Committee (the remaining members of the Committee were appointed on 13 July 201546), said that he had met with the Leader of the House on a number of occasions to discuss the Government’s plans and that he would be writing to the Leader of the House. He outlined the issues

39 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c234 40 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c191 41 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c194 42 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c196 43 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c197 44 HC Deb 7 July 2015 cc201-202 45 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c205 46 HC Deb 13 July 2015 c700

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 22

that his committee would consider when it examined the Standing Order changes if they were implemented:

If the House votes for these changes next Wednesday, the Committee will want to consider how future Bills are drafted and whether their scope might be narrowed to enhance their Englishness. Will there be a temptation to narrow a Bill so that England comes to the fore and other parts of the Union are excluded? In due course, we will want to take evidence from Clerks and parliamentary counsel. In the last Parliament, there were some hard-won successes to make Report and programming more effective.47

Charles Walker also considered some of the implications of the proposed Standing Order changes. He noted that the proposals would introduce new stages in the House’s procedures for considering bills. He asked the Leader of the House to identify where this time would come from. He called for time spent at Report Stage to be protected.48

He also noted that the Chair could come under pressure, in two areas. First, when the Government’s view of the scope of a bill was asserted, “that assertion should not be made overtly or aggressively”.49 Secondly, he reflected on the Speaker being required to judge whether provisions were minor or consequential.50

Pete Wishart, for the SNP, highlighted the “constitutional importance” of the Government’s proposals. He described them as “an attempt to create an English Parliament in the House of Commons”.51 Mr Wishart also reflected on the Speaker’s role in the process.52

At the end of the debate, the House divided on the question that the House had “considered the means by which the Government seeks to deliver the objectives outlined by the Leader of the House in his Statement on English Votes on English Laws”. It is unusual for the House to divide at the end of general debates. In the event, the question was negatived by 291 votes to 2. In points of order after the division, Angela Eagle commented that the Government had abstained. The Speaker reminded the House that “the Government abstained on the question before the House, namely that this matter has been considered”.53

3.2 General debate – 15 July 2015 Chris Grayling explained that the Conservative Party’s intention to introduce EVEL had been “clearly and straightforwardly set out” in its manifesto for the 2015 General Election.54

In replying to an intervention from Ian Lucas (the Wrexham MP), he outlined the issue that EVEL was addressing:

47 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c208 48 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c209 49 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c210 50 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c212 51 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c212, c214 52 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c216 53 HC Deb 7 July 2015 c237 54 HC Deb 15 July 2015 c937

23 English votes for English laws

The issue that we are seeking to address is the fact that, as an MP representing a Welsh constituency just over the border in north Wales, the hon. Gentleman cannot vote on education matters related to his own constituency. He can vote, however, on matters that relate to Chester just a few miles up the road. We are seeking to address that oddity.55

He argued that “it is surely not unreasonable to say to them [Scottish people] that, if a matter affects only the English or only the English and Welsh and will change matters in those constituencies, English and Welsh MPs should have the decisive say”. He later added that “This is an important part of saying to the people of England that, as we devolve more powers to Scotland and to Wales, England is a part of that”. And that “If we are moving towards greater devolution across the United Kingdom, I simply do not accept that it is sensible or reasonable to say to the English, ‘You have no part in that’”.56

A number of Members expressed concern that the proposals would create two classes of Member. Angela Eagle, the Shadow Leader of the House, expressed this concern.57 She argued that the changes being proposed by Standing Order were in fact major constitutional changes – she reiterated the Labour Party argument that there should be a constitutional convention.58 Towards the end of her speech she identified three other causes of concern:

First, the proposals create an English veto, not just a voice, with all of the complications for our constitution that that entails. Secondly, the proposals apply not only to English laws but, much more problematically, to parts of Bills, statutory instruments, regulations, commencement orders and ministerial administrative actions, which, in our current system, are often achieved by statutory instruments. Thirdly, even more controversially and entirely without any consultation outside of the Government, these proposals have been widened so that they apply to Finance Bills.59

Members argued against the proposals on the basis that they precluded Members from taking part in proceedings of the House that affected their constituents. They highlighted “Barnett consequentials” – whereby decisions on legislation affected the budget of the devolved governments. In a speech in the course of the debate, Alistair Carmichael said that “any legislation passed this year will inevitably impact on estimates next year and the year after. The proposition that it is somehow possible to divorce spending from legislation does not stand up to scrutiny”.60

Before that speech, in his opening remarks, Chris Grayling argued that there was no direct link between legislation and changes in budgets.61 In her closing speech, the Deputy Leader of the House, Dr Thérèse Coffey, stated that:

55 HC Deb 15 July 2015 c938 56 HC Deb 15 July 2015 c939; cc940-941; cc944-945 57 HC Deb 15 July 2015 c949 58 HC Deb 15 July 2015 c949, see exchange with Wayne David; and c951 59 HC Deb 15 July 2015 c956 60 HC Deb 15 July 2015 c989 61 HC Deb 15 July 2015 cc941-942

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 24

On Bills and Barnett consequentials, many individual pieces of legislation lead to some changes in funding, but that does not necessarily mean that the funding for that UK Government Department changes. It does not follow that it has a directly identifiable impact on the block grant to the devolved Administrations, so efficiencies in one area could be redirected to front-line services, without Barnett consequentials. That is why Barnett consequentials are calculated on changes to overall departmental spending at spending reviews, and that is why we end up voting on them through the estimates voting process.62

The question of whether the proposals amounted to an English veto or alternatively to a means to allow English MPs to give consent to measure that only affected their constituents was raised on a number of occasions.63

A number of Members expressed concerns that the Speaker would be making controversial decisions, when he had to certify bills.64

Alistair Carmichael also raised concerns about the role of the Speaker, and both David Jones and Mark Tami argued that the Standing Orders should provide an opportunity for Members to make representations to the Speaker on whether an issue was an England-only matter.65

For the Scottish National Party, Pete Wishart raised arguments about:

• the effect of the proposals on Barnett consequentials; • two classes of MP; and • involving the Speaker in controversy.66

3.3 Debate to approve Standing Order changes – 22 October 2015

The alterations to the initial proposals, made by the Government, did nothing to alter the opposition of other parties in the House to the Standing Order changes, when they were debated and agreed on 22 October 2015.67

Daniel Gover and Michael Kenny commented that:

… the suspicion that EVEL was being pursued for partisan reasons has hung over its implementation and legitimacy. While the dissolution of the coalition might have resolved the impasse on the government benches themselves, it did nothing to generate wider support for this reform. This is shown by the highly partisan breakdown of the final Commons vote to approve the changes, presented in Table 5 (see below). The very apparent lack of support outside the Conservative party for these rules has merely reinforced suspicions of their partisan character.

62 HC Deb 15 July 2015 c1048 63 For example, Graham Stuart talked about giving English and Welsh MPs “the ability

merely to consent” [HC Deb 15 July 2015 c970] 64 HC Deb 15 July 2015 c948 65 HC Deb 15 July 2015 cc989-90, cc992-993 66 HC Deb 15 July 2015 c963, c965, c968 67 HC Deb 22 October 2015 cc1159-1258

25 English votes for English laws

Table 2: Party breakdown of Commons division to approve the EVEL Standing Orders, 22 October 2015

Source: Michael Kenny and Daniel Gover, Finding the good in EVEL: An evaluation of ‘English votes for English laws’ in the House of Commons, November 2016

3.4 Barnett consequentials In the course of the debates on EVEL, a number of Members have expressed concerns that legislative changes that affect England-only may have consequences for Government spending in England. Government spending in England can have a knock-on effect in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland because of the Barnett formula, which determines the annual change in the block grants allocated to the four nations.

As noted in section 3.2, the Leader of the House argued that there was no direct link between legislation and changes in the devolved Governments’ budgets:

The other point raised with me, apart from the question of timetabling, was Members’ ability to vote on legislation that might have implications for the block grant, the so-called Barnett consequentials. There has been some discussion about how the House makes decisions on the block grant and how Barnett consequentials work. This House approves the Government’s spending requirements each year through the estimates process, and we did that last night. The Government publish our spending plans, broken down by Department. The cash grants to the devolved consolidated funds that in turn fund the spending of the devolved Administrations are included in the relevant estimate: Scotland Office, Wales Office or Northern Ireland Office. Some of the individual departmental estimates are debated each year. The choice of these debates is a matter for the House through the Liaison Committee.

The decisions on the estimates are given statutory effect in a Bill each summer. The whole House will continue to vote on these supply and appropriation Bills. Through those means, decisions on the block grant funding to the devolved Administrations are

For EVEL Against EVEL

Conservative 312 0Labour 0 200Scottish National Party 0 54Democratic Unionist 0 6Liberal Democrat 0 3Plaid Cymru 0 3Scocial Democratic and Labour Party 0 3Ulster Unionist Party 0 0Green 0 0UK Independence Party 0 0Independent 0 1

Total 312 270

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 26

taken. The block grant total each year is based upon a number of factors, including the calculation of Barnett consequentials, or the impact of individual spending decisions in different parts of the UK.

There are no readily calculable Barnett consequentials arising from individual Bills, because there is no direct relationship between any one piece of legislation and the overall block grant, even when the Bill results in extra spending or savings. An education Bill for England does not change the Department for Education’s budget outside the estimates process.

The two processes are separate. Decisions relating to departmental spending, including the block grant and the outcome reported to the House, are taken first in spending reviews and then in the annual estimates process. It is up to Departments to operate within the limits of the Budget allocation agreed. Any costs associated with legislation they take through Parliament must be borne within a Department’s overall budget.68

In his evidence to the Procedure Committee, Sir William McKay stated that changes to spending in England would lead to changes elsewhere:

I am not pretending to be an expert in Government finance, but I think that you would find that the whole principle of Barnett is that English changes, in the end, equal changes elsewhere. So a Bill that had no financial consequences for England would not change the financing of the devolved Administrations, but a Bill, even if it was England-only, that did have financial consequences would inevitably work through to the others.69

Professor Adam Tomkins indicated that the Government’s proposals highlighted the inadequacy of the House’s supply procedure:

[T]he way in which the House of Commons deliberates upon supply—the Estimates process—is even more opaque than the Barnett formula. It may be that one unintended consequence of English votes for English laws is that the House of Commons finally, if I may say so, wakes up to the reality of the fact that it doesn’t do a very good job of voting supply and makes the supply process more transparent and open—an outcome that involves effective parliamentary scrutiny.70

When he appeared before the Committee, Chris Grayling reiterated the comments he made in the debate that budgets were determined by the Estimates process, not by legislation:

… I have looked long and hard at the issue of Barnett consequentials, and I think they are a bit of both an illusion and a side issue. Decisions about the amounts of money allocated come wholly and exclusively through the supply process. When we vote on the Estimates each year, we vote on the size of the education budget. There might then be an education Bill that sets up academies or more free schools, but that does not change the overall envelope available to the Department for Education, so it does not affect the overall amount spent on education in Scotland, or how much is available to Scotland through the Barnett formula.

68 HC Deb 15 July 2015 cc941-942 69 Procedure Committee, Proposed English votes for English laws Standing Orders –

Oral Evidence, 8 September 2015, Q17, and see the following questions 70 Ibid., Q53

27 English votes for English laws

Of course, it might be that a policy decision leads to an increase or reduction in that budget in the future, but that will still be addressed through the following year’s Estimates process, on which all Members of the House will vote—there will be no English-only or English and Welsh-only votes on that, and no double-majority votes on that. That process will continue to be dealt with by the whole House of Commons.71

71 Procedure Committee, Proposed English votes for English laws Standing Orders –

Oral Evidence, 9 September 2015, Q132, and see the following questions

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 28

4. Select committee inquiries Following the publication of the Government’s proposals, three select committees announced inquiries into English votes for English laws: the Procedure Committee, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) and the Scottish Affairs Committee.

The Procedure Committee published an interim report before the House adopted the new Standing Orders, and then, in December 2016, it published a technical evaluation of the new Standing Orders.

PACAC published a report in February 2016.

The Scottish Affairs Committee held two evidence sessions in the autumn of 2015. It held another one off evidence session in July 2016.

In May 2016, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee held a one-off evidence session.

4.1 Procedure Committee On 16 July 2015, the Procedure Committee announced that it would undertake “an initial review of the Government’s proposals for Standing Order changes to implement Government policy on English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) in the House of Commons”. The Government’s delay in tabling motions to introduce the new Standing Orders enabled the Committee to consider them in a more detail than was originally anticipated. The Committee also undertook to evaluate the new procedures and contribute to the Government’s general review when bills subject to the procedures had received Royal Assent.72

The Procedure Committee held two oral evidence sessions, on 8 and 9 September 2015.73

Interim Report (October 2015) On 12 October 2015, the Committee published a letter, dated 10 September 2015, from its Chair to Chris Grayling, outlining the main conclusions the Committee had reached.74

The Committee published an interim report on 19 October.75 Its principal conclusions were:

• The proposals represent substantial change to the House’s practices and procedures on legislation, and they ought to be piloted on statutory instruments and no more than three Bills in the remainder of the 2015-16 Session.

• The new procedures are potentially burdensome and risky to operate, and they need not be implemented on every

72 Procedure Committee news release, Proposed English votes for English laws

Standing Orders, 16 July 2015 73 Procedure Committee, Proposed English votes for English laws Standing Orders 74 Letter from the Chair of the Procedure Committee to the Leader of the House, dated

10 September 2015 75 Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2015-16, Government proposals for

English votes for English laws Standing Orders: interim report, HC 410.

29 English votes for English laws

Government Bill and measure. Where there is a political necessity to demonstrate an England or England and Wales majority on an issue, the whole House should debate and, if necessary, vote on whether the new procedures should be applied.

• The new procedures are over-engineered, and ought to be

simplified by allowing double-majority votes at Report stage on Bills or elements of Bills applying only to England or England and Wales: only those elements with a majority of votes of Members for both UK, and England or England and Wales, constituencies would pass directly to Third Reading. Legislative grand committees will be required to deal with legislation where the UK and England/England and Wales majorities disagree.

• All Members should be able to speak in legislative grand committee proceedings in the Chamber of the House.

• The new procedures must not result in any reduction in time or opportunities for all Members to scrutinise legislation, especially at Report stage.

• Drafting of legislation intended to apply to England only, or England and Wales only, should be done to enable certification tests to be applied as clearly as possible. Such draft legislation should clearly and unambiguously apply to England or England and Wales and should as far as possible be clearly within the legislative competences of the devolved legislatures.

• There is a case for the Speaker to establish and publish a protocol for how he will handle any representations made to him about certifying Bills and instruments as England only, or England and Wales only.

• The Committee of Selection should appoint two members of the Panel of Chairs whom the Speaker may consult when deciding on certification.

• The Committee will continue to monitor the piloting of the proposals, if they are introduced, and will undertake a technical assessment at the end of the Session.

• In the light of the proposals, and the less than satisfactory arrangements for the House to consider changes in block grants to the devolved institutions arising from the Barnett formula, the Committee will examine the House’s procedures for approving Government expenditure plans.

Government Response (October 2015) On 20 October, Chris Grayling made a written statement in which he set out the Government’s response to the Procedure Committee’s report. He noted that the Government had made amendments to the proposed Standing Order changes published in July, which the Committee had reviewed, in line with some of the recommendations from the Committee. He said that the Government did not wish to pilot

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 30

the changes in the way the Committee recommended nor would the Government agree to the Committee’s recommendation that the House should decide whether or not bills and instruments should be subject to the EVEL procedure.

The Government did not accept the Committee’s recommendation that double majority voting be used at Report stage – it noted that certified amendments made before Report stage would still need consent.76

Technical Evaluation (December 2016) The Procedure Committee issued terms of reference for its “technical evaluation of the arrangements for ‘English votes for English laws’ agreed by the House of Commons in October 2015”, on 13 January 2016.77

On 19 December 2016, the Committee published its technical evaluation. It concluded that despite fears that the certification process could politicise the role of the Speaker, there had been no dissatisfaction with his decisions.78

It noted the “lack of substantive debate in the new legislative grand committees” and considered how the voice of those affected by certified legislation could be heard. It called for programme motions to ensure that time was provided for LGCs – this had usually but not always been the case (for examples, see Box 3). But because of limited debate and procedural complexities of moving to and from LGCs, the Procedure Committee also recommended that LGC consent be deemed to have been given, unless an objection was made – in which case the necessary LGC(s) would take place.79

The Procedure Committee expressed its dissatisfaction with the form and content of the new Standing Orders. It criticised the opaque drafting of them:

The drafting of the new package is opaque and defies interpretation by Members, and its grafting on to the existing corpus of standing orders is alien to the House’s traditions. The new package sits ill with this Committee’s work to revise the archaic and inaccessible language of existing standing orders, and we recommend nothing less than a complete redraft.80

76 HCWS251, 20 October 2015 77 Procedure Committee news, Procedure Committee to evaluate EVEL arrangements,

13 January 2016 78 Procedure Committee, English votes for English laws Standing Orders: report of the

Committee’s technical evaluation, 19 December 2016, HC 189 2016-17 79 Procedure Committee, English votes for English laws Standing Orders: report of the

Committee’s technical evaluation, 19 December 2016, HC 189 2016-17paras 46-54 80 Procedure Committee, English votes for English laws Standing Orders: report of the

Committee’s technical evaluation, 19 December 2016, HC 189 2016-17, Summary

31 English votes for English laws

Box 3: Effect of programme orders on proceedings in legislative grand committees

The programme order of 19 July 2016 for the Higher Education and Research Bill 2016-17 provided that:

(4) Proceedings on Consideration and proceedings in legislative grand committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which proceedings on Consideration are commenced.81

Consequently, on 21 November 2016, after report stage of the Bill, the House resolved itself into LGC (E&W) and then into LGC (E) to agree consent motions with no possibility of debate because report stage had used all the time available for report stage and for any debate in LGC.82 By comparison, the programme order for the Digital Economy Bill 2016-17 provided for debate at the LGC stage:

3. Any proceedings in Legislative Grand Committee and Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption.83

On 28 November 2016, there was a brief debate in the LGC (England).84

The Committee also noted that the Mile End Institute had drawn its attention to a potential anomaly. In order to approve affirmative SIs and to annul negative SIs a double majority is required: “in effect, Members representing England or England and Wales do not have the same right of veto over certified negative instruments as they do over certified primary legislation or certified affirmative instruments” The Committee recommended that the Government “evaluate and set out clearly the principles which underpin the EVEL standing order provisions on the treatment of motions for annulment” and, if necessary, amend the Standing Orders to ensure that they were consistent with these principles.85

It concluded that its evaluation could “only be provisional” as there were “bound to be challenges to the system as yet unencountered and unforeseen”. The Committee plans to undertake further evaluation of the system later in the Parliament.86

Government Response (March 2017) The Government incorporated its response to the Procedure Committee in its Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, which was published on 30 March 2017.87

The Government would not commit to ensuring that time was provided for a LGC for every bill that was certified before Third Reading. It accepted that ordinarily this would be the case but argued that “programming is specific to each bill and is determined on a case-by-

81 HC Deb 19 July 2016 c794 82 HC Deb 21 November 2016 cc710-711 83 HC Deb 28 November 2016 c1267 84 HC Deb 28 November 2016 cc1361-1362 85 Procedure Committee, , English votes for English laws Standing Orders: report of the

Committee’s technical evaluation, 19 December 2016, HC 189 2016-17, paras 62-64

86 Procedure Committee, English votes for English laws Standing Orders: report of the Committee’s technical evaluation, 19 December 2016, HC 189 2016-17, Summary

87 Leader of the House of Commons, Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, March 2017, Cm 9430

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 32

case basis in consultation with opposition parties. Legislative Grand Committee stages are programmed in the same way as all other legislative stages, which allows for a flexible approach to allocate time”.88

While the Government was sympathetic to the aims of the Procedure Committee’s proposal to deemed consent at LGC stage, unless an objection was taken, it was not convinced by the recommendation. It argued that:

Making Legislative Grand Committees dependent on dissent being indicated at the right time would risk making the procedures opaque and consequently rarely used. Given that the certification process would still be required after Report stage, it would also seem to save little time.89

The Government said that the principle underpinning the EVEL Standing Orders in relation to all legislation is that:

the consent of both a majority of MPs representing constituencies in England (or in England and Wales) and a majority of the whole House is required to change the status quo in relation to certifiable provisions.

37. The effect of English votes for English laws on a motion to annul a statutory instrument should be considered in conjunction with the decision by Parliament, in the relevant primary legislation, to delegate to Ministers a power to legislate in a statutory instrument subject to the negative procedure. By agreeing to the use of the negative procedure when the relevant primary legislation was passed by Parliament, Parliament has agreed that its approval to the content of that instrument is not needed but rather that, if it is not content with what the Minister has done, it will have the chance to annul the instrument once it has been made.

38. As a result, the default position agreed to by all members of the House (and where necessary by members representing constituencies in England (or in England and Wales) in the primary legislation is that in normal circumstances a negative procedure statutory instrument will be made, brought into force and continued in force without any vote required by Parliament, with the annulment of such an instrument being extremely rare. Consequently, the principle underpinning the treatment of motions to annul is that a decision to annul would be a change from this default position, agreed to in the primary legislation and, it is therefore right that both MPs representing constituencies in England (or in England and Wales) and the whole House should consent to this change.90

In response to criticisms that the Standing Orders were complex, the Government argued that they were “comprehensive” and that they had worked well, in practice. It did not believe that any redraft was 88 Leader of the House of Commons, Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related

to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, March 2017, Cm 9430, para 24

89 Leader of the House of Commons, Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, March 2017, Cm 9430, para 27

90 Leader of the House of Commons, Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, March 2017, Cm 9430, paras 36-38

33 English votes for English laws

required. However, it did say that in reviewing the Standing Orders it had identified a number of minor and technical changes that it proposed could be made as part of wider changes to Standing Orders.91

Keeping EVEL under review in the 2017 Parliament Following the vote in the House of Commons to trigger an early general election (which was held on 8 June 2017), the Procedure Committee published a short report – Matters for the Procedure Committee in the 2017 Parliament. The Committee commented on the Government’s technical review, which it found disappointing, and recommended that the EVEL procedures be kept under review in the new Parliament:

27. The Government issued its response to its technical review of the procedures on 30 March 2017, and addressed our conclusions and recommendations in its response. We found the response disappointing: it missed several opportunities to make practical improvements to the operation of the present procedures, and failed to acknowledge the widespread dissatisfaction with them which we have observed in the House.

28. We recommend that the Committee in the 2017 Parliament continue to keep the operation of ‘English votes for English laws’ procedures, insofar as they are continued by the present or any future administration, under regular review.92

4.2 Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee

On 21 July 2015, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee (PACAC) announced that it would hold an inquiry into “the constitutional implications of the Government’s proposed amendment to House of Commons Standing Orders which will introduce 'English Votes for English Laws'”.93

PACAC has held two oral evidence sessions in October and November 2015.94

PACAC received evidence that demonstrated “an increasing impatience with the constitutional anomalies to which [devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland] gives rise in England”. It also commented that “Of all the potential remedies to the “English Question” that have arisen from devolution, the principle of English Votes for English Laws commands consistent and substantial popular support”. However, it

91 Leader of the House of Commons, Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related

to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, March 2017, Cm 9430, para 42-43

92 Procedure Committee, Matters for the Procedure Committee in the 2017 Parliament, 2 May 2017, HC 1091, paras 27-28

93 Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee news release, English Votes for English Laws and the Future of the Union, 22 July 2015

94 Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, English Votes for English Laws and the Future of the Union – publications

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 34

acknowledged that it had “very little evidence” about whether this support extended to the current scheme.95

The Committee identified a number of problems arising from the new standing orders:

• their complexity; • their sustainability, noting the “stridency of opposition” to them; • potential constitutional effects of EVEL, identifying

─ Barnett consequentials

─ The devolution test and consequential effects

─ Two classes of MP?

The Committee concluded that:

It is too soon to say with any certainty what the constitutional implications of the new Standing Orders will be. The ad-hoc approach to change in the constitution of the Union, that dates back to the devolution reforms initiated by the then Labour Government in 1997, and has treated each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in different ways at different times, has been characteristic of constitutional reform since the 1990s. This Report illustrates the need for Government to abandon this adhoc approach and to explore a comprehensive strategy for the future of relationships between the Westminster Parliament and the component parts of the United Kingdom. The Government should be working towards a new and durable constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom that reflects the scale of constitutional change since the 1997 devolution referendums. This will be the subject of our continuing inquiry into the Future of the Union and of our subsequent Reports on the subject.96

Government response In April 2016, the Committee published a brief response from the Government. Although the response included some comments on specific recommendations, it said that a detailed response would be provided in the Government’s review of EVEL:

In light of the Government review which I have undertaken to deliver later this year, I will not respond to each of your Committee’s recommendations in detail at this point; all of the recommendations outlined in your Report will be covered in the Government’s review.97

95 Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, The Future of the

Union, part one: English votes for English laws, 11 February 2016, HC 523 2015-16, para 28

96 Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, The Future of the Union, part one: English votes for English laws, 11 February 2016, HC 523 2015-16, para 70

97 Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, The Future of the Union, part one: English votes for English laws: Government response to the Committee’s Fifth Report of Session 2015-16, 27 April 2016, HC 961 2015-16

35 English votes for English laws

4.3 Scottish Affairs Committee On 18 August 2015, the Scottish Affairs Committee announced that it would hold an evidence session on English Votes for English Laws.98

The Scottish Affairs Committee held two oral evidence sessions in September 2015 and October 2015.99

The Committee did not produce a final report.

The Committee held a further evidence session on EVEL on 19 July 2016.100

4.4 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee On 11 May 2016, the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee held a one-off evidence session on the Implementation of English votes for English laws. The Committee took evidence from Chris Grayling, Leader of the House of Commons.101

98 Scottish Affairs Committee news release, Committee examines Scotland Office and

English Votes for English Laws, 18 August 2015 99 Scottish Affairs Committee, English Votes for English Laws Inquiry 100 Scottish Affairs Committee, English Votes for English Laws inquiry 101 Northern Ireland Affairs Committee, Implementation of English votes for English

laws Inquiry

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 36

5. EVEL and the House of Lords

5.1 Initial reaction When he made his initial statement to the House of Commons on the Government’s proposals for EVEL, on 2 July 2015, Chris Grayling said that “There will be no changes to procedures in the House of Lords”.102 However, when the statement was repeated in the House of Lords, a number of peers asked how the proposals would affect the work of the House of Lords.103

In a Question for Short Debate on 16 July 2015, initiated by Lord Butler of Brockwell, a number of peers put questions to the Leader of the House of Lords about the Government’s proposals. Although there was some acceptance of the Government’s view that the status quo was not sustainable, questions were asked about the details of the proposals; the appropriateness of making constitutional change by changing the Standing Orders of the House of Commons; and about the potential consequences of the proposals. Lord Butler also told the House that he would table a motion to provide for the establishment of a joint committee to discuss EVEL.104

In response to the debate, Baroness Stowell of Beeston, the Leader of the House of Lords, would not say, as Lord Butler urged her to, that the Government’s plans amounted to a veto for English MPs. She argued that “English MPs cannot overrule the whole House and the whole House cannot overrule English MPs”. She said that the proposals sought to make changes “while keeping the process as close as possible to the existing procedures in the House of Commons”. Standing Order changes were being made (rather than putting the process on a statutory footing105) as this was “the usual means by which procedural changes are made in the other place”. But the process would be reviewed in 12 months’ time and legislation had not been ruled out, although it would “risk bringing the courts into Parliament”. Baroness Stowell again noted that the procedures in the House of Lords were not changing but if there were implications “in practice” for the House of Lords, she would “consider it very properly my responsibility to ensure that we have an opportunity to contribute to the review process that has been promised in a year’s time”. She acknowledged the strong desire of members of the House of Lords to debate the issue and indicated that she would arrange a debate in September (that debate took place on 21 October 2015106). She told the House that there was no formal government position on Lord Butler’s proposal for a joint committee. She concluded by saying:

102 HC Deb 2 July 2015 c1647 103 HL Deb 2 July 2015 cc2210-2223; see Baroness Smith of Basildon (c2214); Lord

Wallace of Tankerness (c2216); Lord Tyler c2222) 104 HL Deb 16 July 2015 cc754-755 105 Lord Butler noted that the Conservative Party had called for the arrangements to be

put on a statutory footing (c754). He cited Leader of the House of Commons, Implications of Devolution for England, Cm 8969, December 2014, p24

106 HL Deb 21 October 2015 cc735-776

37 English votes for English laws

I believe that the time has come for us to make some progress on actually implementing English votes for English laws.107

Then on 21 July 2015, as he had indicated he would in the debate on 16 July 2015, Lord Butler of Brockwell proposed the establishment of a joint committee

to consider and report on the constitutional implications of the Government’s 14 July revised proposals to change the Standing Orders of the House of Commons in order to give effect to English Votes for English Laws, and that the committee should report on the proposals by 30 March 2016

Following a debate, the House of Lords agreed to the motion, on a division by 320 votes to 139.108

Commons response to the proposal for a joint committee When the House of Commons debated the proposed new Standing Orders on 22 October 2015, an amendment, was considered that the Commons concurred with the Lords in their proposal to establish a joint committee. The amendment was defeated on division, by 312 votes to 215.109

5.2 Constitution Committee inquiry The Constitution Committee’s report, English votes for English laws, was published in November 2016. The Committee noted that “Several of our witnesses stressed that one year was too little time to allow for a proper evaluation of the impact of EVEL”. It also noted that because the Government had a majority in the House of Commons, as a whole, and among English and Welsh MPs, “it is unlikely that the implications of those two groups failing to reach agreement will be fully known from the experience of this first year”.

The Committee concluded that it would be “difficult for the Government to judge whether the EVEL procedures are robust given the short period of time during which they have been in operation”.

It suggested that an extended trial period “for the remainder of this Parliament, with a final review taking place early in the next Parliament” to allow more evidence to be assessed.

It echoed the House of Lords’ previous decision and said that the procedure should be scrutinised by a Joint Committee, “examining both the technical and the constitutional aspects of EVEL”.110

107 HL Deb 16 July 2015 cc764-766 108 HL Deb 21 July 2015 cc1007-1031 109 HC Deb 22 October 2015 c1239 110 Constitution Committee, English votes for English laws, 2 November 2016, HL 61

2016-17, paras 33 and 35-36

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 38

6. Reviewing the operation of the EVEL Standing Orders

6.1 Government’s technical review On 26 October 2016, David Lidington announced that he was launching a technical review of the EVEL Standing Orders. In that announcement he drew attention to an online consultation that would run until 2 December 2016. He said that the outcomes of the review would be published later in the Session. He also set out the terms of reference for the review:

There will be a consultation period to inform the review which will come to a close on 2nd December 2016, with publication of the outcomes of the review due later this session. The review will be available online only. Details of the review can be found here https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/english-votes-for-english-laws-review.

The terms of reference for the review are outlined below:

• The impact of the Standing Orders on the legislative process

• The operation of the certification test

• Any suggestions for how the process could be further improved, or how understanding of the process could be further supported.111

The Government’s Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced was published on 30 March 2017.112 In a written statement announcing its publication, David Lidington said that the report “also responds to three Parliamentary Select Committees which have led inquiries into English votes for English laws over the past twelve months”.113

At Business Questions on 30 March 2017, David Nuttall summarised the review in the following way: “there will be no changes at the moment but the provisions will be kept under review”. Mr Lidington said that was “a very fair summary”.114 Indeed the Government committed itself to keep the provisions under review as they develop:

… rather than committing to a formal review at a specific point in the future, we think it would be beneficial for both Parliament and the Government to keep the technical operation of the provisions under review as they develop.115

In his foreword to the review, Mr Lidington said that “the Government remains confident that the English votes for English laws provisions 111 HCWS219, 26 October 2016 112 Leader of the House of Commons, Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related

to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, March 2017, Cm 9430

113 HCWS581, 30 March 2017 114 HC Deb 30 March 2017 c421 115 Leader of the House of Commons, Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related

to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, March 2017, Cm 9430, para 50

39 English votes for English laws

provide a necessary and effective solution to an imbalance created by devolution”.116

Points made in the Government review in response to recommendations from the Procedure Committee are noted in section 4.1 of this briefing paper.

6.2 An academic assessment of EVEL On 28 November 2016, academics Michael Kenny and Daniel Gover (from Queen Mary University London) published a review of EVEL: Finding the good in EVEL: An evaluation of ‘English votes for English laws’ in the House of Commons. They reported results from “an in-depth academic research project into EVEL”. They evaluated the procedures; considered arguments for and against such a reform; and made “a series of constructive proposals to improve the current system”.

They explained that EVEL was an approach to addressing the ‘English Question’:

The anomaly that these proposals sought to address concerned the possibility that legislation affecting only England could be passed by parliament without the support of England’s democratic representatives. This happened after devolution on votes concerning tuition fees and foundation hospitals.

Continuing that

Evidence suggests growing irritation among many of the English at England’s constitutional position, including about its representation at Westminster. The most popular solution for addressing this has consistently been to reform Commons voting arrangements to give greater priority to English MPs.

However, they noted that EVEL had not secured cross-party support.

Evaluation

In their evaluation of EVEL they considered both the rationale for it and considered whether five concerns expressed about EVEL had been borne out in its operation.

Rationale

Gover and Kenny identified two types of rationale for EVEL:

There are broadly two types of rationale for it: first, as a pragmatic response to new territorial pressures; and second, as a commitment to the principle of procedural equality between the four parts of the UK. These justifications are not mutually exclusive, and proponents frequently employ both. But they are nevertheless different, and point in subtly different directions in terms of the form that EVEL should take.

They commented that:

The government itself has not been entirely consistent in its arguments for EVEL. While the government’s reform can be

116 Leader of the House of Commons, Technical Review of the Standing Orders Related

to English Votes for English Laws and the Procedures they Introduced, March 2017, Cm 9430, foreword

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 40

understood as broadly consistent with the first justification, ministers have at times also employed arguments and language more closely associated with the second. This tendency to ‘over claim’ may present problems for public understanding of the reform, as well as difficulties when expectations of its effect are not met.

Criticisms

1. EVEL will politicise the office of the Speaker.

They found that “there is little evidence that this has happened”.

2. EVEL creates two classes of MP.

They argued that “even where legislation certified as England-only has indirect effects in other parts of the UK – for example through the ‘Barnett consequentials’ – the double veto means that MPs from those affected territories are in no weaker a position under EVEL to block it”.

3. EVEL will undermine the coherence of UK-wide government.

They commented that:

This criticism would be particularly relevant in the event that a UK government did not have a majority in England (or England and Wales). In such circumstances, much would depend on how the main parties responded to this new political situation. But it seems plausible that a UK government would be able to bargain with English (or English and Welsh) MPs in many foreseeable circumstances.

4. EVEL fails to facilitate England’s voice in Parliament.

They commented that:

The government’s reform effectively conflates expression of England’s voice with its capacity to apply a veto, but parliaments and legislatures fulfil other functions than merely voting on legislation. During EVEL’s first year of operation, its mechanisms have not noticeably enhanced England’s voice.

5. EVEL is unhelpfully complex and opaque in character.

The procedures were complex because of the design of the system and the addition of new stages to the legislative process. They considered that “Complexity may undermine EVEL’s capacity to achieve its goal of addressing English grievance and, if certified legislation becomes the subject of territorial conflict, this complexity may prove destabilising”.

Improving the system

To improve the system they suggested:

• Greater priority should be given to facilitating England’s voice. They suggested either an English Grand Committee (with a remit beyond legislation) or an English Affairs Select Committee.

• Further entrenchment of the double veto. They considered that “Two elements of the EVEL processes do not appear to be consistent with the double veto principle: consideration of instruments subject to the negative procedure, and the Commons’ consideration of certain types of Lords amendment.

41 English votes for English laws

Given the centrality of the double veto to the integrity of this reform, these two anomalies should be rectified”.

• The complexity of EVEL should be reduced

Only trigger EVEL when necessary Do not automatically convene legislative grand committees Reduce the number of veto points Certify fewer provisions, “notably amendments” Consolidate Standing Orders

• Improving the legitimacy of EVEL. They suggested renaming the procedure; they suggested “English Consent for English Laws”. They also suggested initiating cross-party discussions.117

117 Michael Kenny and Daniel Gover, Finding the good in EVEL: An evaluation of

‘English votes for English laws’ in the House of Commons, Executive Summary

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 42

Appendix: Conservative English manifesto (2015) The Conservative Party, in its national manifesto, for the 2015 General Election, confirmed its intention to “introduce English votes for English laws”. In its English manifesto, it set out why changes to the procedure of the House of Commons were necessary. It gave some detail about how the House would consider England-only provisions in bills; the Speaker’s responsibilities for determining whether legislation was England-only; how the procedures would apply to financial matters; and announced that the proposals would be fully implemented within a year. Within the year, the Procedure Committee would be consulted and the Government would pilot the new process on at least one nonfinancial bill:

Fairness for England

Putting power in the hands of the people is a core Conservative belief. A Conservative Government in a new Parliament will continue to empower neighbourhoods and parishes in England. Localism and decentralisation are crucial in revitalising our cities and counties, but they do not and cannot answer the West Lothian Question.

With significant further powers being handed to Scotland, it is no longer fair, or just, for Scotland to be able to decide its own laws in devolved areas, only for Scottish MPs to be able to have the potentially decisive say on similar matters affecting only England, or where relevant, England and Wales. As it stands, a Scottish MP can vote in the Westminster Parliament on matters which only affect England, but English MPs cannot vote in the Scottish Parliament on matters which are entirely devolved to Scotland. So an English MP cannot vote on what happens in schools in Scotland, but a Scottish MP can vote on what happens in schools in England.

The Conservatives are committed to answering this Question and ensuring fairness across our nations. That is why a Conservative Government will therefore change the rules of the House of Commons to make certain that English MPs will have the veto on laws and decisions that only affect England.

A balanced plan

We will maintain the Westminster Parliament as the UK and England’s law-making body. We will maintain the integrity of the UK Parliament by ensuring that MPs from all parts of the UK continue to deliberate and vote together, including to set overall spending limits.

But we want Parliament to work in a way that ensures decisions affecting England can only be taken with the consent of the majority of MPs representing English constituencies – giving them an effective veto in these areas. Our approach builds on the fundamental principle of consent set out in 2013 in the Report of the independent McKay Commission.

Major legislation passes through the House of Commons completing five stages: first reading; second reading; committee stage; report stage and third reading. While first reading is largely

43 English votes for English laws

a formality, second and third readings are opportunities for Members of Parliament to debate the principles at stake in a bill. Committee and report stages are opportunities for line-by-line scrutiny of the detail of a bill, and for amendments, if necessary, to be made.

In changing the way the House of Commons legislates, we must balance the need for the Commons as a whole to express the voice of our entire United Kingdom, with the need for English MPs to express their voice on matters affecting England only.

Our proposals reflect that need and respect that balance:

• The readings of bills – where the principles at stake are debated and voted upon – will be considered and voted upon by all Members of Parliament, reflecting the voice of our entire United Kingdom.

• The committee stage of bills – where the Speaker certifies that the bill, or parts of it only relate to England – will, for those clauses, be considered by English Members of Parliament. They will sit and vote in a Committee, drawn up in proportion to overall party strength in England.

• Report stage will continue to be debated and voted upon by all UK MPs; but we will also introduce a new lock between report and third reading – a legislative consent motion – preventing a bill which as a whole or in parts affects England only (including amendments made in committee or report) completing its passage through the Commons, without being approved by a Grand Committee made up of all English MPs.

• The Speaker will be required to certify bills or clauses where English MPs must give their consent to equivalent English decisions where provisions are devolved to another part of the UK, or they have a separate and distinct effect for England. In reaching a decision the Speaker will have regard to any crossborder effects and the national significance of any legislation, for example infrastructure projects.

• Secondary legislation – and amendments made to bills by the House of Lords – will be covered by the same process.

• There will be a resolution process should there be any disagreement between the English majority and the majority in the whole House. This involves a second report stage and a potential second consent vote, after which any remaining provisions not agreed would fall. The agreed parts of the bill would proceed to third reading should the Government wish to proceed.

Tax and spending

We will extend the principle of English consent also to financial matters:

• MPs from across the UK will continue to vote together to set overall departmental spending limits as there are consequential effects on spending in the rest of the UK.

• How money is distributed within England will in future require the agreement of English MPs and will no longer be over-ridden by MPs who are not accountable to English voters.

Number 7339, 20 June 2017 44

• Areas covered in this way will include how money is distributed among English councils, different police authorities or how the English health and schools budgets are allocated. There will be, for example, specific consent motions to approve the English Revenue Support Grants and Police Grants.

• Where taxes have been devolved to Scotland, the equivalent taxes would require the consent of English MPs. It would not be right, for example, for the Scottish Parliament to vote for a cut in Air Passenger Duty in Scotland and then for Scottish MPs to be able to impose an increase in Air Passenger Duty in England.

• Income Tax will continue to be a shared UK tax and MPs from all parts of the UK will continue to have a decisive say on its shared elements such as setting the Personal Allowance and the rate on savings and dividends. We will however create, alongside the full devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament to set its own Income Tax rates and bands, an English rate of Income Tax on earnings, subject to the democratic approval of English MPs.

• The Finance Bill – the primary way in which we raise tax in the United Kingdom – whilst continuing to be treated as a UK-wide bill at committee, will therefore also be subject to a legislative consent motion for clauses relating to England before it can proceed to third reading.

Delivery within the first year

We are committed to building a stable and fair constitutional settlement across the whole of the United Kingdom. We will therefore take forward in tandem our constitutional reforms, even though our commitments on each are not conditional on any other.

A new Scotland Bill will be in the first Queen’s Speech of a Conservative Government, and will be introduced in the first session of a new Parliament with a view to passing into law before the Scottish Parliament elections in 2016. We will also move forward quickly to keep our devolution promises to Wales and Northern Ireland. And we will deliver our plan for English votes for English laws to a similar timetable – with full implementation of our plan within the first year of a new Government.

We can move quickly because changing how the House of Commons works does not require legislation. It will require changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. We are today publishing the changes to the parliamentary procedures that would make English votes for English laws a reality.

We will:

• Table our proposals in the House of Commons within the first 100 days after the General Election

• Consult the House of Commons Procedure Committee prior to seeking approval from the whole House to the proposed Standing Order changes.

• Run a pilot to test the new rules on one or more nonfinancial bills.

45 English votes for English laws

• Apply the new procedures to a Treasury bill for the first time for the Budget and Finance Bill in 2016.

BRIEFING PAPER Number 7339, 20 June 2017

About the Library The House of Commons Library research service provides MPs and their staff with the impartial briefing and evidence base they need to do their work in scrutinising Government, proposing legislation, and supporting constituents.

As well as providing MPs with a confidential service we publish open briefing papers, which are available on the Parliament website.

Every effort is made to ensure that the information contained in these publically available research briefings is correct at the time of publication. Readers should be aware however that briefings are not necessarily updated or otherwise amended to reflect subsequent changes.

If you have any comments on our briefings please email papers@parliament.uk. Authors are available to discuss the content of this briefing only with Members and their staff.

If you have any general questions about the work of the House of Commons you can email hcinfo@parliament.uk.

Disclaimer This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties. It is a general briefing only and should not be relied on as a substitute for specific advice. The House of Commons or the author(s) shall not be liable for any errors or omissions, or for any loss or damage of any kind arising from its use, and may remove, vary or amend any information at any time without prior notice.

The House of Commons accepts no responsibility for any references or links to, or the content of, information maintained by third parties. This information is provided subject to the conditions of the Open Parliament Licence.