GOVERNMENT plans for English votes for English laws (Evel) are in “meltdown” according to the SNP.
The Government suffered a symbolic defeat in the House of Commons yesterday as an emergency motion on the proposals was defeated 291 to two after Tory MPs abstained.
Opposition MPs claimed the Tory whips weren’t confident of winning the vote so told their backbenchers to abstain.
The emergency debate held yesterday was on the process of the Bill rather than the substance of Evel. During the debate MPs from all parties in Parliament accused the Government of ripping up “hundreds of years of constitutional practice” in a Standing Order vote taken in a solitary afternoon.
Speaking after the debate Pete Wishart, the SNP’s Shadow Leader of the House, said: “The Tory Government have been humiliated over their own ‘Evel’ proposals – showing just how vulnerable to defeat this measure is, and how precarious is the Government’s position with their wafer-thin majority.
“The Tories’ policy is in meltdown – the Government themselves didn’t even vote in favour of their own handling of English votes for English laws. The only conclusion that can be drawn is that the Tories knew they were staring defeat in the face.”
Alistair Carmichael, who had secured the time in Parliament, said the proposals amounted to a “stitch-up”.
“Today the Tory Government failed to support their own plans, backing down in the face of defeat. Their attempts to force these plans through without proper debate will undermine Parliament and threaten the Union,” said the Orkney and Shetlands MP.
He continued: “We must address the English question, but it is clear this is not the way to do it. Today’s vote clearly shows the will of the House. The Government must go back to the drawing board and stop stumbling forward with these proposals.”
Defending the proposals, Chris Grayling said they were about fairness: “As we move towards an extra level of devolution for Scotland and Wales, and as we devolve additional tax powers to Northern Ireland, it is vital that English citizens of the United Kingdom think that the system is fair. That is what we pledged in our manifesto, and we have set it out in detail, step by step, while implementing those changes. We are keeping our promise, and those who elected us would expect nothing else.”
The debate and vote showed that unless the Government is willing to compromise on the proposals or on the time given to discuss the proposals, they could face the possibility of their first defeat in Parliament. As well as SNP, Labour and Liberal Democrat MPs, the Government will likely lose the support of the Northern Irish parties and from some of their own backbenchers.
During the debate one senior backbencher lifted the lid on Tory discussion on the proposals. Sir Edward Leigh told the House during the 1922 Committee of Conservative backbenchers that he had constantly warned colleagues the proposals would be a “lever to break over the United Kingdom”.
“I was told by my colleagues that the Scots don’t care and that the Scots don’t want to take part in English business,” Leigh said. The Tory grandee claimed the proposals were “making it easier” for the SNP to push for independence.
Making his maiden speech in the debate, Martin Doherty, the new MP for West Dunbartonshire expressed concern over the position the proposals put the Speaker in: “It denigrates the position of the chair of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.”
He continued: “I am no Unionist or home ruler, but I will stand shoulder to shoulder with members on all benches to ensure that your integrity and dignity, Mr Speaker, and those of the people who come after you, are maintained as we work as politicians in this House.”
Former Labour leader Ed Miliband accused the Government of creating policy on “the back of a fag packet”.
“I think doing this procedure, in the way it’s being proposed, is frankly an act of constitutional vandalism,” he said. “It really, really is. It’s not true to the traditions, the great traditions of the Conservative and Unionist Party, and that’s why I urge members on the opposite side to vote against this next week.”
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here