YESTERDAY’S climbdown by David Cameron over amending the fox-hunting act will likely add a tinge of acrimony to today’s debate on English votes for English laws (Evel) in the House of Commons this afternoon.
Within minutes of the SNP group announcing their intent to vote against Government proposals to amend the Hunting Bill in England and Wales, Tory MPs claimed the move strengthened the need for Evel.
However Evel would not have stopped the SNP MPs from voting against hunting, as the changes were to be enacted through secondary legislation.
Under the current proposals from Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling, there would need to be an outright majority in the Commons, and a majority of English and Welsh MPs for the changes to happen.
Those proposals are, however, expected to be redrafted and could tighten that system up.
Yesterday, as Nicola Sturgeon warned against making Scottish MPs “second class citizens”, the Prime Minister defended the proposals and admitted that it would be impossible for “total perfection”.
Speaking at the Times CEO Summit in London, Cameron said: “I am a believer in the United Kingdom. I want us to stay together as a United Kingdom and we have to recognise that England is a very large part of the total.
“You are never going to get total perfection. If you want total perfection in terms of English votes for English laws you would have to have an English parliament, a federal system.
“That is not what we are proposing. What we are proposing is relatively modest, it really is that you should not be able to legislate in the United Kingdom parliament against the wishes of English MPs. It’s a veto, a block, rather than a right of initiative. I think that is right.”
SNP Shadow Leader of the House Pete Wishart MP said: “On issue after issue, the Tories are in retreat – these delayed revised proposals have had to be brought forward this week because the UK Government were staring defeat in the face last week. The Tories may be slowly waking up to the implications of not being able to rely on parliamentary support – and it is the SNP leading the real and effective opposition at Westminster.
“The UK Government published a list of 20 Bills passed in the last parliament which they said didn’t apply to Scotland – but after careful analysis First Minister Nicola Sturgeon pointed out that 13 of them were relevant to Scotland.
“Therefore, what needs to happen now is the UK Government should agree to the First Minister’s request for talks about English Votes for English Laws, on the basis of mutual respect.
“The Tories cannot deny the hypocrisy of pursuing English Votes for English Laws at the same time as opposing every single amendment to strengthen the Scotland Bill, which have frequently been voted for by 58 of the 59 MPs representing Scottish constituencies.
“The Tories are paying a very high political price for trying to rush through ill-thought out proposals which would make Scotland’s representation at Westminster second class – the logic of their position is to establish an English parliament, but what they should do right now is meet with the First Minister to discuss the issue, as well as explain their latest thinking to the people and Parliament.”
Over the weekend the First Minister had written to the Prime Minister asking to discuss the issue.
Grayling’s office had produced a list of 20 Bills they claimed only impacted on England, or England and Wales. Analysis by the Scottish Government suggested more than half of those bills did, in fact, have implications north of the border.
Writing to the PM, Nicola Sturgeon said: “Of the 20 Bills listed by the UK Government as not extending to Scotland, no fewer than 13 of them did. Several of these bills covered important areas such as charities, criminal justice and anti-slavery measures and had significant impacts on Scotland, over and above the Barnett implications that might flow from legislation.
“No doubt the UK Government will be considering the assessment when preparing your legislation but the Scottish Government has a direct interest in how the UK Government makes a judgement as to whether it considers Evel applies.”
While a debate on Evel in the Commons last week focussed on the process of how the proposals were being put in front of MPs, today’s session will be on the principle of the proposals.
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