EVEL Proposals May Be the Beginning of the Road

The government’s detailed proposals for introducing English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) into the House of Commons are a significant moment in our constitutional history, say Michael Kenny and Daniel Gover, but there is good reason to think that EVEL is unlikely to represent a sufficient answer to the English question.
 
The Government's plans to introduce English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) reflect the acceptance of the need to institutionalise a collective English interest in the legislature, and the conviction that there is a growing and legitimate sense of grievance concerning England’s position within the UK and growing devolution to Wales, Northern Ireland and, particularly, Scotland. There is significant support for the principle of EVEL: the 2014 Future of England Survey found that 62% of people in England agreed that Scottish MPs should be prevented from voting on England-only legislation. The independent McKay Commission recommended that there was now a clear imperative for England’s voices to be heard. 
 
For the new proposed procedure to be set in motion, legislation must relate exclusively to England (or England and Wales) and comparable areas of policy must be devolved elsewhere. This is somewhat narrower than the McKay Commission’s ‘separate and distinct’ test, and consequently might be expected to apply to fewer bills and clauses. The change is designed to prevent the kind of egregious case of the passage of controversial legislation applying only to England against the wishes of a majority of England’s MPs (as for instance when the second Blair government introduced foundation hospitals and top-up fees).
 
The decision to hold a major review after a year leaves the door open for advocates of more radical thinking, and reflects the political imperative to keep alive the hopes of those Conservative backbenchers who wish to see a more wholehearted, and perhaps simplified, model of EVEL. 
 
Opposition parties, notably the SNP, have made an issue of process and scrutiny – as well as the risk of politicisation of the Speaker and whether EVEL creates ‘two tiers’ of MPs. The government can credibly argue that a lengthy review process has presaged this proposal – both in the form of the McKay Commission and a cabinet committee led by William Hague in the last parliament. But MPs will vote on the proposals on 15 July, less than two weeks after they were published, and this timetable leaves the government open to the charge that it is seeking to move with undue haste, and without allowing sufficient time for proper scrutiny. 
 
The most substantive point of controversy, however, will concern the criteria for identifying English-only legislation. Judging the territorial effect of legislation is far from straightforward. As the McKay Commission observed, there are various forms of cross-border ‘spillover’ whereby decisions in one part of the UK have effects upon others, for instance on the question of where citizens in border areas choose to go for health care.  
 
But the most contentious form of spillover concerns spending. Under the Barnett formula, the block grant to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is adjusted with reference to spending in England. It is therefore argued by some – for example Nicola Sturgeon – that voting on England-only spending provisions necessarily has substantive consequences for other parts of the UK. But various experts – for instance former civil servant Jim Gallagher – disagree, arguing persuasively that questions about policy can and should be treated differently from questions of supply, with only the latter voted on by MPs from across the UK.
 
While incremental and modest in some respects, the government’s proposals will be painted as radical, even reckless, by their opponents and they do raise wider points of constitutional principle. MPs need to be provided with the opportunity to reflect upon and debate these, as well as the chance to consider the more detailed, operational ramifications of EVEL. 
 
What may ultimately turn out to be most significant about these proposals, in constitutional terms, is that they may create the impetus for a broader reformist agenda around the question of a more clearly delineated ‘English' dimension within the UK’s system – as this applies to both Westminster and Whitehall. As this debate progresses EVEL may turn out to the start, not the end, of a much longer process of finding viable answers to the English Question. 
 

Comments policy

All comments posted on the site via Disqus are automatically published. Additionally comments are sent to moderators for checking and removal if necessary. We encourage open debate and real time commenting on the website. The Centre on Constitutional Change cannot be held responsible for any content posted by users. Any complaints about comments on the site should be sent to info@centreonconstitutionalchange.ac.uk

Michael Kenny's picture
post by Michael Kenny
University of Cambridge
7th July 2015

Latest blogs

  • 19th February 2019

    Over the course of the UK’s preparations for withdrawing from the EU, the issue of the UK’s own internal market has emerged as an issue of concern, and one that has the potentially significant consequences for devolution. Dr Jo Hunt of Cardiff University examines the implications.

  • 12th February 2019

    CCC Fellow Professor Daniel Wincott of Cardiff University examines how Brexit processes have already reshaped territorial politics in the UK and changed its territorial constitution.

  • 7th February 2019

    The future of agriculture policy across the United Kingdom after Brexit is uncertain and risky, according to a new paper by Professor Michael Keating of the Centre on Constitutional Change. Reforms of the EU’s Common Agricultural Policy over recent years have shifted the emphasis from farming to the broader concept of rural policy. As member states have gained more discretion in applying policy, the nations of the UK have also diverged, according to local conditions and preferences.

  • 4th February 2019

    In our latest report for the "Repatriation of Competences: Implications for Devolution" project, Professor Nicola McEwen and Dr Alexandra Remond examine how, in the longer term, Brexit poses significant risks for the climate and energy ambitions of the devolved nations. These include the loss of European Structural and Investment Funds targeted at climate and low carbon energy policies, from which the devolved territories have benefited disproportionately. European Investment Bank loan funding, which has financed high risk renewables projects, especially in Scotland, may also no longer be as accessible, while future access to research and innovation funding remains uncertain. The removal of the EU policy framework, which has incentivised the low carbon ambitions of the devolved nations may also result in lost opportunities.

  • 1st February 2019

    The outcome of the various Commons votes this week left certain only that the Government would either secure an amended deal and put it to a meaningful vote on Wednesday 13 February, or in the overwhelmingly likely absence of this make a further statement that day and table another amendable motion for the following day, the Groundhog Day that may lead to a ‘St Valentine’s Day Massacre’ for one side or the other. Richard Parry assesses the further two-week pause in parliamentary action on Brexit

Read More Posts