English Votes on English Laws

Debate between Angela Eagle and Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston

Tuesday 7th July 2015 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I tried to ask the Leader of the House that question during his statement last week, but answer came there none. I agree with my hon. Friend’s interpretation.

[Ms Gisela Stuart]

Does my hon. Friend know whether the Leader of the House has consulted the Procedure Committee? My understanding is that the Conservative party manifesto proposal involved consulting that Committee before putting it to the House.

[Ms Eagle]

I have no knowledge of whether that is the case. However, I am sure we will hear from the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mr Walker). He can give us any answers, because he was there at the time.

Today’s debate is about process rather than content, so I will confine myself to observations of the process the Government have chosen to use. I note in passing that the Government have gone much further on English votes for English laws than the McKay commission suggested would be wise. They have not explained why they have chosen to do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Wayne David) has just observed.

The McKay report contained serious warnings about the effect of creating an English veto, a double majority and two classes of MPs. The Government’s proposals ride roughshod over those warnings and instigate all three. They also extend the application of the rules to Finance Bills and create the extraordinary probability that a measure passed by a majority in both Houses can be vetoed by a minority. It is possible to concoct a procedural fix to introduce major constitutional change, as the Government have done, but my contention is that it is not wise to do so. In fact, it is a constitutional outrage.