IT is difficult to see how much lower confidence in English Votes for English Laws could sink. The so-called West Lothian question has troubled parliamentarians for decades, but the answer David Cameron suggested on the morning after the independence referendum in 2014 was dubious from the start and implemented with undue and reckless haste. It also failed to win the kind of cross-party support that a constitutional change on such a scale demands.
The chorus of criticism has also grown in the two years since Mr Cameron’s announcement and the year since the new procedure has been working in Westminster. When English Votes for English Laws, or EVEL, was first proposed in 2014, the Electoral Reform Society said it was playing fast and loose with the constitution.
Criticism also came from the SNP, who said the idea was incoherent and unfair, and Labour, whose Ian Murray called EVEL a constitutional wrecking ball. And earlier this year the Lords Constitution Committee suggested EVEL could fail the stress test of Brexit. It seems that it is hard to find a single friend of EVEL.
Now the House of Commons Procedure Committee has added its voice to the criticism. In a report evaluating EVEL a year on from its introduction, the committee says the rules need to be urgently and comprehensively rewritten if they are to win any kind of confidence among MPs.
In an echo of the Lords’ criticism, the committee also says the procedures do not command the respect they will need across all parties if the system is to be sustainable through the political tests it will face in the future.
The most obvious of the tests to come is Brexit, which has the potential to push EVEL to the limit. If some of the controversy that was predicted for the new procedures has failed to materialise, then it is probably because they have been hardly used and barely tested (the legislative grand committees, made up of English MPs, have lasted mere minutes and failed to trigger substantive debates). That could all change when Brexit finally reaches Westminster and returns a whole range of powers to the UK. It is then that the UK could face the real prospect of a constitutional crisis.
The EVEL procedures have also failed in almost every other respect. The Commons committee says they are impenetrable even for the law-makers. It is also significant that those who called for an “English voice” are not using the procedures as intended. In other words, EVEL does not even have the confidence of those who wanted it.
Of course, the man who created this mess, David Cameron, is no longer around to do anything about it, and it is likely that only further constitutional reform and a more federal arrangement for the nations of the UK can fix the issues which EVEL sought to address.
But in the meantime, the UK Government has to acknowledge that the process is not working and reform the system as part of a more profound review of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. The Government must also try to do what Mr Cameron did not do, or had the arrogance to think he did not need to do: seek widespread support from MPs representing all parts of the UK.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules here