ENGLISH MPs would have the power to kick out UK Government Bills under plans announced by William Hague to tackle the "crucial" issue of English votes for English laws(EVEL).
The Commons leader set out three proposals put forward by the Conservatives to reform the way England only laws currently progress through the Westminster Parliament.
Under the most radical option, English MPs would have a separate vote in which they could veto a Bill, forcing the Government either to abandon the proposals or make changes to secure majority support.
Another option would allow just English MPs to consider the amending stages of legislation that related only to England but the final vote would be open to all MPs.
All the proposals would involve Welsh MPs, where legislation also related to Wales.
The Conservatives insist, ideally, the process should still be introduced in parallel to plans for further devolution to Scotland as a "matter of fairness" but make clear one is not dependent on the other.
Mr Hague told MPs: "This is a fundamental issue of fairness for all the people of the United Kingdom. Just as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have the opportunity to have a bigger say over theirs."
The Liberal Democrats' preferred option involves a committee of only English MPs, crucially made up in proportion to the number of seats won at an election. Given any England only Bill would need the support of both a majority of English MPs and UK MPs, then Nick Clegg and his colleagues have termed this the "double lock" option.
Labour recently expressed support for the detailed scrutiny Committee stage made up of just England MPs but with all UK MPs involved in the final vote.
It wants the whole issue to be discussed in a post-election constitutional convention, believing such major changes cannot be solved by a "behind-closed-doors stitch-up". For this reason, it did not participate in Mr Hague's Cabinet Committee on EVEL.
During Commons exchanges, Sadiq Khan, the Shadow Justice Secretary, said Labour "embraces" the process of devolutionary change but warned against allowing the UK to be divided "by the back door".
John Redwood, the ex-Conservative Minister, told MPs: "England expects English votes for English issues. We expect simplicity and justice now; no ifs, no buts..."
Labour veteran Sir Gerald Kaufman denounced the Command Paper, saying: "It is inappropriate to call it a dog's breakfast because any sensible dog would turn up its nose at it."
The Manchester MP insisted the principle that every MP's vote was equal on all issues was "inviolable".
Last night, Mr Hague defended David Cameron's EVEL announcement within an hour of the referendum result, insisting it had not sparked the surge in SNP support.
It has emerged Alistair Darling, the former Labour Chancellor who led the Better Together Campaign, pleaded with the Prime Minister in the early hours of September 19 not to throw the Nationalists a lifeline, allowing them a route back from their referendum defeat by announcing his EVEL plan.
Within minutes of Mr Cameron's Downing Street statement, Gordon Brown, the ex-Prime Minister, is also said to have telephoned Sir Jeremy Heywood, the Cabinet Secretary, to warn that the UK parties would pay a heavy price for such a partisan attempt to win votes in England.
But the Commons Leader insisted the PM's dawn declaration was "absolutely the right thing to do" because this was an issue of fundamental fairness for the people of England.
Asked if the PM had helped the surge in SNP membership, which is now nearing 100,000, Mr Hague said: "No, not at all...The SNP have tried to portray all of the other political parties as somehow not implementing the commitments made to Scotland but all of them are at pains to stress that they will be delivered on by Conservative, Lib Dem or Labour Ministers after the General Election."
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 hereComments are closed on this article