Hague: indifference to calls for devolution in all parts of UK is greatest threat to union

But he said increased devolution to Scotland following last month's No vote created an imperative to improve representation and decision making for all parts of the Union.

Mr Hague told MPs: "I know there are MPs who argue that to address this question is to somehow put the United Kingdom itself at risk, but I say to them the United Kingdom is in greater danger if the legitimate arguments and expectations of English decision making, on decisions effecting only England, are not responded to.

"Insensitivity and indifference is the danger to the union in all nations including in England."

Speaking during a noisy Commons session, Mr Hague insisted the Cabinet committee he chairs at the request of the Prime Minister was the best way of resolving the immediate questions over England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

And he suggested the Government could be open to a constitutional convention to discuss the wider issues raised by greater devolution to the different nations of the Union, but not on the basis it would delay the immediate discussions and decisions.

Mr Hague criticised Labour for abandoning the committee, a move rejected by Prime Minister David Cameron earlier today as demonstrating the Opposition were "not interested in fairness".

Mr Hague said: "It has been proposed there should be a constitutional convention to discuss these issues in the future and the Labour Party can come to the Cabinet committee and put that forward - but they seem unwilling to do so.

"Indeed, the Government will consider the proposals for the establishment of such a body on the right terms and at the right time. It's my view there is merit in this, the British constitution is a living entity and no one is pretending it will have reached a perfect form in the coming months, whatever we decide on Scotland or Wales or Northern Ireland or England.

"But no one is suggesting delay in the commitments we have made to Scotland in order to wait for a constitutional convention. No one is suggesting delay in the amendments we make to the Wales Bill and other commitments to Wales.

"Equally, it is right to address the needs of England without delay in the coming months and that is why we propose to do so."

Mr Hague continued: "It is my view and the Prime Minister's view that these proposals should proceed in tandem and that means just as Lord Smith will aim to produce cross-party agreement on Scotland by the end of November, I will test to the full whether there is any cross-party agreement on these other issues by the end of November.

"There may be cross-party agreement... I'm looking forward to agreement with the Scottish National Party, for instance. Legislation on Scotland will follow after the general election.

"If there is no agreement (on England), I have no doubt we will put forward our own plans at the general election - that is what we mean by in tandem."

He added: "Some have argued to address this issue would create two classes of MPs but that does not reflect the fact we already have two classes of MPs in this House with different rights, for under the current system of devolution in the United Kingdom, Scottish MPs are voting on matters in England which are already devolved to Scotland.

"So I believe those issues for all of the United Kingdom now have to be addressed. It is important to do so on the parameters I have set - a better and fairer settlement for the whole of the United Kingdom.

"We are absolutely committed to the timetable set out for further devolution to Scotland, we are committed to providing further powers to Wales, we are committed to meet the special needs of Northern Ireland.

"But let no one think they can ignore the need to confront the needs of England and the rights of England.

"There will be a place and a time for a constitutional convention but not one that is a device to prevent issues being addressed now. It is time for the way decisions are made to be fair to all constituent parts of the United Kingdom."

SNP MPs protested the debate was not focused on Scotland, asking on several occasions why the Prime Minister was not present for the discussion.

And showing growing frustration at the refusal of Mr Hague to give way in the debate, the group leader Angus Robertson (Moray) raised a point of order with Speaker John Bercow.

He said: "Is it not the case today's debate is about devolution following the Scottish referendum rather than a general debate about English votes for English laws - that many of us have great sympathy with. Why are we not debating the future of devolution in Scotland and not being sidetracked by Tory backbenchers?"

Mr Bercow replied: "I do think you're being a tad precious, if I may say so - this is a general debate on devolution following the Scottish referendum. There will be very ample opportunity for your views to be heard and I feel sure we await that with eager anticipation."

Mr Hague insisted the debate was about "the whole of the United Kingdom" post-referendum.

For Labour, shadow justice secretary Sadiq Khan warned against a "Westminster elite solution" in which MPs rather than the public dictate what happens next.

He also insisted they should not accidentally create a system that aids those arguing for the break-up of the union, as he outlined Labour's backing for a constitutional convention in which politicians are in the minority and the public "has the loudest voice".

Mr Khan accused Mr Cameron of chasing Ukip votes with a "blatant tactical manoeuvre" by opting to announce his proposals in Downing Street in the hours after the Scottish referendum result, adding that the PM failed to discuss the ideas with the Lib Dems or Labour.

He said: "The referendum sent a clear message both from Yes and No voters that the status quo is unacceptable. Their message to us is that we can't keep running the country the way we do.

"And this groundswell isn't restricted to just Scotland. It's been repeated, as has been said, the length and breadth of the country.

"The country wants to break the stranglehold of Westminster. They want power shifted away from this place on a grand scale.

"People want to feel they genuinely have a say, they are fed up with feeling powerless.

"They are frustrated that powerful vested interests are not faced down and they want decisions and power close to where they live in their towns and cities up and down the country, and that's why we need to grasp this opportunity and reshape the country in the way the people want - not the way we and Westminster wants.

"Westminster doesn't always know best."

Mr Khan said "part of the solution" is greater devolution to England, including redistributing £30 billion from Whitehall budgets.

He said it was right to examine greater powers for English MPs on English matters although he added issues already existed where MPs could vote on transport matters outside London but not in the capital.

But Conservative Bernard Jenkin, chairman of the Public Administration Committee, told Mr Khan: "I think we have to understand dealing with the English votes on English laws question is more difficult for the Labour Party because it has a vested interest in the power of its Scottish MP over English matters.

"But it is quite wrong to pretend that the delegation of powers and functions to local authorities, which are grand bodies, is equivalent to legislative devolution to Scotland. That is what makes the English votes for English laws question altogether different from what you are now talking about."

The Labour frontbencher replied: "Can I just say, with the greatest respect, the best way for your party to resolve the West Lothian question is to win more seats in Scotland, that's the issue. Win more seats in Wales. I think you've failed to grasp the crisis there is outside in the country."

He went on: "I was disappointed that within minutes of the final votes being counted in the Scottish referendum the Prime Minister was on the steps of Downing Street setting out a top-down response to the biggest vote of no confidence in the Westminster elite for a generation.

"At a moment when we needed a Prime Minister to show some statesmanship, the day after our country voted to stay together, what we got instead was a short-term, partisan fix that had more to do with fighting (Ukip) than what was in the interests of the United Kingdom.

"The Tories used to be a one nation party - they are after all the Conservative and Unionist Party - but now they're a party of narrow, sectional interests chasing Ukip votes."

On a constitutional convention, Mr Khan said: "We would harness the energy of civil society and of the Great British public.

"This has the potential to bring about deeper change rooted in the nations, regions, cities, towns and villages of this country and not just within half a mile of this place.

"It has the potential to get to grips with the raft of inter-related issues, such as how we create a second chamber that is representative of the regions and nations, how we devolve down even more power in England, the merits of codifying the constitution ..."

Liberal Democrat former Scottish secretary Michael Moore warned against creating "Conservative seats for English laws" by excluding other parties from Westminster.

On the issue of English MPs voting on English matters, Mr Moore said: "I believe, as (Mr Khan) said earlier on, that it was a mistake for the Prime Minister to link the issue of Scottish devolution and more powers for England in the same day in Downing Street just after the referendum result.

"I do recognise that further powers for Scotland requires changes elsewhere, including here. If the West Lothian question were simple to answer, it would have been answered many years ago.

"What we should avoid, it seems to me, is turning this place from a United Kingdom Parliament into an English Parliament simply by changing standing orders rather than giving thorough consideration.

"And what we must also avoid is any suggestion that English votes for English laws is really about Conservative seats for English laws and seeks to rule out other parties in the process."

Addressing the "vow" made by the three main Westminster party leaders, Mr Moore said: "The vow was important.

"It underlined what had been happening in Scotland for some time. It wasn't new. It wasn't suddenly coming up with stuff that hadn't been put forward previously."

After referring to different commissions examining the issues, he added: "There's been a clear programme and commitment from all the different UK parties to more powers to the Scottish Parliament throughout this referendum campaign."

SNP MP Mike Weir (Angus) told Mr Moore: "That may be so but in the vow it made it clear there would be substantial new powers for the Scottish Parliament.

"It's becoming increasingly clear that the parties have never agreed prior to that what these powers would be and it's still not clear.

"All we've got on the command paper is three different schemes."

Mr Moore replied that the Smith Commission would examine the different proposals as part of a wider examination of the issue.

He also said he hoped Lord Smith would look at the issue of local devolution within Scotland, telling MPs: "The cries for decentralisation in Scotland are every bit as strong as they are here."

The SNP's Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) said: "We now have the most engaged and educated population on political issues anywhere in Europe. People want to remain engaged - they are joining political parties, they buck the trend. There are over 80,000 people now in the Scottish National Party, we have trebled our membership since the referendum.

"What has happened in the Yes movement is absolutely incredible... some of them will be watching this (debate) with horror. A lot of them will be appalled.

"We thought, the Scottish people thought, the week we came back after the independence referendum we would have the floor of the House to discuss these issues. We thought we would have exclusive attention when it came to the referendum, the solemn vow, the promise, the guarantee of more and extensive new powers for Scotland.

"I sympathise totally with English members. Of course they should have English votes for English laws. We don't vote on English-only issues... we respect the MPs opposite and they have every right to demand they get exclusive rights to vote on English-only legislation."

Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell, who represents the Scottish seat of North East Fife, said: "I was elected to this Parliament on the basis of the privileges and the rights which my constituents believed I would continue to enjoy so long as I was a member.

"If those rights or privileges are to be taken away by standing orders then it is not just me who is affected by that, it is my own constituents who voted for me on a particular basis."

He added: "I have believed for some considerable time the present constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom is unsustainable. That is why I was asked by (Willie Rennie) to be the chair of what came, perhaps a little unfairly, to be called the Campbell commission.

"Throughout that exercise it was clear to me... that federalism was the answer to quite a lot of the issues which were then on our mind and nothing has caused me to alter the view that is still the case.

"We can't all get what we want... there will have to be compromises which so far as possible take account of the competing interests."