Just over an hour ago on his Facebook page, Alistair Carmichael wrote:
Sometimes being a bit of a geek can bring results. Having made an application under Standing Order 24 of the House of Commons standing orders for an emergency debate on the government’s determination to bulldoze English Votes for English Laws through the House of Commons, I succeeded in getting a three hour debate tomorrow. A little piece of parliamentary history maybe.
The BBC reports:
Commons Speaker John Bercow has granted an urgent three hour debate on Tuesday on the government’s plans to introduce “English votes for English laws”.
Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael applied for the session claiming the government had abused parliamentary process by planning to limit the voting powers of Scottish MPs by changing Commons rules.
He said ministers were effectively creating an English parliament.
The SNP, Labour and other opposition parties backed his request.
There is due to be another debate and vote on the government’s plans – which would amend the legislative process so bills primarily affecting England would require the explicit consent of MPs representing English constituencies – next week.
However, the former Scottish secretary said the plans to change standing orders in the Commons, through which parliamentary business is organised – were a “constitutional outrage” and required more detailed consideration.
If MPs representing constituencies outside England were barred from taking part in certain votes, he said, it would breach the longstanding principle that “no matter where we have come from… we are all equal”.
In an unusual parliamentary procedure, Mr Carmichael sought leave to request a substantive debate on the issue and was granted it following a show of support in the Commons.
* Paul Walter is a Liberal Democrat activist and member of the Liberal Democrat Voice team. He blogs at Liberal Burblings.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Leadership plotting, in real life and in fiction
A journey along the Welsh Border in 1963
Recipe for a real change of direction
Day 9304: So Farewell Then, Kier Starmer
Peter Martin
John Armah
John Kelly
Nonconformistradical
John Reed
9 Comments
Thanks for highlighting this, Paul. It’s going to be interesting because even if any Tory felt exercised enough by this abuse of process by the government to rebel, would they, given that they are almost all English?
We only have five Scottish MSPs & they have shown that a small group can be amazingly effective – they have made/persuaded the SNP government to change course a number of times now.
Similarly, we have 56 SNP MPs, but it’s taken Alistair to actually do something about this by using an obscure Parliamentary rule, which very rarely succeeds, to secure the debate. It was used in the last parliament over the Royal Charter for press conduct and also when the Home Affairs Committee was banned from Hong Kong.
Well done, Alistair.
‘Lib Dem MP Alistair Carmichael applied for the session claiming the government had abused parliamentary process’
Pot & kettle, clearly Carmichael doesn’t do self awareness.
We should also recognise briefly that this Speaker will modernise when he can, although too much support could endanger his position among some government backbenchers.
The previous Speaker would probably not have accepted so many requests for urgent debates, but when he heard the word “Norway” he knew he was doomed. Journalist Jeremy Paxman has written fluently about the Norway debate at the start of World War 2, which led to a change of Prime Minister.
I have to admit, I’m surprised by this. Carmichael only got this through after securing the backing of a bloc of other MPs, primarily SNP ones. I was expecting bad blood there to get in the way, but apparently not.
Still, its very good news and congratulations to him. We can’t just accept radically redefinitions of the constitution by simply editing parliamentary standing orders without debate, vote or consultation. This is not to say that we should never accept EVEL though. Paired with full fiscal autonomy for Scotland and put through proper debate and consultation, this could work. Or at least lay the groundwork for a settlement that could be sustainable and have legitimacy on both sides of the border.
Adding to T-J’s comment, I think, if the article is correct, the real issue underlying Alistair Carmichael’s application, isn’t EVEL but the role of Westminster itself. The traditional role of Westminster and the Parliament to which we elect MP’s, has been to govern the ‘kingdom’ as a whole, yes it might be ‘England’ centric in some of it’s thinking and decision making but that is it’s primary purpose. Hence is it right that it also functions as an English (only) assembly? and would such a dual purpose lead to confusion and potentially an increase in ‘English’ centric thinking and decision making.
The only way EVEL could even conceptually work is if, from 2020 on, elections to English constituencies are concurrently for “Member of Parliament and Member of the English Assembly” — so that MPs from English constituencies actually are, by law and election, actually entitled to privileges that their Scottish and Northern Irish counterparts are not. That is not, however, currently the case, and fiddling the HoC rules is not going to make it the case.
Well, that was interesting – Alistair’s move ended with the Government chickening out of the vote and suffering a nigh on 300 vote defeat….
It is good a proper debate is secured for EVEL as the implications for a democratic state are at risk though they have been for a while. The electorate for the Parliament and the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly are not the same. Who will ensure English laws will be determined with the same electoral eligibility as the devolved institutions? It also of interest how the members will separate their responsibility to the region and to the nation as a whole in legislative proceedings. This country needs proper constitutional reform for all its nation. Ultimately each nation and its constituents have to be treated the same way in order to ensure a full democratic process overall. We do have 4 nations, we have to have 4 regional parliaments. A parliament within parliament will cause conflict and dissent. Will English MPs expected to sit more often, participate in more readings and will their re numeration changeable? At the end, the EvEL proposal will not resolve the possibility of the whole parliament voting differently to the English MPs. Thanks for ensuring a continuing debate.
Please keep an eye on what the MP for Tunbridge Wells is doing now he is in the cabinet and in charge of local government