Since last week, debate has been running high on where the UK needs to head to deal with the constitutional issues raised by the Scottish Independence Referendum.
As such, I’ve decided to put forward (and my local party is backing) an amendment to the pre-Manifesto document (F30 on the Conference Agenda), aimed at altering Section 7 to reflect where we need to go to deliver our aims as a party.
One of the major problems with Section 7 of F30 as it stands, is that al the initiative in devolution is put into the hands of councils. I believe it’s inevitable that this would lead to gerrymandered councils in areas where a party can establish a one-party state. Can you imagine South Yorkshire Councils, after the recent scandals in Rotherham, having the ability to set their own boundary? This is a terrible idea, and would lead to a worsening of the democratic crisis in our country.
It is for this reason that the amendment seeks to permit and encourage real grassroots devolutionary movements (new clause g)
Other parts of this amendment seek to enshrine as a manifesto commitment our objections to both an all-England Parliament and the Tories suggestion of an English Grand Committee in the House of Commons. Both are already specifically LibDem policy (sections 3.6.9 – 3.6.11 of Policy Paper 117 “Power to the People“, passed at York, but given the drive towards constitutional reform, it would be wise to have our plans specifically set out in the manifesto.
We also seek to reiterate the commitment to reform and PR.
Not least however, is the fact that our Manifesto must include proposals to fulfil the promise made regarding powers for Scotland during the indyref and commit to an objective of a fully federal UK, and provide a route forward for Wales, Northern Ireland and the devolved areas of England. The re-write of clause (d) will achieve this.
The full text of the motion to be submitted is as follows:
Amendment to Section 7 of Policy Motion F30
In (7 b) on line 122, between “powers to” and “cities” insert;
“current or newly redrawn English Regions,”
In (7 d) delete lines 126 & 127, and insert;
“d) Providing the powers of full fiscal autonomy promised during the independence referendum to Scotland, and equalising the Welsh, Northern Irish and all English devolved assemblies with the same powers as the Scottish Parliament, in pursuit of a fully federal United Kingdom in which all powers are devolved as far as possible.”
In (7 e) on line 135, after “equitable level” insert;
“, while recognising that funding of devolved English authorities will also need to be addressed”
In (7 f) on line 136 & 137, between “reform” and “and” insert;
“at every level, proportional representation for all newly devolved assemblies, ”
After line 137, add new clauses;
“g) Legislating to permit and encourage non party-political groups to propose options and campaign for devolution, as the power to initiate devolution must be open to ordinary citizens and community groups, and not left purely in the hands of councils.
- h) Recognizing that neither current nor historic boundaries necessarily provide a firm basis for devolution, and so providing for the review of boundaries as necessary.
- i) Rejecting the idea of an all-England Parliament as being too big and no nearer the people than the UK parliament is, and likewise rejecting a Grand Committee of English MPs as both remote and creating an unworkable system in Westminster.
j) Once devolution is complete, greatly reducing in size the Parliament of the whole UK, as it will only need to deal with matters pertaining to the whole of the UK, Foreign Affairs, Defence & Europe.”
If you are a voting rep interested in supporting this amendment, please reply in the members area thread.
* Alisdair Calder McGregor is a member of the party's Federal International Relations Committee.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The latest connections from our Trivia Desk
Failed State: why our government is broken and how to fix it
Unease grows within Labour ranks
Digital Skills Training for people over 65
Jennie
Robin AG Bennett
Peter Davies
Chris Lewcock
Simon R
12 Comments
Better than the current policy, but I would get rid of clause “g” and i”.
Clause “g” still looks like a devolution on demand policy. If regions want more powers than others then they should campaign for independence. More than equal powers should not be permitted.
Clause “i” should simply be omitted. English regional identity is not as strong as Scottish identity, so I don’t think an English parliament should be a red line. It also creates the birth of vastly different regional laws, which can be inefficient.
Thanks for picking this up. Correct me if I am wrong with anything.
I have to say that these amendments strike me as moving in the wrong direction. We are not trying to work out the ideal Constitution, that would need a Libdem-dominated Government to achieve anyway. The point is to use a temporary window of opportunity to move forward, getting Local Politicians from all Parties demanding more Powers is a beginning, not an End. Any new Authorities will have to be elected on some sort of Proportional System of course but that is already the New Normal for new bodies.
On the question of where we want to get to, my Ideal would be a messy patchwork of different bodies of varying sizes & Powers; Local Solutions to Local Problems.
I wish those of us who are not political anoraks (even though we wear them for delivering Focuses) did get to see the full edited policy option rather then replace a few letters or ands with or.
I’d like to see the full text as well.
However, as I have argued in a recent LDV article, ‘Devolution on demand’, from whatever source, should be considered a non-starter.
In order to be able to make the Westminster parliament smaller and to take some powers off it, we have to make sure that all parts of England somehow have these powers devolved to them, otherwise you replace the West Lothian Question with a bundle of Questions referring to Warwick, Wolverhampton and Weston-super Mare (and a bunch of other places not stating with W). We should decide which powers Westminster shouldn’t have any more and then form a constitutional convention (with a citizens’ jury at its heart, and informed by widespread consultation, as well as a chance for local groups to make suggestions) in order to work out which areas this powers should devolved to, with the condition that all of England will be covered by the resulting areas.
The second problem is that these areas have to be ready for an accountable democracy which can actually deal with a body of politicians who will (probably!) have the NHS and education, amongst other things, devolved to them. This won’t work in just any region. But I think a properly constituted convention could probably figure this out.
Thus, as long as the ‘devolution on demand’ idea isn’t dropped, I wouldn’t want to support this.
In fact, we need an amendment which gets rid of that un workable idea.
Just for reference, to explain my objections – here are links to my two recent articles:
Arguments against ‘devolution on demand’
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-we-urgently-need-a-new-policy-on-devolution-and-federalism-42382.html
Explaining why there is a problem with accountability if you don’t choose your devolved areas with some care
https://www.libdemvoice.org/opinion-devolved-power-and-the-problem-of-accountability-42428.html
@Eddie – clause g is absolutely essential, as it’s this clause that allows regions to campaign (rather than just “groups of councils”), and takes the sole initiative away from councils.
Clause i is a restatement of existing party policy as stated in policy paper 117
@paul – I’m afraid it’s rather gone beyond the point where that’s acceptable. The Wost Lothian Question (or, more accurately, the English Question) is now in the public domain and we must sieze the opportunity to promote a vision of a federal UK.
Your other comment about local politicans is quite telling – I’m afraid I simply don’t trust the other parties to do what’s right for their area. I believe many the will look to gerrymander, even to the detriment of their local areas, if it advantages their party.
@Peter – the Agenda and the policy papers are all available online http://www.libdems.org.uk/conference_papers
@Maria – the full text of F30 is 150 lines long. The LDV team tend to baulk at articles of that length.
You are correct about the expansion of the differential powers to areas of the UK, but that’s the reason for the newly re-written (7 d) above including the commitment to a fully federal UK.
This amendment does not drop “devolution on demand” – quite the opposite! It extends devolution on demand by explicitly granting community and campaign groups to form & campaign for devolution, rather than leaving it in the hands of councils only. As part of the reason for devolution is to strengthen democracy by enhancing the connection between people and their political representatives, I don’t see why the policy only dealt with council-led proposals in the first place!
On your objections to Devolution on demand as creating differences in how areas choose to set up their services, I can only refer you to the words of Paddy Ashdown in a speech he gave at a fringe at Autumn conference 2012
http://www.centreforum.org/index.php/13-news/401-lord-ashdown-speech-rebalancing-the-state
Alisdair, I couldn’t support any policy based on devo on demand and you have just clarified that your amendment increases it. If people want more than equal powers they can run for independence and if they want less than equal powers then they’ll have to campaign for this for everyone or request a boundary change.
There’s too much going on in the world and our lives to get bogged down with nitty gritty local arguments about whether someone wants slightly more or slightly less powers for one region and whether others will accept it.
Regards
Maria Pretzler,
If you want a constitutional convention (I think it’s a terrible idea) why do you want to present it with a fait accompli as regards what powers Westminster should have? Why not leave that question to the convention as well? It sounds as though you want to present a citizens’ jury with choices only from a menu written by you.
Alisdair,
This is an encouraging compromise between the assymetirc ‘devo on demand’ approach the party has moved to recently and the view that a federal UK needs to be made of larger regions. It makes the party’s policy easier for people like myself to support.
Also, I fully agree that councils alone should not be the initiative takers. That is tno the way to win public trust.
This amendment moves the currently stated policy forward, bringing it closer to the debate people are actually having.
More controversial will be the explicit ruling-out of either a Grand Committee or an English parliament – whilst I agree, it may give the party little room for compromise and negotiation in the event of either a hung parliament or a consittutional convention, where several parties will now be pushing this line.
@Eddie Samon
You seem to have misunderstood what devolution on demand is. Devolution on demand is allowing places to choose whether to become devolved or not devolved (personally, I imagine that once areas start going devolved then even the original holdouts will soon follow) – what it is not is allowing them to pick and choose which powers they wish to devolve. There should be a standard, single definition of devolution and it should then be a take it or leave it choice for areas across England.
Hi George, that sounds better, but I haven’t seen a plan that says once a region goes devolved it loses powers in the House of Commons. It has looked too much of a “have your cake and eat it” policy with West Lothian Questions galore. I would also not want this “one set of devolved powers” to be too many. I am not a centralist, but sceptical of too much localism.
I’m OK with conceding on an English parliament, but I would be reluctant to settle for something that resembles a mess.
“There should be a standard, single definition of devolution and it should then be a take it or leave it choice for areas across England.”
George, I’d sign up for that, but I didn’t see it written with anything like that clarity in the earlier stuff about the DoD proposals; I specifically raised this point at the time and was told by many that everything should be up for negotiation.
Eddie is therefore dead right that if devolution and losing MPs (or MPs’ powers) are going to be linked for the other nations, they should be for English regions too.