There Should be an English Parliament

Devolution in Scotland, Northern Ireland, and Wales has been viewed as a positive step. However, there remains a discrepancy as there is no devolved body in place for England. There is growing resentment within England that this is not the case, as there is a percieved inbalance in decision making between England, and the other members of the Union. MP's have started to take notice of the "english question" with the Conservatives leaning more towards a "english votes for english laws" policy, where as Labour and the Liberal Democrats favour regionalism. [[http://devolutionmatters.wordpress.com/2010/02/03/the-english-question-seen-from-westminster/]]

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

English Devolution is a necessary step in ensuring English issues are dealt with

The introduction of an English parliament is vital for preserving the interests of the English. Since the devolution of the other home nations in 1998 the fact that the 110 MPs that represent constituencies outside of England can vote on matters that affect England yet MPs representing English constituencies cannot vote on matters concerning the other home nations is unfair, as it has left England at a disadvantage in comparison to the other home nations. This leaves a democratic vacuum in England as laws that are being passed that predominantly affect English people are flawed as votes can be garnered from MP's from other home nations.[[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/18/devolution-england-pseudo-democracy]] A separate English parliament that deals with only with English matters would ensure that parity would be restored in decision making free from outside influences, and true to the will of the English.

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

The Westlothian Question

The state of devolution means that matters effecting Scotland are now decided by Scottish MP's, Scottish MPs now vote on matters that only effect English people. This is very unfair, and a particular example is the vote on top-up fees. Labour won and introduced them, only because of their Scottish MP's, but their constituents were not effected by the vote, Scottish MP's are holding the key to matters does not effect them![[Andy McSmith, The Big Question: What is the West Lothian question, and can it be resolved satisfactorily?, The Independent, 4/7/06 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-what-is-the-west-lothian-question-and-can-it-be-resolved-satisfactorily-406571.html

Labour has 38 Scottish MPs, compared to the Conservative Party's single Scottish MP. They are using their Scottish MPs to pass legislation that would otherwise lack the support to pass.

Don't forget that Labour also has 29 Welsh MPs who can be ordered to the lobbies to vote for laws that only apply in England.

SNP MPs abstain from voting on issues which do not affect their constituencies. It is only Labour MPs who decide to vote and they cote in line with their party. In the last election the public elected a Labour government to represent them based on a manifesto and other campaign ideas which Labour voters supported. If the majority voted Labour, then Labour policies being passed, no matter how, is what the majority should theoretically support.

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

England is the largest and most populous country

There are 529 English constituencies compared to 40 in Wales, 59 in Scotland, and 18 in Northern Ireland.[[http://www.parliament.uk/mpslordsandoffices/mps_and_lords/clomps.cfm]] Scotland has 5.17 million inhabitants, Wales has 2.99 million, Northern Ireland 1.78 million. England has a population of 51.4 million.[[http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/Product.asp?vlnk=15106]]

England has the largest population and largest number of constituencies but is the only home nation without its own parliament. Surely England should be the most independent of all the home nations when it comes to political decision making due to these two factors.

Scots and Welsh MPs have in fact already forced legislation on England against the wishes of English MPs because MPs split along party lines. Such legislation includes top-up university tuition fees, foundation hospitals, [[Meg Russell and Guy Lodge , Constitution Unit, School of Public Policy, University College London - January 2006, http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-unit/files/preleases/2005/CU%20PR%20Labour%20and%20Scottish%20MP%27s.pdf 42-day detention, changes in the planning laws, select regional committees - and even approval for the 3rd runway at Heathrow to which the Conservatives put down a blocking amendment supported by majority of English MPs but rejected through the intervention of MPs from Scotland and Wales who were asked to support the Government to prevent Brown's administration from being destabilised.

It is because England is the largest and most populous that it does not need an English Parliament. It is those 529 MPs who at the moment make our legislation in Westminster. This means that any legislation that comes out of our national parliament will be English legislation as the Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland between them do not have nearly enough MPs to force policy on England.

This was of course not the case the other way round. English MPs could and regularly did force policies on to the fringe countries that they would not have voted for themselves.

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

It would allow cut backs in Westminster

Over the last parliament with the expenses scandal the British (including English) people have become even more disillusioned with parliament. Trust in politicians fell to a record low of 13% last year, down from 21% the year before.[[Denis Campbell, Trust in politicians hits an all time low, The Observer, 23/9/09, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/sep/27/trust-politicians-all-time-low Transferring powers to a different parliament would potentially be a means of regaining trust in politicians and an interest in politics. It would serve to put the expenses scandal behind Westminster as it would involve a radical shake up.

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

It would give England recognition and representation

England has no representation on bodies like the British/Irish Council. English money is distributed by this organisation with no Englishman sat at the table who is recognised as such.

Debates about matters affecting only England are deliberately confused with terms like "our country" and "the country".

England has no direct representation in Europe. Our other regional entities on the other hand are much better off as the EU likes power being devolved to the regions. The Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish Governments have EU offices in Brussels.[[http://www.ukrep.be/scotland.html]] The extra profile that a regional parliament can give has been shown by Scotland, Alex Salmond has engaged in whiskey diplomacy at the Copenhagen conference[[Jonathan Watts, Alex Salmond's whisky warning to world leaders in Copenhagen, guardian.co.uk, 15/12/09, http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/15/alex-salmond-copenhagen-whisky

An English Parliament would solve all situations where England is not represented.

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

A properly resolved English Question gives all of us a say, not just one faction

One of the major successes of the past 13 years, depending on your point of view, has been devolution. The establishment of the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly, coupled with the advances in the Northern Ireland peace process that seemed impossible 20 years ago, have transformed the governance and the culture of three of the four nations within the Union.

However, this has left a big question at the heart of government, which has also had a knock-on effect culturally:

“How should England be governed?”

This is often referred to in the media as “The English Question”; it is a question that the major political parties have, so far, avoided answering in a satisfactory manner. In fact, the major parties seem to avoid any mention of England and Englishness altogether.

They have either pushed the British agenda or wished to impose the regionalisation of England against the will of the people. The failure of the English regional assembly referendum in the North East in 2004 was due to the proposed assembly being no more than a glorified county council, whose geographical area and powers were dictated from the centre, without consultation with the grassroots.

But there has also been a current of thought, that to debate England and Englishness is inherently racist. This has led to a subsequent reluctance to either encourage the flying of the flag of England or to celebrate St George’s Day.

This has acted as a marvellous recruiting sergeant for parties and organisations of the right and far-right, such as the BNP, with their promises of an English “Folk” Parliament – with its ensuing visions of Apartheid-era South Africa – and the English Defence League.

Therefore two aims need to be addressed. The first aim is to articulate, debate and resolve the various aspects of the English Question, in particular with respect to providing England with a legitimate political voice.

The second aim is to identify a vision for the various aspects of England and Englishness that is not nationalistic in nature, but draws on the experience and contributions of all who engage in the debate. For England is a country; it is not a colour, a race or a religion.

Where there’s disagreement on the aims, let's hope to come to an accommodation that’s acceptable to all involved. Where there’s agreement, let's articulate the most appropriate way of taking things forward.

Currently the right seem to be in the driving seat with regard to the English Question. If we can offer a collective, forward-looking, dynamic and all-inclusive vision of England and Englishness that the people of England can sign up to, as opposed to the nationalistic jingoism and flag-waving of the right, the balance can be redressed.

Adapted from the article "The left-wing case for an English parliament" by Dave Dyke on Left Foot Forward, published 18th March 2010. [[http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/03/the-left-wing-case-for-an-english-parliament/]]

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

The Union needs to be re-invented for the 21st century

Sooner or later, the 'English Question' will become a live issue. It is climbing up the agenda. It if is not addressed the future of the Union is threatened. The Union is not a wholly democratic construct. It is a product of our history.

In the 21st century, the continuance of the Union should rest on the consent of the peoples of all of the British nations. By granting devolved assemblies to Scotland and Wales in 1998, the Labour party has opened the next chapter in the life of the Union.

Through referendums, the people of Scotland and Wales opted for substantial home rule. In Scotland, devolution was preceded by the Claim of Right for Scotland, which recognised that the Scottish people had a sovereign right to determine the form of government best suited their needs. This document was signed by, among others, Gordon Brown.[[http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/special_report/1999/06/99/scottish_parliament_opening/380989.stm]] The Claim echoes the International Convention on Civil & Political Rights (1976), Article 1 of which says "All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."[[http://www.hrweb.org/legal/cpr.html]] The people of Scotland are therefore entitled if they wish to opt for independence. If they did so, and Unionist politicians are curiously reluctant to allow them to exercise this democratic right, this would break up the United Kingdom which was formed by the Union of England and Scotland, agreed by each Parliament, in 1707.

The people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland also have the right to determine their own futures. This was admitted by the British Government in the case of Northern Ireland, which is free to join the Irish Republic if its people vote to do so. The people of England have not been offered their own assembly, let alone independence. Yet since 1998, the sense of a reclaimed English identity has been strengthening. If this is not offered a political channel, we will eventually see breakaway parties gaining votes in England. The Union has much in its favour. Seeking the consent of the people would secure its future. Ignoring the English Question, hoping that it might 'go away' risks that future.

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

England is the only country in the United Kingdom that does not have the right of self-legislation

Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have parliaments to which their own residents elect representatives. All four nations, of course, send representatives to Westminster, where all England's national legislation is debated and decided by members from all four nations. England is the only country that has no right to decide her own affairs as a nation, but has to accept not just the opinions but also the votes of non-English legislators. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have sole legislature over many internal Laws; and then they send MPs to Westminster to vote on England's internal Laws too, because England does not have its own Parliament.

It has been argued that England is too big - that the North has little in common with the south. Come on! On a world scale, this country is tiny! And though a Londoner might barely be able to understand a Geordie, and vice versa, it does not alter the point that England is, under the present system, disenfranchised, because the Cockney and Geordie can't campaign, stand or vote for an English parliament. Arguing to split England up into Euro-regions is, to my mind, an attempt to divide and rule. England needs a legislature that can decide her affairs without external agendas from the other nations overruling the common good from within.

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

England needs a regional government

For better or worse, the Labour party created the Scottish and Welsh assemblies to give those nations ' national focus'. Devolution to English regions would leave England without such a national focus. Labour's plan for England did not provide England with regional governments comparable with the Scottish and Welsh assemblies. The powers proposed were more limited even than those transferred to the NAWA. The Conservative Bow group considered a proper devolution of powers but that never became policy.

The regions themselves, with the exception of Yorkshire, have no historic or cultural identity. They are simply lines on the map. The only part of England that might conceivably need its own devolved assembly is Cornwall but Labour's proposals mean that Cornwall is governed from Bristol rather than Truro. England is not a 'huge area'. It is a small country in terms of size. While the English form 80% plus of the UK population there is just as much diversity in Scotland (where two native languages are spoken) and in Wales. The Outer Hebrides have little in common with the cities of the Lothian’s - except that they are Scottish.

Even more importantly, the people of England clearly do not want regional government. There was a mere 15% support in the latest British Social Attitudes Survey. Regionalisation is a top-down policy imposed by the British Government. Localisation could be better effected by allowing existing councils to make strategic or ad-hoc arrangements to cover matters of mutual interest. Regions may be the Napoleonic solution to the governance of England but they are not the democratic one.

The nations of the Great Britain Parliament are divided up into manageable areas and England. However England itself is a huge area and population that sees large differences between them. Areas like Newcastle in the North contrast very differently with in the South like Kent.

Scotland and Wales and Northern Ireland are smaller units with their own parliament but England would not be sensible if it was divided into one separate parliament. Instead it should be divided into areas and built up like a regional government. This was the original plan as part of Labour's devolution process. To suddenly create an English Parliament would be a slapdash response to a more serious political problem aimed only at appeasing a minority of nationalists.

The reason that regional goverment failed to get much popular support in England may be that the proposed Regional Assemblies were percieved to be Westminster's representatives in the regions, rather than a genuine committment to create regional devolution.

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

We do not need another layer of representation

An English Parliament does not mean 'more politicians' because the British Parliament would be reduced in size. One of the simplest and least expensive ways of creating an English Parliament would be to designate the House of Commons as the English Parliament (minus MPs from non-English constituencies) and the House of Lords (reformed and entirely elected) as the British Parliament. Very little cost, no new buildings, fewer politicians - and one tier less of government as English legislation would not have to be referred to a second chamber.

An English Parliament does not have to be in London. Either the English or British Parliaments (at a certain cost) could be sited somewhere north of Watford, thus helping to reduce the North-South divide.

The Scottish Parliament is hardly 'local' to the Outer Hebrides and even less to the Orkneys and Shetland Isles.
People certainly want more decisions taken locally so long as this does not exacerbate the 'post code lottery'. For example, people are upset if car-parking is free at hospitals in some areas and not in others, of if certain drugs are available in some areas but not in others. The English Parliament would have powers comparable to those of the Scottish Parliament and would represent England's national interests (which are not identical with those of Scotland and Wales).

The 'hole that needs to be filled' is called England. English taxpayers should be able to elect MPs who will enact health and education policies for England without interference from Scotland and Wales.

The public already don’t like politicians so why should they want more of them? Do we really need yet another level of elected government over us competing with the other layers for things to do and the powers to implement policy? We already have local government with councils. We have our national parliament and we have the European Parliament. Where is the hole that needs to be filled by an English Parliament? Would it take areas like health and education like Scotland has? But these are areas where people would like to see the decision making made much more locally and an English parliament is not much more local than the British one. In contrast the Scottish parliament is much more local. It is located in Edinburgh whereas an English Parliament would most likely still be in London, does London really need three parliaments in it (if you count the London Assembly)?

There Should be an English Parliament

Yes because... No because...

The population of England dwarfs all other devolved regions and would create an uneven and unstable Union.

Does size matter?
England already dominates the Union.. Creating a federal UK between nations would not therefore increase English domination and might conceivably lessen it, as devolution has begun to show.
The English Parliament would only become 'more important' to the English on matters of English domestic policy, just as the Scottish Parliament is now more important than Westminister for the Scottish people on these matters.
England is no more or less 'homogenous' than Scotland or Wales and indeed regional differences in England are less significant than those in Scotland, as suggested elsewhere in this debate.
The trouble with setting up artificial regions in England is two-fold: first, it is precisely that they are artificial. Dreaming up names that pre-date the unification of Englannd under Athelstan over 1000 years ago makes them anachronistic and inaccurate as well as artificial.Secondly, even the Labour party never contemplated a degree of regional devolution for England equivalent to devolution in Scotland or Wales. It was not a serious programme for decentralisation. The Bow Group paper, mentioned earier in this debate, went further taking devolution its logical conclusion. If implemented, this would have caused more problems (and conflict) than it would solve. It would create what Will Hutton called 'a witches' brew of internecine rivalry ' (just as in the seven kingdoms of Anglo-Saxon England). There are problems even today over transfers of payments when Welsh people receive treatment in England. Reducing corporation tax is not a straightforward matter either as, this month, the devolved adminstrations are hesitating over supporting a possible reduction in their coporation tax - because it would mean that their 'federal grant' was proporationately reduced.
The arguments in favour of regional assemblies could be made as a reform of English local government, replacing counties with regions, and this was part of Labour's plans. The evidence so far is that there would be no diminution in the North-South divide, no significant economic gains for poorer regions and no serious decentralisation of government.
What England needs are what Ben Bradshaw called the 'joys of devolution' - the right to implement English domestic policies within England without tthe veto of MPs from the devolved countries. That means removing the British government from the internal government of England.

England has a population of 52 million out of 62 million in the UK as a whole. This would create a situation where the English parliament would end up completely dominating and becoming more important to many than the UK Parliament - hence probably eventually cause the whole Union to collapse as this became apparent.

A better solution is a move to a full federal Union where the population of each federal region is as pragmatically equal as possible (as was Labour's original plan for devolution). England is not one homogeneous region, and has a clear north-south divide. Federal regions would allow less well off regions to introduce policies that would be more befitting to the more local needs e.g. the North East could reduce corporation taxes to attract more investment to that region. This would help to reduce the north-south divide by reducing the excessive concentration of political and economic power that currently exists in the South East.

Another good idea would to be to give the English federal regions more meaningful names than the purely geographical "South West" or "North East" etc. These names could be taken from the rich ancient heritage of the regions e.g. Dumnonia, Mercia, Northumbria, Brigantes etc.

Debates > There Should be an English Parliament