Chapter 5 - "The Bermuda Triangle" - The West Lothian Question.

Is it fair that Scottish MPs can vote in the House of Commons on matters which affect England and Wales, but English and Welsh MPs (and Northern Ireland MPs also), have no say on matters which affect Scotland which have now been devolved to the Scottish Parliament? Is it right that Gordon Brown and Robin Cook, both Scottish MPs and members of the Cabinet should make decisions which affect England but their English and Welsh colleagues have no such say over Scottish devolved issues? This problem was first raised by Labour MP for West Lothian Tam Dalyell in the 1970s - hence its name: the West Lothian Question - and has been vociferously raised ever since by Dalyell and other critics of devolution. Michael Forsyth, Scottish Secretary in 1995, referred to it as "the Bermuda triangle of devolution". (Bogdanor, 2001, 228)
The West Lothian issue exists because the British devolved system of government is asymmetrical. That is, within the UK, the devolved governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland all have differing powers and responsibilities. The Scottish Parliament has power to enact primary legislation, whilst the Welsh Assembly does not, and can only scrutinise legislation pursuant to Wales. This issue will continue to exist so long as there remains this piecemeal approach. Bogdanor agues that there is only one logical answer to the West Lothian Question, and that is that Britain become a federal state whereby all the nations within the UK have their own separate governments with a federal government controlling national and international affairs. (Bogdanor, 2001, 228)
Another less radical solution would be to exclude Scottish MPs from voting on English matters in the House of Commons. The Conservative leader William Hague in 1998 in a speech said " For how much longer will the English acquiesce to Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament having a vote over health, education and other domestic matters in England, when English Members of Parliament (and, indeed, Scottish Members of Parliament) have no vote over similar matters in Scotland?" (Hazell, 2000, 202) It seems ironic that what the Conservatives are suggesting is more devolution - they spent 18 years in office denying any need for devolution - this time in England! There are some voices who propose an English Parliament, but this is certainly not on the government's agenda as it would lead to a federal Britain: and any English Parliament would be hugely dominant - as important as the Westminster Parliament - leading to an over-balanced constitution.
The Royal Commission on the Constitution noted "Any issue in Westminster involving expenditure of public money is of concern to all parts of the United Kingdom since it may directly affect the level of taxation and indirectly influence the level of a region's expenditure." (Bogdanor, 2001, 230) It is questionable therefore whether there are any specifically English domestic issues which have no effects in Scotland or Wales. To bar Scottish MPs from voting on purely English matters would in some circumstances, when a Party depended on Scottish MPs for a parliamentary majority as in the case of Labour in 1964 and 1974, bifurcate the executive. In this instance there would effectively be a Labour government on foreign affairs and defence, and a Conservative government on health and education when Scottish MPs were not present. The over representation of Scottish MPs at Westminster is a product of the first-past-the-post electoral system for the House of Commons. If a proportional representation system were adopted there would be fewer Scottish Labour MPs. If the 1997 general election were conducted using a PR system then the number of Labour MPs in Scotland would be 33 as opposed to the 56 seats they actually won.
Hazell argues that a solution may be that Westminster gradually develops as a proxy English Parliament, dealing with English related issues through the Select Committee structure having a membership made up exclusively of English MPs. The committees would be de facto English Committees, in effect shadowing government departments whose ministers are increasingly chosen from the ranks of English MPs and that now, more often than not, are dealing with English matters. For example in July 2000, only English MPs were ministers in the Department of Education and Employment, and the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. (Hazell, 2000, 204-207)
Another important issue is that with more decisions being taken on clear territorial grounds, what are Scottish and Welsh MPs (especially if the Welsh Assembly gains more devolved powers) for? If Westminster is turning into a de facto English Parliament with non-English MPs denied a voice on English matters and only allowed to vote on issues affecting Scotland, and excluded from government jobs in departments dealing with predominantly English affairs, then the UK parliament could become even more dominated by English MPs and perhaps even lead to the break up of the UK as some pessimists such Tam Dalyell predict.
There is also a political aspect to take in to account. Labour are traditionally far stronger in Scotland than in England. The Conservative Party traditionally has stronger support in England. If followed to a logical conclusion, an English Parliament could be dominated and controlled by Conservatives with a UK parliament and government run by Labour. The government is unlikely to go down this route as they would lose control over English affairs. The Conservative Party, having been pro-Union and anti-devolution for the past 25 years, are now beginning see the political benefits emerging from any English devolution (their support in Scotland and Wales being negligible). In the House of Commons in June 2000, Home Secretary Jack Straw said, "I thought that, above all, they supported the Union. The change that we introduced was to give a degree of devolution to Scotland in order to bind the Union. It is most interesting that Conservative Members now say that they want to break the Union." (Hazell, 2000, 209)
Another issue worrying Labour MPs is the boundary changes that are now coming into effect as required by the Scotland Act. Scottish MPs are over- represented in the Commons. The changes are designed to bring the number of voters in Scottish seats in line with the 70,000 average in English constituencies. The Scottish average is currently 55,000, although in some seats the electorate is fewer than 30,000. (Scott & White, 2002, 11) This goes some way to addressing the problem of Scottish MPs voting on English matters in the House of Commons - i.e., they will be fewer of them; down from 72 to 58. But this still leaves the West Lothian Question unanswered. Unless a more radical solution is introduced, - along the lines of what Hazell is arguing, i.e., a proxy English Parliament, which the Labour government is highly unlikely to introduce; or using PR for Westminster elections, - then the problem will continue in the fashion of other undemocratic parts of the British constitution, such as the House of Lords.

Conclusion