An English Parliament. A Proposal for Fairness & Transparency in a New Constitutional Settlement for Britain

By Jocelyn Ormond

Published by the Bow Group 1999

Some Extracts selected by Don Beadle

3.4.6. Resolving conflicts between parliaments

Federalism would destroy the overall sovereignty of the British Parliament because each legislature in a federal system has to be legally autonomous, sovereign and independent from the others. The practical results of this would be:

• To politicise the judiciary since they would have to determine the competence of each legislature. The result will already, to a lesser extent, be the result of Scottish devolution. Under a federal solution, however, Parliament would have abrogated its right which would be available to it in theory under the existing structure to overturn a judgement which undermined its powers. The judges would have a whip-hand
• To codify the constitution since the judiciary would need to have a clear set of rules and principles to follow in making decisions about where each legislature’s sovereignty should begin and end. In a particular set of circumstances. At present the constitution consists of a variety of laws, conventions and customs, which are widely recognised to form the basis of our constitution. Our constitution has evolved over the course of our history as a result of particular circumstances prevailing at different periods. Any attempt to write down the British constitution in a single document would, however, almost certainly precipitate an attempt by the Left secure radical rewriting of the constitution. Such radical rewriting is, for instance, the core agenda of the political pressure group Charter 88. The question of how the new constitution should be worded would become the subject of fierce political debate, as political parties and other parties argued about which rights and obligations of the ordinary citizen were self-evident. Codification of the constitution would also, as the distinguished nineteenth century jurist Dicey argued, produce a system lacking in the flexibility, which he so admired in the British constitution.

4.1. Summary

As has been illustrated in the last chapter, proposals for structural reform of Parliament and for devolution to England’s regions fail to meet some or all of our basic criteria, particularly the need to treat the English fairly. Federalism solves the West Lothian question and is fair to the English, but would mean the end to parliamentary sovereignty and politicise the judiciary. What is needed is a solution which retains the basic idea of devolving legislative powers to English and Welsh assemblies but which works with the grain of the existing constitution by retaining parliamentary sovereignty. The answer is to use Scottish devolution as a template to devolution for England and Wales; Britain’s parliament should legislate to create full-scale English and Welsh parliaments.

4.5 The Implications for Overseas Territories.

We have looked at how a comprehensive devolution settlement as proposed in this paper could safeguard the interest of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It is worth remembering at this point that the UK has important bonds with the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and those former colonies, which are now dependent territories. Many of the same arguments which apply to the different parts of mainland Britain should apply equally to these islands: the fact that they are geographically removed does not reduce the moral and political force of the principles which this paper has already laid out.

by Don Beadle, 1 December 2007

When discussing the need for an English Parliament, commentators often say that it means a federal system of government. Sometimes this is just a loose term; sometimes it is deliberate and we need to recognise the difference and exactly what it means.

A federal system similar to that in the USA and Germany requires written constitutions for the federal and state governments and a judicial system (that becomes politicised) to decide on points of law in implementing the constitutions.

What we currently have in the United Kingdom is a partly devolved system in which, by Acts of Parliament, the United Kingdom Government devolves specific powers to the nations that form the United Kingdom. At present such Acts are limited to Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and our Campaign is for the process to be completed by devolving to England, powers at least similar to those accorded to Scotland. This could be achieved by the passing of a separate Act of Parliament. It needs no written constitution and the powers devolved can be amended, withdrawn or suspended (as was recently the case for Northern Ireland) by the UK Government and Parliament

At present our constitution consists of a variety of laws, conventions and customs that have evolved over the course of our history as a result of particular circumstances prevailing at different periods. It is admired for its flexibility but there are pressure groups (such as Charter 88) which have long argued the need for a written constitution and other pressure groups would see it as a means of advancing their aims e.g. Republicans seeking to abolish or limit the powers of the monarchy; changing our voting systems; a Bill of Rights etc. If a proposed constitution could ever be agreed there would need to be a referendum of the whole of the United Kingdom. An English Parliament might result but it would be but one relatively small part of a far-reaching change in the way in which we have chosen to be governed throughout our history.

Furthermore a major objection frequently advanced against having an English Parliament is that it would be too powerful since it would represent about 85% of the population. This criticism is difficult to answer if a federal system is proposed but in a devolved system there would continue to be a strong United Kingdom Government and Parliament holding the purse strings, with essential retained powers and the ability to change the powers that are devolved.

We should therefore beware of those who say that they support an English parliament but only as part of a Federal system. In political circles it is a tactic known as kicking too difficult problems into the long grass. Reduce the solution of a problem to being one part of a much wider, dramatic change that is unlikely ever to be achieved and you effectively kill it off, while apparently supporting it! We have set up an English Constitutional Convention (similar to that for Scotland which achieved their devolution) but already some politicians are arguing that this should be replaced by a convention for the constitution of the whole of the United Kingdom.

We need to keep it simple if we are to get an English Parliament in the foreseeable future. The English Constitutional Convention needs to frame the question about the government of England and then persuade the United Kingdom government to put it by referendum to all those on the electoral lists of English constituencies. If the people of England support the idea of having an English Parliament with its own Executive all it would then need is an Act of Parliament similar to that enacted for Scotland.

We should not be afraid to follow the Scottish model if that is recommended by the Constitutional Convention and we do not need to follow the federal systems of other countries, but have our own evolved British system based on keeping a strong United Kingdom Government with powers devolved by it to all the nations of the Union to enable them to decide and administer their own domestic needs.