Two retreats...and a new problem

With two strategic retreats in the space of a week, the intersection of Hunting and English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) is generating some really interesting politics.

Anti-foxhunting protesters have been demonstrating outside Parliament

Last week, the government paused its attempt to bring in EVEL, replacing a vote on Wednesday with a consultative debate.

On Tuesday another "turn your back and run away, and live to fight another day" moment on the proposed changes to the Hunting Act.

Hunting looks like the quintessential "England and Wales Only" issue.

There are no ramifications for Scotland, even financial ones (I always think the Barnett Consequentials sound like a '70s prog-rock band).

Indeed, when the hunt was on to find a purely English and Welsh law, free of any Scottish implications, the Hunting Act was the best (almost only) available example.

Because of that, the expectation in the pro-hunting camp was that the Scottish Nationalists would sit out a vote which was presented as bringing the law in England and Wales into line with the legislation already in force in Scotland.

But no.

'Right and proper'

As the SNP announced: "We are in a situation where the Tory government are refusing to agree to any amendments to improve the Scotland Bill - which are supported by 58 of Scotland's 59 MPs - and imposing English Votes for English Laws to make Scotland's representation at Westminster second class.

"In these circumstances, it is right and proper that we assert the Scottish interest on fox hunting by voting with Labour against the Tories' proposals to relax the ban - in the process, reminding an arrogant UK government of just how slender their majority is - just as we will vote against the Tory welfare cuts next week, and appeal to Labour to join us."

That decision was, er, decisive.

With the SNP lined up alongside Labour, seven of the eight Lib Dems, and a considerable number of anti-hunting Tories, the attempt to relax the terms of the Hunting Act was doomed. And now it has been pulled.

The spin at the moment is that it will reappear once EVEL is in place, but there's a small snag with that; EVEL, as drafted, would not prevent the SNP blocking a change in the law. Here's the relevant section of the draft standing orders:

83 Q (2) If a division is held on a motion to which this order applies, the motion shall be agreed

to only if, of those voting in the division-

(a) a majority of Members, and

(b) a majority of Members representing qualifying constituencies,

vote in support of the motion.

In other words, to pass, a statutory instrument must have both an outright majority in the Commons, and a majority of English and Welsh MPs (that's the bit about qualifying constituencies).

So EVEL, as currently drafted, provides English and Welsh MPs with a blocking power against changes, but not a power to make changes, unless there is also an outright majority in the House. (Details of all the proposals here.)

I keep saying "as currently drafted," because I can't help wondering if, in the light of this incident, the draft might change, or be amended, when MPs get to debate the final version, in September.

And such a change would take us pretty close to establishing a de facto English Parliament, which in turn, might provide the SNP with a good reason for saying that the constitutional relationship with the UK had changed enough to justify a second independence referendum.

Certainly that is the fear of many pro-Union Tory backbenchers whose anxieties forced the postponement of the EVEL vote in the first place.

Meanwhile, here's a very interesting parliamentary answer by the Leader of the Commons, Chris Grayling:

Question

To ask the Leader of the House, how many government bills introduced in each of the last five years have been (a) England, (b) England and Wales, (c) Great Britain, (d) Wales, (e) Scotland and (f) Northern Ireland only in the scope of their provisions.

Answer

The following figures relate to Bills introduced over the five years of the last Parliament and are based upon the impact of the legislation, rather than their territorial extent. They exclude any minor or consequential impacts.

(a) one affecting England only; (b) 13 affecting England and Wales only; (c) two affecting only Great Britain; (d) one affecting Wales only; (e) one affecting Scotland only and; (f) one affecting Northern Ireland only.