Why Labour should support an English parliament

A devolved body could aid the party's revival in England.

The former Labour cabinet minister George Robertson declared that devolution would "kill nationalism stone dead". Instead, it turned out to be the biggest threat the Union has ever faced. Devolution has given the Scottish National Party [SNP] the platform it needs to fulfil its dream of disbanding the United Kingdom.

Alex Salmond is proving just as adept at manipulating English public opinion as Scottish public opinion. The Campaign for an English Parliament , which I chair, has noticed a sharp increase in calls for English independence in line with the SNP’s campaign for Scottish independence. A ComRes survey for Newsnight showed that 36 per cent of people in England (and 47 per cent of skilled manual workers) now want England to become an independent state and to break up the United Kingdom.

The devolutionary problem is that it is too easy for nationalist politicians to indulge in political point scoring by blaming Westminster for their problems. And at a time of unprecedented public austerity these tensions are exacerbated yet further.

There are now distinct differences in state provision, including health, education (most notably tuition fees) and elderly care, between the different nations of the UK. These divisions are deliberately emphasised by nationalist politicians with the aim of inflaming national passions. And not only ostensibly nationalist politicians. Rhodri Morgan, Labour’s former First Minister for Wales, declared that his aim is to "make the English feel jealous". But it is encouraging to hear Carwyn Jones now talk about the need for an English parliament.

The Union will only survive if it treats all its citizens fairly and equally. We need a solution that is fair to all the UK's constituent nations, and that allows us to separate what divides us, from what unites us. If this is done in good faith, then there is no reason why a renewed Union cannot be cemented. At least, if it is done early enough, and before attitudes have hardened too far on all sides and the talk of independence becomes too entrenched

The only answer to these problems is to reinstate an English parliament matching those parliaments already granted to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. As Tony Benn proposed in his 1991 Private Member’s Bill "The Commonwealth of Britain", this would mean national parliaments dealing with the issues that concern the individual nations of the United Kingdom. Just as there is no better way to drive a wedge between us than by treating the people of England as lesser citizens, there is no better way of reinforcing the UK family than by recognising our individual needs and treating us all equally.

The problem is that Westminster MPs will not vote for an English parliament that takes away most of their domestic powers. This is naked careerist self-interest. The remaining federal responsibilities would only need a much smaller Union parliament or, in other words, one with fewer MPs. And so even though every MP lost from the Union parliament could be an MP gained by an English parliament, they don't want to take the risk of voting themselves out of a job.

There are other arguments against the restoration of an English parliament, of course. But they fall apart under the slightest scrutiny. The first of these is that an English Parliament would be inevitably dominated by the Conservative Party. Yet the same was said about the "inevitable" Labour domination of the Scottish and Welsh Parliaments, which simply did not happen. Democracy has a tendency to find a balance. An English parliament would be accompanied by a resurgent Labour movement in England under an English Labour Party, which in turn would improve the party’s standing in Westminster.

Labour established devolution in the first place in order to defend Scotland and Wales from what it saw as the depredations of an over-mighty Conservative parliament at Westminster. The same opportunity is now presenting itself. For instance, England's forests were put up for sale by the coalition but the forests of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland were all protected by their respective parliaments.

The second argument is that the current problems with the restored Scottish parliament would be replicated in a restored English parliament. This is unlikely as long as the resentment now building in England is dealt before the Scottish independence referendum. Labour cannot wait, procrastination will be fatal. National Devolution has emphasised the fault lines within the Union. Indeed, rather than trying to deny that these exist it is necessary to cement the Union along these lines by going still further and creating a federal state - the only practical way of separating what divides us from what unites us.

Nor is England "too big" for a federation to work. A federation would directly address the problem of an out-sized England because English voting weight would affect only England itself. If a federation with England wouldn't work then a Union without a federation's protections certainly couldn't - except of course it did, for nearly 300 years before being undermined by devolution.

In his book Will Britain Survive Beyond 2020?, the Welsh Conservative Assembly Member David Melding argued: "The best way to preserve Britain as a multi-national state is to accept that the UK...requires a new settlement. This settlement will need to be federal in character so that the sovereignties of the Home Nations and the UK State can be recognised in their respective jurisdictions". Henry McLeish, the former First Minister of Scotland, was also the man who saw the Scotland Act through Westminster. When speaking to the Calman Commission (on Scottish Devolution) he said that the English need a voice, and that he doesn't think that our current asymmetrical devolution can be sustained. Furthermore, and I quote: "We must move towards some balanced framework, a quasi-federal framework, where it can make some sense rather than the English feeling aggrieved. At the end of the day, their grief and their anger spills over on to us."

It's not too late to resolve the problems that devolution has caused. But time is short. What do you chose – dissolution of the UK or a federal UK? If the latter, then action is urgently needed.

Eddie Bone is the chair of The Campaign for an English Parliament.

"An English parliament would be accompanied by a resurgent Labour movement in England". Photograph: Getty Images.
Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

PMQs review: Jeremy Corbyn prompts Tory outrage as he blames Grenfell Tower fire on austerity

To Conservative cries of "shame on you!", the Labour leader warned that "we all pay a price in public safety" for spending cuts.

A fortnight after the Grenfell Tower fire erupted, the tragedy continues to cast a shadow over British politics. Rather than probing Theresa May on the DUP deal, Jeremy Corbyn asked a series of forensic questions on the incident, in which at least 79 people are confirmed to have died.

In the first PMQs of the new parliament, May revealed that the number of buildings that had failed fire safety tests had risen to 120 (a 100 per cent failure rate) and that the cladding used on Grenfell Tower was "non-compliant" with building regulations (Corbyn had asked whether it was "legal").

After several factual questions, the Labour leader rose to his political argument. To cries of "shame on you!" from Tory MPs, he warned that local authority cuts of 40 per cent meant "we all pay a price in public safety". Corbyn added: “What the tragedy of Grenfell Tower has exposed is the disastrous effects of austerity. The disregard for working-class communities, the terrible consequences of deregulation and cutting corners." Corbyn noted that 11,000 firefighters had been cut and that the public sector pay cap (which Labour has tabled a Queen's Speech amendment against) was hindering recruitment. "This disaster must be a wake-up call," he concluded.

But May, who fared better than many expected, had a ready retort. "The cladding of tower blocks did not start under this government, it did not start under the previous coalition governments, the cladding of tower blocks began under the Blair government," she said. “In 2005 it was a Labour government that introduced the regulatory reform fire safety order which changed the requirements to inspect a building on fire safety from the local fire authority to a 'responsible person'." In this regard, however, Corbyn's lack of frontbench experience is a virtue – no action by the last Labour government can be pinned on him. 

Whether or not the Conservatives accept the link between Grenfell and austerity, their reluctance to defend continued cuts shows an awareness of how politically vulnerable they have become (No10 has announced that the public sector pay cap is under review).

Though Tory MP Philip Davies accused May of having an "aversion" to policies "that might be popular with the public" (he demanded the abolition of the 0.7 per cent foreign aid target), there was little dissent from the backbenches – reflecting the new consensus that the Prime Minister is safe (in the absence of an attractive alternative).

And May, whose jokes sometimes fall painfully flat, was able to accuse Corbyn of saying "one thing to the many and another thing to the few" in reference to his alleged Trident comments to Glastonbury festival founder Michael Eavis. But the Labour leader, no longer looking fearfully over his shoulder, displayed his increased authority today. Though the Conservatives may jeer him, the lingering fear in Tory minds is that they and the country are on divergent paths. 

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

0800 7318496