Case Studies - Parliament; Functions Flashcards
When and why was the EVEL introduced?
English votes for English laws -
- EVEL was approved by a Commons vote in October 2015. It was developed following devolution within the United Kingdom.
- While in use, EVEL was designed to ensure that legislation that affected only England, or England and Wales, was approved by a majority of MPs representing English constituencies, or English and Welsh constituencies
What was the purpose of the EVEL?
- English votes for English laws was a set of procedures of the House of Commons of the Parliament of the United Kingdom whereby legislation that affected only England only required the support of a majority of MPs representing constituencies.
- This meant that Scotland MPs did not have a vote on what laws were being made that only had to do with England.
How does the EVEL work?
- After the first reading of the bill, the speaker of the house decides if EVEL is applicable to the bill in a process of speaker certification, before the bill can pass through the other stages of the legislative process.
- Once reaching the report stage, the speaker again reviews and certifies the bill following amendments made, after which a legislative grand committee (established if the speaker thinks EVEL is applicable) agrees with the bill, or withholds a consent motion for it to continue.
- If consent for the bill is withheld, the matters of dispute are resolved in a reconsideration stage before speaker certification takes place once more, followed by a legislative grand committee stage in which consent is again decided.
- If consent is withheld once more, the bill is defeated. If consent is agreed, there is a third reading and the House of Lords stage commences, followed by the legislative ‘ping-pong’ before speaker certification to decide if EVEL applies to the House of Lords amendments. Consideration of amendments then occurs, where a double majority vote is needed to approve any EVEL amendments (majority of vote in Commons, with a majority of English and Welsh MPs in support) and after this is achieved, the bill receives Royal Assent and becomes an act of parliament.
- If a clause is removed after no agreement, consequential consideration takes place before the third reading in which necessary changes are made to the bill; the rest of the legislative process can then take place.
Evaluation of the EVEL?
Successes:
- It has succeeded
- It largely succeeded in instituting a veto right for English MPs.
It demands a more symmetrical devolution settlement across the UK.
Failed -
- Jacob-Rees Mogg; argued that it undermined the constitution and parliamentary process, undermining democracy and representation
- SNP were highly opposed, along with Labour (slightly tainted as it was a Conservative proposal), as they believed it to be humiliating for Scotland and created a ‘quasi-English parliament’
- Make Scottish MPs second class, and excluded from votes and discussions within the UK parliament.
- Further complicated the legislative process and less democratic, allowing more power
- The procedures made the works of parliament less democratic.
It was scrapped in July 2020, as it was deemed ineffective and cumbersome as a policy.
Should EVEL be replaced?
- EVEL should be replaced as it adds unnecessary steps to the legislative process that could complicate the passage of bills in parliament; its aim of introduction was to correct a power imbalance in parliament, which has not worked as effectively as hoped.
- Much controversy was present between parties after it was introduced, and this conflict within parliament was detrimental to larger issues of party co-operation and cross-party support for issues.
- Many SNP MPs believed it to be humiliating for Scotland and also creating a ‘quasi-English parliament’, highlighting how this policy could have implications for the union; Therefore, it would be more politically beneficial to replace the policy.
- Its aim to allow English MPs the same devolutionary powers as their counterparts is a positive step for larger democracy and allowing all constituent parts in the UK to feel represented as a fundamental principle of the system, and equating powers between Scottish and English MPs.
- A process that would allow English interference on legislation that directly affects them in the way Scottish MPs are able to veto legislation would balance the power, but it is harder to introduce a policy for English decisions when they have an existing majority in the UK parliament that does not alienate Scottish MPs.
- It was scrapped as of July 2020. A Welsh MP suggested that England have their own government as part of devolution, which would possibly be a better option than English dominance in the UK processes, which alienate Scottish MPs from their own governmental discussions on important legislation.
- This could undermine the union and also the division of the party and polarisation of politics, and so the introduction of an English assembly could shift the balance of the union and the politics of the UK government.
Brexit Timeline - January 2017 - April 2019
The timeline of the Brexit bills and the Commons:
- January 2017 - Gina Miller wins a Supreme Court case that forced the government t get parliamentary approval for its Brexit legislation and triggering Article 50, the formal process for leaving the EU
- The government would rather conduct its own
negotiations and then reach an agreed settlement
without seeking parliamentary approval via
potentially protracted debates and parliamentary
votes
- Negative; more complex and lengthy process,
positive; more democratic
- July 2017 - The first Act, the European Union (Withdrawal Act), Theresa May’s ‘The Great Repeal Bill’, and passed in June 2018
- It repealed the European Communities Act of 1972,
and during the bill’s passage through the Commons,
an amendment, one of 470, was inserted contrary to
government wishes, gave parliament a legal
guarantee of a vote on the final Brexit deal struck
with Brussels
- Made the process much harder and complicated,
and harder to gain consensus
- This became known as the ‘meaningful vote’ clause,
with the focus shifting to the form the deal would
take, and more importantly whether a deal would
happen at all and that Britain would ‘crash out’ of
the EU (hardline Eurosceptics wanted this as a last
resort), and whether withdrawal would be
indefinitely delayed
- EU departure day - March 2019
- January and March 2019 - Commons defeats May’s withdrawal agreement, her Brexit deal, twice
- First vote lost by 432-202 votes, an unprecedented
margin
- Second vote lost by 391-242
- European Council offers to extend Article 50 period until 22nd May 2019 if the Withdrawal Agreement was passed by 29th March 2019
- If they hadn’t, then the UK had until the 12th April to
decide a way forward
- 29th March - a vote is held following changes to the agreement, but the government was defeated by 344 votes to 286
- Commons passes two votes on consecutive days to take control of the day’s business, effectively putting backbenchers in charge of the legislative process
Brexit Timeline: April - September 2019
- 1st April - 4 indicative votes are held on possible options to progress Brexit, which a majority of MPs could potentially support
- These included holding a second referendum or
remaining part of the customs union, but no option
won a majority and therefore all were defeated
- This suggested that there was agreement on what
wasn’t wanted, but not on what was wanted - April 2019 - Withdrawal Act 2019 - Cooper-Lewin Act; strongly opposed by government but passed its third reading by just 1 vote and required the PM to request an extension from the EU to the leaving process, with the EU granting yet another extension to the deadline, now set at 31st October 2019
- June 2019 - Theresa May resigns as PM
- July 2019 - Boris Johnson becomes PM and negotiates a revised withdrawal agreement with the EU
- Early September 2019 - backbench sponsored act is passed, the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2019, informally referred to as the Benn Act after the MP who introduced it
- This required the PM to seek another extension to
the Brexit withdrawal date beyond 31st October
2019 in certain circumstances
- The main circumstance - if the House of Commons
did not give its consent to either a withdrawal
agreement or leaving without a deal by 19th
October 2019 - This Act proposed a new withdrawal date of 31st January 2020, which the PM was obliged to accept if the European Council offered an extension of the deadline
Johnson states that he would ‘rather be dead in a ditch’ than request an extra extension of the deadline as required by the act - There was speculation that the government would ignore the Act, sparking talk of prosecuting the PM for contempt of the court or even impeaching him using a procedure last used in 1806
The traditional method of solving a stalemate, general elections, was thwarted as parliament refused to agree to one
Johnson attempts to prorogue parliament for an extended period, a play suspected he initiated to avoid thorough scrutiny whilst he revised the withdrawal agreement / deal
Brexit Timeline - September 2019-January 2020
- 24th September - the Supreme Court rules prorogation was illegal; instance of judiciary check on the legislature
- 19th October 2019 - a special Saturday sitting of parliament was held to debate the revised withdrawal agreement, with the PM hoping for a straightforward deal/no-deal vote
- MPs passed it by 322-306, with Tory backbencher
Sir Oliver Letwin’s amendment that said parliament
would withhold approval of the PM’s deal until the
withdrawal bill implementing Brexit was passed
remained
- This delay activated the Benn Act, requiring the PM
to immediately write to the European Council with a
request for an extension of withdrawal until 31st
January 2020 against his own wishes - this request
was granted- At the same time, showing backbenchers were not
the only ones who could quickly pass legislation, the
government passed the Early Parliamentary General
Election Act 2019 was passed at the end of October,
bypassing the FTPA 2011 and setting an election date
of 12th December
- At the same time, showing backbenchers were not
- 12th December - Johnson wins convincingly
- 23rd January 2020 - European Union (Withdrawal Agreement) Act 2020 was easily passed by a majority of 99 and no single Tory MP voted against it
- No single amendment was made to the 100-page-bill
and it was passed in the Commons and 5
government defeats in the Lords were swiftly
overturned by MPs
- The bill was passed with just 11 days scrutiny, with
Johnson securing his withdrawal deal and restoring
unity to the Conservative party over Brexit
- He also removed the provisions made in previous
versions of the withdrawal bill for parliamentary
scrutiny of future Brexit negotiations
Synoptic Link - Gina Miller:
- This is a good example of the courts involvement in constitutional matters and checking the power of the executive
- The Supreme Court argued it made a legal, not political, decision, upholding the principle of parliamentary sovereignty
Private Member Bills - The Voyeurism Bill
- On the 5th September 2018, the Voyeurism (Offences) (No.2) Bill passed its third reading in the House of Commons, and will be considered by the House of Lords; this bill criminalises ‘upskirting’, introducing a maximum prison sentence of 2 ½ years for the offense
- This was significant as earlier in the year, another version of the bill was obstructed by the objection of a single MP
- Most PMBs fail because there simply is not enough time for debate, and it can only proceed without debate with the unanimous consent of the House, and so the objection of a single MP will stop the passage of the bill and reschedule the debate
Private Member Bills - The Voyeurism Bill cont.
- Although this was a presentation bill, the Justice Secretary David Gauke said that the Government would support the bill, supported by Theresa May- however, due to the allocation of the time for the bill, it was yet again blocked from consideration; backbench Chris Chope MP shouted ‘object’ after Lindsay Hoyle (Speaker) read out the name, blocking its progression
- Chris Chope MP explained that he did not object to the aims of the bill, but he opposed it on the principle that he didn’t think the new legislation, particularly legislation creating a new criminal offence, should be brought to debate without a second reading
- He stated that it would be better, considering the government response, should be debate in government time rather than during the limited backbench debate time
Scrutiny of the government - Debate; Case Study of Syrian Airstrikes in 2013, background
- In August 2013, with evidence that President Bashar al-Assad was using chemical weapons against civilians during the Syrian civil war, then Prime Minister David Cameron proposed air strikes against Assad’s forces to deter any future use of such (illegal) weapons. The coalition government normally enjoyed a reliable majority in the Commons.
- Cameron was, however, defeated by a margin of 285-272 votes as 30 Conservative and 9 Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the coalition government.
- The parliamentary debate was highly charged, and memories of the Iraq War not long gone. As then Labour leader Ed Milliband put it, ‘the public wanted us to learn the lessons’ of the Iraq War.
- Conservative MP David Dennis commented during the debate. ‘We must consider, being where we’ve been before in this House, that our intelligence as it stands might just be wrong because it was before and we have got to be very, very hard in testing it.’
- Fellow Tory MP Cheryl Gillian, again evoking the controversy over weapons of mass destruction and the Iraq War, stated ‘I cannot sit in this House and be duped again’
- This is a good example of a highly charged debate on both sides of the argument. Cameron himself used highly emotional language to justify his government’s proposed actions;
- “There are pictures of bodies with symptoms consistent with that of nerve agent exposure, including muscle spasms and foaming at the nose and mouth. I believe that anyone in this chamber who has not seen these videos should force themselves to watch them.”
In December 2015, The Commons voted to support airstrikes on so-called Islamic State (IS) targets in Syria and had previously, in September 2014, voted by a huge majority of 524-43 to authorise air strikes against IS in Iraq. Therefore, Parliament can and does collectively change its position depending on the mood of the nation and, above all perhaps, the context of the debate. The vote in 2015 came soon after 9 IS linked suicide bombers killed 130 civilians in coordinated attacks in Paris.
What is the Syrian Airstrike debate an example of?
- `It is also significant as an example of the Commons checking the power of the government. After the defeat Cameron stated
- “It is clear to me that the British Parliament, reflecting the views of the British people, does not want to see British military action. I get that and the government will act accordingly.”
- By defeating the motion, parliament effectively took the lead in determining foreign policy, usually the sole preserve of government. There is no requirement for the Prime Minister to seek parliamentary approval for military action as it is part of their prerogative powers, but recent convention has led to Prime Ministers seeking the support of the Commons in such circumstances.
- It also shows how much of an impact parliament can make on executive decisions
Why was the government defeated?
- The government was defeated in a vote of 285-272, and so the airstrikes were not ordered. This was due to the fact that 30 Conservative and 9 Liberal Democrat MPs voted against the coalition party lines, disrupting the comfortable majority Cameron usually held in Commons. This was also because the decision came at a time when the issues with the justification of the Iraq War came to light, with Labour leader Ed Miliband encouraging the Commons to ‘learn lessons’ from what happened. It was also an emotive issue, and so MPs were voting more in line with their ideas than with their parties, and a common idea that Britain should not follow America into war.
Why did Cameron ask permission when it wasn’t necessary?
- They may do this as a convention to gain support from the Commons and therefore in turn have an idea of the public support for the issue. As Commons represents the people, they are able to translate to the PM public thoughts on major issues of a military nature, something that directly affects the people. It is a way of ensuring Commons support even if it is not needed; it is a result of Tony Blair not consulting Parliament and therefore this creating his political downfall, and so seeking Commons approval makes him seem a more democratic PM and provides some justification for his actions, and so seeking approval guarantees his popularity not being affected the same way Blair’s was.
What did Commons do later?
The Commons later changed their minds in 2015 and 2014, authorising airstrikes on IS targets in Syria and Iraq, due to the political context of the time; both votes were a majority in favour, especially because the 2015 vote was held following the Paris Bombing attacks, in which 9 IS suicide vest bombs killed 130 civilians in a coordinated attack. Therefore, the mood of the nation and the context of the debates are a major factor in how Commons votes, and as a result their decisions are very much guided by external factors as well as internal ones, and so it is influenced by a range of factors. It also shows the influence of the people in these decisions, as well as their influence on the decisions of the executive.
