The next government must take care over the constitution

What would a constitutional convention be for? The Labour and Liberal Democrat parties (as well as the Greens) are committed to establishing a constitutional convention. But what would such a convention look like and what would be its purpose? The Liberal Democrats want a convention comprising representatives of parties, civic society, academia and the public at large, with the objective of producing “a full written constitution” for a new federal United Kingdom within two years. As for Labour, the commitment is expressed in vaguer terms, pledging to “set up a people-led Constitutional Convention to determine the future of UK’s governance [sic]”, including issues such as English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) and reform of the House of Lords to create a federal-style “Senate of the Nations and Regions”. The Institute for Government has previously criticised the tendency of government to approach devolution in a piecemeal and short-term fashion, responding to particular pressures for change as they arise, rather than with a clear vision for how the Union as a whole should work. A constitutional convention could help to correct this tendency by joining up the different debates. But government should be wary of raising unrealistic expectations or of creating a large all-encompassing process without a clear remit. It is hard to imagine cross-party consensus on thorny perennials, such as House of Lords Reform and creating a fully codified constitution, being reached in ten years, let alone two. So even if a convention of some form is established, separate reform processes for the different parts of the UK seem certain to continue too. Where next for Scotland? All the major UK-wide parties are committed to implementation of the Smith Commission proposals, including devolution of further tax and welfare powers. Retention of the Barnett Formula also has cross-party agreement, with the exception of UKIP, who want to scrap what they see as an over-generous settlement that disadvantages England. But tricky issues remain to be resolved relating to how the Smith proposals are implemented, as past Institute for Government research has highlighted. For instance, the UK and Scottish governments will have to agree on how to calculate adjustments to Scotland’s budget to reflect the new devolved fiscal powers, and how interaction between devolved and reserved elements of the welfare system will be managed. These issues are likely to be complex in operational terms, but also politically contentious. And with the SNP likely to hold significant power at Westminster, reaching agreement may be more difficult still. At this stage, the SNP is playing down the prospect of a second independence referendum. Its manifesto instead prioritises further devolution as part of a new ‘Home Rule’ settlement. The party’s ambition is to enable Scotland “to establish its own constitutional framework including human rights, equalities and the place of local government”. The party also seeks further economic powers, notably “employment policy, including the minimum wage, welfare, business taxes, [and] national insurance”. In a hung parliament, the SNP will seek to use its negotiating leverage to secure these objectives. Will the West Lothian Question be answered? Having raised the issue after the Scottish referendum, the Conservatives remain committed to addressing the West Lothian Question, arguing that English (or English and Welsh) MPs should decide on matters that now apply to England (or England and Wales) alone, as a result of devolution to the other parts of the country. This is not a new commitment – the party has had such a manifesto pledge for the past few elections. But this time, the party seems firmly committed to making progress, publishing a separate ‘English manifesto’ to explain its plans. The proposal is that England-only legislation, tax rates and spending items such as Revenue Support Grants to local authorities could be passed only with the support of both a majority of English MPs and of the House as a whole – a dual lock. The Liberal Democrats have their own EVEL proposal, where English business would be referred to a grand committee whose composition reflects the proportion of votes rather than seats won by each party in England. And Labour, as noted, offer to consider this issue as part of a bigger constitutional convention. The SNP itself, having previously observed a self-denying ordinance, abstaining from English business, now say they will vote on English domestic matters such as health and education on the grounds that such decisions affect the Scottish block grant. All of this may mean that reaching consensus on EVEL will remain as difficult as ever. A Conservative majority government could of course press ahead with its planned reforms – although in this (unlikely) scenario, the party would no longer need EVEL in the rulebook to ensure safe passage of its legislative and fiscal plans. One interesting scenario to watch, however, will be whether Labour comes around to the idea of EVEL if the party loses most of its Scottish seats to the SNP and finds itself in the position of a minority government. The parties all also have a range of proposals relating to decentralisation and local government reform in England. What about Wales and Northern Ireland? While Scotland has dominated the constitutional debate over the past year, important changes are also under way in the smaller devolved nations. In Wales, there are some differences between the parties on which further powers to devolve. The Conservatives are against devolution of policing and justice, which the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru favour (and which the cross-party Silk Commission proposed). Labour’s position on this is ambiguous, pledging only to “give the Welsh people the ability to shape local policing in Wales”. There appears to be more consensus on devolving further powers over transport, the environment and elections, and to address Wales’ perceived funding gap in comparison with the other devolved nations. The three main UK parties all promise a “funding floor” for Wales, though no doubt the devil will be in the detail. Labour and the Liberal Democrats also favour changing the constitutional status of the devolved bodies in Cardiff. Labour proposes to give Welsh devolution the same statutory status as that of Scotland (listing reserved powers, with all else devolved). The Liberal Democrats propose the creation of “a Welsh Parliament, preventing Westminster from being able to override Wales on devolved matters.” Precisely how some of these changes would be implemented remains to be seen. Northern Ireland tends to throw up the least politically divisive issues, at least as far as the main parties at Westminster are concerned. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats both support the implementation of the Stormont House Agreement of 2014, which includes moving towards the devolution of corporation tax and the implementation of welfare reform in Northern Ireland in exchange for extra financial support. Labour’s manifesto is less clear. As for the Northern Ireland parties likely to take up seats in the Commons, the DUP also strongly backs the Stormont House Agreement, while the nationalist SDLP want a new commission to consider further devolution and a Northern Ireland Bill of Rights. The Union after the referendum The United Kingdom survived last September’s Scottish referendum after the voters of Scotland opted by 55-45% to reject independence. But aftershocks from the referendum – as well as smaller tremors in other parts of the country – continue to reverberate. Any new government formed after May 7th will need to think carefully about the robustness of the country’s constitution before the next earthquake hits.