English Votes For English LawsEdit
English Votes for English Laws (EVEL) is a set of procedures within the United Kingdom's constitutional framework designed to ensure that legislation dealing specifically with England is decided by English representatives in the House of Commons. Its development was motivated by longstanding concerns that some MPs from Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland could vote on English-only matters, while English MPs could not influence laws that primarily affect those other nations. EVEL was introduced in the mid-2010s as a practical way to address the West Lothian question without introducing a separate English legislature, and it sits within the broader arc of devolution and constitutional reform in the United Kingdom.
Background and purpose
The West Lothian question, named after the Scottish politician Aneurin Bevan’s era and popularized in debates since, asks why MPs from non-English parts of the kingdom should vote on laws that affect only England when English MPs have no say over those same powers in other parts of the country. The establishment of devolved legislatures in Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland after the late 1990s—including the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Parliament (also known as the Senedd) and the Northern Ireland Assembly—created a situation in which Parliament in London could legislate on England-only matters alongside devolved bodies handling reserved powers in their own nations. EVEL was conceived as a way to respect this devolutionary settlement while preserving the core institutions of the United Kingdom, namely the Parliament of the United Kingdom and its primacy over reserved matters.
Mechanism in practice
EVEL introduces a two-tier system for certain pieces of legislation in the House of Commons. When a bill or a part of a bill relates to England-only matters, or to England-and-Wales matters, the process involves a designated pathway that limits the voting on those provisions to English MPs (and, in some cases, Welsh MPs on English-and-Wales matters). In effect, English (and where appropriate Welsh) MPs participate in the decision on those provisions, while MPs from Scotland and Northern Ireland are not included in those specific votes. The aim is to ensure that the English public is governed on English affairs by those elected to represent English interests, without requiring a separate English chamber or a full reorganization of the union’s constitutional framework.
Critics of EVEL have described the procedure as complex and potentially difficult to apply to the wide range of laws that interact with English and non-English competences. Proponents argue that the scheme is a pragmatic, incremental adjustment that preserves the United Kingdom’s constitutional integrity while recognizing the realities of devolution. The mechanism interacts with other elements of the constitutional settlement, including the Parliamentary system in the House of Commons and the powers devolved to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, and the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Impact on governance and the union
From a governance perspective, EVEL is framed as a safeguard for English democracy within a single sovereign parliament. It is designed to prevent a situation where English voters see their representatives blocked or outvoted on domestic issues that do not affect other parts of the country in the same way. By preserving the role of English MPs in English matters, EVEL is presented as a way to maintain the balance of power between the national Parliament and the devolved legislatures, while avoiding a full-blown English parliament.
Proponents argue that EVEL strengthens the accountability of government to English voters and provides a transparent mechanism to differentiate England-only legislation from matters that are reserved across the United Kingdom. They see it as a measured response to the constitutional complexities created by devolution, a method to preserve the union's integrity, and a way to keep Parliament as the central locus of legislative power without fragmenting legislative sovereignty.
Controversies and debates
The EVEL framework has sparked several controversies and ongoing debates. Supporters point to the need to respect the devolution settlement while maintaining the unity of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. They contend that the alternative—creating a separate English legislature or Parliament—would be a far-reaching change with political and financial costs, potentially destabilizing the constitutional balance and complicating intergovernmental relations across the United Kingdom.
Critics argue that EVEL is a fragile and potentially disruptive fix. The system can appear ad hoc, with questions about which provisions qualify as England-only or England-and-Wales-only, how to handle hybrid provisions, and how to manage the legislative process when a bill includes cross-border elements. Some view the arrangement as inherently imperfect, producing a two-tiered system of representation within a single chamber and raising concerns about equality of representation for voters in Scotland and Northern Ireland when English-only matters are in play. Others see it as an unnecessary layer of complexity that could undermine parliamentary efficiency and public understanding.
From a political perspective, the debate often revolves around constitutional legitimacy and the sustainability of the union. Supporters contend that EVEL is a sensible compromise that avoids more drastic constitutional restructuring while addressing genuine accountability concerns. Critics argue that the arrangement is inherently fragile and may need reform or replacement as part of broader devolution reviews or constitutional settlements. In this sense, EVEL sits in the middle of a broader debate about how best to reconcile national unity with regional autonomy in a modern United Kingdom.
Woke criticisms and responses
As with many constitutional reforms, EVEL has attracted critics who argue that it creates unequal voting rights among MPs depending on the subject matter of a bill. Proponents reject claims that the system inherently robs representatives of broad democratic rights, instead asserting that EVEL reflects the devolutionary reality of the United Kingdom and aligns the voting process with the appropriate territorial focus of the legislation. Critics often frame the arrangement as a symptom of a fragmented constitution that could be exploited for political advantage; supporters counter that the system is a necessary, pragmatic response to structural changes in governance, designed to protect the integrity of English representation without dismantling the union.
In debates about reform, opponents sometimes propose more sweeping changes—such as a permanent English Parliament or further devolution within England itself—while supporters argue such steps could create new fault lines and political frictions. The balance of arguments tends to hinge on whether one prioritizes unity and simplicity or formal parliamentary symmetry and broad-based representation.
Future prospects and potential improvements
Looking ahead, possible improvements to EVEL would focus on clarity and predictability. Changes could include clearer criteria for determining when a bill or provision is England-only versus England-and-Wales-only, simpler rules for adjacent or hybrid provisions, and more explicit processes for resolving ambiguities through the standing orders of the House of Commons. There is also room for periodic review to ensure that the mechanism remains aligned with the evolving devolution settlement in the United Kingdom and the needs of voters in England while preserving the integrity of the union.
See also