29.During the latter stages of the Scottish independence referendum, the three main Unionist Party leaders signed ‘the vow’, committing them to delivering “extensive new powers” for the Scottish Parliament. On 19 September 2014, a few hours after Scotland had voted to remain in the Union, the Prime Minister made the statement on the steps of Downing Street in which he announced that Lord Smith of Kelvin would chair a cross-party Commission “to take forward the devolution commitments with powers over tax, spending and welfare all agreed by November and draft legislation published by January.”
30.The Prime Minister also stated that “as the people of Scotland will have more power over their affairs, so it follows that the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland must have a bigger say over theirs” Importantly, for England this meant taking forward “the question of English votes for English laws… in tandem with, and at the same pace as” the process of extending devolution in Scotland. So, as the Prime Minister announced a Commission led by Lord Smith to take forward devolution in Scotland, he also unveiled a Cabinet Committee, chaired by Rt Hon William Hague MP, aimed at developing EVEL proposals. These proposals “would be ready to the same timetable” as the Smith Commission for Scotland.
31.Consequently, in December 2014, the Government published a White Paper, , aimed at moving forward the political debate on English Votes for English Laws. This paper outlined a range of different proposals for implementing EVEL, including three options favoured by the Conservative Party.
32.Option 1: ‘Reformed consideration of Bills at all stages’, was informed by the Norton Commission report and proposed that Bills certified by the Speaker as England, or England and Wales, only would have their Second Reading in a Grand Committee, comprising all the MPs from the relevant nation(s). For England and Wales Bills, the same would also apply to their Committee Stage and Report and Third Reading would be governed by a convention whereby MPs from other nations did not vote -However, England only Bills would proceed entirely through an entirely England only process. According to the White Paper, the key advantage of this proposal is its “simplicity and the absence of the need for any new stages in the legislative process.”
33.Option 2, ‘Reformed Amending Stages of Bills’, on the other hand, was based on the recommendations of Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke MP’s 2008 Democracy Task Force. Under this scheme, a Bill certified as relating solely to English, or English and Welsh matters, would pass as normal at Second Reading, but its Committee Stage would be taken from MPs representing those respective areas only, in proportion to their party representation in the House of Commons. While MPs from the affected territory would be able to vote on the Bill’s Report Stage, all MPs would be able to vote on its Third Reading. The main advantage of the proposal was considered to be that it “allows MPs from England, or from England and Wales, to have the decisive say over the content of legislation while not excluding MPs from other stages and not introducing any new stages to the legislative process.”
34.Option 3, ‘Reformed Committee Stage and Legislative Consent Motions’ was described as a “significantly strengthened version of the McKay Commission proposals.” It would reserve the Committee stage of certified Bills to English or, as appropriate, English and Welsh only MPs and provide those members with an “effective veto over such legislation.” Bills would not have to be England or England and Wales only in their entirety, as individual clauses and schedules within Bills would also be certified. While Report stage would be taken as normal by all MPs, a new stage would be established between Report and Third Reading whereby a Legislative Grand Committee (England or for England and Wales) would be established to vote on a Legislative Consent Motion (LCM) for the certified parts of the Bill.
35.As Third Reading could only take place once a LCM had been approved, the Legislative Grand Committee would therefore provide English and Welsh MPs with the ability to grant their consent to, or exercise a veto against, relevant parts of, a bill. The principle of requiring consent from an English Grand Committee could be applied to levels of taxation and welfare benefits where the equivalent rates have been devolved to Scotland or elsewhere
36.According to the Command Paper, this proposal would “give English, or English and Welsh MPs, a crucial say over the content of legislation and a secure veto over its passing, while not excluding other MPs from its consideration in the full House of Commons”.
37.The Conservative Party’s 2015 General Election manifesto suggested that of the three proposals outlined above, Option 3 would be the scheme a Conservative Government would seek to implement.
Source: The Conservative Party Manifesto 2015, p.70
39.Following the return of a majority Conservative Government in the 2015 General Election, a pledge to implement EVEL was included in the Government’s first Queen’s Speech, and on 2 July, the Government tabled its first set of proposed amendments to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. While the initial intention was for the Standing Orders to be approved before the summer recess, the Government instead tabled a revised set of Standing Orders on 9 July, to be voted upon in the House in the autumn. After further revisions to the proposals on 15 October, a final set of proposals were laid before, and approved by, the House on 22 October 2015. The Government has pledged to hold a review of the operation of the Standing Orders after the first 12 months of their operation.
40.On the 22 October 2015, the House of Commons voted, by a margin of 312 to 270, to amend Standing Orders so as to establish a system of English Votes for English Laws. The new Standing Orders mean that, from now on, prior to Second Reading, the Speaker will certify Bills as a whole, or provisions within those Bills, as “relating exclusively to England or to England and Wales” (even if, provisions within, a Bill have “minor or consequential effects outside the area in question”).
41.For Bills certified in their entirety as English only, an English only Public Bill Committee, or English Members on the floor of the House, will examine it at Committee stage. However, the key change, affecting English only and English and Welsh only (and in the case of Finance Bills and their preparatory resolutions, English, Welsh and Northern Ireland only) Bills or provisions of Bills are the new post-report stage procedures.
a)Firstly, new Standing Order 83L will result in a recertification of the bill after report stage: this is to ensure English/English and Welsh MPs are asked to consent to the Bill, or English/English and Welsh provisions within it, in the LCM process. The same test is applied as in the first certification.
b)Legislative Grand Committees (LGCs) are then to be established, post recertification, to vote on a consent motion for qualifying Bills. Legislative Consent Motions (LCMs) can be amended if MPs wish to veto specific clauses/schedules, rather than the entirety of a Bill.
c)Reconsideration: This would essentially be a disputes resolution mechanism between the House as a whole and English/English and Welsh MP in the event of an LCM being rejected or amended so as not to give consent to all the relevant proposals. If, following reconsideration, the LGC continues to withhold consent to a Bill as a whole then it may not be given a third reading. However, if the LGC withholds consent to specific clauses/schedules, but not the Bill as a whole, then the Bill will be amended to remove those provisions. This amended Bill proceeds to third reading.
d)Consequential Consideration: The purpose of this proposed new stage is to consider “minor or technical changes in consequence of the removal of provisions” at reconsideration stage.
42.EVEL will also apply to (provisions within) Finance Bills, so that MPs from England, England and Wales or England, Wales and Northern Ireland (as appropriate) are asked to consent to those provisions within Finance Bills which relate exclusively to those areas and concern devolved taxes. A Legislative Grand Committee would consider Consent Motions required in respect of Finance Bills or provisions within Finance Bills that relate exclusively to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
43.Lords amendments to Bills will be certified by the Speaker if they relate either to England or England and Wales and where there is a vote on a certified Lords amendment, a double majority, of both the whole House and of English or English and Welsh MPs,
must be secured. This is ascertained in a single vote, with the votes of the whole House and English/English and Welsh MPs “recorded separately”. The same procedure will apply to Statutory Instruments certified as relating exclusively to England/England and Wales.
44.These new Standing Orders “will not apply to votes on the Government’s annual spending plans (known as the estimates), nor to the legislation (known as Supply and Appropriation Bills) that provides statutory authority for this expenditure.” In addition, “where there are financial implications associated with any bill [money resolutions]… all MPs will be able to vote on these decisions.”
45. was the first Bill to be certified under the new Standing Orders and, on 12 January 2016, was the first in respect of which the new Legislative Grand Committee processes operated. Neither the England and Wales or England LCMs were contested in the case of this Bill.
46.The House of Commons Procedure Committee examined the new Standing Orders in its Report, Government proposals for English Votes for English Laws Standing Orders: interim report. This Report provided a thorough assessment of the Standing Orders. We do not attempt to duplicate the ongoing work of the Procedure Committee. Instead, we outline some broad areas of concern and to examine the wider constitutional implications arising from the changes to the new Standing Orders and the introduction of this new procedure. .
47.Concerns about the complexity and workability of the new Standing Orders were a prominent theme during PACAC’s evidence sessions. Sir William McKay, a former Clerk of the House of Commons, suggested that the Standing Orders do not “have the merit of simplicity”. Indeed, such is the complexity of the new Standing Orders that Sir William noted that having “spent 40 years trying to grapple with procedure”, he still has “great difficulty in discovering what each of these Standing Orders… means”. That a former Clerk of the House with such experience should describe the new Standing Orders as a “forest in which I lose myself” should be particularly worrying.
48.For Lord Lisvane, former Clerk of the House:
Good procedural rules have three characteristics. First, they are consistent: the same things, or similar things, are dealt with in the same way. Secondly, they are certain and do not shift about. Thirdly, they are clear, so that what they regulate may be the subject of contention but the rules themselves do not become the subject of contention.
In his opinion, the new Standing Orders do not “pass that third test.” This has great significance for the certification process where potentially contentious rulings will have to be made by the Speaker and, as Lord Lisvane noted, “for the credibility of the process, the House needs to see and understand the clockwork”.
49.This complexity appears to be a consequence of the Government’s use of Parliamentary draftsmen (who, as Sir William McKay explained, “work for the Government and not the House”) to draft the Standing Orders. More than one witness commented on the way in which the new Standing Orders read “like a Bill on which, in the end, a judge will have to determine its meaning”. However, the Standing Orders are not a piece of legislation, to be interpreted by Judges and lawyers, this is, as Sir William McKay pointed out, “something for the House, and the House will have to determine its meaning”. According to Lord Lisvane, that the Standing Orders have been drafted in this way is “a very regrettable thing”.
50.The new Standing Orders do require further consideration and evaluation if they are to be anything more than a short-term experiment in the House’s internal procedures. That former Clerks of the House of Commons, individuals steeped in decades of learning about Parliamentary procedure, should have difficulty in discerning what these Standing Orders mean should raise serious further doubts about how sustainable they are. It is regrettable that the new Standing Orders have been drafted like legislation, by Government Parliamentary draftsmen. Never again should Standing Orders be drafted by the Government, rather than Clerks. In taking forward any amendments to the Standing Orders, a different approach to drafting will be required. The revisions made to the Standing Orders, to make them more coherent and transparent, should be made by the House, for the House.
51.An additional problem the House faces over the new Standing Orders is their sustainability. As evidenced from the House of Commons debates on the subject, since the first set of proposals were unveiled on 2 July 2015, the Government’s EVEL policy has attracted significant criticism from members on the opposition benches. For example, during the response to the Leader of the House’s statement outlining the initial set of proposed revised Standing Orders, the then Shadow Leader of the House, Angela Eagle MP attacked both the Government’s approach and their proposals, including the veto for English MPs, for going “much further than the McKay commission envisaged in its 2013 report”. These proposals, she concluded, “risk the Union” and represented a “cynical attempt by a Government with an overall majority of just 12 to use procedural trickery to manufacture themselves a very much larger one.” The SNP were similarly vocal in their criticism, describing the package as “constitutional bilge” that would create two classes of MP and place the Speaker in an “intolerable and politically invidious position” where he would be “dragged into a political role.” Pete Wishart MP suggested that England would be better served with an English Parliament, than “this cobbled-together, unworkable mess”. The Liberal Democrats and DUP similarly aired their opposition to the proposals.
52.In contrast, Conservative MPs were broadly receptive of the Government’s plans. The Rt Hon John Redwood MP, for example, said he was “pleased that the Government now have an answer to… the question of who speaks for England”, and James Gray MP described it as a “major, major step in the right direction”. Indeed, the main criticism on the Government benches was that the plans could perhaps have been more radical.
53.While it should be noted that concern about the Government’s proposals were expressed from a number of Conservative MPs on 22 October when the House voted to approve the proposed amendments to Standing Orders, the broader division between Government and Opposition on the question of the proposed changes to the Standing Orders was a constant thread throughout the House of Commons’ deliberations on EVEL. In the division on 22 October 2015, all 312 MPs voting in favour of the new Standing Orders came from the Conservative benches, while the 270 MPs voting against demonstrated that every other party in the House of Commons was opposed to the implementation of the principle of EVEL via Standing Orders.
54.The stridency of the opposition to the new Standing Orders from the Opposition Benches underlines their vulnerability. With only the Conservative Party in favour of the new arrangements, these Standing Orders face a high risk of being overridden as soon as there is a non-Conservative majority in the House of Commons. Mr Bryant noted in his evidence to the Committee, “it is certainly feasible, if not probable” that a future Labour administration would revoke the new Standing Orders. That the Standing Orders have attracted such hostility and can be removed on the basis of a simple majority must raise doubts as to whether they can ever be more than a temporary expedient, and currently they cannot be considered to be part of a stable constitutional settlement that will endure.
55.While it is too early to comment with any certainty on the constitutional implications of the new Standing Orders, a number of potential constitutional issues arising from implementing the principle of EVEL were raised with us:
56.As the Mile End Institute suggests, “the most high-profile example of spillover [effects from the new Standing Orders] concerns funding to the devolved administrations through the Barnett formula”. As a result of the Barnett Formula, spending decisions in England help to determine the block grants of the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland devolved administrations, arguably providing MPs from those nations with a mandate to vote on otherwise ostensibly English-only affairs. While the new Standing Orders do not apply to votes on the estimates and supply and appropriation bills, as the Procedure Committee noted in its report on EVEL,
…in reality, the estimates and supply procedures of the House validate prior decisions about policy, including those which have been given effect through primary legislation… neither money resolutions nor ways and means resolutions are in modern practice, used as instruments for fine tuning public spending.
57.While we note that the Procedure Committee will continue to pay close attention to how the new Standing Orders impact upon the consideration of the financial consequences of the Barnett Formula, we draw attention to concerns that, as a result of the new Standing Orders, there may be “decisions made that will have implications for funding levels in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland”. It is difficult to reconcile the implementation of EVEL and the continued retention of the Barnett Formula and PACAC notes the Justice Committee’s conclusion, in its 2009 report Devolution: a Decade on, that a “change [in the funding system for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland] would be a necessary pre-requisite to any system of English votes for English laws”. The Barnett Formula has been subject to a considerable degree of scrutiny and we draw no conclusions, at this stage of our inquiry, on its continued retention. The implications of constitutional change for the Barnett Formula, and alternative schemes of territorial funding, will be examined in a later stage of our inquiry.
58.The new Standing Orders provide that the Speaker should certify any public Bill, or clause or schedule within such a Bill, presented by the Government, which, in the Speaker’s opinion, “relates exclusively to England or to England and Wales, and is within devolved legislative competence”.Furthermore, in certifying a provision as relating exclusively to England or to England and Wales, the Speaker must disregard “any minor or consequential effects outside the area in question.”
59.According to the Leader of the House, Rt Hon Chris Grayling MP, this is a “very simple test, a devolution test about whether something should be certified or not”. However, as Sir William McKay highlights, the devolution boundaries, particularly in the case of the evolving Welsh devolution settlement, are anything but clear. Adjudicating where the devolution boundary lies in Wales has led to a succession of legal challenges in the Supreme Court.
60.The Welsh experience illustrates the additional difficulty, posed by the new Standing Orders, of identifying what constitutes a minor or consequential effect. As the Procedure Committee noted in its interim report on EVEL, while “the interpretation of ‘minor effects’ may be considered straightforward, the interpretation of ‘consequential effects’, in the overall context of the devolution settlement, is much less clear cut”. According to Lord Lisvane, the insistence that minor or consequential effects be disregarded makes the process of certification “more complicated”. The Supreme Court referrals of Welsh legislation represent a worrying portent of the potential controversy that may arise from attempts to adjudicate both where the devolution boundaries lie and working out what minor or consequential effects on devolved competence might be.
61.To illustrate this potential complication, Lord Lisvane drew attention to the fact that he lived in Herefordshire where there is a cross-border flow of patients using the health service on either side of the England-Wales border. Such “cross border phenomena”, he suggested, are not considered “minor or consequential” for those living in the affected areas, “but it might be that, looked at from a UK-wide perspective, the Speaker might be advised they were minor and consequential.” On this question of how minor or consequential effects interact with cross-border issues, the Procedure Committee’s report noted that:
England-only legislation may well affect constituencies in Wales adjacent or close to the border with England. Legislation for the NHS in England which has an effect on the structure or services provided by NHS Trusts or Foundation Trusts near the border with Wales will inevitably affect people in Wales referred to such services. Members with constituents likely to be affected by such changes may wish to argue for the right to vote on such measures. On a strict interpretation of the proposed standing orders, as drafted, the Speaker is not able to consider such effects in deciding whether to certify.
62.An illustration of the potential confusion that might arise from the adjudication of a minor or consequential effect can be witnessed in the point of order raised by Sylvia Lady Hermon MP on 13 January 2016, the day after the House’s consideration, including in the form of Legislative Grand Committees for England, and for England and Wales, of the Housing and Planning Bill. This point of order highlighted Lady Hermon’s dissatisfaction with the certification of clause 62 of the Housing and Planning Bill as England only, despite the fact that the said clause also made reference to Wales. According to Lady Hermon, the designation of this clause, despite the fact that it made reference to an additional territory, was “inherently ambiguous and contradictory.” In response, the Speaker noted that the Clause’s relation to Wales was judged to be of a minor or consequential character “as, crucially, it makes no change in the law applying in Wales”.
63.The devolution test for certification is not a “very simple test” and, alongside the instruction that “minor or consequential effects” be disregarded, risks putting the Speaker in an unnecessarily controversial position. At the very least, it is highly likely that interested parties from inside and outside the House will want to make representations to the Speaker on how he adjudicates: a) where the devolution boundaries lie, and b) whether the effects of a Bill, or a clause or schedule of a Bill, are more than minor or consequential. PACAC therefore agrees with the Procedure Committee that there is a case for the Speaker to establish and publish a procedure for how he would handle such representations. While we note that the Speaker has issued a statement that outlined how the new Standing Orders would be implemented and recommended that representations should be made to the Clerk of Legislation, we nonetheless feel that a more thorough set of guidelines regarding representations would be beneficial for Members.
64. warned against a system of EVEL “which could be accused of creating, by whatever means, two classes of MP,” and argued that, while a voice for England should be expressed, “MPs from outside England should not be prevented from voting on matters before Parliament.” As such, they concluded that an English ‘veto’ should be avoided. The new Standing Orders, however, provide for such a veto, in the form of the Legislative Grand Committee stage for certified England or England and Wales Bills, prompting Chris Bryant to argue that they create “two tiers of MPs”.
65.It is worth acknowledging, as even Mr Bryant appeared to concede, that there are already at least two classes of MP. Indeed, that there are different classes of MP, post-devolution, is at the heart of the West Lothian Question, as Lord Norton highlighted in his evidence to the Committee:
My starting point is there are already two, because that is the point of devolution. The West Lothian question is premised on that very existence of two classes of MPs. If there weren’t, you would not be having the West Lothian question.
66.The key issue, therefore, facing Parliamentarians is how the difference in tiers of MP is contained. Sir William McKay stressed the importance of avoiding a “serious manifestation of the two classes [of MP], in which one was distinctly subordinate to the other”. Similarly, while Lord Lisvane used the examples of the Scottish Standing Committee and the territorial Grand Committees to illustrate that “there have always been proceedings of some sort or another where Members are treated differently”, he noted that the key difference between these procedures and the new Standing Orders is that “with all those procedures there is a confluence later in the process and the whole House is then asked to endorse it.” While the whole House will continue to vote on key stages in the legislative process under the new Standing Orders, the inclusion of the Legislative Grand Committee and the ability of England or England and Wales MPs to veto legislation represents, according to Lord Lisvane, a step “further than I would comfortably have gone”.
67.The discussion above is by no means an exhaustive analysis of the potential constitutional implications arising from the new Standing Orders. In attempting to resolve the anomalies created by devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, principally in the form of the West Lothian Question, these Standing Orders risk creating a whole set of potential additional anomalies. For example, the Standing Orders do not apply to the House of Lords. As Chris Bryant MP highlighted, the new Standing Orders mean that Peers who are Scottish born and bred, may have been elevated to the peerage after being an MP for a Scottish constituency and who continue to live in Scotland, “can vote on measures that a [Scottish] Member in the House of Commons cannot”.
68.Another unintended consequence may be that the new Standing Orders, far from satiating opinion in England, may fuel demands for an even stronger representation of England. As Lord Lisvane hypothesised:
For example, what about other ways of calling the Executive to account? Might there be pressure for an England-only Question Time, for example? Might the idea of this separation spread into other types of proceedings?
69.With so little certainty about the potential consequences of the new Standing Orders, there is a danger that EVEL, an attempt to remedy the anomaly of the West Lothian Question e.g. the questions raised by so-called ‘Barnett Consequentials’, could create further anomalies. This risk is in part a result of, and exacerbated by, the tendency of successive Governments to consider constitutional reform on an ad-hoc and piecemeal basis. A number of witnesses, from academics to former Clerks of the House of Commons, highlighted the “splintered” way in which devolution issues have been considered by Government and Parliament. Lord Norton in his evidence to PACAC commented that “the Government tends to look at it [the constitution] in isolation and does not stand back, look at the links and, in this context, look at the United Kingdom as the United Kingdom and how it relates to one another”. According to Lord Lisvane, EVEL alongside the Government’s proposed devolution to ‘Mayoral Combined Authorities’, such as Greater Manchester, present a “whole series of balances that you have to tackle and get right”. In Lord Lisvane’s opinion, this “only underlines the complexity of finding an integrated and sustainable long-term solution”. Both Lord Norton and Lord Lisvane emphasised their preference for a constitutional forum, or to use Lord Norton’s phrase a ‘constitutional convocation’, to take stock of the UK’s constitution and the issues raised by devolution, including the West Lothian Question.
70.It is too soon to say with any certainty what the constitutional implications of the new Standing Orders will be. The ad-hoc approach to change in the constitution of the Union, that dates back to the devolution reforms initiated by the then Labour Government in 1997, and has treated each of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in different ways at different times, has been characteristic of constitutional reform since the 1990s. This Report illustrates the need for Government to abandon this ad-hoc approach and to explore a comprehensive strategy for the future of relationships between the Westminster Parliament and the component parts of the United Kingdom. The Government should be working towards a new and durable constitutional settlement for the United Kingdom that reflects the scale of constitutional change since the 1997 devolution referendums. This will be the subject of our continuing inquiry into the Future of the Union and of our subsequent Reports on the subject.
46 The timetable outlined for further Scottish devolution (and by implication, answering the West Lothian Question) by the Prime Minister in his was for the Smith Commission to produce a cross-party agreement by November, with draft legislation to be published by January). The published its report on 27 November 2014 and, on 22 January 2015, the UK Government published a Command Paper, Scotland in the United Kingdom: an enduring settlement, , containing draft clauses which aimed to take forward the Heads of Agreement contained in the Smith Commission Report. See paragraphs 29-38 of this report for the process which led to the passage of the new Standing Orders and the implementation of EVEL.
47 The Implications of Devolution for England, p.26, December 2014
48 Cabinet Office, , July 2015; Cabinet Office, , July 2015; Cabinet Office, , October 2015
49 , 22 October 2015
50 , 22 October 2015
51 HC Deb 12 January 2016 Vol 604,
52 House of Commons Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2015–16, Government proposals for English votes for English laws Standing Orders: Interim Report, HC 410.
53 Q 65
54 Q 65
55 Q 65
56 Q 115
57 Q 115
58 Q 82
59 Q 82
60 Q 82
61 Q 115
62 HC Deb 2 July 2015,
63 HC Deb 2 July 2015,
64 HC Deb, 2 July 2015,
65 HC Deb, 2 July 2015,
66 See for example the contributions of Peter Bone MP (HC Deb, 2 July 2015, ), Nigel Mills MP (HC Deb, 2 July 2015, ), Bob Blackman MP (HC Deb, 2 July 2015, ) and Chris Heaton-Harris MP (HC Deb, 2 July 2015, ).
67 See, for example Bernard Jenkin MP’s contribution on 22 October 2015 (HC Deb 22 October 2015 ) and those of Sir Edward Leigh MP (HC Deb 22 October 2015 cc. ) and Sir William Cash MP (HC Deb 22 October 2015 )
68 HC Deb 22 October 2015 cc.
69 Q 138
70 Mile End Institute
71 V. Bogdanor, The West Lothian Question, Parliamentary Affairs, 2010, Vol.63 No.1, pp.163-164
72 , para.42
73 Q 30
74 , para.194
75 See for example, the 2009 report of the and the House of Lords Select Committee on Economic Affairs’ 2015 report, A Fracturing Union? The Implications of Financial Devolution to Scotland, para 22–30 and Annex 3 to the report.
76 , 22nd October 2015, p.25
77 Q 210
78 Q 78
79 Judgment: Local Government Byelaws (Wales) Bill 2012 –– Reference by the Attorney General for England and Wales, Supreme Court, 21 November 2012, Michaelmas Term  UKSC 53; Judgment: Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill ––Reference by the Attorney General for England and Wales, 9 July 2014, Trinity Term  UKSC 43
80 , p.15
81 Q 120
82 Q 120
83 House of Commons Procedure Committee, First Report of Session 2015–16, Government proposals for English votes for English laws Standing Orders: Interim Report, HC 410
84 HC Deb, 13 January 2016,
85 , p.17
86 , 26 October 2015.
88 Qq 158–159
89 Q 160
90 Q 73
91 Q 73
92 Q 114
93 Q 140
94 Q 117
95 Qq 44; 87–88
96 Q 87
97 Q 126
98 Q 126
99 Qq 87; 127
Prepared 9 February 2016