Update: SNP MP Angus MacNeil has responded to this piece here

Kawczynski_danielDaniel Kawczynski has been MP for Shrewsbury and Atcham since 2005 and voices his concerns here about what he sees as the "democratic deficit" for voters in England as compared with the other constituent parts of the UK.   

Since the Government introduced devolution, a democratic deficit has
crept back into the United Kingdom which challenges all the reforming
and democratic improvements of our electoral process over the last 150

Depending on where you live, you have more or less chance of meeting
your MP at a local surgery, or discussing your problems with him or her
directly. My seat of Shrewsbury and Atcham has around 74,000
constituents whereas Na h-Eilanan an Iar, in the Western Isles of
Scotland, has just over 20,000. This gives the people of the Western
Isles as individuals far more access to their MP and to Parliament
itself as they have to compete with so many fewer constituents to get
access to setting their MP’s agenda in the House. Most English seats
have roughly 70,000 electors, compared to 60,000 in Northern Ireland
and 55,000 in Wales.

It might be thought that this does not make too much of a
difference, but it does, every day. MPs receive, on average, fifty
letters a day and countless more emails. The bigger the constituency,
the more correspondence, and the less time MPs can dedicate to each. At
local surgeries people are often not given the time they deserve
because it is simply not possible to spend as much time as we’d like on
each case.

An individual from Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland effectively has
more say in Westminster than someone from England, despite the fact
that many of the issues are now devolved. If any other group of people
had the value of their vote weighted in this way, there would be an
uproar. As it is, most people seem to accept it as a quirk of the way
Britain is run; an idiosyncrasy more than a character flaw. In my view,
it is inherently anti-democratic to give any group or individual voter
more of a say than another, and the situation needs to change.

On the border with Wales, we see the effects of this democratic deficit
every day, and by devolution. Wales has free parking in hospitals, no
prescription charges, free dental examinations for OAPs, whilst Welsh
students pay no top-up fees at Welsh universities. It makes sense that
the Welsh Assembly may spend its money how it wants, but the formula
for distributing money is set too high. Furthermore, the fees that
English students pay were voted through with the help of Welsh MPs. No
matter what your opinion of those fees is, it is wrong that Welsh MPs
have decided a policy that does not affect the people that voted for
them. They can vote on a controversial issue and curry favour with the
party leadership, all the while safe in the knowledge that they will
not be held to account by their own voters on the issue. 

The Government refuses to countenance reform on the basis that it will
create two tiers of MPs, but these already exist: collectively, those
from Scotland and Wales have much more power. I believe that it is
vital that devolution is made to work, but it needs to work fairly, so
that people in England do not feel hard done by. Politicians can not
stick their heads in the sand on this, and need to realise that English
nationalism is as big a danger to the Union as Scottish or Welsh
nationalism. Conservatives are considering the creation of an English
Grand Committee, so that English MPs will get a chance to vote on
legislation that affects England only, thereby making Westminster more
accountable to people living in England. I do agree with David Cameron
on this issue. Ken Clarke’s proposals strike a balance between giving
the English electorate the accountability they deserve, and preserving
the UK as a single state.

We may have got rid of rotten boroughs nearly two centuries ago, but
over the last ten years democracy has taken a step back. It is time for
that to change.