PLANS for allowing English MPs a "decisive say" over legislation affecting national laws are expected to be outlined by the Government.

Commons leader William Hague, who led cross-party talks on the issue, will present the options for reform as the Conservatives push for a ban on Scottish representatives blocking laws which do not apply north of the border.

Since the Scottish independence referendum result and the promise of further devolved powers north of the border, there have been calls for English-only votes on English-only legislation.

Prime Minister David Cameron has insisted the implementation of further devolution north of the border should go "in tandem with" moves to resolve the long-standing dispute over whether Scottish MPs should be allowed to vote on laws which affect only England or England and Wales.

An effective veto is one of three options proposed by the Tories - and one by the Liberal Democrats - due to be set out in a government paper.

Labour - which boycotted cross-party talks under Mr Hague as a "stitch-up" - last week suggested it could back giving English MPs a greater role in scrutinising legislation that applies only to their country.

It said a solution put forward by an independent review of the issue last year led by Sir William McKay, which would allow detailed consideration of English-only legislation, could be a "sensible reform which would strengthen England's voice".

Under the most radical option to be put forward by Mr Hague, MPs from across the UK would have the chance to amend all legislation at the penultimate hurdle of its usual Commons passage - known as report stage.

But English MPs would then have a separate vote in which they could reject the entire package - forcing the Government either to abandon the proposals or make changes in a bid to secure majority support.

The Liberal Democrats are pressing for the handing of a veto to a grand committee of MPs that reflected the proportion of the vote share won by each party at the previous general election.

Switching from the established practice of basing memberships on the proportion of MPs elected would, on present numbers, deprive the Conservatives of an overall majority on the committee.

Tories hope to have a consensus of their MPs behind one option by the middle of January which the party plans to press to a Commons vote before May's general election to put pressure on other parties to act.

The two other options are based on previous reviews led by Lord Norton of Louth and Ken Clarke.

Former deputy prime minister Lord Prescott said the plans were a "stitch-up" and accused the Government of trying to rush them through.

He told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme: "This is a stitch-up. They can't get an agreement about it. They are rushing it before the election to make an election claim - English parliament for English MPs."

"You can't divorce England from the rest and make the English parliament a central English parliament without proper accountability to the people as we have given in Scotland, as we have given in Wales and have given in Northern Ireland," he added.

Labour has called for a detailed constitutional convention to address the way the country is governed.

In an apparent slip-up, Lord Prescott referred to Labour leader Ed Miliband as "Red Ed" - the nickname used for him in some parts of the press - when he backed the approach the party is taking.

He said a debate must be held about how power is devolved in England.

"That's why Red Ed is right to have a commission to look at these and not rush them through ready for the election, which Hague is now doing," he added.

Labour's Graham Allen, who chairs the Political and Constitutional Reform Select Committee, criticised the plans.

He said: "The Hague Cabinet committee set up to look at the consequences of the Scottish referendum has instead focused on one tiny Westminster issue and deliberately missed the opportunity to bring planned devolution to England.

"England will remain under Whitehall control with a little different window dressing in a rubber-stamp Parliament. Ironically Parliament has been ignored in this process with its own Select Committee deliberately refused a hearing. Government sees Parliament's role as delivering for Whitehall not championing devolution to the localities of England."

He added: "Our politics is broken, it needs fixing. This is a moment for political leadership, not complacency and business as usual.

"Focusing on one partisan issue and ignoring the wider historic opportunities smacks of rearranging the green benches on the deck of the Titanic."

Steve Brooks director of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) Cymru said: "After weeks locked away behind closed doors on the corridors of power, William Hague has now emerged with a rag-bag set of proposals which only go to show why we need a completely different approach on deciding the future of the United Kingdom.

"On constitutional reform, parties should put aside Punch and Judy politics and try and work together. When it comes to rewriting the rules on how Britain is governed, Westminster leaders would do well to look at how Welsh party leaders have worked together over recent years.

"Different parties in Wales will always have different ideas on the future of devolution, but when all sides have faith in the process, consensus can be reached. That faith in the process was lacking in England, and partly explains why there is no agreement between the three largest UK parties on how to answer the West Lothian Question."