---

Mr. Tom Harris (Glasgow, Cathcart): The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he opposes a Scottish MP being the Secretary of State for Health. However, he also made it clear that in the next Conservative Government, a Conservative Member with an English seat would be Secretary of State for Scotland. That is a ridiculous position.

Mr. Forth : Not at all. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), my parliamentary neighbour, I say that we will win so many seats in Scotland that she will face severe competition for the post of Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Allen: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: No. I must press on, as I am very conscious of the passage of time.

The Secretary of State for Health will have the task of pushing through the House the Bill establishing foundation hospitals in England—the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill—even though the proposal has been rejected by the

17 Jun 2003 : Column 225

Labour-run Scottish Assembly. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten what the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—a Scottish MP—said just before the 1992 general election, when he was shadow Health Secretary? He said:

"Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling health affairs in Scotland, it is not possible for me to continue as Minister of Health, administering health in England."

Kevin Brennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: No. I invite the hon. Gentleman to re-read his early-day motion before he stands up again.

The Prime Minister has been guilty of breathless arrogance and supreme incompetence. This is a time when our public services are in crisis and in dire need of real and radical reform, when one in four children leave our primary schools unable to read, write or count properly, when 30,000 children leave secondary school without a single GCSE, when there are still a million people on hospital waiting lists, and when 300,000 people feel obliged every year to pay for their own hospital treatment. Our pensions are in crisis and our roads are congested. The British people spend longer commuting to work than any other people in Europe, and one train in five are late. Gun crime is spiralling out of control—and what does the Prime Minister come up with? He decided that the country needed a shambolic reshuffle on which no one was consulted and which no one understands. He announced his plans, and then asks us to agree to them. The trouble is, which version does he want us to agree to—the Thursday night version, the Friday morning version, or the version given over the weekend?

No wonder no one trusts what the Prime Minister says any more, that we do not know what to believe, or that he cannot deliver any more. I want to ask the part-time Leader of the House the following questions—

Kevin Brennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Forth: No. This is my peroration—as if the hon. Gentleman did not know. Obviously, I will have to give Labour Members a signal when I am perorating.

Here are my questions to the part-time Leader of the House. Have the key decisions been taken on the role of the Lord Chancellor, on the creation and role of a supreme court and on a judicial appointments commission, or will there be genuine consultation and debate? Does anyone understand the roles and responsibilities of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, to say nothing about those of the Scotland Office and the Wales Office? What about departmental Ministers and officials? For example, will the right hon. Gentleman say who is the Minister for Constitutional Affairs in the House of Commons?

"The lesson of previous Parliamentary change is that it has to be carried out with care and sensitivity."

Those are not my words, but the words of the present Prime Minister, spoken in 1996. How can we possibly have confidence in a Prime Minister who has obviously

17 Jun 2003 : Column 226

forgotten any lessons that he claimed to have learned, and who now tries to impose this shambles on our Parliament and our country? There needs to be consultation, debate, thought and care over such matters, as we are showing today. If the Government will not do it, we will.

Mr. Speaker: I call the Leader of the House to move the amendment.

Hon. Members: The part-time Leader of the House.

1.15 pm

The Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal and Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"welcomes the Government's continuing drive to modernise the constitution and public service by creating a new Department for Constitutional Affairs focused on improving the criminal justice system, by consulting on establishing an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, by consulting on establishing a Supreme Court, and by consulting the House of Lords on the appointment by the House of its own Speaker, and putting in place better arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business after the successful bedding-down of devolution; further welcomes the continued accountability of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to the House; further welcomes the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Health who will continue the drive to reform and modernise the National Health Service; and supports the Government in its continued commitment to invest and reform the public services."

Well, well, well. That was an exercise in Tory self-inflated cant, bombast and hypocrisy by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), cheered on by the grinning idiocy behind him. Even Comical Ali would have been proud of that performance. The right hon. Gentleman lashed out wildly, missing his target every time—except when he congratulated me on my wedding; then he was spot on, and I am very grateful for what he said.

The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was interesting for one reason. It was all process, and no substance—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Opposition Members are far too noisy. They must allow the Leader of the House to speak.

Hon. Members: The part-time Leader of the House.

Peter Hain: Why was the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst all process and no substance? It was because he is frightened of substance and of the fact that the reform and modernisation of our democratic system are popular and welcomed by people right across the country.

Mr. Julian Brazier (Canterbury): I thank the Leader of the House for giving way. [Hon. Members: "The part-time Leader of the House."] The right hon. Gentleman just said that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was all process and no substance. What does he think that a constitution is about if it is not about process?

17 Jun 2003 : Column 227

Peter Hain: That really was a devastating question. Every time this Labour Government propose a sensible constitutional reform, widely supported by public opinion in the country at large, the Tories oppose it and claim that the end of the world is nigh. The Opposition go on about procedure and process, and I shall deal with those claims later, but basically they are against change. The Opposition are stuck in the past, on the side of privilege and patronage. They are the same old Tories, the same old reactionaries: whatever the reform, they are against it.

Kevin Brennan: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the shadow Leader of the House refused to answer the question that I asked him about the policy of the previous Leader of the Opposition? In March 2001, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said the following about the post of Secretary of State for Wales:

"Instead, the position, which is currently held by Paul Murphy, could be merged with roles such as Leader of the House in an effort to create 'smaller government'".

Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was not willing to answer my question?

Peter Hain: I am going to remind the right hon. Gentleman about that in a moment.

Whatever the reform, the Opposition are against it.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): Will the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House—[Hon. Members: "Part-time."]—tell us how long the office of Lord Chancellor will exist?

Peter Hain: The original target was that the office would continue for about 18 months, but it is a matter for consultation—[Interruption.] The proposals are all about consultation. There will be consultation about the situation following the replacement of the Lord Chancellor, about the independent judicial commission, and about establishing the supreme court.

The shadow Leader of the House made much of that issue; he said that there had been no consultation. Let us consider the major reorganisations conducted by the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s. The Department of Trade and the Department of Industry merged to form the Department of Trade and Industry—no consultation; the Department of Health and Social Security split into the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health—no consultation; the Department of Energy was abolished—no consultation; the Department of Employment was abolished—no consultation; and the post of Deputy Prime Minister was created and the post of President of the Board of Trade was reincarnated—no consultation.

The Conservatives have been out of office for so long that they have forgotten how government works, so I shall remind them that in a reshuffle, naturally, decisions are announced on the day, but consultation on the detail follows—

---