| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
3.32 pm
Mr. George Foulkes (Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley): It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). His contribution was rather more measured than that of the shadow Leader of the House, which was an appalling, roustabout affair that was unworthy of this House. The same was true of his many interventions yesterday, during the debate on whether Mr. Speaker should have a day off. That made a mockery of this House, and the shadow Leader of the House does himself, the House and his party no service in the way in which he addresses the House on occasion.
Today, the shadow Leader of the House was deliberately stirring things up and obfuscating the entire issue. He was obviously creating a stooshie—a phrase that we use in Scotland—to make the situation seem more awful and dramatic than it really is. I am glad that
the right hon. Member for Horsham discussed the issues in a measured and sensible way, and although that will not be so easy for me, I shall try to do the same.
Pete Wishart: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but I remind him of his comments to the press last week, in which he described the new arrangements as inelegant. What did he mean by that?
Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—it is almost as if he were a plant whom I placed here—as I was about to mention that point. I was a little critical of the fact that, initially, the situation was—if I am allowed to quote No. 10 spokespersons, as I undoubtedly am—"a little hazy". As the right hon. Member for Horsham said, we should be honest and say what we think, and the situation was indeed a little hazy. However, now that it has been clarified—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) laughs, but is he not personally a constitutional outrage? He represents Ribble Valley, yet the Leader of the Opposition has purportedly appointed him shadow Secretary of State for Wales just because he has a Welsh accent—a very Welsh accent. But that is no reason why he should hold that post while representing Ribble Valley. The issues are now clear, and I am one who supports all the changes.
The right hon. Member for Horsham was coming round, albeit reluctantly, to accept that the separation of the powers is a good idea. Lord Chancellors may have managed to separate their roles, because of their distinction or age, but I recall that Lord Hailsham had some difficulties forgetting that he was a Conservative.
Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman is always an honest performer and would not want to perform a stooshie on the House—[Interruption.] In those circumstances, can he explain what possible advantage would be derived from abolishing—or semi-abolishing—the Lord Chancellor's post, when all that was necessary was to announce a new Lord Chancellor who could start a consultation procedure that would lead, in due course, to the creation of a supreme court?
Mr. Foulkes: The position has been clarified, and that is exactly what is happening. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be honest about that. We both sat on the Committee considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill and he was an intelligent contributor. Now that we know what is happening, I hope that he will acknowledge that the separation of the powers is a good thing. The House of Lords will now be able to elect its own Speaker, instead of having someone forced on it. I would have thought that the other place would be up in arms—no, raising their arms and cheering, rather than being up in arms. Cheering is what their Lordships should be doing. They now have the power to elect one of their own number as Speaker, which is a great step forward.
Having an independent judicial appointments commission is also good. My hon. friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is absolutely right. In Scotland, such a system is working not just adequately, but extremely well. It was proposed under a Labour-
Liberal coalition, so I hope that the Liberal spokesman will agree that it was a good idea. In fact, the Deputy First Minister, also a Liberal, introduced it.
Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend is right. It is clear from Select Committee discussions that the system is working well in Scotland. The only problem is that all the judges still seem to come from the Edinburgh academy.
Mr. Foulkes: I have raised that matter on several occasions and it certainly requires further exploration, but on another occasion.
The House of Lords will be able to choose its own Speaker and we will have an independent judicial appointments commission answerable to a supreme court. Those are surely steps forward. It is also now clear that we shall have a strong Scottish voice in the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) did extremely well at arguing the case for Scotland during her tenure as Secretary of State for Scotland, and I am sure that the new Secretary of State for Scotland—my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)—will do the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, he has the time and the ability to do so.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), will carry out the donkey work. I know that it is always the No. 2 in the Scottish Office who carries out such work. I did it all, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts agrees. I sat on the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office, which dealt with energy issues and energy policy for the country for the next 50 years. I enjoyed it very much, and there was a Scottish input. As I said earlier, I also sat on the Committee considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill in 2001 to help ensure that Scottish interests were pursued. I worked with the deputy Chief Whip, who was then the Minister, on behalf of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling will continue to do that, acting effectively for Scotland within the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
Pete Wishart : The right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) described her job as a full-time job for Scotland, but how would the right hon. Gentleman characterise that job now? What onus will be placed on the already overworked Secretary of State for Transport, who is trying to repair Britain's ailing transport infrastructure?
Mr. Foulkes: Not only will the Secretary of State for Transport be able to carry on with that job and be the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will be able to keep the hon. Gentleman in his place at Scottish questions. Just wait for it next week.
We also have a strong Welsh voice in the Cabinet and I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will be able to carry out the two functions.
Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which has been underplayed today in
discussion of the Wales Office, about the role and workload of our eminent colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who used to be the Under-Secretary in the Wales Office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also contributed massively to the Convention on the Future of Europe, and that has not been a problem.
Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right, and that reinforces my argument. We have also seen a lack of understanding of what devolution is about. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) showed that he does not understand it and I invite him to visit Scotland or Wales to see how it is operating. Things have changed. The Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland do not have the same range of responsibilities that they did at the time of Aberfan or Dunblane, both of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
Even the SNP does not understand devolution. The SNP Whip, who is in his place, alleged that the Secretary of State for Transport, who is also the Secretary of State for Scotland, would have trouble negotiating with himself on the amount of money to be allocated to railways in Scotland, but that job is done by the Scottish Executive now, so there is no conflict of interest.
Mr. David Trimble (Upper Bann): I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber earlier to hear more of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, to which I am listening with great interest. He has given a clear explanation of how the Secretary of State for Transport and the Leader of the House can also easily handle responsibilities for Scotland and Wales respectively. In the event of the renewal of devolution in Northern Ireland, to which Department could the Northern Ireland Office be linked?
Mr. Foulkes: I shall think about that. There have been many complaints about my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) being Secretary of State for Health, but one of the best Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland that we have had is a Welsh Member of Parliament. He is doing a very good job. This is a United Kingdom, and I would have thought that a Unionist would have understood that in this Parliament we are all equal and, therefore, any Member from the governing party can become a Minister in any Department.
I have pointed out the irrationality of having the hon. Member for Ribble Valley as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. Even more ridiculous is having the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) as the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. What does Beckenham know about Scotland? The hon. Lady may have a Scottish accent and go on occasional day trips to Scotland, but her appointment is another constitutional outrage. That is why we take the stooshie—[Interruption.] Not, sushi—that is Japanese. "Stooshie" is the Scottish word. We take the stooshie that has been raised by the shadow Leader of the House for exactly what it is. He is a stirrer. He was stirring yesterday on the motion about Mr. Speaker's absence—and caused you a lot of trouble, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and he has been stirring again today.
The position is now clear. We have the separation of powers, powerful voices for Wales and Scotland in the Cabinet and one of the best operators—I was going to say fixers—as Secretary of State for Health, so we are moving forward positively.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |