| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Lait: That is one of the many elements in this story.
Mr. Eric Pickles (Brentwood and Ongar): It is a screw-up.
Mrs. Lait: I prefer the term "farce" to "screw-up". Farce has accompanied this botched reshuffle.
Mr. Grieve: Is not another bizarre aspect of the reshuffle the fact that we were told at the time that the Department for Constitutional Affairs was set up that it would have some responsibility for driving forward the Government's radical agenda for reforming the criminal justice system even though that does not appear to be within the Department's immediate remit? The Home Secretary then said, "No, it won't have that responsibility. That's our job." However, the Government amendment to the motion commends the Department for Constitutional Affairs because it is
- "focused on improving the criminal justice system".
We wish the new Lord Chancellor well—particularly while he is wearing his wig and tights—for the next three years, or is it perhaps 18 months? Or, as the chairman of the Labour party said on the "Today" programme on Saturday, will there be consultation in time for a Bill to appear in this year's Queen's Speech? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) pointed out in his excellent contribution, there is concern about the reality of the Government's consultation. I hope very much that, at some point, we will have clarification as to how long the consultation will last.
Perhaps this botched reshuffle resulted from the fact that, when the previous Lord Chancellor gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, he said that the Lord Chancellor
- "does not want to be bullied by the Executive".
Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mrs. Lait: I am very conscious of time, so it must be a wee one.
Mr. Harris: I am sure that the obsession of the hon. Lady and the Conservative party with this process is shared by dozens of people throughout the country. When it comes to the consultation on the future of the
Lord Chancellor and a possible supreme court, will she make a commitment to taking part? What will be the basis of her submission?
Mrs. Lait: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said at the opening of the debate that we would, of course, take part in the consultation. Because we believe in consultation, there is absolutely no way that I can tell the hon. Gentleman what we will come up with.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): Is my hon. Friend aware that the part-time Leader of the House has apparently agreed with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary that, for the first time in decades, the post of Lord President of the Council should not be the prerogative of the Leader of the House, but should be vested with the Leader of the House of Lords? That happened without any consultation whatever with any Member of the House.
Mr. Forth: Or with Her Majesty.
Mrs. Lait: As my right hon. Friend says, that also took place without any consultation with Her Majesty. It is yet another example of the farce that this reshuffle has descended into.
We need to ensure that Scottish and Welsh interests are not downgraded and diminished in this Parliament. It is a great shame that there is every evidence that the Government plan to do that.
For example, a Wales Office report says that the full-time Secretary of State for Wales and his Under-Secretary sat on 20 Cabinet Committees—
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): Twenty-five.
Mrs. Lait: The Minister corrects me. How will the part-time Leader of the House and the Minister find time to sit on 25 Committees? How will the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs be able to have serious input on what the Scotland Office does? First we heard that the Scotland Office would be abolished but it now appears that that will not happen. We still do not know its exact status, which was shown by the Committee's confusion.
Who will be the boss of whom? Who will be the senior part-timer? Will it be Lord Falconer wearing his Lord Chancellor's wig and managing his Department? Will it be the Leader of the House and Secretary of State for Wales, or the Transport Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland? I imagine that there will be interesting debates around the Cabinet table.
Hon. Members are left utterly bewildered about how Scottish and Welsh business will be handled. What is the future for questions? Is there a future for the Scottish and Welsh Affairs Committees? Will the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees remain?
Mrs. Lait: I am delighted to hear that, but what is the point of that if—according to one announcement—the Scotland and Wales Offices are to be abolished?
Who will be in charge of handling the boundary review in Scotland? We must bear it in mind that the boundary commission is abolishing the Secretary of State for Scotland's seat. Will there be a conflict of interest? Will the Secretary of State leave the boundary changes to be handled by his hapless junior Minister or will the unelected Lord Falconer make the decisions?
Mr. Peter Duncan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): I have something hot off the press that might clarify the status of the Minister who might well be responsible for implementing the boundary changes—we hope that that will happen. The Minister is described as
- "Mrs Anne McGuire MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Constitutional Affairs"
Mrs. Lait: We have clarification on titles but whether we have clarification on jobs is another matter. Will that Minister make decisions on the boundary commission?
What will we do when the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is wearing his part-time transport hat? He took two of the top four questions on Scottish issues during Transport questions today. He denied debating with himself in the shaving mirror about his answers this morning. Perhaps civil servants from the Scotland Office sat on one side during his briefing on questions while officials from the Department for Transport sat on the other side. I hope that they did not come to blows. His answers this morning sadly gave the impression that he did not understand his Scottish responsibilities.
Important decisions on air transport are being made. When the Secretary of State made a decision on the west coast main line, was he wearing his Scotland hat or his transport hat? When he reaches decision time on air travel, will he debate with himself the merits of the Scottish case or the case for the United Kingdom and, more importantly, which side will win that debate? How will he decide on the merits of the redevelopment of Waverley station? The station is currently in his constituency but his constituency will disappear.
How can a part-time Transport Secretary with an add-on Scottish remit best serve Scotland's needs? It was implied earlier that 200 per cent. of his time would be spent on Scotland and transport, but 200 per cent. of 24 hours does not leave an awful lot of time for his family. I hope that he will be able to spend a significant amount of time with his family.
We need to introduce significant and robust conflict-resolution mechanisms in the Scotland Act 1998. Fault lines in the devolution settlement are being widened, so we need robust and strong mechanisms to resolve the problems that will inevitably arise. I worry about what we heard today and what has been expressed in statements over the past five days. No doubt on the sixth day the Prime Minister will tell us that all is well. I hope that we resolve the problems and get this tragedy out of the way so that we can debate the substance of the Government's proposed changes.
4.15 pm
The Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): While the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) rouses himself to react to the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), it occurs to me that the hon. Lady must be gutted by her performance. She was truly confused and ran out of steam, largely because the Conservatives have no policy on reforming the constitution and improving the way in which we run affairs in this country. Interestingly, their only Member of Parliament with a Scottish constituency, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), decided to make a brief intervention. I think that he has a strong claim in the imminent Conservative reshuffle to the post of shadow Scottish Secretary. We shall have to see whether his astute intervention will do the job.
Although the middle of the debate was relatively well tempered, we heard a typically process-obsessed, navel-gazing contribution from the Conservatives, who have opposed every measure for change, every advance towards devolution and every move towards a modern and relevant Parliament and Government. Any change gives them scope to feign shock and horror, but beneath their phoney concern lies the opportunism and bandwagon-leaping mindset that led them to defeat so many times and will do so again.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |