Save our SOS: Why Wales needs its place at the Cabinet table
Bubble — By Anthony Hunt on February 5, 2010 7:00 am
Cast adrift: the campaign to reduce Wales's voice seems to be gathering strength
LORD Elis Thomas thinks the post of Secretary of State for Wales should be done away with. It’s not really that great a surprise, is it? He’s a Plaid AM: his party believes there should be no United Kingdom, no Cabinet and no Secretaries of State – of any sort. The only thing that would be surprising – and newsworthy – is if he did think a Welsh Secretary was a good thing. Anyone who believes in a strong Wales within Britain, meanwhile, should take issue.
I worked in the Wales Office as a Special Adviser, and also in and around the National Assembly. These experiences have strengthened my view that both are vital for Wales to get the best out of the Union.
The problem is that the Secretary of State’s role has been too often portrayed as the ‘other side of the coin’ from devolution. A counter-balance to please those less keen on powers being transferred to Cardiff Bay. This perception is a hangover from pre-devolution days, where the Secretary of State was top dog, running our public services from Whitehall. Those wanting a strengthened Assembly Government therefore see the continuing dimininition of the status of the Secretary of State as a natural consequence of their desired power-shift.
Popular nationalist sentiment casts the Secretary of State as the cuckoo in the nest, an enemy within doing the bidding of the UK Government, “snubbing or “doing down” Wales, depending on the cliché of the day.
Devolutionists should trenchantly reject this, just as progressives should resist being put off by the oversold negative image of the Wales Office as ‘so last decade’, outmoded by the more modern institutions of devolution – a token gesture made in black and white to make our incredibly centralised state functionally, if not democratically, less-so, but beyond its use now.
This image is unfortunate and the false choice between devolution and the Wales Office is counter-productive. In contrast to the popular myth, in reality the Secretary of State’s position and the Wales Office as a whole are entirely complimentary to the work of the Assembly and its Government, and a vital part of its efforts to deliver for Wales.
One thing needs to be recognised as a central part of this argument: that the job of Welsh Secretary is entirely different to the pre-devolution era. It is more behind-the-scenes, more of a diplomatic role, rather than a job running high-profile services. The latter is now a job for the First Minister, the figurehead of democratic politics in Wales , the top man or woman – and for their Ministers. That is right and proper. But don’t confuse profile with importance. Although the Secretary of State’s job is no longer the same, it does not mean that it is any less vital for good governance.
The first thing any good Secretary of State for Wales must realise is that they are in partnership with the Assembly Government, not against it – if there is a ‘tug of war’, you are both on the same side.
I saw Paul Murphy working incredibly closely with Rhodri Morgan and his Ministers to tackle the economic downturn, and on countless other issues. That working relationship was massively constructive. It was based on mutual trust, openness and common purpose. No talk of division between the two sets of politicians – they were most certainly in it together, rolling up their sleeves for the people they both represent. This is a model Peter Hain and Wayne David have taken up.
Our job was always clear – to work together for the best interests of Wales, arbitrating, brokering deals when necessary, improving the way that Cardiff and Westminster work in union. There will always be opportunities for misunderstandings between any institutions of governance. But with a trusted, honest broker in the form of a Welsh Secretary ready to step in at the top level, those difficulties can usually be solved.
The Cabinet status of our Secretary of State is a real boost for Wales, and for its Government in the Bay. Some from the English regions would love to take it from us, seeing it as an unfair advantage. But why should we give it up voluntarily? Contrary to the straw man that nationalists like to set alight, very often the existence of a Secretary of State gives a voice explaining or even expounding Assembly Government policy or opinions at the highest level. A strong Wales in a strong UK needs a Secretary of State in the Cabinet to protect and further our interests.
What about the comments of former WAG Permanent Secretary Sir Jon Shortridge in his evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee last month? He certainly can’t be dismissed as scoring political points in the same way as others. Sir Jon argued that, as devolution has matured, WAG and UK Ministers should talk more directly and therefore the Wales Office should be allowed to “wither away”.
There is some merit in the first part of his argument. Assembly Government Ministers and their counterparts in Westminster should enjoy a close relationship, meeting regularly for the benefit of both Wales and the UK. The more these discussions take place the better and, in my experience, there is far more interaction now than there was ten years ago. However, usually before, sometimes during and always after such meetings, who is the first person who both Ministers want to talk to? The Welsh Secretary – often the one senior politician they both know and trust.
So yes, the Welsh Secretary is a middle-man in this respect, the arbiter rather than the decision-maker. Yes, the policy area in question should be discussed directly between the two Ministers. But the Welsh Secretary is a vital part in trying to ensure that good governance – and therefore Wales and Welsh services – is the winner.
Much of Sir Jon’s frustration stemmed from what he described as instances of the lack of devo-awareness in Whitehall. But surely this weakness is an argument for the continuance of the Wales Office, not for its demise. The Wales Office has a continuing role to play at an official level explaining what is done differently in Wales and why, and protecting our right to do so from sometimes suspicious Departments.
Sir Jon pointed to the Building Britain’s Future documents as an example. Perhaps this is one of the unfortunate instances of headlines occurring only whenever things do not go smoothly rather than when they do, but the Wales Office does an enormous amount of behind-the scenes work liaising with Departments to ensure that Welsh interest are considered when legislation is drawn up and Government policy considered. If this work were not done by the Wales Office, I doubt it would be able to be done in the same manner and such misunderstandings would be more, not less, common.
Of course, as with any position, views on its effectiveness are often closely linked to views about the post-holder. The two men who have held the position for the last ten years are in themselves strong arguments for its continuance. Paul Murphy and Peter Hain came to the job from very different perspectives on devolution and different public persona. But they were linked, along with Rhodri Morgan, by a strong determination to do their best to nurture the new institution in its first decade.
Some nationalists are suspicious of Paul because of his perceived lack of enthusiasm for devolution, which is puzzling considering that he has done as much any other UK politician to make it a success – in Northern Ireland and in Wales. In the Wales Office, the relationships of trust and respect that he had built with Ministers at both ends of the M4 made him a highly effective Secretary of State.
Peter Hain’s sensible, pragmatic but passionate approach to devolution has also sometimes ruffled nationalist feathers, especially when his wise and well-intentioned words of caution have been mistaken for something else. But Ministers have always respected the way Peter put real effort and zeal into the “yes” campaign and appreciate the energy he brings to battling anything getting in the way of Wales’ best interests.
The role will be continually questioned, especially if any future Government chooses to appoint an MP from an English constituency to the role. Wales did not take too kindly to that the last time it happened, and I’m sure we’ve moved on too far for that to happen again. But until that day we should surely aim to hold both, not one or other: a strong Government for Wales with a strong voice in the UK Cabinet. Why should we have to choose?
The role of Secretary of State for Wales is much changed since the days of Jim Griffiths, or thankfully the days of John Redwood. The role is more subtle, less glamorous perhaps, but no less important when done well. It’s all about bringing out the best of post-devolution Wales within a strong United Kingdom – the best of both worlds. Perhaps that’s why nationalists want rid of it.
Tags: constitutional reform, devolution, Paul Murphy, Peter Hain, Secretary of State for Wales
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
33 Comments
dunno. Since we are still a “United Kingdom”, then we need representation in London. Infact, we only need a Welsh representitive, not a bunch of MPs. Infact, why not rename Westminster “The English Parliament”, call a spade a spade, and then have a seperate “United Nations” type thing with representitives from Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, to discuss matters of common interest. Yeah, like that.
So we need a Welsh representitive. Just not Hain.
You make a lot of sense – but fast forward 6 months to when Cheryl Gillan is in the seat and how would you see things working out then??
A very interesting article, Anthony, thanks for sharing.
“Much of Sir Jon’s frustration stemmed from what he described as instances of the lack of devo-awareness in Whitehall. But surely this weakness is an argument for the continuance of the Wales Office, not for its demise.”
That would be my take too, at the moment. But post a successful referendum that would be less of an issue, probably.
To be a little tangential, I am not persuaded that a Secretary of State representing Wales in Cabinet need do so solely as a defender of just Wales’ interests. A department of the nations and regions does not worry me in the slightest.
Hmm.
““Much of Sir Jon’s frustration stemmed from what he described as instances of the lack of devo-awareness in Whitehall. But surely this weakness is an argument for the continuance of the Wales Office, not for its demise.”
Of course there is another argument that this highlights the bad job the Wales Office has done in raising devolution awareness? The bigger problem I see is that the Wales Office has acted as a buffer to WAG/Whitehall Ministers meeting as equals. This attitude seeped into Ben Bradshaw’s thinking regarding car parking charges, we have yet to see contrition from Andy Burnham on this matter. The problem is that Westminster Minister’s see Welsh counterparts as beneath them.
The straw man is not the dearly hated nationalist concotion presented above, but the fact that Labour have presented a false dichtomy on such matters. Many people want better representation, not necessarily more representation. We dont want a Welsh Secretary telling all who will listen that he thinks the referendum will be lost while maintaining he is supportive of the WAG. We dont want 40 MPs for the sake of having a ‘bigger voice’, when the fact is that it is fair and right at Wales has a reduction in MPs (due to more devolution and over representation). Getting rid of the Welsh Secretary not a nationalist idea, it is an example of how devolution has altered the way we do Government forever. I await the first Welsh Labour press release on May 8th which will say how Cheryl Gillan is ‘bringing in policy that hurts Wales’ or that ‘she is riding roughshod over devolution’.
I mean I am pretty sure Labour will campaign for a yes vote and make implicit noises about how the LCO process has not worked. Now, who was the architect of such a system…hmmm…I wonder.
I agree with Daran, a Minister for the Regions, immersed in the different strands of devolution is what we need. Which I feel would be more a legalistic role, interpreting and communicating to Whitehall the implications of devolution on its policy, but also the other way around. This in turn would lead to devolved institutions having a central point to share best practice, but also learn on a far more practical level about other devolved institutions.
“The role will be continually questioned, especially if any future Government chooses to appoint an MP from an English constituency to the role. Wales did not take too kindly to that the last time it happened, and I’m sure we’ve moved on too far for that to happen again.”
Do you really think so? The shadow secretary of state for Wales represents an English constituency, what reason do you have to think she will not become secretary of state if the Tories win the election? Has David Cameron actually said that he would only appoint a Welsh representative as Secretary of State? Is there any law or standing order in parliament that prevents him or any other PM from appointing an non-Welsh representative as secretary of state? (as I believe is the case with Scotland).
Surely this point cuts to the heart of the matter, if the role of the secretary of state is to represent Wales in the UK government then that person should represent a Welsh seat, and shoul either be appointed by the National Assembly or WAG, or should be elected by the Welsh MP’s. The latter would also ensure that the Secretary of state represents the party that most Welsh people voted for.
The current system – where an English or Scotish PM (whose party may or may not have been elected by the people of Wales) can appoint any MP to the role on a whim, regardless of whether they belong to the party that won the Welsh vote, or even whether they represent a Welsh seat, is truly beyond parody.
Thanks for the comments.
Al said: “dunno. Since we are still a “United Kingdom”, then we need representation in London. In fact, we only need a Welsh representitive, not a bunch of MPs. In fact, why not rename Westminster “The English Parliament”, call a spade a spade, and then have a seperate “United Nations” type thing with representitives from Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and England, to discuss matters of common interest.”
But unless you want independence, Westminster is not an ‘English Parliament’. If you do believe in independence, fair enough – we’ll have to disagree. My point is that as long as Wales is part of the UK, our SofS, and Welsh MPs as well, play a big part in getting the most out of the Union.
Penddu said: “You make a lot of sense – but fast forward six months to when Cheryl Gillan is in the seat and how would you see things working out then?”
Thanks. That scenario is one of the many reasons that I’ll be campaigning hard for a Labour win! We’ll have to cross that bridge if we come to it…
Daran said: “That would be my take too, at the moment. But post a successful referendum that would be less of an issue, probably.”
Perhaps in terms of the LCO process, but there would still be a job to do getting things done in Whitehall and defending Wales’ interests.
“To be a little tangential, I am not persuaded that a Secretary of State representing Wales in Cabinet need do so solely as a defender of just Wales’ interests. A department of the nations and regions does not worry me in the slightest.”
It does me, as I fear that Wales will be in danger of being marginalised in that scenario. Scotland has the weight and numbers to always be centre-stage in a Dept of the Nations and Regions. We’ve seen in the last month how Northern Ireland can throw up the kind of intense negotiations that would dominate a Department’s workload and its Ministers’ efforts. Where would that leave us?
Cyntaf said: “Of course there is another argument that this highlights the bad job the Wales Office has done in raising devolution awareness? The bigger problem I see is that the Wales Office has acted as a buffer to WAG/Whitehall Ministers meeting as equals.”
For me, it mearly shows the scale of the challenge that the WO faces in developing devo-awareness. It’s a bit like being a goalkeeper really – you make the news if you let a goal in, and few remember the ten saves you made in the same game… And for what it’s worth, I genuinely don’t think the Wales Office has in practice acted as a buffer – more of a facilitator.
“I await the first Welsh Labour press release on May 8th which will say how Cheryl Gillan is ‘bringing in policy that hurts Wales’ or that ’she is riding roughshod over devolution’.”
Well, I hope any SofS gets judged by the actions they take, so if she does either of the above, my argument over the value of the job if done well remains. Just like an SofS for Health, for example – to attack a decision they take is not to argue that there should not be an SofS for Health.
“This in turn would lead to devolved institutions having a central point to share best practice”
I agree that efforts to talk to other DAs to share best practice should be stepped up. I don’t see the link between that and getting rid of our SoS though.
WC said: “Has David Cameron actually said that he would only appoint a Welsh representative as Secretary of State? Is there any law or standing order in parliament that prevents him or any other PM from appointing an non-Welsh representative as secretary of state? (as I believe is the case with Scotland).”
To answer your questions, no and no, as I understand it. My ‘surely…’ phrase was meant as a question, a challenge and an expression of my belief that the SofS should represent a Welsh seat, rather than a belief that any Tory Government would not appoint from outside Wales as they have before. The only way to get an SofS from a Welsh seat is to vote Labour!
From what I have been told, Paul Murphy was a highly respected Secretary of Sate for Wales – in Plaid circles. He was very straight and did not try to manipulate situations in an unnecessary manner. The current problem with Whitehall is as Carwyn described, a consequence of many in London considering devolution as an experiment and not a permanent solution. They don’t get Wales and have little interest in doing so. We are a minor irritation when compared to Scotland or Northern Ireland. This situation does not exactly paint the Wales Office in a good light, as if they have any role at all, it is to dispell these imperialist attitudes.
I can see a role for a Wales office for now, but one serving Wales and not the party in power in London. There needs to be a change at the top as other parties need to have a level of trust and I am not sure that Peter Hain will ever hold that position. It is a pity that Paul Murphy was not still there.
“But unless you want independence, Westminster is not an ‘English Parliament’”
Here we will have to disagree. Independence or not, the Westminster is an English Parliament. 46 Wales MPs compared 606? There is nothing more that exposes the inequity of the situation more then the events surrounding the Flooding of Capel Celyn. Unless the UK becomes federated and each nation has an equal say in legislation, there is no equity here.
“That scenario is one of the many reasons that I’ll be campaigning hard for a Labour win!” I suspect that Tory government in London and a Coalition government in Cardiff would further illustrate the differences between the two nations and further galvanize the Welsh political polity into more powers for the Assembly. Therefore, I’m exploring the Conservative option this go round.
“To be a little tangential, I am not persuaded that a Secretary of State representing Wales in Cabinet need do so solely as a defender of just Wales’ interests. A department of the nations and regions does not worry me in the slightest”
I agree with this comment.
“Of course there is another argument that this highlights the bad job the Wales Office has done […]”
I agree with this statement. Furthermore, I would add that I have always been disturbed that most ministers appointed to the office generally do not have any connection with Wales.
While I respect your position outlined in your article, I am unconvinced of the continued need of the Wales Office.
David writes:
“I would add that I have always been disturbed that most ministers appointed to the office generally do not have any connection with Wales.”
This is factually incorrect by quite some way. There were four Secretaries of State for Wales over a ten year period (1987-97) who did not represent Welsh constituencies and had arguably little connection with Wales. The post of Secretary of State for Wales has existed nearly thirty six years. All others had a strong connection with Wales. The only other non-Welsh constituency SofS Peter Thomas (1970-4) was a former Welsh MP even though he represented Henley at the time of his appointment.
I stand corrected then on that point, thank you Darren Those years 1987 through 97 were my formulative years so they do stick out. My apologies.
Having said that, I don’t really consider Peter Hain to be a Welsh politician anyway. Hain only came to Wales to represent a Labour safe seat. Had he won Putney (in greater London) back in 83 or 87 then more then likely he would not be representing Neath today. How often does he actually reside in Wales anyway? If he resides in Neath less then six months out of the year then that qualifies more as a holiday home anyway. Does he have some familial connection to Wales that his bio doesn’t illustrate?
The role of Secretary of State for Wales personifies that essential, influential anchor needed in Cabinet to articulate the interests of Wales in the post-devolution era, as part of a strong United Kingdom.
So there are no suprises if Lord Elis Thomas and the nationalists continue their attritional, separatist campaign to cut the anchor cable which protects the ship that is Wales from the rocks.
Hey, thanks for complementing my old boss at the Wales Office, but there’s more than a bit of unfairness towards Peter Hain here. Peter’s Welsh credentials are unquestionable, and he’s never slow in coming forward to defend our interests in Westminster.
DL said: “I stand corrected then on that point, thank you Darren Those years 1987 through 97 were my formulative years so they do stick out. My apologies.”
Indeed, I remember them well. Unfortunately. Let’s not go back there…
In response to David Phillips’s comment, there are plenty of other people, not least the London commentariat, questioning whether the post is still necessary. If I remember correctly, Kirsty Williams has suggested that the post should go.
“If I remember correctly, Kirsty Williams has suggested that the post should go.”
Well, everyone is entitled to an opinion. I happen to think she is wrong if she believes the same as the nationalists on this matter.
What country in the world has cabinet ranked officers representing regions or nations? The Welsh Office was usually given to some loser or a politico that was on his or her way out. and for that matter has its legislature shoved out of the way near the sea? The Assembly might as well be on Flat Holm or even better the Steep one! Sounds to me like another excuse to employ expensive bureaucrats. Just think of it the former chief executive of Cardiff Council was on more money than the Governor of California!
MC said: “What country in the world has cabinet ranked officers representing regions or nations? The Welsh Office was usually given to some loser or a politico that was on his or her way out.”
Not sure about the international comparison, but it strikes me as fair enough to have Cabinet ranked politicians representing parts of our Union, given the distinct interests and issues that each has. And I think to say that Welsh Secretaries have been ‘losers’ or ‘on their way out’ is pretty inaccurate and petty really. You are capable of a more intellectually sufficient and reasoned argument than that.
Ah yes David Phillips, please don’t cut our anchor line to good ship Britannia. I mean, we’re doing great as part of the UK. The only country in Europe without electrified railways apart from Albania, great dependency on the welfare state, and of course generations of our youngsters fighting those crucial conflicts in the Falklands, the Gulf and Afghanistan. Without British rule we’d be like Ireland or Iceland and look at how their economies ended up. I mean, they are doing so badly they might even be as poor as Britain eventually.
I make no apologies for saying that there is no way Wales will ever resemble a prosperous country for as long as we are part of the UK. It is telling that Anthony Hunt attributes a great many roles and imperatives to having a Secretary of State for Wales and then says that to have one even representing a Welsh seat we have to vote for a certain political party. Wales does need a voice in London. An ambassador not a colonial governor.
What if the First Minister of Wales appointed the Secretary of State for Wales?
Then I think it might be worth keeping if the Welsh Assembly Government could appoint its representative to London. If the office of Secretary of State for Wales is supposed some sort of conduit by which Wales interests are brought to London, then the appointment should work from Wales to London, not visa versa. Otherwise, the secretary would be seen as some remnant of a colonial governor overseeing and unduly influencing Welsh affairs. Furthermore, why not have the post elected from within Wales? It’s something to consider.
——————————————————————————————————–
Hunt: “Peter’s Welsh credentials are unquestionable” – We’ll have to agree to disagree here.
- But I did enjoy my formulative years, lol. Ozzy written on the knuckles, banging out to metal and all that! Mandatory Metallica!
Phillips: “… to cut the anchor cable which protects the ship that is Wales from the rocks.”
- Not the best naval analogy here. In times of stormy weather, if you can’t pull anchor (and you are tethered to some behemoth of a ship), the next best thing to do is to cut anchor and go out to sea and wait out the storm. But this requires free will and self determination.
IL said: “It is telling that Anthony Hunt attributes a great many roles and imperatives to having a Secretary of State for Wales and then says that to have one even representing a Welsh seat we have to vote for a certain political party.”
I’m not telling you to vote for anybody, you can vote for who you like. All I’m saying is that, given the choice between a Labour and a Conservative Government (because that’s what the GE is), a Labour Government is much more likely to give you a SofS from a Welsh seat. Which in my view is one of many reasons for voting Labour.
IL said: “Wales does need a voice in London. An ambassador not a colonial governor.”
This talk of colonialism does grate. We are a part of Britain, not a colonial outpost. Wales is in the Union not because it is too weak to survive outside of it, but because we realise the strength that the common unity of the Union gives us. You may disagree with that, but phrases like ‘colonial governor’ are counterfactual.
DL said: “What if the First Minister of Wales appointed the Secretary of State for Wales?”
I don’t think the PM would take any more kindly to someone else appointing a member of his cabinet than the FM would to someone appointing somebody from his.
The point is, however, that whoever appoints the SofS, it is the SofS’s job to work together with the Assembly Government Ministers – that is why this is a pro-devolution argument , in contrast to the anti-devolution argument for an SofS where the post would be somebody working against the Assembly Government.
“given the choice between a Labour and a Conservative Government (because that’s what the GE is)…”
Is it really sustainable, just or even desirable that the political system should, as you admit, be a choice between just two parties?
“Wales is in the Union not because it is too weak to survive outside of it, but because we realise the strength that the common unity of the Union gives us.”
My point was probably more coloured by David Phillips’ talk of anchors and lifelines, which to be fair is a little different to your more positive view of the Union.
IL said: “Without British rule we’d be like Ireland or Iceland and look at how their economies ended up.”
From where I’m standing Ireland and Iceland are not models that the UK would want to follow.
David Llywelyn said: “Not the best naval analogy here. In times of stormy weather, ”
Please don’t lecture me on nautical matters.
Far too much has been written about the future role of the Secretary of State above, and I believe it would be more productive now to focus on the practical, germane issues which our economy faces going forward. Best to leave the exisitng arrangements in place, that is, a strong voice in cabinet for Wales.
The problem is what is the role of the Secretary of State for Wales? Is the post an ambassador for Wales in the Cabinet or the Cabinet’s ambassador in Wales? As long as the SoS comes from the party in government in Cardiff and also in Westminster then the first is possible. But if the parties of government are different in Cardiff and Westminster the second position inevitably becomes more prominent – in which case the SoS for Wales is in exactly the same position of the old post of SoS for India…. Arguably the constitutional settlement in Wales gives the SoS much more power than his counterpart – he has veto powers over certain aspects of life in Wales (water springs to mind…) he has a seat and a voice in the National Assembly and under the LCO process a veto on transferrer of power. This all goes beyond being Wales’ voice in Cabinet. Its these aspects that need to be examined as well as if we need the post.
AH. Yes your criticism is fair I can only excuse it on the grounds of little too much internet time and digging out of a lot of snow in Kansas. The only reason I use the international comparison was the discussion had reminded me of a dinner I had with a Mr and Mrs Bunker (his father had been a bigwig in the US State Department) He had been puzzled by the position and its uniqueness in the World. (this was pre devolution days).
Needless to say my observation of its occupants as being losers was unfair and I repent of that. However the post is not highly regarded and very much on the lowest rung of the ladder. I would like to know how the position has really benefited Wales in the past, since Wales is still at the bottom of the economic ladder. Plus position is now treated as a part time position. Does it truly have a purpose?
Is there a place for such a position in a country that is evolving into a federal polity? I would say no. to me a simple guy it smacks of duplication.or worse of one of those colonies in the West Indies before they achieved independence.
I take issue with my friend John Tyler’s assertion that Cardiff is no different from Rugby. That is not true and has not been since the Sunday Drinking acts of the 1890s. Wales is separate and whether John likes it or not it is a distinct nation.
I am not arguing against the position from a nationalist position but from a federalist viewpoint, which is where were are heading.
I don’t think we’re heading for a federalist position if the Conservatives can help it. One attraction of combining the territorial posts is that it falls more neatly into the paternalistic devolution the Conservatives are trying to promote.
Lyn David Thomas makes excellent points above, and this is why I believe that the Welsh First Minister should be able to appoint that position to the UK government. Or, have the post elected from within Wales so that he may have a legitimate “all-Wales” constituency if the post is truly to represent and reflect Wales to the UK government. Otherwise, for the UK government (of whatever colour) to appoint the SoS to Wales superimposes the UK government’s preconceived notions about what is best for Wales onto the Welsh Assembly and people.
“I don’t think we’re heading for a federalist position if the Conservatives can help it. One attraction of combining the territorial posts is that it falls more neatly into the paternalistic devolution the Conservatives are trying to promote.”
Within your non constitutional framework you are already a federalist nation (or quasi). Yes it could be scrapped by an act of Parliament but unlikely.
I think with the evolution towards a more federal Britain the idea is redundant. It would be better if the First Minister had seat and voice at UK cabinet sessions (or a delegate).
I think some of the other suggestions sound absurd and wasteful.
On a brief point, I am informed that Hain has very little role in the Cabinet and that Brown tries to involve him as little as possible. This is leaving him with too much times on his hands which may explain his annoying level of interference in LCO’s. Apparently, his input on the language LCO was particularly counter-productive.
Assuming that he ‘permits’ the referendum to go ahead, its ramifications will give him even less opportunity to justifiy his existence and with the rise of English nationalism playing an ever bigger role in Westminster, I see the Welsh cabinet post not lasting another Westminster term.
The Wales Office has a big role to play but I feel we must accept that Hain may well be the last Secretary of State for Wales.
Cripes! A Plaid mole around the Cabinet table. This must be from where Elfyn is getting his leaked memos
Place your bets. My money’s on Jack Straw – he’s always looked like a bit of a closet Welsh nat.
Ian – “The Wales Office has a big role to play but I feel we must accept that Hain may well be the last Secretary of State for Wales.”
I’m willing to wager a substantial sum that he won’t be…
As Paul Murphy himself has pointed out, the Secretary of State for Wales is an unusual creature – a named Secretary in an Act of Parliament. The post can be combined with the other two territorial posts but (unlike the Scottish post) can not be abolished without amending legislation i.e. revisiting the 2006 Government of Wales Act.
Daran said: “I’m willing to wager a substantial sum that he won’t be…”
I’ll have a tenner that way too…
I dont think he will be the last either!
And by the way Ian and co, I’ll repeat my previous point about some of the negative comments about the post-holders. Peter-baiting may be second only to fox hunting amongst Tories as their sport of choice, but he is a staunch defender of Welsh interests, has decent Labour values to the core and is never slow to defend what he thinks is right or attack injustice.