| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): I beg to move amendment No. 189, in clause 102, page 56, line 24, leave out subsection (3).
The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 184, in clause 102, page 56, line 24, leave out
'that does not prevent the making of'.
No. 185, in clause 102, page 56, line 25, at end insert
Mrs. Gillan: We move on to part 4 of the Bill. In the spirit of the welcome that I accord to this section of the Bill, we thoroughly approve of the provision for a referendum. As we have argued previously, we believe in asking the people of Wales for their views. Although the provision comes late in relation to the legislative devices encompassed in the Bill, certainly in part 3, we would not be so curmudgeonly as to fail to welcome the referendum should the Assembly receive full law-making powers.
I want to express an element of scepticism, however, on behalf of many who read that the Secretary of State does not envisage the provision being enacted before 2011—which, I understand, he has said on many occasions—and who believe that offering a referendum in such circumstances is merely a diversionary tactic. Certainly, by ostensibly offering a referendum in the Bill, the Secretary of State can point out that the Bill contains a provision that arranges to consult the people of Wales on a future occasion. In truth, however, it is so far into the future that it seems strange that we should be discussing it now. Therefore, while many continue to believe that the Secretary of Sate can achieve virtually full law-making powers through the convoluted Order in Council process contained in part 3, they remain to be convinced that the Secretary of State has any intention of ever holding this referendum.
I am a pleasant person, however—
Mrs. Gillan: I thank the hon. Gentleman. I would like to give the Secretary of State the benefit of the doubt, and I will therefore assume that at some time in the future the provision will be put into operation. If it is put into operation, however, it would be inequitable to allow what is contained in the provisions—the ability for referendums to be repeated over and over again. Certainly, I am not the only person who is worried about that phenomenon in relation to the way in which clause 102 is drafted.
I am sure that the Father of the House, the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), whom I am delighted to see in his place, will want to make his contribution. As it happens, he tabled an amendment identical to mine, and I am slightly embarrassed that my amendment was selected first, as I would certainly have given way to the Father of the House if his amendment
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1368
had been selected and he had wanted to move it. On Second Reading he made a great deal of sense, and he was particularly concerned that the Secretary of State had not even taken into account the First Minister's views, or, indeed, his own views, that a no vote would take the matter off the agenda for a long time.
The Government only issued their response to the Welsh Affairs Committee on 18 January, but that Committee had also been concerned about the chances of a referendum being repeated over and over again following a no vote. I refer in particular to the "Better Governance for Wales" scrutiny by that Committee, and to paragraph 135. I am sure that the Secretary of State is pretty intimate with its wording, because he must have examined it carefully to respond to the conclusion. It is worth repeating:
"The Secretary of State confirmed that there would not be specific provision in the Bill to outlaw repeated referenda, as that would be a 'matter for politics'."
There we have it—the consideration is not about the effect on the people of Wales, or the effect on the morale of people facing repeated referendums, but a "matter for politics" . The paragraph continued:
"believed that should a referendum fail 'everybody will have to take a deep breath and decide when they want to do this again' but was of the strong belief that a 'No' vote would put the issue 'off the agenda for a very long time', probably lasting a generation."
That is not what the Bill allows for, however. Even Professors Miers and Rawlings, in giving evidence,
"suggested that there was a case for 'a moratorium on further referendum initiatives for a specified period, for example, two Assembly terms'. In that event, the effect of a 'No' vote would be 'simply that the Assembly carried on as it was'."
I should have thought that that was the Secretary of State's exit route, and that the clause could have allowed for a referendum to be held, say, after two further Assembly terms, which might have been more reasonable and have found favour in the House and certainly in another place. However, the Government's response stated:
"The Government agrees that there should not be a cycle of essentially redundant or capricious referendums—not least reflecting voter confidence and the significant cost involved. However, the Government does not consider that explicit provision is needed to bar repeated referendums. The provisions within the Bill to ensure consensus, i.e., approval of any referendum Order in Council by both Houses of Parliament and by a two thirds majority of all Assembly Members, together with the role of the Secretary of State, should prevent this."
I beg to differ. Despite that response, I ask the Government to think again. If they are going to rely on the provisions that are retained in the Bill, if they believe that a no vote would put a referendum off for a long time, and if, as the Secretary of State confirmed, it should be a matter for politics, I ask him to practise good politics. He is capable of accepting the amendment and improving the Bill for and on behalf of the people of Wales.
The Secretary of State said that this piece of legislation would settle the question of devolution in Wales "for a generation". If the Government are allowing in the Bill the possibility for repeat referendums, how can the Bill be about settling the debate? It is quite the reverse. It is about prolonging the
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1369
debate and achieving an end by a process of attrition. I am sure that that is not what he would want as a testimony to his stewardship of Wales: the prospect of a running sore in the history of devolution.
This is not an ambitious amendment. It is not a monumental change that is being requested. It is a sensible measure that would rule out using the referendum process improperly. I hope that the Secretary of State will consider the amendments and accept them in the spirit in which they were tabled.
Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) (Lab): I share the embarrassment of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) at finding that our minds work alike and that we both tabled the same amendment. I hope that her colleagues will not hold that against her. I remind my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that, when he first came to the Dispatch Box to announce what he had in mind, I welcomed the referendum, and he welcomed the fact that I supported what he said at that time. A week ago, I welcomed the referendum because I thought that a referendum meant that the people of Wales would make a choice. I did not realise that it was to be an ongoing saga until the people of Wales made the right choice, the choice that the Secretary of State wants and the only choice and decision that he is willing to accept. I have become disenchanted, to put it mildly.
I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Wales last week to confirm my reading of the Bill that we could get full devolution without a referendum just by the use of the order process. In fairness to him, he came back to me during the week and confirmed what I said: it would be slow but—this is the important point—inexorable. The people of Wales cannot escape that while Ministers who share the view of the Secretary of State are making the decisions. Full powers can be achieved by the order-making process alone. Yes, it is slow but virtually nothing can stop it while Ministers are so determined.
The Bill is clear. That consequence has already been described. A majority of one and we jump right through to full devolution. A defeat by 100,000 or 250,000 and we will come back again and again and again. Ministers have not even been willing to put in the safeguard of a time limit. They go to the Select Committee and indicate the time that they think would pass before anything different could be introduced, but they are not willing to put any time limit in the Bill.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |