| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman keeps on making comparisons with Northern Ireland legislation, but unless I am mistaken, the mechanism there limits referendums to once in a decade. Is he therefore suggesting that such a provision should be introduced into this Bill?
8 pm
Lembit Öpik: I feel that I am almost negotiating with the Conservatives on this issue. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he is so moved by my argument that he accepts the case for a structured revisiting of the referendum process on a limited time scale, that is progress. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) says that I did not listen to what she said earlier, but let me remind her of what I said. I said that we Liberal Democrats are not keen on holding a referendum at all, so for us, including this element in the Bill is otiose. I am suggesting to those who seek a referendum that it is inappropriate to hold one just once, and then to prevent one from being held ever again.
As I said, I look forward to hearing what the Government have to say about this issue. But I counsel those who seek to discuss the question of referendums, and other elements of such Bills, that it is vital that we learn lessons from other aspects of the United Kingdom devolution programme. In order to remain consistent, one must make sure that one does not introduce inconsistencies through amendments.
Dr. Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab):
The amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) and I arise out of
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1374
recommendations made by the Welsh Affairs Committee, which I chair, and they enjoy broad cross-party support. The amendments deal with the possibility of subsequent referendums on the granting of primary legislative powers to the National Assembly. The Bill allows for a final stage of devolution, whereby the Assembly would become a fully functioning Parliament with primary legislative powers. I agree with the Government that a referendum of the people of Wales is necessary before that stage is reached, in order to achieve proper democratic legitimacy. However, should a referendum not deliver a decision in favour of giving such powers, it would be wrong for a series of subsequent referendums to be held until one of them delivered the desired yes result. I, along with many other Members, believe that such an exercise would diminish the democratic process.
Lembit Öpik: I shall resist intervening frequently on the hon. Gentleman, but I simply want to ask him this. Would he apply that same principle to Northern Ireland and the question of reunification?
Dr. Francis: We are discussing Wales, not Northern Ireland, which is another matter.
My Committee highlighted the concern to which I just referred and it recommended that, should a first referendum return a no vote, a subsequent one should not be held for a further two National Assembly terms. We believe that that is perfectly reasonable. Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), I approach this issue as an enthusiast for devolution. That may sound contradictory, but I believe that we have to show respect for the decisions taken by the people of Wales, and to give some time for reflection. I shall develop that point in a moment.
Both the Secretary of State and the First Minister acknowledge that, if a first referendum failed to deliver a yes result, a period of reflection would be necessary. Similarly, they are both of the view that a no result would put the issue off the agenda in Wales for a very long time. I agree with that view, as did my Committee, but I do not agree with the Government that the provisions already contained in the Bill are sufficient to prevent short-term repeated referendums, even if undertaken only as a political exercise. My amendment, which was inspired by the Welsh Affairs Committee's recommendations, would ensure that short-term repeated referendums could not happen. It would set a time limit within which a subsequent referendum could not be held—a further two Assembly general elections.
My amendments have two benefits. First, those in favour of granting primary powers, those against doing so, and the Welsh public at large—be they indifferent or undecided—would be clear about the implications of a no result. Such information is important if an informed decision is to be made.
Mr. Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman has to say, but is it not possible that his envisaged timetable might not be as long as he thinks? His amendment uses the phrase
which does not rule out the possibility of a referendum being held at the same time as an Assembly general election. The time scale could therefore be shorter than he perhaps has in mind.
Dr. Francis: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I have noted it. I may deal with it in a moment, through the other points that I am about to make.
Secondly, my amendment would provide a defined time period, during which thoughts about, and plans for, a subsequent referendum would be unnecessary. That would avoid the potential for doing needless work and—dare I say it?—indulging in political posturing. In his response to my Committee's report, the Secretary of State argued that a subsequent referendum would need the approval of the National Assembly and both Houses of Parliament, and that that was a "sufficient safeguard". He is correct to say that that safeguard would prevent a subsequent referendum from going ahead, but it would not prevent the National Assembly from making premature requests for subsequent referendums. My amendment would prevent that problem from arising and avoid the need for making judgment calls on the appropriateness of the timing of subsequent requests for referendums.
Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC): Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that, in addition to repeated capricious requests for referendums, it would also be unacceptable to have a long delay such as we experienced between 1979 and 1997? The timetable that he describes would prevent repeated referendums, but it would also prevent—hopefully—an unacceptably long delay until another referendum.
Dr. Francis: Indeed, and that is a very important point. Those of us who experienced the wait to which the hon. Gentleman refers recall that it was a very long wait, whereas eight years is a relatively short time.
My amendment would provide the clarity and certainty in respect of referendum procedures that my Committee emphasised is necessary. I ask Members to support it, and I urge the Secretary of State, as a supporter of democratic devolution, to reflect on these issues.
Mr. Gummer:
Not for the first time, I found the most surprising intervention in a debate to be one from a Liberal Democrat spokesman. On two different grounds, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) totally missed the point. First, he made the amazing suggestion that, having had a referendum of the people of Wales on the question of whether they wanted a very restricted form of devolution—many of the Members representing Plaid Cymru, along with others, were unhappy about that—no further reference to referendums should be allowed. This is a new constitutional concept, and evidently it is one that the Liberal Democrats might spread to other matters. The idea is that one makes a tiny decision and thereafter no movement from it should ever be allowed, whatever the circumstances, because one has signed up for ever to a rolling programme. The only question is whether it rolls
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1376
fast or slow. This amazing and unusual proposal should have appeared in the Liberal Democrat manifesto. It took some doing, but I read that document. As far as I understand, it was never likely to contain such a proposal.
Lembit Öpik: The right hon. Gentleman has described my feelings about being in the Liberal Democrats over the past two weeks. His general point is correct, but it is not right to say that we would allow no further reference to the public. Manifestos for elections to the Welsh Assembly and to this House offer an authoritative way to consult the public.
Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman's use of words allows me to explain my deep opposition to all referendums. When Parliament makes a decision such as this, it does so on behalf of the whole nation. People who are affected by it can vote on it, whether or not they are in Wales or Scotland. That would not happen with a referendum, even though UK citizens who live in England also have a part to play. A parliamentary democracy offers a much more sensible way to proceed.
The unfortunate thing for the hon. Gentleman is that we chose to proceed by referendum. When people are asked in a referendum to accept one form of devolution, it is very peculiar then to ask them to move to a different form of devolution that has been decided on in an entirely different manner. Indeed, that decision would be neither parliamentary nor derived from a referendum.
The Bill proposes a mechanism for devolution by salami slices. As the Father of the House pointed out, at the end of the process a referendum will be proposed, even though by that stage all the matters that could be decided by referendum will have been devolved. That is a unique and dangerous parliamentary concept—although no more so than the Liberal Democrat proposition that people are never asked at all.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |