| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
If a one-vote majority is sufficient here on such contentious and important matters, why is it not good enough for the Assembly? The vote concerned will not be a vote to change the law; we will not be bringing in some huge innovation. It will be a question as to whether the people of Wales should be asked their opinion. In that circumstance, it would be quite proper to put the question to the people if a majority of the Assembly Members voted in favour. That is particularly so given the other checks on action that the Government have insisted on. When the Assembly holds a vote, there are the checks of the Secretary of State, of this place and of the place down the Corridor, as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) said. All we are looking for is a vote on whether the people of Wales should be asked their opinion. I think it is a matter of common sense to do that by a majority vote.
The research paper prepared by the Library notes that a two-thirds threshold is quite "unusual". It also notes that the nearest precedent for this unusual move was the
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1398
40 per cent. threshold required for the referendums of 1979 on devolution for Scotland and Wales. That is an unfortunate precedent, to say the least. I have no desire to replay the fierce arguments of 1979 as that would not be appropriate here.
Hywel Williams: I shall resist the temptation and note only that the 40 per cent. threshold then imposed was widely seen in Wales and in Scotland as being a wrecking move. There is a great danger that the higher threshold in the clause—not 40 per cent. but 66 per cent. before even an application could be made for a referendum—will be seen, too, as a wrecking move. It will be seen in a similar light.
Of course, in 1979 the referendum in Wales was lost disastrously, and it took us many years to recover from that. However, if I may allude briefly to the situation in Scotland, it is significant that the vote was carried in Scotland, but the 40 per cent. threshold was not achieved. That gave rise to a great deal of conflict and argument—the very controversy that the Secretary of State said only a few minutes ago that he was mindful to avoid in Wales. However, the Government are in danger of sowing further seeds of controversy, not about whether part 4 powers should come into effect but about whether the people of Wales should even be asked their opinion on the matter. The Secretary of State has an aversion to controversy around this issue, as he noted in speaking to amendment No. 31. In that respect, he should take the opportunity now to avoid further conflict on the two-thirds majority issue.
The Government will contend, I suppose, that the two-thirds majority would indicate a consensus. We have heard the Secretary of State and the Minister say that a number of times and that we should not proceed without such a majority. It is for the Minister to answer the points that I and perhaps other hon. Members will make.
Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab): Clearly, under the hon. Gentleman's proposal there could be a narrow majority, perhaps of only one. That would be a difficult referendum. What would be his view if a referendum on the future of the Assembly were lost on that basis?
Hywel Williams: I am happy to leave the question whether to hold a referendum to the good sense of the Assembly Members. That is what they are elected for by the people of Wales. They represent the people of Wales, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr said, they carry the sovereignty of the people of Wales. Plaid Cymru Members are happy to leave it to their good sense.
The argument is to be made by the Minister. I suspect that he will not agree with me. I cannot see why a simple majority is not sufficient to call a referendum.
Mr. Hain:
May I say to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) that he and I agree, and our parties agree, that primary powers should be in this Bill? His party properly and honourably has campaigned for that for generations. I am proud to be the first Labour Secretary of State to be putting primary powers in a Bill.
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1399
The hon. Gentleman referred to the 1979 referendum and the circumstances of it. I am haunted by that, although I did not take part in the campaign. From a distance I supported the yes campaign. I am also haunted by the narrowness of the vote in 1997. Unlike 1979, the Labour party was not bitterly divided on the question in 1997. In 1979, there was a minority saying yes and a majority probably no. The referendum was lost four to one. I do not think that we should go anywhere near a referendum that could produce those circumstances. That is why I built in carefully a two-thirds vote in the Assembly, which would require at least, in the current political configuration and that for the foreseeable future, Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats to be united, as we were in 1997. Even then, the referendum was only narrowly won.
If we put in place a mechanism that could result in an opportunistic vote in the Assembly with the current political arithmetic, the Opposition, even for the sake of embarrassing the Government—it is difficult to foresee, but one could imagine it—could force on the ruling Welsh Assembly Labour Government and on the Government here a referendum that could not be won by any objective assessment. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) pointed out, that would do terrible damage to the cause of devolution and to the cause in which the hon. Member for Caernarfon believes—that of an Assembly with primary powers. This is not a roadblock; it is a sensible precaution.
We would need a consensus in the Assembly, reflecting the views of directly elected Members only, and support in Parliament to follow. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, not because we disagree about the principle of primary powers in this Bill, or about having a strong Welsh Assembly or about the cause of devolution, but because if he were to get his way it could create circumstances that would take us nearer to 1979, which would be a disaster for the whole devolution cause.
9.45 pm
Hywel Williams: I must say that I take offence at the Secretary of State's comments about the possibility of the Opposition parties, especially my party, taking an opportunistic chance in the Assembly to embarrass the Labour Government. This issue is far too important for that and I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that our party has acted very responsibly on this matter.
Mr. Hain: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has taken this intervention, but I have to say that in recent months his party has consistently allied with the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats in the Assembly on opportunistic votes to defeat the Welsh Assembly Government. Why might not that happen again?
Hywel Williams: It is not opportunistic to vote against the Government on matters of principle and of great importance, such as tuition fees.
David T.C. Davies:
I am not sure whether I should declare an interest at this point. However, I remind the
24 Jan 2006 : Column 1400
Committee that different parties have voted in different configurations all the way through the Assembly. On many occasions—even quite recently—I have joined the Labour party in voting against the Welsh nationalists. I do not think that anyone should read anything into that other than that all parties will try to do their best for the people whom they serve.
Hywel Williams: I do not wish to continue this discussion, but it does appear that the Labour party thinks that genuine and honest opposition to the Labour Government is in some way dishonourable, and I reject that entirely. As the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) said, we have voted with the Government on occasion, depending on the issue.
I suspect that we shall not have a meeting of minds on the amendment and I do not wish to prolong the debate in view of the amount of business remaining. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Ian Lucas: I beg to move amendment No. 110, in page 57, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
'(3) The Secretary of State must—
(a) within the period of 120 days beginning immediately after the day upon which it is received consult upon—
(i) the voting system, and
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |