Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Roberts of Conwy moved Amendment No. 39:
"REFERENDUM ABOUT COMMENCEMENT OF ASSEMBLY MEASURES PROVISIONS
(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council cause a referendum to be held throughout Wales about whether the Assembly Measure provisions should come into force.
(2) If the majority of voters in a referendum held by virtue of subsection (1) vote in favour of the Assembly Measure provisions coming into force, the Assembly Measure provisions are to come into force in accordance with section 92.
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1247
(3) But if they do not, that does not prevent the making of a subsequent Order in Council under subsection (1).
(4) No recommendation is to be made to Her Majesty in Council to make an Order in Council under subsection (1) unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the Order in Council has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament and the Assembly.
(5) But subsection (4) is not satisfied unless the resolution of the Assembly is passed on a vote in which the number of Assembly members voting in favour of it is not less than two-thirds of the total number of Assembly seats.
(6) A draft of a statutory instrument containing an order in Council under subsection (1) may not be laid before either House of Parliament, or the Assembly, until the Secretary of State has undertaken such consultation as he considers appropriate.
(7) For further provision about referendums held by virtue of subsection (1), see Schedule 6.
(8) In this Act, "the Assembly Measure provisions" means sections 92 to 101."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at long last we come to a new clause which provides for a referendum to take place before the provisions in Part 3 are activated. There is no need for me to remind your Lordships that we have touched on the subject of a referendum in preceding debates. I explained in Committee the reasoning behind the need for a referendum and the consent of the Welsh electors prior to the commencement of Part 3. It is because there is in essence no difference of principle between the powers granted in Part 3 and the potential consequences over time and those granted in Part 4 which the Government acknowledge require a referendum and fresh consent.
I argued in Committee that the difference between the effect of the two parts was quantitative rather than qualitative and I am not alone in that. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, described the procedure in Part 3 as,
"a device to avoid having to come to Westminster to ask for primary powers to be formally devolved".
"depending on the way in which the Order in Council procedure is used, it could, in effect, be a concealed grant of almost a direct legislative competence down to Cardiff".
The Father of the House, the right honourable Alan Williams, saw part three as,
He saw its true character as did the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in its 17th report. It drew to the attention of the House,
"the width of the power in Part 3 and that it could, subject to the necessary parliamentary approval, be used to achieve a situation (by filling up the 'fields') which is not really distinguishable from that under Part 4 (for which a referendum is required)".
That is the true position in a nutshell.
So the case for a referendum before the implementation of Part 3 follows automatically from its existence in Part 4 as a requirement and the character of Part 3 in itself as a prelude. I regard it as rock solid. It is not surprising that attempts to undermine it in Committee failed miserably. Noble Lords were distracted from the central issue which is the similarity between Parts 3 and 4 and why the first
28 Jun 2006 : Column 1248
does not require a referendum while the other does. The main distraction was the wording of the question that might be put in the referendum. A number of useful suggestions were made during our debate; in any case, a similar question arises in the context of a Part 4 referendum, so it is not an insoluble problem as far as the Government are concerned.
The truth is that the Government do not wish for a referendum at this time because they do not think they could win it, as the Secretary of State, Mr Peter Hain, has said more than once. Various ideas have been put forward as to why he said it may have something to do with the current unpopularity of the Government. Other ardent devolutionists have intimated that he is probably right. I am not sure where the Liberal Democrats stand but I know where the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, stands, and I am delighted that he stands where he does.
People are not going to admit to themselves for a moment that they may have failed to provide devolution in a form that delivered the goods to the satisfaction of the Welsh peoplefar from it. But after the passage of this Bill the Welsh people will be governed by a changed system of devolved government of which they have not approved. We believe that, before the new system kicks in, they should be given the opportunity to approve it. We also believe that with all parties united behind the new proposals, there is a fair chance that the electorate will support them.
Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |