Welsh Governance

I can encourage the hon. Gentleman in this at least—that my Back-Bench colleagues are absolutely delighted to see him vaulting over the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) to become the leader of the opposition in Wales. I am rather puzzled by his question on the referendum, however, because the leader of the Liberal Democrat group in the Assembly believes that there should be a referendum immediately, whereas the hon. Gentleman told the Welsh Grand Committee that he did not believe in a referendum at all. So what is the Liberal Democrat policy on holding a referendum on primary powers? I think that we should be told. The hon. Gentleman asked about the timetable. I have made it clear that I see no case at all even for visiting the question of whether a consensus exists on the referendum before 2011 because the new arrangements will take time to bed down. The whole structure of the Assembly will be reformed and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman welcomed the abolition of its present corporate status, which is confusing and denies accountability. The Assembly will acquire enhanced powers and a new method of streamlined bidding for legislation from the House, so it will have to assume greater responsibilities. As I said, all that will take time to bed down. I see no case whatever for any movement ahead of the Richard commission timetable of 2011 and we shall have to see what happens after that. I would say to the hon. Gentleman that it is very dangerous in the current mood and context, in which Governments—all Governments—find it difficult to win referendums on whatever issue, to overplay commitments to holding referendums. We could do worse than reflect on the referendum in the north-east of England. We were told, and many of us faithfully believed, that there was support for such a referendum. I also remind the hon. Gentleman of the all too painful experience of many of us, including himself, in 1997. Before the 1997 referendum—only a couple of days before—I recall that the opinion polls showed, as they had consistently throughout the campaign, that the yes vote was about 2:1 ahead. What happened on the day? It was a narrow, hair’s-breadth victory for the yes side. In 1979, there had been a 4:1 defeat for the idea of having an assembly. We must therefore be very careful on this matter of referendums. It is not a question of me imposing obstacles in the way of further referendums. It is right that we in Westminster are aware of a clear two-thirds majority in the Assembly in favour of having primary powers—if or whenever that might be in the next decade—but we should also recognise that Parliament has the final say. After all, Parliament is the sovereign body of the United Kingdom. It is not a question of imposing barriers, but of finding a sensible way forward. As to stopping candidates from standing in both electoral categories, I realise that the hon. Gentleman has a problem because many Assembly Members were elected on a list basis. I do not mind electing people on that basis. However, the Electoral Reform Society—an independent body, though stuffed full of Liberal Democrats, I might add—argued that it was unfair and questioned the integrity of that system. Paragraph 3.16 deals with order-making powers, but it is not a question of allowing Parliament a veto. Presently, the Assembly makes a bid to the Secretary of State for certain legislation and Parliament has the deciding voice in establishing what goes into the legislative programme. It is clear in the paragraph that Parliament will retain the deciding voice in establishing whether a bid should proceed. A clear and convincing case will be well received in Parliament, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the White Paper.