Government of Wales Bill

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 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:"““Rhodri Morgan””—" the First Minister—"““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 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.