Government of Wales Bill

The hon. Gentleman says that I am going back to 1922, but that is how far one has to go back to find the last time that the Liberals played an active part in British politics. We have decided that decisions on these matters will be made at a referendum. I oppose referendums, which I consider to be inimical to the British system. However, if the referendum mechanism is to be used, it is vital to ensure that major decisions are arrived at as a result. The affair in question must be settled, at least for a reasonable period of time. We can argue about how long is reasonable, and I agree that a referendum cannot be held whose result is that no other referendum can ever be held. On the other hand, it cannot be desirable to have a system under which referendums are held so often that people become so fed up with voting that only a few zealots turn out. If those zealots should win by two votes, they would call it a remarkable victory. That is what the Father of the House is worried about, and any democrat should share his concern. The Select Committee was of the same opinion, even though its Chairman holds a view about devolution that is the complete opposite of the one held by the Father of the House. That shows that serious people with different views can come to the same conclusion on the question of referendums. They agree that a proper timetable is needed to prevent referendums from being used for what may be called ““partial”” purposes. The Secretary of State may say that we should not worry about what he and his Ministers do, as they will behave perfectly properly, but that is not my experience of the referendum process in England. The Government wanted to hold three referendums about the governance of the English regions, but when it became clear that they would lose at least two of them, they were not held. The parallel that I am making is related to the amendment under discussion, as a referendum was held in the north-east. The Government thought that they would win it, but they lost so heavily that the result looked like a vote in an African dictatorship, only in reverse. The Government lost appallingly badly in an area where Ministers were very active and indeed represented parliamentary seats. My point is that, although the Government failed to win the planned referendums, they nevertheless carried on implementing their regional policy, come what may. That is what could happen in Wales: a referendum is not held because it cannot be won, but the policy that would have followed a victory is implemented anyway. I should point out that, under this Government, ““regionalism”” means taking away powers from local government and giving them to a regional assembly. The Government’s failure in the first referendum of the proposed three was so bad that the other two were never held but, even so, they were determined to go ahead with the process that they had decided on. That is the problem with this Bill, and it is emphasised in this clause. The Father of the House made the same point. On no other occasion over many years have he and I agreed on so much. I want to celebrate that: it does not embarrass me, even though it may embarrass him. His reverence for Parliament and his longevity—which I hope to emulate—