Government of Wales Bill

For the reasons that I am about to explain to my right hon. Friend and the House. The amendments are an attempt to address the perceived risk that repeat referendums could be held on the commencement of Assembly Act provisions. I do not think that an explicit provision is required to stop repeat referendums, whether that is of the type proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), or that proposed by the Conservative party, because the Bill provides for an environment of consensus. Hon. Members who have spoken do not seem to have recognised that a two-thirds majority of the Assembly would be required. I have been criticised for insisting on a two-thirds majority, and ardent advocates of primary powers say that it will create an obstacle. I make no apology for the proposal because I do not consider it to be an obstacle. If we are going to go for a referendum, it makes elementary political sense to say that we must be satisfied that the conditions are at least those that existed in 1997, with Welsh Labour, the Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru—and probably sections of the Welsh Conservatives—being in favour of a referendum and full primary law-making powers. The two-thirds majority is an essential check on whether there is consensus. In addition, a vote in the House and the House of Lords will be required, so Parliament will have to endorse that position. The idea that a series of referendums could be called one year after another—Quebec-style—is not realistic given the need for a two-thirds majority in the Assembly and a vote in the House of Commons and House of Lords. My answer to the fair question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, West is thus that a process of caution is build into the Bill. A further point, albeit not a decisive one, would be in the background and could figure in public debate. Referendums are costly. It is estimated that a referendum would cost about £7 million, which is another reason why the people of Wales would revolt at the idea of continual referendums. History teaches us the political reality. When the referendum was lost in 1979, it took until 1997 to create the conditions in which it was felt that there was consensus to move again. We do not need legislation on the matter because it would put rigid barriers in the way of the politics. We and the people of Wales want politics to reflect the centre of gravity of Welsh politics, which is where I humbly believe that the Bill is situated. The problem with amendment No. 189 is that it would throw away the key for the future. In that spirit, I hope that the hon. Lady withdraws it and that my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon will not push his amendments to a vote. There are sufficient locks to require political consensus to be created, through a two-thirds vote in the Assembly initially, and then with this House and the House of Lords having the final say. I do not think that Parliament would stand for continuous referendums to bully people into voting yes, even if the Assembly repeatedly requested them. There is no support for that in the House and I, as the Secretary of State responsible for introducing the Bill, would have no truck with it.