Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, I am greatly flattered by the detailed curriculum vitae relating to me that the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, has indulged in, although, with the greatest respect to him and to myself, I think that it was the least substantial part of his address. The real issue here is whether a referendum is necessary. The case put with so much lucidity, force and charm by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, is that these are essentially revolutionary, fundamental changes of a constitutional nature that need the arbitrament of the Welsh people by way of a referendum. I do not believe that I do any disservice to the case put by the noble Lord, but I challenge his view that these provisions are of a revolutionary nature. All that Clause 92 brings about is the capacity of the Welsh Assembly to set in train a process that will create a legislative slot. It is true to say that that legislative slot will be brought about, or not brought about, by an Order in Council. If it is brought about, it will be the product of a long process of joint consultation. Unless there is such understanding between the two bodies—the Cardiff Assembly and the Westminster Parliament—and unless there is trust, integrity and candour, it will all fail. It would be perfectly possible, in theory, to conceive of a situation in which something was sold as being narrow and limited, whereas there was a hidden agenda and all manner of things were being contemplated. If the Welsh Assembly proceeded in that way—and I am utterly confident that it will not—it would deserve to have the whole matter fail and the whole of Part 3 rendered nugatory. It depends upon trust, reasonableness and joint consultation of a meaningful and chivalrous nature. Once that is done, and the slot has been identified, there is nothing revolutionary in the idea of a series of decisions by the Welsh Assembly. It is not correct, as the noble Lords, Lord Crickhowell and Lord Kingsland, argued, that all slots in Acts of Parliament are filled only by an Order in Council. There is the power for Ministers to make regulations without bringing the matter to this House. Ministers do not lose sleep over that. If it is right for a Minister as an individual to be able to do that, how much more right is it for an assembly such as the Welsh Assembly—a democratically elected body, operating within strict statutory powers—to be able to do that? In those circumstances, it is not necessary to regard this as revolutionary, and no argument that it is necessary for there to be a referendum can properly be mounted on that. The second reason is one that I put forward in Committee. The Conservative Party has set its face, honourably but determinedly, against referendums all along. That was the situation in 1972, when the European Communities Act was passed. Section 2 of that Act provides:"““All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly””." I say nothing for or against the European Common Market and the European Union today. But that was undoubtedly the most massive transfer of sovereign power—I see that the noble Lord, Lord Norton, agrees—that ever occurred in the history of the British people. It was the Conservative Party’s honourable decision to put this matter to the arbitrament of the British people by way of referendum. Why should it now, with regard to something so puny and limited, maintain that there has to be a referendum on Wales? The Bible puts it this way: why strain at the gnat and yet swallow the camel? That is exactly what the Conservative Party is doing.