Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, suggested that the Conservative Party was being converted to the cause of devolution. The problem is that it is, like many recent converts, becoming quite messianic about it. It now proposes to reduce the threshold—or at least the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, does, from his original proposal of two-thirds of all Assembly Members to 55 per cent. It must be recognised that a referendum must not take place prematurely for the simple reason that an unsuccessful referendum would undermine confidence in the Assembly and do profound damage to the whole devolution settlement. Of course, noble Lords in opposition may be entirely reckless about that consequence for the people of Wales, but let me assure them that if they aspire to any position of responsible government, they would take a different view about what has been established in Wales and the damage that could be done to an Assembly in which a referendum would be held and then a vote of the people against an extension of its powers. We maintain that to advance the cause of devolution we need broad cross-party support. Therefore, taking the opposition parties at face value, we greatly welcome their commitment to the development of devolution and we want to see that broad party consensus developed before a referendum can go ahead. Even when there was consensus about these issues in 1997, it will be recognised that the referendum was won by only the narrowest of margins. A vote by not less than two-thirds of all Assembly Members and positive evidence from consultation would demonstrate that such a consultation existed and would help protect the devolution settlement for future generations. I am taking the Opposition at face value. They are committed to ensuring that devolution works. Therefore, I am sure that they agree with us that nothing should be done which would jeopardise the devolution settlement if things should go wrong with a referendum. It is therefore entirely right that we should see the gradual enhancement of powers for the Assembly, as we proposed, both in our manifesto and in the Bill. But the decision on full plenary powers would be, and is, a dramatic and significant decision for the people of Wales. It is only right. No Government would be acting responsibly at all if they pursued a course of action which might lead not only to the loss of that proposal, but to the existing devolution settlement and the operation of the Assembly being severely damaged. Amendment No. 63 would remove the statutory requirement placed on the Secretary of State to consult on the draft referendum order. Amendment No. 67 would remove the Secretary of State’s discretion over whether to lay a draft referendum Order in Council before Parliament. It cannot be unreasonable for the Secretary of State to have some discretion in this matter and to be able to take the views expressed through consultation into account. The United Kingdom Government of the day should have a say on such a major constitutional decision, because that is what it would be. I am hearing some strange arguments from some strange quarters at the present time, which are indicating that neither the Secretary of State nor Parliament should have any say in such a significant development. The Secretary of State cannot avoid consulting the electoral commission on the referendum question. That is required under Section 104 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. We are all united in wishing to see devolution succeed. We should not therefore support an amendment which would put it in jeopardy. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.