My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this issue and I do not think there is any difference in intention between the Government and what the noble Lord has expressed in terms of the process that should be conducted. We think that we have described in the Bill a process which ought to assuage his anxieties about these issues, although I recognise that with his amendment he is seeking to be more specific.
In practice, the sequence of events for approving a draft referendum Order in Council will be that the statutory consultation would take place first, and then the draft laid before the Assembly for approval because if it were not approved by a two-thirds majority, that would be the end of it. If it is approved, the Secretary of State would lay the draft before both Houses of Parliament for approval. That was the process we envisaged in the Bill until the recent amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Roberts. It is not necessary for Clause 104 to repeat the provisions of Clause 103. Clause 104(3)(a) refers to a draft referendum order under Clause 103(1). That reference attracts the rest of the provisions of Clause 103 and it is clear that all the provisions set out in that clause must be complied with in order to hold a referendum. Clause 103 governs the process. It is therefore not necessary to spell out that the Secretary of State must communicate the results of the consultation exercise to the Assembly. If the outcome of that consultation were to lead to the Secretary of State not laying a draft order before Parliament, that would be made clear in the reasons given to the Assembly under Clause 104.
What we do expect is for the Secretary of State to be in close contact with the Assembly First Minister on the most important issue that the Assembly is likely to consider. We naturally would expect the Secretary of State to inform the First Minister of when the consultation had been completed and its results, simply a matter of good governance and proper administration. The aim of the legislation as drafted is to set out a minimum of what must be done rather than to spell out in every detail the process which needs to be carried out administratively.
I hear what the noble Lord says and understand that he is seeking to be helpful and constructive here, but I think we have it right in these two clauses. We have described the essential process, but the nature of the administration is a matter for governance and administration, and therefore does not need to be spelt out in the Bill. I hope the noble Lord will see that we are of like minds on what should happen and is destined to happen, without the need for an additional amendment.
Government of Wales Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Davies of Oldham
(Labour)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 13 July 2006.
It occurred during Debate on bills on Government of Wales Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
684 c861 
Session
2005-06
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 09:33:26 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337698
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337698
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_337698