Government of Wales Bill

My Lords, given all the circumstances that the Minister has outlined, one is tempted simply to ask him why on earth the Secretary of State hangs on to this power. I listened very carefully to the Secretary of State’s rejection of the amendment in the other place last week, and I have listened to the noble Lord’s remarks today. Frankly, I am not convinced that the Secretary of State’s alternative role of blocking an Assembly resolution asking for a referendum, backed by a two-thirds majority of the seats, instead of laying an order before Parliament to authorise the holding of a referendum is remotely justifiable. The Government’s view is that the Secretary of State cannot be compelled in this regard. The Secretary of State has said that and we have heard it again today. The relevant remarks of the Secretary of State are recorded at col. 232 of Commons’ Hansard of 18 July. He argued that he could not be compelled to act by the Assembly. However, he is not being compelled to act by the Assembly but by this legislation, passed by this Parliament. Clause 103(3) states that the ““Secretary of State must””—I emphasise the word ““must””— ““within … 120 days”” of being told of the resolution by the First Minister, "““(a) lay a draft of a statutory instrument containing an Order … or""(b) give notice in writing to the First Minister of [his] refusal to do so””." We have heard Ministers argue that the Secretary of State must have time to prepare the statutory instrument and to consult, but time is provided by the clause, which was drawn up by Ministers. They specified 120 days. As I made clear at Third Reading, the purpose of our amendment was to eliminate the Secretary of State’s right of refusal to lay an order—a refusal that would also deprive Parliament of the opportunity to express its wishes in response to the Assembly’s call for a referendum. Again, I ask why on earth he needs this power. I am still convinced that it is wholly wrong to allow the Secretary of State to thwart the Assembly’s will and as a result to deprive Parliament of its rightful opportunity to express its wishes regarding a referendum. The Government have failed to justify this power, but we have to view it in context, and that context is probably one in which a referendum is a very remote possibility indeed. The fact that the referendum to bring in Part 4 is currently out of political range means that the Bill is heavily dependent on the complex, gradualist mechanism of Part 3, which even the noble Lord, Lord Richard, finds complex. We have made clear that we believe that Part 3 is seriously flawed. It is one of the reasons why I believe that the Bill will not provide a lasting settlement. I hope that those who attend the Secretary of State’s reception in Cardiff tomorrow to celebrate a ““new dawn of devolution””, as he describes the Bill, are not befogged by the hype and remember the Explanatory Notes’ modest description at paragraph 309 on page 62 that, "““with minor exceptions … the Bill does not itself confer additional legislative powers on the Assembly; rather, it provides a mechanism whereby such powers can be conferred on a case by case basis as appropriate, with Parliamentary consent””." That is what the Government’s own Explanatory Notes say. That is the true extent of the enhanced powers granted to the Assembly. The real enhancement is in the power of Ministers, including the Secretary of State. I thank the Ministers who have dealt with our debates, over seven days in all on the Floor of the House. I also thank the Bill team who have supported them, and all who have participated in shaping this legislation. I shall not be pressing my colleagues to vote against the Government on the Motion.