---

Government of Wales Bill

The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, fails to understand the fundamental distinction between Part 3 and Part 4. Part 4 would give primary powers to the Welsh Assembly, and neither this House nor the other place would thereafter have any responsibility or control over legislation—except the one catch-all provision that Parliament always remains sovereign. That is true of the Scotland Act as it would be true of a new Wales Act. Part 3 does not do that. It still leaves the fundamental power to decide whether the Assembly can further enhance its legislative competence with Orders in Council. Those Orders in Council must be approved or otherwise by both Houses. That is a fundamental distinction between those two positions, and therefore between Part 3 and Part 4. This also, in my view, distinguishes the question of whether there should be a referendum. The noble Lord, Lord Roberts, then ducks the basic question. It is very easy to devise the question under Part 4 because it would be a simple proposition: do the Welsh public wish the Assembly to have primary legislative powers? It would be very clearly understood. The question that would have to be put in a Part 3 referendum would be: do the Welsh public support the Assembly measure provisions in Clauses 92 to 101 of the Bill? Presumably, in order for there to be a referendum, these nine clauses would have to be printed out and circulated to every member of the Welsh public in order for them to decide if they wanted Orders in Council; if they wanted the proceeding then to go to Assembly measures; and if they wanted the reserve powers of Secretary of State contained between Clauses 92 and 101. I have a profound belief in the maturity and intelligence of the Welsh electorate; after all, it elected me for many years. However, I have grappled with Clauses 92 to 101. Can you imagine the discussion around the breakfast table about whether to vote, and whether to support Clauses 92 to 101? It makes a nonsense of the idea of a referendum on Part 3. It is unnecessary because there is a clear distinction between Part 3 and Part 4. It is also not the kind of material that makes for a sensible referendum.