---

Government of Wales Bill

I am absolutely astonished by the debate that we have just had and by the camouflage thrown up by all this discussion of the actual question. Noble Lords have forgotten that I said in moving this amendment that it was drawn verbatim from Clause 102, which provides for a referendum on the introduction of Part 4. There is exactly the same number of subsections in my amendment—eight in all—as there are in Clause 102. Further to what the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, said about the detail that I provided by numbering the subsections, I draw his attention to Clause 102(8), which gives the sections that are meant by ““the Assembly Act provisions”” referred to in that clause. There is avoidance of the key issue of whether there should be a referendum. That is what should lie at the heart of our debate. But everybody seeks to avoid that issue of principle. The Government accept that there must be a referendum for the implementation of Part 4. So what is so ridiculous about the proposal for a referendum on the introduction of Part 3, which, in principle, provides the Assembly with primary legislative powers? It is only a matter of how much primary legislative power is given to the Assembly in Part 3 and the full power in Part 4. That is what we are talking about. My noble friend Lord Crickhowell explained the political background—we had hints about it—to Part 3, which is, let us face it, a device. That word has been used by Members opposite. I agree with my noble friend that the people of Wales are being seriously misled. That is why we feel so strongly that there should be a referendum so that they can have their say. We know that the Secretary of State believes that he would not win a referendum. But that is a matter of opinion. The fact of the matter is that it is our belief and, indeed, the Government’s belief that before full primary legislative powers are granted to the Assembly there should be an approval by a referendum. We believe further that it would be unwise to embark on that process, as we are doing in Part 3, without a referendum. I go back to our previous debate and remind the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Kingsland at the beginning of our discussion on Part 3 were intended to eliminate the whole of Part 3; in which case there would be no call for a referendum for the implementation of that part of the Bill and we would move directly to Part 4. The noble Lord will have taken note that while we objected to every clause standing part in Part 3, we have no such similar objections to Part 4. That is the ultimate proof that we accept the basic tenets of Part 4. It is still very much our view that should we get rid of Part 3 and then embrace Part 4. That, as my noble friend Lord Crickhowell said, has been made abundantly clear in the other place as well. I am very dissatisfied with the response to our call for a referendum on Part 3. We may return to this matter when the House and people outside have had more time to consider it. For the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.