---

Government of Wales Bill

moved Amendment No. 78:"Page 57, line 12, leave out ““two-thirds”” and insert ““51 per cent””" The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 79 and 85. I have already informed the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Llandudno, that I will refer to his noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford during my speech, if only because he has made a number of singular contributions in our debates so far. I understand that he has left to attend some important function—I am sure that it is important—and I hope that, on reading the debate, he will not feel as did Lord Rosebery, whom I have already mentioned once today and who, at the end of the Home Rule debate, was profoundly disgusted with himself because he had stopped speaking after one hour under the misapprehension that he had been speaking for two. Ministers will be glad to hear that I do not intend to speak for either one hour or two hours, but this is a very important point in our consideration of the Bill. It is the moment when we move from Part 3 to Part 4, which provides for a referendum on whether we should go forward to full and proper devolution of the kind that has been urged on the Government repeatedly from the Liberal Democrat Benches and from elsewhere in the Chamber, including by my own party. During our debates on the Bill so far in both Houses, there have been a number of revelatory moments. I suppose that one of the first was the contribution of the Secretary of State in another place on 28 February. He said:"““I have no doubt that if a referendum were held today, it would be lost””.—[Official Report, Commons, 28/2/06; col. 209.]" That was a pretty extraordinary way of introducing major legislation which contained provisions for a referendum and extensive devolution on the back of it. There has been another revelatory moment today. It exposed the extraordinary complexity of this Bill and the unsatisfactory character of Part 3. Again, there was widespread agreement in all parts of the Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that the incremental process was a very unsatisfactory solution. He said that he did not approve of the mechanism. He said that it was confused and complicated. When we last debated these affairs in Committee, at the Committee’s second sitting, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, accepted many of the criticisms that had been made by my noble friend Lord Kingsland about Part 3. On that occasion he again said:"““Why do we not simply accept that the Welsh Government need expanded powers in order to do their job, and that this is just an ingenious and tortuous device to bring in legislation without having a referendum? We can then argue on that basis””.—[Official Report, 3/5/06; col. 531.]" The noble Lord, Lord Richard, who sadly is not with us now, indicated earlier this afternoon that he did not like Part 3 either. So we now move to the alternative, Part 4. The third revelatory moment for me in our proceedings on the Bill was when the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said:"““We wish to see steps taken that lead towards the goal which I personally have been advocating for something like 42 years. It will take more than this Bill to stop me advocating full powers for a Welsh parliament””.—[Official Report, 3/5/06; col. 523.]" And yet having said that that is what he wanted and that the procedures that we have in Part 3 are highly unsatisfactory in every respect, and having accepted all the criticisms of Part 3, he said that he would be content with Part 3 because it took him a step or two down the road. As I heard the noble Lord speak, I thought, ““This is really the most extraordinary stance to be taking””. After all, not only—and I take him at his word—has he been campaigning for 42 years but his party, the Liberal Democratic Party, profoundly believes in the solution offered in Part 4. Plaid Cymru believes in a devolved Assembly on the lines of the Scottish Parliament. The Government proclaim that the Labour Party wants exactly the same. I will refer to some of the differences that exist within the Labour Party. They were slightly indicated, gently, by the noble Lord, Lord Rowlands, in his speech earlier this afternoon. But I will come back to that. I accept that the Labour Party is in favour of full devolution. It has clearly emerged during our proceedings in both Houses that such a step forward would be welcomed by the Conservative Party, if that is what the people of Wales want. We think that there should be a referendum and we trust the people. If the people of Wales want to move forward in this step, they will have our support. That has been made quite clear by my honourable friend speaking in another place. It has been made quite clear by Nick Bourne, our leader in the Welsh Assembly. There were some passionate speeches in favour by individual Conservatives such as John Gummer in another place. A considerable number of Conservatives will be campaigning with enthusiasm in that cause. So we have a situation where all the major political parties advocate full and proper devolution on the grounds that the Scots have it. Yet the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, having campaigned for 42 years, says that he dare not go down that road—he must allow time for the people of Wales to see sense. There are difficulties now. Until they have the experience of the step-by-step legislative procedures in Part 3, the people of Wales might not accept his arguments. We are then told that the situation will be different in a number of years’ time. The people of Wales can then be given a vote. Then they will be told, ““There is no point in your not voting for full devolution because by then you will have got it. We will have gone step by step in this fragmented way without having asked your opinion and we will have 95 per cent of the full devolution on the statute book. Therefore there is no point in your not voting for it in a referendum. We will now allow you a referendum””. That is the Government’s position. It is the most extraordinary, insulting position for the people of Wales. They are to be allowed to decide only when the decision has effectively already been taken for them in this piecemeal way. But that is what is proposed. The reason why the Government are in this position is not entirely that the Secretary of State believes he is totally incapable of winning the arguments in a referendum; it is that there are grave divisions among Labour Members of Parliament. One of the reasons why there are divisions among Labour Members of Parliament is that some of them do not like some of the inevitable consequences of full devolution. There will be fewer Welsh Members of Parliament. That is an inevitable consequence. They will have less scope for their activities. They will probably have less opportunity to play a major role in the United Kingdom government. That has always been clear. It has been clear since those days back in the 1970s when some of us debated these issues and when Tam Dalyell spelt out the West Lothian question. The case has recently been well presented in this House by my noble friend Lord Baker of Dorking, who was with us earlier and whose Bill is now in another place. These arguments will not go away. However, it is because the Labour Party is divided that we have this mish-mash, this complicated and unsatisfactory measure which was so exposed by our debates earlier this afternoon for its complexity and for the extraordinary confusion that exists as a consequence. My position is quite simple. I do not like Part 3. I would prefer to move straight to Part 4. I would prefer to move straight to allowing the Welsh Assembly, when it wishes to, to hold a referendum so that we can move to full legislative devolution if that is what the people of Wales vote for. ““Trust the people of Wales”” is the basis of my argument. The Government, I suppose, are trying to pretend to the people of Wales that Part 4 gives them that opportunity. However, Part 4 contains some extraordinary and very stiff hurdles. ““Hurdles”” is perhaps barely the right word. It would be a Beecher’s Brook if it were the Grand National, or perhaps the Lake jump at Badminton. They have to get over it. They have to get over a hurdle which demands that they have a two-thirds majority in the Assembly; not two-thirds of those who vote but two-thirds of the number of seats. They have to have 40 people in favour. It is actually more than two-thirds. The Presiding Officer is an elected Member but he will not be allowed to vote. So the demand is that the Welsh Assembly must produce a two-thirds majority. There must also be the consent of both Houses of Parliament. But this Parliament will be allowed to form a view only when the Secretary of State has carried out some kind of consultation of which he is the sole judge. If he judges that the consultation was not adequate, he need not bring the measure forward. Again, my position is quite simple. It is based on the arguments that we have heard repeatedly from the Front Bench opposite during our debates—that if you are to have a Welsh Assembly, you should leave it to them. You should trust the judgment of the Assembly. If we have a Welsh Assembly that understands what is going on in Wales, I do not understand why it cannot be trusted to decide whether a referendum on this issue should be held in Wales. Why should there have to be a two-thirds majority of the whole Assembly, not just those voting? You can envisage all sorts of circumstances in which one, two or three members might not be present due to sickness or other reasons. A two-thirds majority constitutes an enormous hurdle. We in this Parliament accept that a majority of one is enough. That decides who should govern this country or whether a parliament falls or stands. If we really have confidence in the Welsh Assembly and trust it, why should it be made to jump over these hurdles? My amendments seek to lower the hurdles. They would enable the Assembly to go ahead in this regard with a majority of one and would not require the Secretary of State to consult on the matter. If we were really putting the Bill to rights, there would need to be one or two consequential amendments based on the relevant decision. However, my argument is simple; namely, that the people of Wales deserve to be treated better than they are under the Bill as it stands. The noble Lord, Lord Richard, has argued elsewhere that it is unlikely that we shall see a referendum before 2011 at least. Others, including the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, argue that a vote on a referendum might not occur for a decade or more. If he is so lacking in confidence in his powers of persuasion, that might not occur for another 42 years. That seems to me an extraordinarily feeble approach for those who believe in the devolution case. It shows political cowardice and a lack of trust in the judgment of the people of Wales whom they claim to serve. As I say, my argument is simple. I did not take part in the campaign on the previous referendum, but I have acknowledged that I was against the step that was then taken. However, I have always accepted that once the decision was taken to have an Assembly, we could not go back and we must make it effective. We must trust the Assembly and the people of Wales. I speak to these amendments on that basis. I am not sure that I shall press them tonight. I want to hear the Committee’s response to them. In that respect they are testing the waters. However, before the Bill leaves this House, I shall seek to give the people of Wales the chance to decide their future. If they want a full legislative Assembly, I am very happy that they should have it. I beg to move.