---

Government of Wales Bill

I am grateful to the noble Lord for the precise way in which he has explained his amendments, but I have to say that a real practical difficulty is attached to Amendment No. 80. The Bill provides that the draft referendum Order in Council must be approved by two-thirds of all Assembly Members. A draft Order in Council would not be laid before Parliament unless it had been approved by the Assembly. If Parliament were to amend the draft order, that would nullify the effect of the Assembly’s approval. It would undermine the basis on which any future referendum should be called—that is, a firm basis of consensus about the timing of the referendum—and the exact terms in which it should be put to the electorate. So I do not see what the capacity to amend would do other than severely damage the Assembly, having effectively nullified its role in the first place. The Assembly would have approved by a two-thirds majority any draft order that was laid before Parliament and presumably it would wish to approve any amended order or indeed to have similar powers. The amendment seems to propose an absurd development. In reality, I believe it will be necessary to reach consensus about the referendum ahead of the formal procedure for approval of the draft Order in Council by the Assembly and both Houses of Parliament. It will be for the Welsh Assembly and UK governments of the day to ensure that sufficient consultation takes place to guarantee that that is the case. Of course, either House can still reject the draft Order in Council, but amending suggests that the necessary preparation and consultation has not been undertaken. I do not see how the Assembly could conceive of fulfilling its role without having paid its full part in that. Amendment No. 81 would prevent a referendum under the terms of the Bill from being held more than 10 years after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Why should there be an arbitrary time limit on the possibility of enacting the provisions in Part 4? The powers in Part 4 do not, and should not, have a use-by date. Under the Bill, the timing of a referendum would have to be considered and agreed by both Houses of Parliament and by a two-thirds majority in the Assembly. Such consideration, by democratically elected MPs and Assembly Members, will ensure that the referendum is held at an appropriate time—not within an arbitrary 10-year time limit, which I contend is meaningless. I know the Secretary of State has said that he cannot see a referendum happening in the near future because it makes sense to see how the provisions enabling the Assembly to make measures bed down first. However, we cannot predict at this stage exactly when a referendum should be held and it would not be appropriate for us to say that a referendum should be held within 10 years or not at all. Amendment No. 82 seeks to impose a gap of four years between any referendum and an Order in Council calling for a further referendum under the Bill. The fact that a referendum can be held only with the agreement of two-thirds of the Assembly, with the agreement of the Secretary of State and with the agreement of both Houses of Parliament, all of whom will be aware of the financial and political cost of frequently repeated referendums, is surely safeguard enough without us needing the terms of this amendment. We fully agree that frequent referendums under the Bill would be counter-productive. But the process for approving a call for a referendum which is built into the Bill will guarantee that frequent referendums are not called. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will realise that we have thought through these issues carefully and feel able to withdraw his amendment.