---

Government of Wales Bill

moved Amendment No. 83:"Page 115, line 8, at end insert—" ““(   )   Both the question to be included on the ballot paper and any statement to precede the question must first have been approved by each House of Parliament in a procedure where the question and statement shall have been capable of amendment by each House.”” The noble Lord said: It is quite clear that the purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the referendum question on the ballot paper and any accompanying statement have been approved by both Houses in a procedure where they have been open to amendment. The Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee has drawn our attention to the fact that it is for the Order in Council to specify the referendum question and any statement to precede the question on the ballot paper. That is contained in the memorandum submitted by the Wales Office. It is unusual for such devolutionary matters to be left to subordinate legislation. The referenda of 1979 and 1997 in Wales and Scotland were covered by primary legislation, as were the London referendum and regional assemblies referendum. The Government defended their decision in their memorandum on the Bill to the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The memorandum states:"““It is highly desirable that the referendum question, and any preceding statement, are left to the Order in Council rather than specified on the face of the Bill . . . Specifying them on the face of the Bill would be inflexible””." It adds that the need for flexibility is largely based on the obligation to consult the Electoral Commission under Section 104(4) of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act of 2000. Of course, I grant that the Government have a case of sorts, based on convenience and expediency, but I note that the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee is far from convinced. It feels obliged to draw the attention of the House, as I indicated in speaking to an earlier amendment, to the unprecedented nature of leaving these devolution referendum issues to subordinate legislation. I quote:"““In deciding whether that is acceptable, the House will wish to consider whether it is important that the draft legislation containing the proposed question is amendable by the House. If the House concludes that Parliament should be able to amend the Government’s proposed question, then subordinate legislation is inappropriate. The House would then need to decide whether it is more appropriate for this bill to contain the question, or for a separate bill to make that provision shortly before the time at which the Government intend to hold the referendum””." As the official Opposition, we take the view that these matters should be amendable and that this is the predominant view of Parliament. We are open-minded as to how that ability to amend question and statement is to be secured, as indicated by our amendment. There is no shortage of time, since Ministers do not anticipate a demand for a referendum under Part 4 for at least a decade, so it is up to the Government to explore the possibilities and come up with a satisfactory answer to the problem. The substance of our amendment to Schedule 6 is still valid, however. I beg to move.