HC Deb 25 April 1978 vol 948 cc1201-19

If a proclamation summoning a new Parliament is made before a referendum is held in pursuance of section 83 above, the referendum shall not be held earlier than three months after the date of the poll at the election of members for the new Parliament; and if an earlier date has been appointed by Order in Council under paragraph 1 of Schedule 12 to this Act, the Order shall not take effect, but without prejudice to the making of a new Order under that paragraph.".—[Mr. John Smith.] Brought up, and read the First time.

4.21 p.m.

The Minister of State, Privy Council Office (Mr. John Smith)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Committee may recollect that when we were dealing with the Scotland Bill an amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) was carried, against the Government's advice, providing for a gap of three months between a General Election and the referendum if a General Election preceded the referendum.

The Government accept that it is desirable that a similar provision should appear in the Wales Bill. The wording of the new clause is, I think, an improvement on the wording which my hon. Friend had inserted in the Scotland Bill, and perhaps I should add at this point that we have tabled a similar amendment to the Scotland Bill in another place so that both Bills will be the same.

This matter was grouped for debate, although not reached, on the last occasion. In the circumstances, perhaps the Committee will accept my assurance that what the new clause does is to put into the Wales Bill a provision similar to that which was carried into the Scotland Bill, though putting it in correct legal language.

Mr. Tam Dalyell (West Lothian)

It would be churlish and curmudgeonly of me were I not to acknowledge what the Government have done, in more eloquent language than I prepared for the Scotland Bill.

Mr. Francis Pym (Cambridgeshire)

I thank the Government for tabling the new clause and for the way in which the Minister moved it. I am sure that he was wise to table it and fulfil the wish of the Committee that in the arrangements made for the referendum what applies to Scotland should apply also to Wales. The only instance in respect of which they did not try to do that was the 40 per cent. requirement, and on that they got an even dustier answer than the one they had earlier. They were, therefore, wise to do what they have. At any rate, I am grateful for it.

However, as we are debating this aspect of the Bill, that is to say, the timing of the referendum and the wise separation of the campaign and vote on the referendum from any General Election, may I ask the Minister of State again about the running of the referendums in Scotland and in Wales on the same day?

On the assumption that the Wales Bill becomes law in the present Session—and the Scotland Bill, too, for that matter, though that also is speculative—do the Government intend to hold the referendums in Scotland and in Wales on the same day?

It has long seemed to us that that would be highly desirable. At an earlier stage, the Government indicated that such was their intention. To be fair to the Minister, they did not give an absolute commitment, but there was a clear indication that that was their intention. In recent months, I have found a clear desire in the House that these referendums, if they are to be held, should be held on the same day, for all sorts of reasons. This is, I suggest, a good moment for the Government to tell us whether, in that event, now that they have moved the new clause in terms similar to the provision now in the Scotland Bill, they intend that both should be held on the same day.

Sir Raymond Gower (Barry)

I also thank the Minister for tabling the new clause. Not only is it right that the procedure here should be related to what has been decided for the Scotland Bill; it is of considerable importance on its own merits, since it is not desirable that one event should, as it were, be overshadowed by the other.

I regard three months as a minimum period. For my part, I should prefer the period to be a trifle longer, but certainly we should have this minimum period between the holding of a General Election and the holding of a referendum.

I strongly endorse what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym). It is of enormous importance that the referendums should be separate but be held on the same day so that the result of one should not be affected by the result of the other. In my submission, it would be bad if the result in Scotland—or, vice versa, in Wales—were to influence the result in the other country. The facts and conditions might be greatly different, yet if there were a decisive result one way or the other in either Scotland or Wales and the other referendum were held a considerable time later, there would obviously be an effect, and this would be most undesirable.

I urge, therefore, that the two events be held on the same day.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley (Caernarvon)

I follow the point raised by the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) that there would be confusion if the referendum were held on the same day as a General Election. We accept entirely that there would be considerable confusion. We do not agree that a period of three months is necessary, but I consider that it should be at least a month.

However, I wish to take up the point made by the hon. Member for Barry as he went on from that argument. If there were confusion if we had the two campaigns at the same time—the General Election campaign and the campaign on a referendum for the Welsh Assembly—by the same argument there could be confusion if we had the referendum for Scotland and for Wales on the same day.

Conservative Members and others have strongly pressed, especially about 12 months ago, when they were trying to separate the Welsh element from the Scottish element and put them into two separate Bills, that the circumstances are entirely different. The arguments in relation to establishing the Assembly are different. The arguments in relation to the powers of the Assembly are different, as are the arguments about the functions which the Assembly will undertake. This is bound to have an effect on a referendum if it is held on the same day as the referendum for Scotland.

Sir Raymond Gower

I am not committed to exactly the same day. The principle which I was applying is that the effect of one referendum result should not influence the other. I do not mind if they are held on successive days or within a few days of one another, so long as the result in one case is not made known before the other referendum is held.

Mr. Wigley

Obviously, if there is any length of time between the referendums for Scotland and for Wales, the result of one will be known before the result of the other. But to the extent that the result in Scotland can influence, as the hon. Member for Barry believes, the way people may vote in Wales—or the other way round—there is an even stronger argument that the campaigns in relation to the two referendums will influence each other.

If the hon. Gentleman is trying to ensure that there is fair play in the referendum, what he should safeguard against is the probability that people will be influenced in Wales by arguments which are not pertinent to Wales—arguments in relation to the West Lothian question, for example, arguments to do with the legislative function of the Scottish Assembly, which does not exist for the Welsh Assembly, and so on. Such arguments may well be paraded about Wales, and, conversely, there may be arguments about the Welsh language or the like which have no relevance to Scotland.

For better or for worse, the media that will be affecting the referendum in Wales will largely be London-based media. The reality is that there are two daily newspapers produced more or less exclusively for Wales, the Western Mail and the Liverpool Daily Post, and there are three or four evening newspapers. The vast bulk of daily newspaper readership reads newspapers produced in London or in Manchester for circulation in Britain as a whole, or at least in England and Wales.

The issues that will be taken up in these newspapers in the period leading up to the referendum will, without a shadow of doubt, be issues relating primarily to Scotland. To the extent that these two Bills were necessary because of the fundamental difference between the circumstances of Wales and of Scotland, as was pointed out to us time and again last year, the case stands all the more strong that the referendums themselves should be held on two separate occasions, with the issues argued out fully and thoroughly by the media in Wales, and in the media which come from outside Wales into Wales, but in the Welsh context.

Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. If the circumstances justify separate Bills, they justify holding the referendums on separate days. We are concerned not only with newspapers, but with the number of people who listen to the general news programmes such as "News at Ten" on ITN and the BBC News, which is broadcast throughout the United Kingdom. They will be a major influencing factor on how people vote, yet they will inevitably be concentrating on the Scottish aspect of the question.

4.30 p.m.

I am confident that the people of Wales, whether they vote "Yes" or "No", can make up their minds on their own case if they have an opportunity to do so. There is much more danger from holding the referendums on the same day than there is of one referendum influencing the other if they are held on separate days.

Therefore, I ask the Government Front Bench to respond to the Conservative Front Bench and to give an assurance that the referendums will not be held on the same day. It is important that the referendums are not held on the same day, so that there can be two distinct campaigns, geared to the different circumstances applying in Wales and in Scotland, and responsive to such circumstances, and that the media can put the facts as they see them in relation to Scotland and in relation to Wales, distinctly and clearly, so that people can make up their minds.

There is a further matter relating to any party political broadcasting or broad- casting on behalf of umbrella organisations or groupings that may come together formally or informally for a "Yes" or "No" vote in the referendums. We are likely to see groupings. We have already seen them developing informally in Scotland and, to some extent, in Wales. If groupings develop, a balance has to be achieved in party political broadcasting or in the umbrella broadcasting for the referendum—if these are broadcast over the network channels, as may be necessary if they are to be heard in many parts of Wales that receive programmes from stations in England—on the question how the issues and the people who appear on those programmes are to be sorted out if the referendums are to be held on the same day.

The arguments in favour of having the referendums on different days are overwhelming. There is a need to ensure that the referendums are not held on the same day as are elections to the European Assembly. That could happen if the referendums are delayed over the autumn because of the General Election and the three months' rule that the Government are pressing. If this happened there would be confusion, which could effect the turnout—which is significant now that the 40 per cent. threshold may be implemented in the Wales Bill.

Some people may want to abstain from voting at the European Assembly election, finding the election a big bore, but may want to turn out for the referendum, to vote "Yes" or "No" or vice versa. Perhaps the Government can meet me on this point.

The Minister has given an assurance that the referendums will not be held on the same day as a General Election. I hope that he can also give an assurance that they will not be held on the same day as the European elections.

Mr. Ioan Evans (Aberdare)

I congratulate the Government on introducing the new clause. We had a discussion on the Scotland Bill when my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) moved a similar amendment and the Government said that they would consider it. At that time, common sense showed that it was necessary that there should be a period between a General Election and a referendum.

The Labour Party will be campaigning for the return of a Labour Government in a General Election, out there are strong differences among my hon. Friends about the advice that we should give to the people of Wales on how they should vote in the referendum. Therefore, we should not get the issues in this Bill mixed up with the question of the future government of Britain.

I cannot understand the support that is now coming from the nationalists for the new clause. I thought that they were making mischief on the last day on which the Bill was debated in Committee. They were trying to write into the Bill a specific date on which the referendum should be held.

This clause could not be implemented if a specific date were put into the Bill for the holding of a referendum. It was a nonsense then. I am glad that over the weekend they have considered their position and have put the nonsense aside. Even so, they have caused damage because they have succeeded in deleting the whole clause dealing with the commencement of the Bill. It seems strange that those who accuse some hon. Members in the Labour Party of being critical of certain aspects of the Bill and wanting a certain conclusion to be reached should have caused the greatest damage to the measure that has been done in the whole discussion of the Bill.

Mr. Wigley

We voted against Clause 82 because it proposed the triggering of a referendum that we believe to be unfair. I believe that the 40 per cent. clause is unfair. We would accept a straight referendum and the verdict on it, but not one which needed a 40 per cent. majority "Yes" vote.

As to the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) about the timing, our amendments last week did not stipulate a precise date. That was a Liberal Party amendment. Our amendment would have provided a period in which it could happen if, after a General Election, a Conservative Government came to power. The hon. Gentleman was getting confused between the Liberal amendment which proposed a certain date and ours which did not.

We are not supporting this clause. Three months is too long a gap and pushes the thing too far ahead, particularly if the Conservative Party comes to power. But we are not against the principle of separating a General Election from a referendum.

Mr. Evans

The hon. Gentleman talks about confusion. His party was in a very confused position in Committee last Thursday. Voting on the amendment to the 40 per cent. clause did not occur until after they had defeated the clause. Plaid Cymru could not have known the minds of those in the Committee. It deliberately set about defeating Clause 82, which was concerned with the commencement of the Act, before the Committee got round to discussing that amendment.

The hon. Gentleman talks about fairness. He has thrown the accusation against the Government of being unfair. All the Government did was to allow the Committee to reach a decision. What is unfair about allowing the Committee to reach a decision on whether there should be a requirement for a 40 per cent. "Yes" vote? The nationalists voted on the Scotland Bill for 33⅓ per cent. as a minimum requirement. That is recorded in Hansard. Therefore, the difference between us is 6⅔ per cent. Plaid Cymru should withdraw its accusations made over the weekend against the Government.

It would be utterly illogical for the Committee to reach a decision on the Wales Bill that was completely different from the decision on the Scotland Bill. I believe that the vote on the 40 per cent. amendment was logical. There is a need for a minimum requirement in the referendum, and the Committee has reached a decision about that. It is guidance to the people of Wales and Scotland that if there is a derisory vote in the referendums that must not be taken to be the will of the people. We have provided that there should be a minimum percentage and it is on that basis that we shall give due regard to the decision reached in the referendums.

It is logical for the referendums to be held at a different time from a General Election. The question is whether the referendum in Wales should be held at the same time as the referendum in Scotland. There are arguments for and against this proposition. There is a good argument for holding the referendum in Wales first because that would have a very good influence on the Scottish result and I am sure that the unity of the United Kingdom would be furthered if we had the referendum in Wales first and conducted the referendum in Scotland about a week later.

However, I appreciate the arguments against that course. There were orginally arguments about which should proceed first, the Bill for Scotland or the Bill for Wales, we ended up with the Scotland and Wales Bill, which was the wrong way to proceed.

Obviously a referendum on the proposals for Wales will be different from a referendum on the proposals for Scotland. If the Scottish referendum is held first, the nationalists in Wales will say that the House of Commons is putting Scotland before Wales. They probably have the pamphlets ready now. Equally, if the Welsh referendum were held first, one can imagine the Scottish nationalists on the rampage saying that the Scotland Bill came before the House first and that Scotland should therefore have its referendum first.

Mr. Dalyell

Is it not a fact that part of the reasons for the proposals for Scotland and Wales being spatchcocked together was that the then Leader of the House, Lord Glenamara, thought that he could get Second Reading, Committee and Report stages and Third Reading on the Floor of the House in six days?

Mr. Evans

My hon. Friend has studied these matters carefully, but I do not think that what he has said was the only reason. Much of the argument concerned whether we should deal with Scotland before Wales, or vice versa.

There would be difficulties in holding a referendum in one country before the referendum in the other. Progress is being made on the Scotland Bill in another place and that measure may get on the statute book before the Wales Bill. The question is whether we should go ahead with the referendum in Scotland before the Wales Bill has been through all its stages in Parliament. I think that this would be the wrong way to deal with the matter. We should wait until both Bills have been through all their stages in this House and another place so that we know their eventual content.

If a General Election came first, there would be a three-month delay, but both referendums should be held on the same day. There could then be no accusations of Scotland or Wales being put first. They would be treated equally.

Essentially, the media in Wales should deal with the Welsh Bill and the media in Scotland with the Scottish Bill, although the media in England will naturally get involved in the discussions. That would be the fairest way to deal with the matter and I hope that this will be the recommendation of the Government.

The new clause says: If a proclamation summoning a new Parliament is made". I do not know whether there is to be a proclamation for the European Parliament, but we shall soon have a British Parliament and a European Parliament and I wonder whether we shall have to be careful in future to have regard to that fact in the wording of clauses.

4.45 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)

Despite the characteristic courtesy and helpfulness of the Minister in bringing forward the new clause, I wish to speak against it—though not to vote against it—on two grounds.

The first is the narrow ground of party advantage. It would be greatly to the benefit of the Conservative Party if the referendum in Wales and the General Election were held on the same day. The more devolution figures in the General Election campaign, the more it will be to the advantage of the Conservative Party. The electorate would have only two choices. If a voter wanted devolution, he could support Plaid Cymru and if he were opposed to devolution, he would support the Conservative Party. Nothing else would be relevant.

Despite the heroic speeches of the hon. Members for Aberdare (Mr. Evans), Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) and Pontypool (Mr. Abse) who speak so valiantly against the Bill—and occasionally vote against it—the Labour Party, despite the total failure of any of its members except the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) and the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) to turn up and support the Bill, is committed to the Bill. Opposition Members have been conspicuous by their absence and the Conservatives will have no difficulty in portraying the Labour Party as being half-hearted on this issue and in telling the electors that if they want devolution they should vote for Plaid Cymru and if they do not want devolution they should vote Conservative.

On the narrow party ground, I should like to see the General Election and the referendum coincide, but there is a more impartial reason for my hope that the gap between a General Election and the referendum will not be too long, and I hope that I shall carry the Minister at least a little way with me.

My concern is that the Bill builds into the British constitution a permanent conflict between the Assembly and this House. The longer the time between a General Election and the referendum that will lead on to the formation of the Assembly, the more that conflict is likely to be aggravated. The longer the gap, the more inevitable it is that reaction will set in against the verdict reached at the preceding General Election.

If the gap is more than a few weeks, it is likely that, for reasons that have little to do with the well-being of Wales but have a great deal to do with regret over what was done in the General Election, the people of Wales will tend to elect to Cardiff representatives of the opposite political colour to those they sent to Westminster. This is a phenomenon with which those who have been in government are only too familiar. The closer the referendum is to the General Election the more likely it is that there will be some coincidence between the representation at Westminster and that at Cardiff.

I do not want to make too much of this point. We all know the grip that the Labour Party machine has on the valleys of South Wales, loosening though it is—and we are all anxious to loosen it as much as possible. However, this is a valid consideration.

The longer the interval between a General Election and elections to the Assembly being triggered off by the referendum, the greater the risk of that conflict which is the inherent vice in the Bill.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes (Anglesey)

The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) must not assume that because my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) and I are the only hon. Members on the Labour side of the Committee who are in favour of the Bill or that the present attendance of the Labour Benches is any reflection on the support of Welsh Labour Members for this Bill. The overwhelming majority of Labour Members representing Welsh seats are in support of the Bill. The Opposition Front Bench should not get too excited about this. We know that they are on a losing argument.

The reason why more of my hon. Friends are not here—everyone knows it—is that a number of them are Ministers and they are presently conducting their departmental work. Shortly, when they have finished, they will return to the Chamber.

I turn now to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans) who described the confusion that existed last Thursday. I agree that there was a good deal of confusion. It was on the Plaid Cymru side, because that party did not realise the full implications of what it was doing. It led the serried ranks of the Conservative Party into the Lobby. Conservative Members did not know what they were doing. Plaid Cymru Members had some idea, but the Tory Members had no idea at all.

I heard several Tory Members asking later "Have we voted in the right way?" Last Thursday they were voting in force for something in which they do not believe. They will be given the opportunity later to repair the slight damage that they did. I am sure that at that stage they will join us in setting the matter right. That was the situation—

Mr. Wigley

rose—

Mr. Hughes

The hon. Member might do well not to intervene at this stage, in the interests of his party and of himself.

I now turn to the point at issue. The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) said, with some passion, that he thought that there was an overwhelming case for not holding the two referendums on the same date. I do not agree with that. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare said that there was an overwhelming and logical case for holding the two referendums on the same day. I am not impressed with that argument either. All those who have spoken have made heavy weather of this issue. I do not think that it matters at all. The people of Wales and the people of Scotland will come to their own conclusion. They are perfectly capable of doing so.

For example, next week there will be local authority elections in England, Wales and Scotland. They are not being held on the same day. The elections in Scotland are to be held on Tuesday and the elections in England and Wales are to be held on Thursday. There is no passionate call that they should be held on the same day for some great political reason.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

May I correct the right hon. Gentleman on a matter of fact? I do not think that there are elections in Wales next Thursday. There are in England, but not in Wales.

Mr. Hughes

That is a relief, anyway. My hon. Friends must not be scared of this issue. It will be a matter for the Government of the day to decide when the referendums are held. There may be circumstances in Scotland, public holidays of one kind or another, which do not exist in Wales, and vice versa. Let it be a matter of common sense, at the time, when the referendums are held. We are making too much of this, for a petty political purpose which is unworthy of the Committee. I therefore suggest that we do not prolong it any further.

Mr. Gerry Fowler (The Wrekin)

There is one minor argument for the separation of the referenda from a General Election. Forgive me if I call them "referenda" rather than "referendums". There are some English Members of this Committee who may well want to be involved in the referendum campaign. I would not be a bit surprised if the right hon Member for Cambridgeshite (Mr. Pym) and the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mt. Brittan) were to go to Wales because, heaven knows, the Welsh Conservative Party will be a little thin on the ground. It will need some outside assistance if the campaign is to be waged at all. Knowing the scrupulous fairness of my hon. Friends the Members for Pontypool (Mr. Abse) and Aberdare (Mr. Evans), I am expecting an invitation to speak in their constituencies so that both sides of the case may be fairly represented, just as I am expecting an invitation to West Lothian.

It seems to be essential that, if the two referenda are to be held within the same year, they should be held on the same day. Otherwise it is inevitable that the result of one will influence the result of the other. I note what my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) says. He makes a fair point about local elections. But local elections are not on the same issue in two separate parts of the United Kingdom. Here the issues will be seen as similar if not exactly the same.

If we are to judge by public opinion polls—and I would be the first to confess they are a bad guide—were the Scottish referendum to be held first, that would increase the chance of a "Yes" vote in Wales. Were the Welsh referendum to be held first, that might increase the chances of a "No" vote in Scotland. That is the way I read public opinion at the moment. Equally, if the referenda were separated by more than a few months it might be that the Assembly in the country in which the referendum had been held first would already be in existence. It could well be that that Assembly was having the inevitable teething troubles that any rational man must expect such an Assembly to have. That again might have an effect upon the result of a referendum in the other country. It seems to be highly desirable that they should be held at the same time.

I do not see any great difficulty about the media. It is true that radio and TV news coverage is national, but otherwise we do not have to worry too much about national newspapers printed in London, since I beg leave to doubt whether the referendum in Wales will be the lead story in national newspapers printed in London on every day of the campaign. Great importance attaches to the local Press. My constituents will get a bit of a barrage about the Welsh referendum because my local paper serves part of mid-Wales, including the constituency of the hon, and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). In this context the local papers are just as important as the national Press.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdare touched on another matter to which I wish to refer, namely the interaction of what is happening now with what happened last week. Unless we pass this new clause, we shall have a remarkable situation. My interpretation of the Bill at the moment, following the deletion of Clause 82, is that it would become effective upon Royal Assent. There may be legal argument about that, but that is a possible interpretation. The Bill would become effective in the sense of a transfer of power from the Secretary of State to a non-existent Assembly. What we do in the interim unless that damage is repaired, I do not know. I have volunteered to become Viceroy of Wales for a short period, but I do not think that the Minister of State has accepted the offer.

We have a difficulty, and it is compounded if we add this clause today and fail to repair that damage. If we postulate that the Royal Assent to this Bill were by chance—I am not making a forecast—to precede a General Election by only two or three months, and it was impossible to hold the referendum between Royal Assent and that General Election, we should be saying that there could not be a referendum until six months after that Royal Assent, and yet, if my interpretation of the deletion of Clause 8 be right, the Bill by then would have been effective for six months before the referendum could be held. That is abundantly nonsense and stems from the joint irresponsibility of the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru last week.

I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to assure the Committee that, the Conservative Party and Plaid Cymru having made a nonsense, the Government—who have been so sensible in their handling of the measure—will take the earliest opportunity to set matters to rights.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Smith

We have had a debate essentially about whether the referendums should be held on the same day in Scotland and Wales, although some hon. Members have strayed a little into some of the surrounding side issues which affect the referendum.

The right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire (Mr. Pym) asked me, at the start of his own brief contribution, whether there had been any change in the Government's attitude, and I confirm that there has been no change.

The timing of the Royal Assent to both pieces of legislation is obviously of considerable importance. The Scotland Bill, it so happens, is proceeding through Parliament ahead of the Wales Bill. We hope that it will be possible for both Bills to receive Royal Assent during the course of this legislative Session, but, of course, we are not totally in control of these events. The House of Commons has to take decisions, and decisions have to be taken in another place. But I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that there has been no change in the Government's attitude. We must work with the circumstances as they arise on the matter of the timing of the legislation reaching the statute book, and with anything else which might happen.

The House has the final say in regard to the referendum, because the Government must come forward with an order, under the provisions of Schedule 12 of the Bill, and that order must be approved by the House of Commons before the referendum date can be agreed to.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mr. Fowler) drew attention to the confusion which occurred with the decision of the Committee to delete Clause 82. I think that the responsibility for that rests entirely with the unholy alliance between Plaid Cymru and the Conservatives. The most charitable conclusion one can draw is that neither knew what the other was doing, and the total confusion which must have been evident when hon. Members met each other in the Lobby must have been amusing to watch. Indeed, one might have been tempted, had one known about it, to go into the Lobby for no other reason than to observe the happy greetings which must have been exchanged between the Conservative spokesmen and those of the Plaid Cymru when they found themselves in an alliance for which they had not bargained.

I can say to my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin that of course the Government will seek to put matters right. The fact that a majority of the Committee behaves in a foolish way does not absolve the Government from seeking to put matters right, and we shall seek to do so when we reach the Report stage of the Bill.

My hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin would make an excellent viceroy for Wales. I have been wondering for some time what would be an adequate description of his style, and I think that he is indeed vice-regal. He has all the style and manner which would suit the job, but I am sorry to inform him that we shall be able to put matters right in such a way as will deprive him of that interesting employment.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) struck a very important note when he said that we are perhaps making too much of this and when he asked whether it matters a great deal that the referendums are held on the same day or on different days. I suspect that it does not make a great deal of difference.

The hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley) referred to broadcasting and to the way in which the media will handle the referendum. Of course, we hope that the media will give a fair balance to both sides. I do not think that there is any reason to doubt that the media will behave in a way which will give a fair balance to both sides.

There was an interesting suggestion that the referendums should be held on different days in order to allow English Conservative Members to take part in both campaigns. If the referendums were held on the same day, I do not know whether the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire or the hon, and learned Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) would be in Scotland or in Wales. Perhaps it might be wiser for them to remain in England on that day, in view of their policy.

I can, as I have said, confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that we have made no change. These, in a sense, are side issues and not quite on the point of the amendment, but I hope that I have indicated the Government's position.

Mr. Pym

Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to say exactly what he means by the words he used—that the Government have made no change in their position? As I understand the matter, that is, of course, subject to the progress of the Bills through Parliament and their passage towards the statute book, if that is what is to happen. Subject to that, I understand that it is the Government's clear intention to hold the referendums on the same day.

Mr. Smith

I think that it has been stated in answer to a parliamentary Question. Speaking from memory, I think we said that it would be our objective to seek to have the referendums on the same day—subject, of course, to the obvious difficulty that might be caused if one Bill received Royal Assent before the other.

Mr. Hooson

In an early part of his speech the Minister seemed to throw doubt on whether the Welsh Bill would achieve the Royal Assent in this legislative Session. Was that merely a form of words—

Mr. Smith

We cannot guarantee it.

Mr. Hooson

—used indiscriminately, or was there any specific reason why the Minister threw doubt on it?

Mr. Smith

I read some amazing stories in the Western Mail from time to time but I do not take them all very seriously. Many newspapers carry amazing stories on this issue. I was not casting any doubt. I believe that, if the House of Commons and another place behave with reasonable common sense in the matter, we shall get the Wales Bill on to the statute book in this legislative Session. It is very much part of our policy, and we have no reason to believe that it will not be achieved. I pointed out that the Scotland Bill is ahead of the Wales Bill. Therefore, on that timescale it is easier for it to achieve Royal Assent in this legislative Session, but we hope very much that both will do so, and nothing that I said was intended in any way to cast doubt on our faith that that can be achieved.

Sir Raymond Gower

Surely the Government should have no great difficulty in saying that they can put both Bills through in this legislative Session, because there is not a vast programme of legislation. Few Governments have had a sketchier amount of legislation in a whole Session than the Government have in the present Session. Surely there can be no doubt in the Minister's mind about the progress of both Bills.

Mr. Smith

With great respect to the hon. Gentleman. I would not have said that we are engaged in sketchy legislation. I have reason to know, perhaps more than most hon. Members, how intense our legislative programme has been this year. It has been concentrated on a smaller number of Bills than usual, but none the less it has been an intense legislative programme. I do not think that we have any reason to doubt our capacity to do it, but there is another place involved in these matters. The guillotine, which was such a useful way of organising our debate on the Scotland Bill and on the Wales Bill, is not available to the other place. We have to take all these factors into account.

While we are on the subject, I draw the attention of Conservative Members to the fact that the House of Lords, in dealing with the Scotland Bill, is not at a point very different from that which we reached under the guillotine in the House of Commons. I think that indicates how wise and sensible our decision was, and, indeed, how generous it was for the Scotland Bill, at least.

I apologise to the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Myer), for not dealing, when I was speaking, with a point he had raised. He said that he was not in favour of the amendment. He was speaking with his tongue in his cheek, but, none the less, he could have avoided the dilemma if he had not voted for the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell) to the Scotland Bill. I have checked the Division list and found that the hon. Gentleman managed to vote with my hon. Friend on that occasion. Any dilemma in which he now finds himself, therefore, is one that he has created for himself.

None the less, I thing that he was right to draw attention to the difficulty there might be for us if there were a reaction against whichever party were to win the next General Election. That is something that the supporters of devolution in Wales will have to take onboard, for after the Labour victory in the next General Election the amount of support for devolution will be increased, if that theory is correct. But we shall face that prospect with fortitude.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.