Crown Prosecution Service

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 23rd February 2015 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I have not had the discussions that the noble Lord asks about but I am sure that my right honourable friend the Attorney-General is regularly in touch with all parts of the profession that have an interest in and are working with the Crown Prosecution Service. I have mentioned the cost savings that have had to be made and it should be put on the record that it is greatly to the credit of the staff working for the Crown Prosecution Service that they have sought to make these efficiencies while maintaining quality.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord assure the House that, despite the financial stringencies, the criteria as to whether a case is of sufficient strength to justify prosecution remain exactly the same? Will he kindly tell the House how that role is currently enunciated?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, there is the code that is issued and I can assure the noble Lord that the tests remain the same: sufficiency of evidence that there is a realistic prospect of a conviction and, if that test is met, the ensuing public interest test. I think that that has been enunciated on a number of occasions.

Crime: Domestic Violence

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Tuesday 13th May 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness, who has a long record of campaigning and taking an interest in this issue. Just to clarify, it is the number of successful prosecutions that was at the highest level ever recorded. However, I agree with what she said about the conclusions of the HMIC report—they are very disturbing. That is why the Home Secretary will chair a national oversight group to monitor delivery against the recommendations, which have been accepted. She has already written to the domestic abuse leads in each police force and to the chief constables to make clear the expectation that plans should be produced quickly and emphasise that urgent action should be taken to address HMIC’s concerns. The noble Baroness is absolutely right that domestic violence is wholly unacceptable and is very damaging to the victims. It is only right that we take every step possible to improve the prosecution of it.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan (CB)]

My Lords, does the Minister accept that domestic violence is a gravely reprehensible offence which should normally be dealt with by way of condign punishment? Is that not so because of the greater vulnerability of women in terms of physical strength, economic security and particularly the protection of children? Is the Minister satisfied that the advisory sentencing bodies are sufficiently enthused to pass on this message to magistrates and judges and that this is essential if this disgraceful practice is to be effectively contested?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I echo what the noble Lord said about it being a wholly reprehensible crime. Among the many concerns, I am not aware of the particular question of sentencing. There may well be individual cases where individual sentences are not acceptable. The important challenge for us, particularly in the light of the HMIC report, is to improve policing. It is unfortunate that the report has discovered a cultural issue where:

“Domestic abuse is a priority on paper but, in the majority of forces, not in practice”.

We have to address that issue and tackle it in following up the recommendations of the HMIC report.

Justice and Security Bill [HL]

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Tuesday 17th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord and I apologise for the fact that I missed the opening skirmishes of this debate. May I put a point to him which is utterly fundamental? The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, said that we would know national security when we came across it. To put a judge in that position would mean that we would give them a legislative function as opposed to an interpretative function? That should be avoided, should it not? I do not expect an immediate answer from the Minister, but could I leave him to mull over this thought? It may be that a different approach could settle the matter in this way. If there was a definition of national security—something of the order of dealing with a situation that jeopardises, or has the potential to jeopardise, a fundamental function of the state—might that be not unacceptable?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I will certainly mull over that point. However, in coming up with any definition, we would want to be very careful that it did not exclude things that should be included or include things that perhaps should be excluded. We will look very carefully at what he has said. The intention is that the concept should be a narrow one that will come into play in a very small number of cases. However, the definition set out in the amendment would not cover everything that is damaging to national security. Factors that are damaging to national security can change in accordance with assessments about the threat to the country. That was reflected in the contributions we have had, not least from the noble Baroness, Lady Manningham-Buller. If the definition is too narrow, we take the risk of legislation becoming unfit for the purpose for which it is intended. Sensitive intelligence and security material which security intelligence agencies hold and which is so vital to the discharge of their important statutory functions will have been acquired by them in a variety of ways and from a variety of different sources. Not all national security-sensitive material held by the security and intelligence agencies will by any means relate to, or be the result of, operations.

In view of this, we believe that the amendment is unduly limiting. For example, if information has been shared with United Kingdom agencies in confidence by foreign intelligence agencies, or has been disclosed to them in confidence by human sources, the amendment would not enable such information to be used within a CMP, however sensitive the provenance of the information and however confidential the relationship. There could also be a situation where the agencies have undertaken preliminary research and analysis before deciding whether there is a sufficient national security case to justify embarking on an intelligence operation. Information generated during the course of that preliminary work, whether or not an actual operation ensued, could well be highly sensitive in security terms and of significant relevance in a particular case. However, if the amendment was accepted, it would not be possible to use the information.

I think that it was the noble Lord, Lord Beecham, who said that there was a danger that the amendment was both too broad and too narrow at the same time. It could also go wider, in that not all matters—including operations by the military—would relate to national security. In fairness, my noble friend Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts accepted that the terms of the amendment might not be ideal. It is perhaps illustrative of the fact that any attempt to make a definition can often be either too limiting or too broad. The Bill recognises that national security is very much an issue for the Secretary of State.

Wales: National Assembly Elections

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 18th June 2012 Grand Committee

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord for allowing me to intervene. Am I right in thinking that the five-year term does not mean a period of exactly five years, because the date for the election can be brought forward or delayed by 28 days on either side of the date? In other words, although it is inevitable that if nothing is done, the next Welsh election will take place at about the same time as the general election, it need not take place on the same day. I apologise if I am wrong about this, but I do not think I am.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am trying desperately to think back to the debates that we had. I think I am right—and I am sure that by the end of this debate I will be corrected if I am not—that the Bill was amended in its passage through your Lordships’ House. It removed the earlier provision but maintained the possibility for a later provision. I think it is also the case that the Assembly has some power under the relevant legislation to vary the date. I have no doubt that the former Presiding Officer will be able to correct me if I have got it wrong, but I think I am right that the Assembly itself has some leeway.

The Government are seeking views on whether this temporary move to a five-year fixed term should be made permanent. Moving the Assembly to permanent five-year terms would mean it is less likely—although not guaranteed, as we have been discussing—that parliamentary and Assembly elections would be held on the same day in future, so there would be less chance of a parliamentary election overshadowing an Assembly election and of voters being confused by voting in two elections, using two different electoral systems, on the same day. To clarify the point I made a moment ago, it is in fact the Secretary of State who can vary the date of an Assembly poll by one month—but I think that even with one month there would still be the possibility of overshadowing.

However, combining elections can be beneficial by reducing costs—that is the other side of the coin. Holding the 2011 Assembly elections and the referendum on the alternative vote electoral system on the same day is estimated to have saved around £1 million in Wales. Holding elections on the same day may also help to increase turnout. The Government do not have a fixed view on whether the Assembly should have a four- or five-year term, but we believe that the potential impact on the elector is the most important thing to consider in deciding the length of the term.

As I have indicated, the Green Paper also seeks views on two further electoral issues in Wales. Since the 2007 Assembly elections, it has been prohibited for a candidate at an Assembly election to stand for both a constituency and a regional seat. This impacts disproportionately on smaller parties, whose candidates must choose whether to risk everything by standing as a constituency candidate when they could potentially be elected via the regional list instead. Conversely, it also affects parties who have done better than expected in a constituency election. In time, it is possible that high-quality candidates could be lost to the Assembly through this ban. The Government do not think that this situation is satisfactory, and believe the ban on dual candidacy should be removed.

The Green Paper also considers the issue of “double-jobbing”. The Government note concerns that have been raised over whether elected representatives who sit in more than one elected legislature at a time are able adequately to represent both sets of constituents. Double-jobbing is already prohibited in the European Parliament, as well as countries such as Canada and Australia, and the Government are seeking views on whether Assembly Members should be prevented from standing as Members of the Westminster Parliament simultaneously.

This Green Paper has not come out of the blue. It provides a structure to the debate that has been ongoing for more than a year about the make-up of the Assembly in light of the reforms that the Government have put in place nationally. It seeks to bring this debate out into the open. The consultation runs until 13 August and we are seeking the views of everyone—not least your Lordships—with an interest in the electoral arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales. I hope that this debate will help to explain and put forward ideas and views on these issues. Therefore, in encouraging noble Lords to make their views known, I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord is my kinsman.

A number of noble Lords raised questions about the voting system and the size of the Assembly, so I should perhaps say at the outset what this consultation paper does not try to do. It was never the intention that it should open up these far more fundamental issues. It was clear from the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, that there is no consensus on the size of the Assembly. Although this is not an issue for this consultation paper, the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, on the need for scrutiny, and the presidency—or vice-presidency—of the organisation to promote an Assembly of 80 Members elected by STV, to which my noble friend Lord German has recently been appointed, lead me to suspect that it will not go away.

When the Silk commission moves on to Part 2 there will be an opportunity for representations to be made, not on the voting system but on where the responsibility for that may lie. I may want to come back to this issue. It would have been wrong, in this consultation, to have gone into the much wider issues of the size of the Assembly or the voting system. It is intended to address mechanisms because of a situation that has arisen as a result of the two pieces of UK legislation to which I referred.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

My Lords, I was seeking to make the point that there is an inexorable nexus between the issue of a possible 90-Member Assembly and the question of the need for a minimum number of persons available to scrutinise legislation. I was unwilling to nail my argument to any particular number. My understanding is—and my noble friend Lord Elis-Thomas may be able to confirm it—that on one count the number of persons available to scrutinise would possibly be as low as 18. If that is true, one is talking not about the efficiency of an Assembly but about the very existence of an Assembly.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

The noble Lord raises an important point about scrutiny, which was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, when he spoke about unicameral situations. However, that goes far wider than what we seek to do in this Green Paper. That does not mean to say that the debate will not continue. The matter must be addressed in the Green Paper as a consequence of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act and the Fixed-term Parliaments Act. There may have been a slight misunderstanding by my noble friend Lord German. Both the Government of Wales Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 2006 stated that individual constituencies for the National Assembly of Wales would be the same as Westminster constituencies. That link was broken under Section 13 of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Act, so the status quo would be to have the existing 40 Welsh Assembly constituencies plus the 20 regional seats and, as is widely anticipated, the 30 Westminster seats.

We are bringing forward this Green Paper because two choices must be addressed. The status quo is not an option because, under the present arrangements with 40 Members, the constituency of Arfon—which I think the noble Lord, Lord Wigley, represented in the previous Assembly—has an electorate of some 40,000, and Cardiff South and Penarth has an electorate of between 76,000 and 78,000. That is a disparity within Wales and therefore a boundary commission would look at the size of the constituencies even if the number remained at 40. One way or t’other, we are either going to have a boundary commission to look at the 40 constituencies or move to the 30:30 system, as indicated in the Green Paper. It is in that context that we must look at these proposals. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that this is why it needs to be done and why we are consulting on it now.

Devolution: Wales

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Tuesday 28th February 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I am not in a position to agree with that, not having read that particular report. Clearly the economy of Wales is a matter in which your Lordships’ House has a legitimate interest, concerning, as it does, both devolved and non-devolved matters. I understand that on St David’s Day later this week the House of Commons will be debating Welsh affairs generally, and I strongly expect the economy to dominate and not least the Welsh Development Agency and the point made by my noble friend.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Does the noble and learned Lord accept that, although as a constitutional precept this Westminster Parliament can, even in relation to any matter delegated to any one of the constituent parliaments, still legislate as it would wish in relation to any devolved area, in relation to Scotland some 14 years ago a convention was kindly agreed to the effect that this House would not dream of doing that unless so specifically requested by the Scottish Parliament? Particularly now in the context of the added powers enjoyed by Wales since the referendum, will such a convention be considered by Her Majesty’s Government in relation to Wales?

Privacy Injunctions

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Monday 23rd May 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I would certainly agree with the noble Lord. No doubt when the Joint Committee comes to take evidence, the professional bodies, the Law Society and Bar Council, will be bodies that it will want to seek evidence from—as well, no doubt, as from individuals who have much experience to bring to bear on these important matters.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Does the Minister accept that the Bill of Rights and the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 were passed in ages very different from our own and dealt with circumstances very different from those now relevant? Does he accept that the effect of those Acts very often is to make it possible for a statement to be made in Parliament that would be utterly contumelious of a decision of the courts were it not for the particular privilege thereby conferred? Will he encourage those who sit on the Joint Committee to be bold and imaginative in these circumstances and to see to it that the law of the land is not flouted, save in those rare, almost unique, circumstances where parliamentary privilege should be allowed to cloak such an action?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, as I have already made clear, it is almost self-evident that the Bill of Rights 1689 and the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840 were promulgated in times very different from today. Notwithstanding that, there are clearly some important principles enshrined in them. Indeed, on numerous occasions, even in recent times, we in this House have sought to emphasise their importance and how much we cherish them. In terms of the Joint Committee and in the opportunity to look much more broadly at parliamentary privilege, that will be an opportunity to consider in detail some of these issues. The Master of the Rolls’ report published last week has a chapter devoted to parliamentary privilege and identifies some of the tensions that are there. All of those elected to the other House and Members of this House take parliamentary privilege very seriously, and if we wish to say anything on matters that are sub judice it should be done only with the greatest of forethought.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Wednesday 16th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I remember the vote very well. This House voted most emphatically, and the Government have listened.

We also listened on the matter of the date of the referendum and incorporated into the Bill the other famous amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. On public hearings, we agreed with the spirit of the points made and changed the Bill.

The other place having considered our amendments, two issues remain outstanding. The first is a decision by the other place, in relation to Amendment 1 and subsequent Amendment 8 that were successfully moved in this place—the former on Report and the latter at Third Reading—by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. As the House will recall, the purpose of those amendments was to make the referendum result not binding, or indicative, should the turnout fall below 40 per cent. The Government resisted the noble Lord’s amendment on principle and because of the practical difficulties that it posed, to which I shall return in a moment. Following that debate on Report, the amendment was carried by 219 votes to 218. At Third Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, tabled Amendment 8, which sought to remedy some of the defects in his earlier amendment. As I made clear in my response then, the Government appreciated the making-good spirit behind the noble Lord’s amendment, which the Government accepted pending consideration of the whole issue in the other place.

That consideration took place last night. Our colleagues in the other place voted to disagree with the noble Lord’s amendment by 317 votes to 247—a majority of 70—which, I hasten to add, was a majority that comprised not only the coalition parties but Members from the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the Green Party. This House must now decide whether to insist on the amendments that it passed or to accept the message from colleagues in the elected Chamber.

Before we do so, let me return to the key arguments. I acknowledge that we will hear, as we did on Report, some strong and persuasive arguments from those who favour thresholds. I understand why many in the House found those arguments compelling, but I believe that, in the context of this Bill, they are misplaced and I shall do my best to explain why. I understand that, when considering this issue previously, many of your Lordships felt that the proposal of the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, was reasonable because, unlike most turnout thresholds, his proposal would not definitively have prevented the referendum from being implemented if the threshold was not met. Indeed, the noble Lord suggested that his proposal did not even amount to a threshold.

However, I cannot believe that this is quite right. The amendments would make the referendum result indicative, should the turnout fall below 40 per cent, rather than rule out implementation altogether—I hope that that is a fair assessment of it. However, that seems to me to set a threshold for interpretation of the result. In every real sense, it is a threshold. As the Minister in the other place said yesterday, it would mean that when people go to the polls on 5 May, they could not say that they would get what they voted for if the majority favoured changing the system. By definition, there would have to be further consideration of the matter. We would be saying that people might get what they vote for, provided that Parliament does not overrule or disregard the vote. That is a somewhat dispiriting message to give to the public.

One of our objectives in this and other constitutional reform legislation is to bring back into the political process members of the public who have lost faith. People have become disengaged not least because they feel that the process lacks the ability to deliver what they want. I want noble Lords to consider that, if we imposed a threshold which left in any sort of doubt the effect of people’s votes cast, people might well lose faith because they would not know what the outcome would be if the people delivered a majority yes vote.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

Will the Minister cast his mind back to the 1975 vote on joining the European Economic Community? That was not a mandatory but an indicative vote. There was no protest then of the nature that he describes, so the argument does not follow.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, that vote was not on a threshold. In the one case where there was a threshold, in Scotland in 1979—which I accept involved a different kind of threshold and consequences that were different, but it was nevertheless a threshold—those who of us voted yes felt, for at least the ensuing 18 years until there was a yes vote again in 1997, that we had been cheated. I do not think we treat the electorate well by providing for a situation where they may vote yes but that yes vote may not be translated into action.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Wednesday 9th February 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

I greatly respect the integrity and ability of the noble and learned Lord, but his whole argument is based, is it not, on the question of equality? He equates equality totally with arithmetical consistency. Is not that a total fallacy?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

This is not down simply to mathematics. The principle at the core of this part of the Bill is to ensure the equality of the ballot, which all of us hold very dear indeed and which is not a purely mathematical thing. One elects one’s representative to sit in the other place and, by doing that, contributes to what the Government of this United Kingdom will be. There is a merit in that vote having equal value in all parts of our United Kingdom.

National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) (Amendment) Order 2010

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Wednesday 1st December 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I am grateful for the general welcome that has been given to the order. I noted that the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, rehearsed his speech for the debate that we will undoubtedly have during the passage of the Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill. I rather suspect that it will fall to me to answer that part of the Bill. At least I am well prepared by knowing from where the attack will come, and I can expect it also from the noble Lord, Lord Jones.

There will undoubtedly be an opportunity to consider the coincidence of elections when we come to debate the Fixed-Term Parliaments Bill—I hear the point made by my noble friend Lord German. The noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, and the House will perhaps be reassured to hear that the Government are aware of the concerns that have been expressed in some quarters about the coincidence of polling dates in 2015. They are consulting the Welsh Assembly Government, all political parties represented in the Assembly and representatives of the Assembly itself on options for moving the date of elections to the devolved legislature—a similar consultation is taking place also in Scotland and Northern Ireland. We will decide whether further legislation is needed in the light of the consultation.

The two issues of concern to my noble friend Lord Roberts of Llandudno related to the location of the agent’s office and the names on the ballot paper, which my noble friend Lord German mentioned as well. The relaxation of the rules for agents is only for the regional election. The order states that the office must be “in Wales”. It could be in the respective regions, given that they are all in Wales. Only if political parties choose to have one agent for every regional election will it now be possible for an office not to be in every region. That arose during the 2007 election and has been taken forward. No party has objected to the change. I remind my noble friend that this rule applies to the agent’s office and not to the candidate’s offices. Candidates will still have offices in the respective Assembly constituencies. I hope that that gives some reassurance to my noble friend, who I know will engage in the electoral battles with the same gusto as I have seen from him over many years.

It shows just how much attention I pay that I had thought that names had been on the regional list for the previous Scottish elections; I am told that they were not, that that already is the case in Scotland. Such was my enthusiasm to vote for Scottish Liberal Democrats, I did not pause to notice whether the names were there or not. The names of the candidates will be displayed in the polling stations. My noble friend asked whether it would be possible to amend or reduce the number of names to four. That could happen only with the agreement of all the political parties that would be putting up more than four candidates; and although that agreement has been sought, it has not been forthcoming. It could be done by primary legislation, but clearly there will not be an opportunity for primary legislation between now and the elections.

The Government did give careful thought, and did consult the main political parties in Wales, before deciding which was the appropriate way to go forward. In the regional elections voters cast their votes predominantly on the basis of party affiliation rather than individual candidates, although independents can of course stand; and we believe that the change will help ensure that ballot papers do not become unduly unwieldy if all the names are on them. I am advised that representatives of Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Labour Party agreed the proposal, while the Welsh Liberal Democrats did not object. No comments were received from the Welsh Conservative Party, although it was circulated with it. The change is strongly supported by the Electoral Commission and by the representatives of the Association of Electoral Administrators in Wales, including the regional returning officer for Wales.

After every election there is a wash-up by the Electoral Commission. No doubt in May next year, this may be something that the respective political parties may wish to reflect on with the Electoral Commission in the light of that experience.

With regard to the sample names that have been mentioned, I had noted—the noble Lord, Lord Jones, beat me to it—that the candidate on the constituency ballot paper representing the farmers of Wales was Sarah Gale. I am not sure of the Welsh origin, if there is any Welsh origin, of the name which the noble Baroness is no doubt proud—

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

What struck me was not the name of the candidate but the bovine that represented the logo. It was not a Welsh black, it was a Friesian.

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

Even more damning, I suspect. I rather suspect that the names were put there to be neutral. I only conclude on this point by noting that in the regional ballot paper, where there is one independent named, he goes under the name of Xavier Alfonso. I may be wrong, but it does not sound like the name of a boy from the valleys to me.

In conclusion, the noble Lord, Lord Elystan-Morgan, said that this was perhaps a unique moment given that all sides were applauding a particular order; and the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, commended the order for its evidence base, for being practical and for being sensible. I think there is general agreement. I have no doubt that when the time comes, the respective parties will engage in electoral combat with great passion, but no matter which party we belong to—or none—it is in all our interests that these elections are conducted effectively and efficiently, and I believe that with this order, we put in place the machinery for doing so. I commend the order to the House.

National Assembly for Wales: Referendum

Debate between Lord Wallace of Tankerness and Lord Elystan-Morgan

Thursday 17th June 2010 Lords Chamber

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for giving me the opportunity to make it clear that my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister subsequently made it clear to the House of Commons that that was not the position. The Government will not have a particular view on the outcome of the referendum. Our coalition commitment is to ensure that the referendum takes place. The referendum is not the plaything of any one political party. It is for the people of Wales to decide and we will respect their decision.

[Lord Elystan-Morgan]

In so far as the people of Wales are concerned, does the noble and learned Lord accept that there is a deep conviction and desire in Wales for a referendum, and for that to be carried, making Part 4 a new constitution for the Welsh people?

[Lord Wallace of Tankerness]

I note that when the National Assembly for Wales voted on whether there should be a referendum under the Government of Wales Act, the vote was 53 to zero. I am sure that people on both sides of the argument were voting because they want a referendum, but it is not for me at this Dispatch Box to say what the outcome should be. I have no doubt that my noble friends and my friends in the Liberal Democrats in Wales will want me to take a particular view when I am campaigning, but, as I have indicated, the Government’s view is that we want the referendum to take place and the preparation for it to be as thorough as possible.