Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Crabb: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the evidence on the electoral arrangements provided to the Welsh Affairs Committee by academics and the Electoral Commission, which made the point that regardless of whether the changes benefit the Labour party, the perception that they are motivated by partisan interest is enough to turn off people from participating in the electoral process, which is a serious worry?
Albert Owen: That is a different point. Nearly every Opposition Member who has spoken has said that the changes are gerrymandering, but that is not the case. The current system is rigged, and the dual ballot paper confuses people when they cast their votes. In 1999, the Labour party picked up some 34 per cent. of the vote in the second ballot in north Wales, but it got no seats, which was grossly unfair. Just as we are amending the Assembly's corporate status in the Bill, we should amend the electoral system. If we are serious about proportional representation, let us make the system proportional.
It would be fairer to separate the second ballot paper from the first, in which case people would elect the Member whom they want to represent them in the
9 Jan 2006 : Column 107
constituency in the first ballot and top that up in the second ballot by voting for the party that they want to represent them. The system was rigged to help minority parties and independents, but it does not, because the outcome has not been that which was first envisaged. I urge the Minister to address that problem in his winding-up speech.
Albert Owen: I will take an intervention, but it must be brief, because other hon. Members want to speak.
Hywel Williams: The hon. Gentleman said that people are confused, but I refer him to the evidence given to the Welsh Affairs Committee by the Electoral Commission, an independent body that has undertaken careful research, that people are not confused.
Albert Owen: I am not aware of the research to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but if he tells me what it is, I shall read it. On the ground, I know that people are confused because they have told me so. As my hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mark Tami) said, when people vote for a party that comes top of the poll, they do not get the Member for whom they voted. I am not suggesting that the minority parties do not need assistance. Some hon. Members have argued that it would be unfair to move away from a dual mandate, but I say that the dual ballot paper is also unfair and that we should examine both systems equally.
Finally, the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) mentioned regional committees, which have been wrongly omitted from the Bill. I believe in real devolutionnot the transfer of powers from London to Cardiff bay, but the transfer of powers from Cardiff bay to Colwyn bay and to Cemaes bay in my constituency. One of the purposes of devolution was to bring politics closer to the people of Wales, which has not happened. One of the reasons why it has not happened is because the regional committees are too weak and have become nothing more than talking shops. They talk openly about interesting subjects, but they do not do anything about them. I want the Bill to strengthen the regional dimension in Wales through real devolution to the regions, which could be done by strengthening the regional committees to include open debates and decision making or by the scrutiny committees visiting the regions, taking evidence and examining regional issues.
The hon. Member for Clwyd, West mentioned that many people in north Wales feel isolated, which is because of the distance between politics in Cardiff and the rest of Walesin particular, the areas on the periphery. The Minister represents a constituency on the periphery of Wales, so I hope that he recognises the fear that politics is becoming too Cardiff-central. The only way in which to address the situation is to devolve power out to the regions through a mechanism such as the regional committees.
Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC):
I welcome the Bill, which, for the faint-hearted, does not do a great deal as regards stage two powers and, for people such as
9 Jan 2006 : Column 108
me who are enthusiasts, does a great deal as regards stage three powers. In that sense, the Secretary of State is riding two horses, and he is to be congratulated. There is a great need for reform. I am afraid that in some quarters the Assemblythe Cynulliadhas gained the name of "Cynlleied", or "so little", because many people are disappointed with the level of powers that it has.
I commend the report of the Welsh Affairs Committee to hon. Members. It contains a great deal of interesting evidence that will illuminate the debates in Committee and on Report and Third Reading. One matter that the Committee investigated was the referendum. At question 99, I asked Lord Richard why we should go for stage two of the Order-in-Council procedures, which are, as everyone accepts, fairly complicated and convoluted, instead of going straight for stage three. He replied that that question was not for him but for the Secretary of State. We received a response from the Secretary of State earlier, when he said of the referendum, "I know it would fail." I do not know that it would fail; indeed, I feel that it would succeed. We in Plaid Cymru have confidence that people in Wales would see the virtue of having proper powers for the Assembly. It is often said that the Assembly needs to bed in. That is a vain hope given the limited powers that it has at present. It cannot give the people of Wales a proper service because it is disabled in that it cannot pass the simplest of laws on its own account.
I should like to correct the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), who recruited Plaid Cymru into his party of people against having a referendum at all. We are in favour of having a referendum and would not support his point of view.
Pre-legislative scrutiny has been commended as a way of looking at Orders in Council. Having taken part in that procedure, I have to say that it has been successful. For example, the Welsh Grand Committee has met to consider legislation and the Welsh Affairs Committee has met jointly with committees from the Welsh Assembly. However, it is significant that those joint meetings have on the whole concerned non-controversial matters. There is a danger that the procedure could be, to use the Secretary of State's phrase, "Redwoodised" if there was a difference of opinion between the Government in Cardiff and the Government down here in London. That would also be a danger if we had a Secretary of State who is fundamentally at odds with the Welsh Assembly Government. The discussion process in respect of Orders in Council could go badly wrong. The 60-day delay might be used by an unsympathetic Secretary of State to slow down the process and entangle it in undue legal procedures in the way that my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) outlined. I refer the House to page 38 of the Welsh Affairs Committee's report and to paragraph 131, in which, after consideration, the Committee, which is of course cross-party, would not recommend that the Secretary of State act as a filter.
Another thing to draw to the attention of the House is the Salisbury convention, whereby if a matter is in a manifesto it is not opposed in certain circumstances. I asked the Secretary of State about that when he was giving evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee and I also asked the First Minister. Interestingly, the First Minister said that if the matter was in an Assembly
9 Jan 2006 : Column 109
manifesto it would not be opposed under the terms of the convention, but if it was a matter in the manifesto of one of the smaller parties, which had magically joined the other smaller parties, the issue would have to appear in each of the parties' manifestos beforehand, which would of course create a difficulty for smaller parties.
Rather more interestingly, the Salisbury convention is after all only a convention, so an individual Member, a Committee, the Welsh Assembly Government or the Welsh Assembly itself, with the approval of the Secretary of State and of this House, might commend an Order in Council but it might be refused down the corridor. Perhaps I am over-egging the pudding, but that might be so. I was therefore interested to hear the comments of the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams), the Father of the House, who seemed to be commending the procedure and to be championing the cause of the other place, possibly in the face of the wishes of this place and of Cardiff.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the proposed changes to the electoral system. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) made a significant point in saying that the evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee concerned the appearance of partisanshipthat that is how it would be interpreted by people voting in elections in Wales. I will not go into the theology of proportional representation, but it is significant that it was the Government's party that introduced the d'Hondt system that has led to the difficulties. Labour Back Benchers should not protest too much, because it was their Government who brought that in.
The response of Glyn Mathias and the Electoral Commission was interesting. I refer Members to question 114 in the evidence. Glyn Mathias and the Electoral Commission, which is a properly independent body, said that there was no evidence in favour of change. However, when the Secretary of State and the First Minister appeared before us they asserted that there was great evidence and argument in favour of change. As far as I can see, they were assertions rather than evidence.
Much has been made of international comparisons. One interesting comparison is the system that might have been adopted in Quebec, where additional members would be required to stand in seats, which would subject them to the rigours of proper competition face to face with another member in a constituency, as well as standing for the list. I have great concerns about comments made by Labour Members on having two classes of Assembly Members. That is very dangerous and should be resisted as much as possible. I do not think that it would be possible to go down the Quebec route, but it is not a matter of one choice or another. We should look at this creatively so that the reputation of the electoral system in Wales is sustained and we get the best to represent the people of Wales in the Assembly. That is what this should be about; it should not be about real or imagined party advantage.
I would like to ask other questions, but I will not detain the House, apart from referring to my earlier question about where list Members should locate their offices. Should they be banned from working in constituencies where they might subsequently stand?
9 Jan 2006 : Column 110
Next Section | Index | Home Page |