http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-07.htm

Mr. Nigel Evans (Ribble Valley) (Con): I am not here to fight old battles, but neither am I here to listen to history being rewritten. Why is the Secretary of State glorifying what he thinks are the Welsh Assembly's achievements when he knows that only one in four Welsh people voted for it in the referendum? He is talking about the voice of the people of Wales and their feeling closer to the Welsh Assembly, but he knows that at the last Assembly elections, the turnout was miserable. What is he going to do to reconnect the Welsh Assembly with the Welsh people?

Mr. Hain: Unfortunately, as the hon. Gentleman knows, turnout in all elections in Britain has been falling over the past few years and, arguably, since the second world war, and that includes the elections for the Welsh Assembly. I am not clear from the earlier part of his question—perhaps the shadow Secretary of State will respond to this later—whether he is trying to turn back the clock. The Conservatives fought and lost that referendum.

Mr. Evans: Only just.

Mr. Hain: There speaks the true voice of the Tory party, and we see that from the reasoned amendment. The Tories have not really learned the lessons. They lost the argument on devolution, and they should accept that.

Huw Irranca-Davies : Will my right hon. Friend note the words of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), whom I, too, welcome to her new role? She was quoted in the Western Mail of 17 December as saying:

"I have said I want to build on what has been achieved with the Assembly."

Does my right hon. Friend see anything in the Opposition's amendment that would build on what has been achieved by the Assembly, or does he suspect that the Opposition are tearing down the whole devolution process?

Mr. Hain: I suspect that it is exactly the latter. It is a wrecking amendment. The Conservatives, at the first opportunity, are asking us to kill the Bill. They could have achieved a debate, vote and decision on their concerns by tabling three new clauses on a referendum on bringing into force the part 3 Orders in Council, and an amendment to clause 7 on dual candidacy. If they were acting in the spirit of consensus promised by the Leader of the Opposition and echoed by the shadow Secretary of State, that is what they could have done. Instead, they have chosen to try to kill the Bill at the first opportunity; the same old anti-devolution, anti-Welsh conservatives.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-09.htm

Mr. Ian Davidson (Glasgow, South-West) (Lab/Co-op): My right hon. Friend may not have been sufficiently bold on the question of democratic accountability. In the second ballot at the last elections, 310,658 Welsh voters voted Labour and got not a single candidate elected. Given that we have already heard that the turnout in the Welsh Assembly elections was low, does not that clearly demonstrate that proportional representation is unfair and has not worked?

Mr. Hain: You will know that my hon. Friend represents a Scottish constituency, Mr. Speaker, but I do not intend to draw you into the debate. What can I say in answer to that question?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-10.htm

An unwelcome development since the 1998 Act was passed has been the problem of defeated constituency candidates being elected through the backdoor on their party's regional list. Politicians are placing an each-way bet on constituency elections, with the electorate losing out. As a Government, we are determined to put the voters back in charge, restoring their democratic right to reject a constituency candidate. We have a clear manifesto commitment and will press the case for reform.

The Bill delivers a lasting settlement that will settle the constitutional argument in Wales for a generation or more. Instead of constantly revising and returning to the issue of its powers and electoral arrangements, the Assembly will now be able to focus on policy development and delivery, in education, health and all the other devolved fields. The constant demand "More powers" will be redundant: they will be on the statute book when the Bill receives Royal Assent, ready for implementation after a successful referendum. Instead of powers, the real question will be: are the Welsh Assembly Government delivering or not? What are the future policies necessary to build a world-class Wales? Political arguments over policies will replace political arguments over powers, so that Welsh political culture gains full maturity.

Adam Price (Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr) (PC): What is the Secretary of State's response to the Electoral Commission's view that the changes proposed for the voting system are perceived as politically partisan and could lead to less participation in the Assembly elections?

Mr. Hain: I think it is wrong and I shall cite alternative evidence later in my speech. The hon. Gentleman might consider experience across the world,

9 Jan 2006 : Column 33

in Canada, New Zealand, Mexico, Thailand and a number of other places, where the issue has arisen but the abuse that has taken place in Wales has not occurred to the same extent. I shall come back to that point.

Mr. Grieve: The possibility of people both standing for a seat and being elected from the list when they were defeated was inherent in the system set up in 1998, and is an inevitable consequence of such a system of proportional representation. Indeed, it exists in other parts of the United Kingdom, so on what basis has the Secretary of State suddenly decided that Wales should not have that system, which is common throughout the world, even if it has come in for criticism? Why has he decided that Wales uniquely should not have it, and why has he done so in a manner of which the Electoral Commission has been very critical?

Mr. Hain: I was about to come to that point. The problem with being so generous in accepting interventions is that they come before the arguments have been made.

In 1997–98, I stood at the Dispatch Box with my colleagues and took the Bill through—indeed, the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) was on the Opposition Front Bench at the time, opposing it, as Conservatives always oppose devolution progress in Wales—but none of us foresaw a situation in which the system would be so widely abused. People in Wales say to me, "If I want to defeat a constituency candidate because I don't like them, why should they pop up on the list?" That is the fundamental point. We are putting the voters back in charge. If they do not want to elect somebody, they do not have to do so. There should not be a situation where people can decide to place a both-way bet, stand in both categories and win even if they are kicked out by the electorate.

Mr. Angus MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP): Does the Secretary of State concede that with first past the post somebody could be elected merely on 26 per cent. of the vote, with four parties? The list system compensates for the inequities of first past the post.

Mr. Hain: The hon. Gentleman has only just wandered into the debate and his point is rather wandering as well. All we are saying is: the list system will remain and people can make a choice. They can decide—as Labour Members are doing. As I shall explain later, half a dozen Labour Members will be faced with a tough choice. They face swings against them of less than 3 per cent. Going by the general election performance last year, their seats will be vulnerable in the next Assembly election. They have to face that choice; they do not have the lifebelt of being able to stand in the list, any more than candidates of any other party.

Mr. David Jones (Clwyd, West) (Con): Does not it operate to the advantage of those Labour constituency Members that a softer candidate will be standing against them on a first-past-the-post basis? The more able candidates will stand on the regional list rather than on first past the post. Is not that precisely what the Secretary of State is hoping for?

9 Jan 2006 : Column 34

Mr. Hain: There we have it in its full glory—the real Conservative face of Wales exposed. Why have the hon. Gentleman and other Welsh Conservatives joined an unholy coalition on the issue with Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats? Why are they so afraid of taking their choice to the people? Are they afraid that they will lose constituency elections and therefore opt for the lifebelt of the list? If so, they might as well not bother to stand in the constituencies in the first place. The hon. Gentleman represents the constituency of Clwyd, West, where at the last Assembly elections, three of the candidates who were defeated ended up winning on the lists. Three of the people in Clwyd, West who were booted out by the electorate ended up as Assembly Members, competing against the winning Assembly Member, Alun Pugh.

Mr. Llwyd: I am not in an unholy alliance with anyone, as far as I know—at least, I was not until just now—but all the extrinsic and academic evidence concludes that the proposal is partisan, in favour of new Labour. In coming to that formulation, did the Secretary of State take advice from President Leonid Kuchma of Ukraine?

Mr. Hain: No, but I studied what has happened in Mexico and Thailand, and in Canada, in New Brunswick, among other provinces, and what is being studied in New Zealand. I will quote alternative evidence later in my speech, including from a much more respected academic commentator on Wales than those who have been quoted.

Mrs. Gillan: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hain: Since I am in a charitable mood, of course I give way.

Mrs. Gillan: On this occasion, there could be a holy alliance between hon. Members, because certainly some people have to think straight. The Secretary of State seems to be taking advice from people throughout the international arena, but I do not understand why he ignored the advice of the First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, who when giving evidence thought that the problems could be dealt with by using a protocol along Scottish lines. Why has the Secretary of State ignored the First Minister? Can we expect these electoral changes to be introduced in Scotland shortly?

Mr. Hain: I do not know where the hon. Lady has done her research, but the First Minister is fully signed up to this policy. At a special Welsh Labour conference on 11 September 2004, he voted for and backed the manifesto on which we stood in May last year that unanimously endorsed the policy. He is enthusiastically backing the policy and she should not take his name in vain in that way.

Although the proposals in the Bill were in Labour's manifesto for an historic third term, it is right to acknowledge the part that people from all parties have played in the debate on the future powers and electoral arrangements of the Assembly. Those people include Lord Richard of Ammanford and the members of his commission who submitted a detailed report to the Welsh Assembly Government in 2004. I pay tribute to

9 Jan 2006 : Column 35

Lord Richard for the strength of his advocacy. He remains a tribune for Welsh reform, and we look forward to his contributions when the Bill reaches the House of Lords.

Members of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, under the chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Dr. Francis), have provided expert analysis to inform the debate about the Bill, as have members of the Assembly committee, chaired by the Presiding Officer, Lord Elis-Thomas.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-11.htm

Philip Davies: Given the narrow result of the referendum that set up the National Assembly for Wales in the first place, and the low turnout, what evidence does the Secretary of State have that people in Wales want the Assembly to have more powers?

Mr. Hain: I do not know the hon. Gentleman's majority, but a victory is a victory under our democracy. If one wins the vote, one wins. The Welsh people voted, although, admittedly, the result was uncomfortably narrow, as I remember well. These repeated attacks—the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) made one in his best Rottweiler fashion—on the verdict of the Welsh people show that the Welsh Conservatives have never accepted the devolution settlement.

Let me now deal with our proposals to reform the electoral system for the Assembly. In 1998, the Labour Government established the additional member system for elections to the Assembly. Broadly speaking, that electoral system has been a success: it has preserved the strong tradition of individual constituency representation that is fundamental to our democracy while delivering a system of fair votes that has improved democratic accountability in Wales. It has even thrown a life belt to the Welsh Conservative party, although that is not something that I would celebrate. However, although it has worked well in ensuring fair representation in the Assembly, I, as one of the Ministers who took the Bill through the Commons, never imagined the abuses that have resulted.

The system as it has operated in Wales has a major weakness. A widespread practice since the Assembly was established has been that candidates who are rejected by a particular constituency have secured back-door election as Assembly Members through the regional list and so have been able to claim to represent the constituency that rejected them. In Clwyd, West in 2003, three of the four defeated candidates were subsequently elected to the Assembly through the regional list. That practice clouds political accountability and denies the voters their right to reject a particular candidate at the ballot box. The change made by the Bill—requiring candidates to choose whether to stand for a constituency or a regional list—will put the voters in charge.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-12.htm

Mr. Andrew Pelling (Croydon, Central) (Con): Is the Secretary of State saying that that abuse is peculiar to the Welsh political culture or that dual candidacies per se are bad news? Do the Government believe that the practice should be ruled out in, for example, London assembly elections?

Mr. Hain: The Bill is about Wales. One of the things that Conservatives find difficult to understand is that devolution allows different parts of the United Kingdom to operate in different ways. Circumstances have arisen in Wales that have allowed widespread abuse and we are correcting that.

Mrs. Gillan: Is the Secretary of State prepared to place in the Library details of all the objections and problems that have arisen from the present electoral system? He constantly refers to a body of evidence that appears not to exist. I do not know how many letters he has had, but academics and those who have examined the system, including the Electoral Commission, say

9 Jan 2006 : Column 41

that there is no great body of evidence to justify the changes that he is proposing. Is he prepared to put the evidence in the Library and show us how overwhelming the demand for change is?

Mr. Hain: I shall certainly reflect on the hon. Lady's request, but I am about to explain the circumstances that justify the policy set out in the Bill.

It cannot be right for losers to become winners through the back door, despite having been rejected by the voters. That is an abuse of democracy, as is the practice adopted by 15 of the 20 list AMs of using taxpayers' money to open constituency offices in the seats in which they were defeated and targeting those seats to win next time by cherry-picking local issues against the constituency AMs who beat them.

The hon. Lady asks for evidence. Criticism of the existing system has been widespread. Lord Richard recently told the Welsh Affairs Committee:

"There is something wrong in a situation in which five people can stand in Clwyd, none of them can be elected, and then they all get into the Assembly. On the face of it that does not make sense. I think that a lot of people in Wales find that it does not."

The hon. Lady asked for evidence and I am now about to give it to her. The eminent Welsh academic, Dr. Denis Balsom, said in evidence to the Richard commission:

"Candidates use the list as an insurance against failing to win a constituency contest. This dual candidacy can also confuse the electorate, who may wish to consciously reject a particular candidate only to find them elected via the list. It should remain a basic democratic right not to elect a particular candidate or to be able to vote a Member out."

Lord Carlile, the former Welsh Liberal Democrat—[Interruption.] This is not against a list system. It is saying to candidates, "Make a choice." Why are they so afraid of making a choice? Stand and face the verdict of the people in the constituency or stand on the list, whichever they wish. It is—[Interruption.] I have been asked for evidence and I have taken up a great deal of time in interventions.

Lord Carlile, the former Welsh Liberal Democrat leader, has said:

"many in Wales will welcome . . . the removal of the absurd dual candidacy opportunity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1217.]

The former Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, Lord Crickhowell—the Conservatives want evidence—has said that the

"present arrangements are really pretty indefensible."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005, Vol. 672, c. 1216.]

In the consultation on the White Paper, I received only one formal response from the Conservative party, but it was a most significant one. It was from the Preseli Pembrokeshire Conservative association. The hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) is swelling with pride as the association's representative. It said:

"We agree with the proposal to prevent individuals from simultaneously being candidates in constituency elections and being eligible for election from party lists."

Game, set and match.

9 Jan 2006 : Column 42

Mr. Grieve: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hain: I will give way for the shadow Attorney-General to disagree with the Preseli Pembrokeshire Conservative association.

Mr. Grieve: Given the importance that the Secretary of State attached to this issue as a matter of principle, when will we have a statement from the Prime Minister that the other systems of proportional representation in the United Kingdom that the Government have set up will be altered? Does the Secretary of State understand that asking the House to treat something in isolation can be perceived, however great his vehemence, as gerrymandering? We are not prepared to tolerate that. If he wishes to change the system, it should be changed as an issue of principle throughout the country and not for the convenience of the Welsh Labour party.

Mr. Hain: I am glad that I took that intervention. That is because I have further evidence explaining exactly why it is not in any sense gerrymandering or partisan. The hon. Gentleman asks why there should not be a statement by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The abuse has happened in Wales and we are correcting it in Wales. The Bill is about Wales. I know of no similar complaints about London. Indeed, I know of no similar complaints on an equivalent scale anywhere else to those that have existed in Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the Secretary of State share my immense regret that we have to discuss these matters today? We do so with deep regret because those of us, with the best intentions, who supported the Government of Wales Act 1998, did not foresee the level of abuse that we have had. I would welcome a strong Liberal Democrat presence in my constituency to bring the fight to me, but regrettably that presence in adverts, local constituency offices and surgeries is in the target seats that the Liberal Democrats hope to win in the first-past-the-post system.

Mr. Hain: Exactly.

The comments that I quoted earlier from Conservatives, Liberal Democrats, independents, academics and even from the Preseli Pembrokeshire Conservative association, a fountain of wisdom in the Conservative party alone on this matter, show that there is a body of evidence, and there is much more, putting the case for—

Mr. Roger Williams: Perhaps the Secretary of State will help us on Northern Ireland. Is dual candidacy a feature of the Northern Ireland election system, and has he any views on that?

Mr. Hain: Different parts of the United Kingdom have different—[Interruption.] I expect the Conservatives to scoff at devolution. That is what they have done all along and they always will do, as they are doing today. They are seeking to kill the Bill. However, I do not expect the Liberal Democrats to deny that different parts of the United Kingdom can develop in different ways—indeed, that is the purpose of devolution—and embrace different practices.

Hywel Williams (Caernarfon) (PC): The Secretary of State cited as an abuse that he wishes to remedy the fact

9 Jan 2006 : Column 43

that list Members set up constituency offices. How would his proposal stop them doing so in constituencies in which they intend to stand?

Mr. Hain: It would not stop them setting up constituency offices. However, I think that the Assembly may make a decision in its standing orders to stop that practice, and I hope that it does so. I am glad that a member of Plaid Cymru has asked me about this, because only today I received a press release from Helen Mary Jones, in which she describes herself as the "Llanelli-based Assembly Member". She complains about money spent on a hospital in Carmarthen instead of one in Llanelli. However, as a list Member, she represents both areas, and is the Member for Mid and West Wales. Yet again, a member of Plaid Cymru has been caught red-handed. Of all the parts of the list area that she represents, she targets the one place where she narrowly lost last time, and describes herself as the Llanelli-based Assembly Member. The Bill will stop her describing herself as the Assembly Member for Llanelli in future, because she was defeated there by Catherine Thomas in 2003.

Mr. Llwyd: Surely the right hon. Gentleman understands that Helen Mary Jones is saying that she is Llanelli-based? She lives there—she does not say that she is the Member for Llanelli. If that were the case, he would have ground for complaint. Perhaps more importantly, the right hon. Gentleman says that the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) may be addressed by standing orders in the National Assembly. Will he oversee those orders, or will he allow the Assembly to deal with them itself?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-13.htm

Mr. Hain: They will be drawn up by the National Assembly itself. In his party's interests, may I discourage the hon. Gentleman from making such interventions, as he has provoked me to produce even more evidence? I have it on good authority from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan) that Helen Mary Jones lives in his constituency and is one of his constituents. We have a leaked memorandum—[Interruption.] I can see Plaid Cymru Members writhing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I apologise for interrupting the right hon. Gentleman, but we must not have continual sedentary interventions. That applies across the House. There is a long list of speakers who wish to speak in the debate, and they may be sacrificing their chances of being called.

Mr. Hain: I will take that as an instruction to make progress, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is significant, however, that Plaid Cymru Members are writhing in embarrassment, along with many other Opposition Members. I am not surprised, given the statement made in a memorandum by Leanne Wood, another Assembly Member. I could read out the entire statement, but I am pressed for time.

Chris Ruane (Vale of Clwyd) (Lab): Go on.

Mr. Hain: My hon. Friend may wish to know that, yet again, a member of Plaid Cymru has been caught red-

9 Jan 2006 : Column 44

handed, and advocates the targeting of Assembly office budgets in target seats. She says that her party's list Members will only do case work where it will benefit Plaid Cymru in those seats and will only attend civic and other events in the constituency if they think that there are votes in it. What a terrible advertisement for a Plaid Cymru Assembly Member.

The comments and evidence that I have cited demonstrate that the claim that the measure is partisan is entirely without foundation. I shall explain why. I remind the House that there are six Labour Assembly Members, including three Ministers, who would be defeated by a swing of 3 per cent. against them—a very small swing. They will no longer have the safety net of the regional list. This reform will affect Labour candidates, just as it applies to candidates of other parties. Candidates must make their choice, then the voters will make theirs.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-15.htm

Mrs. Gillan: The second major flaw in the Bill is the blatant alteration of the electoral system in part 1 to favour the Welsh Labour party.

The proposed rigging of the electoral system will, despite the protestations of the Secretary of State, prevent candidates who stand in one of the 40 single Member constituencies and who fail to be elected from also standing on the regional top-up lists in any of the regional constituency areas.

Nia Griffith (Llanelli) (Lab): Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Gillan: Let me make a little progress, please.

The prime motivation for this appears to be the political interests of the Labour party in Wales. The Secretary of State and the First Minister have both said that, in respect of full law-making powers, we have to wait for the consensus. That is fine, but clearly there is no consensus whatever for the proposed change to the electoral system.

Mr. David : It was in the manifesto.

Mrs. Gillan: I do not believe that the changes to the electoral system for all elections throughout the UK were featured in the manifesto. Or did it apply only to Wales? This is an issue on which the Welsh Affairs Committee divided on party lines.

Mr. Hain: It was in the Welsh manifesto.

Mrs. Gillan: It may have been in the Welsh manifesto, but it was not in the Scottish and London Assembly manifestos.

The Electoral Reform Society has spoken out about its profound doubts on this change, saying:

"There is no evidence at all to back up this proposal and therefore we come to the conclusion that we do not think that the case for change has been made".

The Commission also made the point that such a change needed to be considered in a UK rather than just a Welsh context. Perhaps the Secretary of State could tell the House when he expects his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland to adopt the same procedures for elections to the Scottish Parliament. Why did such changes not form part of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004?

Mr. Hain: Since the hon. Lady has raised the issue, I shall tell her that the measure appeared in the UK manifesto. A more extensive description appeared in the Welsh manifesto, but the specific commitment appeared in Labour's UK manifesto, which was fought on by every candidate throughout the UK.

Mrs. Gillan: Does that mean that the Government will apply the measure to Scotland, in which case why

9 Jan 2006 : Column 52

did it not form part of the Labour party's representation to the Arbuthnot commission? If it is a principle, which the Secretary of State has said it is, it should apply right across the UK.

The truth is that this is a spiteful and anti-democratic measure that should have no place in a Government of Wales Bill and may not even survive a challenge under Human Rights legislation. In December, the Secretary of State boldly asserted that, in his view, the Bill would settle the constitutional question in Wales. In his own words:

"What I hope this will do is settle for a generation—if not more—the whole constitutional obsession we have in Wales about the powers and status of the Assembly".

He knows that the Bill as drafted will do no such thing. Rather than settle the constitutional question, it simply leaves it wide open.

The Bill offers little prospect of long-term constitutional stability. It proposes a hybrid system of enhanced legislative powers that weakens Parliament and the role of Welsh MPs, while fundamentally changing the 1998 devolution settlement without giving the people of Wales a vote or a voice. Further, it seeks to rig the electoral system to the partisan advantage of the Labour Party.

If the Government thought that the time has come to make further devolution to Wales, the honest way of going about it would be to consult the people of Wales now, through a referendum, and not wait until some intermediate point along the path, by which time important changes will have been introduced under the guise of this Bill. The Secretary of State had the opportunity to improve the operations of the Assembly simply by separating the Assembly Government from the Assembly Members. Instead, I am afraid that he has chosen to pursue his political interests at the same time, jeopardising the legislation and compromising the people of Wales by adding provisions for partisan, party purposes. I am sorry that he has made that choice.

We have had no choice but to table a reasoned amendment, and I ask the House to support it in the Lobby tonight. I will not vote against Second Reading if a vote is called because there are elements of the Bill that we Conservatives support, but because the Secretary of State has chosen to include partisan, party proposals, I had no choice but to table a reasoned amendment and to include it in the Order Paper. I ask my hon. Friends to vote with me on it.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-16.htm

Mr. Alan Williams (Swansea, West) (Lab): conclude on a point that has been touched on and which is profoundly important. The House of Commons is sleepwalking and does not quite understand what the devolution process is about, and I suspect that many of my English colleagues have not understood what it might mean for them. Scotland already has its devolution. As Wales spreads its devolutionary catchment, increasingly larger parts of the legislation going through the House of Commons will be England-only. It will not apply in Wales or in Scotland.

I abstained on tuition charges because I felt that I should not vote on them, but we have an anomalous situation whereby Scottish and Welsh Members, who are not answerable to English constituencies, will vote to impose on them measures that will not apply in Scotland or Wales. That affronts my concept of the democratic accountability that I thought existed in our country.

In the atmosphere that has been partially created by the act of devolution—making the Welsh more Welsh and the Scots more Scottish—there is a seeping effect of making the English more English. I suspect that there is a limit to how long the English electorate will put up with a situation where Welsh and Scottish votes determine what they get, especially if there was a Government with an overall UK majority but only a minority of votes in England. I do not think that the Government have even considered the possible repercussions for my party in the future, when the English rumble the effect of what we are putting through the House. There will be a backlash, and at some stage the issue and the policy will come back to bite us.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-17.htm

Lembit Öpik (Montgomeryshire) (LD): Polls suggest that the Welsh public support such a move, and all but one of the major parties seem wholly to support moves toward primary powers. The Richard commission set out a clear path for a proper devolution settlement. Having surveyed all the issues in unique detail, Lord Richard and his colleagues concluded that the best way forward for Wales was, first, to create an 80-Member Assembly, with primary law-making powers, elected by a single-transferable-vote system.

The Richard commission also said that law-making powers would be more effectively dispatched by an 80-Member Assembly. That is the model that Welsh Liberal Democrats want to see put in place. Not only would it create a powerful and professional Welsh senate and a proportional political body with the responsibilities and capacity to move Wales forward,

9 Jan 2006 : Column 57

but it would also resolve the issues that the Secretary of State for Wales was trying to grapple with in terms of the frictions that he observes between list Members and constituency Members of the Assembly.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-18.htm

That perhaps explains the evident friction between what Labour Ministers say in this House and what Labour Assembly Members say at the other end of the M4, in Cardiff. That transparently seems to be the case on the issue of dual candidacy, on which there is commonality among all the Opposition parties. The issue has attracted considerable attention and will, I am sure, be discussed in Committee. Labour's policy of banning dual candidacy does not put our Secretary of State on quite the same moral level as Robert Mugabe, as somebody suggested, but there is little evidence that the measure is anything other than politically motivated.

Academics and non-partisan organisations, such as the Electoral Reform Society and the Electoral Commission, have all condemned the Government's proposals. Such people have found no evidence that dual candidacy, in the words of the Secretary of State,

"devalues the integrity of the electoral system"

or

"acts as a disincentive to voting in constituency elections"—[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 264.]

Mark Tami : Would the hon. Gentleman describe the Electoral Reform Society as a non-partisan organisation or does he think that it has a certain agenda to pursue?

Lembit Öpik: Anybody who believes themselves to be a democrat and to be passionate about free speech will view that organisation as independent. Hon. Members can draw their own conclusions.

Mr. Paul Murphy (Torfaen) (Lab):There might be a case in years to come for holding another referendum, on the way in which we elect Members to the National Assembly for Wales. The present system is confusing to our electors, and if an electoral system confuses the electors, it is not a good electoral system. I would prefer to have two-Member constituencies using an alternative vote system. That is what I argued for in the mid-1990s, but it did not happen. I doubt that it would be acceptable now, but it remains my preference. I would like to see a first-past-the-post system, but I do not think that that is likely to happen because it would fundamentally change the system on which people voted. If we want fundamentally to change the electoral system, there is a case for giving people the right to vote on that, because that would be meaningful.

The change in respect of dual candidacy is necessary. I do not think for one second that it would give any party an advantage. Different parties might have different rules on who should stand for what, but in terms of who is eventually elected, it will make no difference. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, six of our Labour colleagues in the Assembly could face defeat on the smallest of swings, but will not have the safeguard of standing for the top-up list.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-19.htm

David T.C. Davies: It will never happen, but a candidate on a list would have a vested interest in ensuring that his colleague standing in a winnable seat did not win. Would not that cause problems to the parties that currently benefit most from regional lists?

Mr. Murphy: It is for the individual parties to sort out how they select people for election.

That is a problem of the system. The additional member system that we have as a result of the 1997 settlement is fundamentally flawed. People do not understand it. They do not understand how an individual can stand in two ways for the same body on the same day in the same election and be defeated, then get elected a matter of an hour or two later. Equally if not more confusing is the fact that, in my constituency and in those of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the south Wales valleys, thousands upon thousands of people vote Labour on their second vote, yet none of those votes is counted. I do not understand the logic of that. I can understand the technicalities, because I taught the subject many years ago when I was a teacher in a college of further education, but as an elector or as an elected representative, I think that it is terribly confusing and ought to be changed.

How can the system be changed? We should keep the 40 first-past-the-post AMs and the 20 top-up AMs should be elected on an all-Wales list based on strict proportionality, so that people are elected according to the number of votes cast throughout Wales for their party. That would be easily understood by the people of Wales. In the months and years ahead, there is a debate

9 Jan 2006 : Column 64

to be had about what changes might be made. If none is made, the top-up system will become increasingly discredited.

Mr. Grieve: The method that the right hon. Gentleman proposes has something to commend it, but if such a system were to be adopted, there would be nothing to prevent the mischief about which the Secretary of State is so exercised, of someone on an all-Wales list identifying himself with a particular locality, which he wanted to seize in future under first past the post. Does not the argument advanced by the Secretary of State debase the debate that we ought to be having on the matter, on which the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is making an important point?

Mr. Murphy: Someone on an all-Wales list standing in a strictly proportionate election going to a particular constituency and fighting it would be much less of a problem than it is now. Now, elections are fought on electoral subdivisions of Wales and in those much smaller divisions it is more than possible—indeed, it is happening—for individual list Members to go to a constituency and campaign to get elected as a candidate under first past the post. That is wrong, because the 20 top-up Members should bring something different to the Assembly and thus enhance it. That would be more likely if they were elected as I have suggested.

I hope that the Bill receives its Second Reading today, because the people of Wales are served by all of us who are elected for that purpose, whether we serve in the House of Commons, the Assembly or local government. We are all there to serve those whom we represent and I believe that the Bill gives us an opportunity to improve the quality of life of all Welsh people.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-20.htm

Dr. Hywel Francis (Aberavon) (Lab): As readers of our report will see, there was no consensus on the Government's proposals for electoral reform. The majority support, as I do, the Government's proposals, and it should be noted that there was no minority report. My personal view is that, whatever the merits of the arguments on each side of the debate, the Government and all parties need to proceed on a cross-party basis. Electoral reform should not get caught up in internecine party politics. The Secretary of State may well wish to consider whether, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen said in his

9 Jan 2006 : Column 70

contribution, the present system is an unloved and confusing creature that causes more grief than it is worth. I believe that, as he suggested, a national list may be a better option.

It is incumbent upon all Members to take the heat out of the debate on electoral reform and to find a way forward that gains cross-party consensus. Without that, the many welcome proposals in the Bill could be drowned out by the argument on what is for many of us a very minor part of a welcome improvement to the devolution settlement for Wales. The Secretary of State has it in his gift as the sponsor of the Bill to give serious consideration to other proposals.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-22.htm

Mr. Elfyn Llwyd (Meirionnydd Nant Conwy) (PC): My major criticism—I have some sympathy with the reasoned amendment in this regard—concerns the self-serving nature of the ban on dual membership. I will not go through all the evidence, which other Members will have seen, from the Electoral Reform Society, the electoral commissioner and many independent commentators who are in a position to make cogent comments. Many people believe that there is abundant evidence to show that there is no case for change. I am sure that there will be much debate in Committee about this partisan provision, which was involved in pre-orange revolution Ukraine, but has been seen nowhere else. What an endorsement. No doubt Leonid Kutchma has been advising the Secretary of State, because he is the only person who would have any real experience of it. The right hon. Gentleman said earlier that it was looked at in New Zealand and in New Brunswick, Canada. Indeed it was, but it was rejected: he did not quite finish the story. It has been rejected in many areas, and there are good reasons why that should be. Some ambitious apologist will remind me that it was in the manifesto. Yes, it was, but new Labour's vote was 35 per cent. UK-wide and 42 per cent. in Wales—hardly an overwhelming endorsement. Given that no one mentioned it during the entire election campaign, not to me anyway, it was unlikely to have been uppermost in the minds of those who did vote for new Labour.

9 Jan 2006 : Column 75

Yesterday, I took part in a radio discussion in which the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) said that he wished that Plaid Cymru's lukewarm support for the Bill could have been much stronger. My response is this: we have the privilege of considering the contents of every Bill instead of nodding them through regardless, as he does. In this case, there is a lot of amending to do—that is why we are lukewarm. The Bill represents a step forward, but it could have done much more. I trust that the debates in Committee will be productive so that ultimately we have a Bill that is worthy of far warmer support.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-22.htm

I turn to the highly controversial question of regional Members and first-past-the-post Members. I note that Lord Richard, the chair of the commission, stated:

"There is something wrong in a situation in which five people can stand in Clwyd, none of them can be elected, and then they all get into the Assembly. On the face of it that does not make sense. I think a lot of people in Wales find that it does not."

Many Members who were supportive of the PR settlement in Wales have become disenchanted with it. The problem is the type of PR that we have imposed on the Assembly. I challenge Conservative Members to say that the system has not been abused. I will happily provide examples, and will do so in Committee if I am chosen to serve on it. There has been abuse and that is the problem, and Lord Richard recognises that.

Under the Bill, regional and constituency Members will have to describe themselves more accurately. That is not political niggling. At the moment, regional Members have the ability to cherry-pick and to promote themselves as local in one area or as supporting a popular or a good campaigning issue but to hide from tricky issues. That is not promoting democracy; it is an abuse of the democratic system. Let them be a regional Member and take the rough with the smooth. Let them put their office not where they think they will win a seat—it could be an Assembly first-past-the-post seat or a Westminster seat—but in the areas of most need. That is where my offices are. There seems to be no interest in doing that. If regional Assembly Members seriously intend to tackle problems where, in their wide constituencies, there is greatest need and the most challenges, let them take their offices there and let us test that. At the moment, that is not happening. We have been accused of gerrymandering, but I throw that straight back. Too often we have seen the use of newspapers and the placing of advertisements and offices.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-23.htm

Hywel Williams : I ask the hon. Gentleman the question that I asked the Secretary of State earlier: how would the Bill remedy what seems to concern the hon. Gentleman and other Members? It seems to me to be part of the rough and tumble of politics—perhaps he does not like that.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that I do not suffer any great disadvantage

9 Jan 2006 : Column 78

under the present system, but there are two equal but slightly different types of Assembly Member. A regional Assembly Member masquerading as local here and local there as he chooses is not the rough and tumble of politics but misrepresentation. Missives and memos, which have now been discarded, have said that that could never happen and that it was a case purely of an Assembly Member putting forward some ideas, but the very putting forward of those ideas is testament to the fact that an Assembly Member thought that the current system could be abused. That is what we are trying to change.

Mr. Grieve: I want to take up the hon. Gentleman on his point, because he clearly takes the view that there should be two categories of Assembly Member. Although there may be two routes into the Assembly, it is dangerous to say that members of a corporate body have a different status in relation to each other. That is why I am troubled by the Government's approach, although I am sympathetic to some of the hon. Gentleman's points. I am a believer in first past the post and always have been, but the tinkering around the edges of the PR system that he and the Secretary of State are proposing is iniquitous. If there is to be a PR system, it should be on a national basis, and not just for Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I return to the point, and I think that the Bill envisages the situation, that Assembly Members should be equal but different. A local constituency first-past-the-post Assembly Member has a specific constituency interest and a right to describe themselves as local and to campaign on issues specific to that constituency. It is regrettable and it was never envisaged that regional Assembly Members would choose to make use of the system to make political capital rather than to work on behalf of the area. Unfortunately, as we saw in the memo that was circulated, one Assembly Member envisaged where that could easily be done. It can, and I am afraid that the evidence is there for everybody to see.

Lord Richard talks of how, the morning after, Assembly Members who had been denied the chance of first past the post were suddenly resurrected. That causes immense confusion. It is a Lazarus-like resurrection, except that he had the decency to wait at least three days. Assembly Members who have been rejected outright by their electorate are suddenly back in place. As the Secretary of State said, the question of choosing one or the other is not simply to the advantage of one party. It will also be the case for Labour Members.

David T.C. Davies: Is it not the case that under our system members of the public have a chance to reject people? Under the system that the hon. Gentleman proposes, they will not have that chance but the Assembly Member may still pop up the next day. Should he not have the intellectual honesty to admit that the proposals set out in "Llais Dros Gymru" in the first place were incorrect? If he wants to do away with proportional representation altogether, he might be surprised at where the support for that comes from.

Huw Irranca-Davies: There is a perfectly coherent proposal in the Bill, which is to choose one or the other. It is the same for all political parties and every Member will have that choice.

9 Jan 2006 : Column 79

This Bill should be supported on Second Reading. Conservative Front Benchers know that they can raise their objections during subsequent stages. If they choose to push their amendment to a Division and to reject the Bill out of hand, they will be objecting to the principle of devolution. If there is one thing on which the other parties are united, it is that the Welsh public should be given the opportunity if they wish to take forward devolution. It should not be rejected out of hand as the Conservative amendment seeks to do.

Mr. Stephen Crabb (Preseli Pembrokeshire) (Con): It is worth reminding ourselves just how divided the Welsh nation was over the original devolution question in 1997. Wales was split down the middle on whether to create the National Assembly. Eleven of the 22 Welsh local authority areas returned no verdicts, while just 559,000 people—a mere 25 per cent. of the Welsh electorate—voted in favour. At the time, many of us believed strongly that that was a flimsy basis for the creation of an Assembly that could command popular legitimacy and interest, but we in the Conservative party accepted the fact of devolution, and, as many neutral commentators have said, the Conservative group in the Assembly has perhaps worked harder than anyone else to make the institution work. Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the fact that large chunks of the Welsh electorate are disengaged from devolution.

At the first Assembly election in 1999, there was a 46 per cent. turnout and just over 1 million people voted. In 2003, only 850,000 votes were cast. There was a 38 per cent. turnout, about the same as the United Kingdom turnout for the 2004 elections to the European Parliament, an institution that is supposed to represent the very paragon of remoteness to the people of this country. That is a dreadful record for such a young institution, which was set up to satisfy some unmet desire for devolution on the part of the Welsh people.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-24.htm

As a member of the Select Committee, I want to record my disappointment at the way in which the Government produced the Bill without even waiting for the Committee to publish its report on the White Paper. That makes a mockery of pre-legislative scrutiny. Perhaps I should not be surprised, however. At no point during his appearance before the Committee for the inquiry did the Secretary of State appear to be in listening mode. That was particularly evident when he and the First Minister were asked about the proposals for altering electoral arrangements for constituency and regional list Members. Committee members will recall their double act when they sought, outrageously, to trash the reasonable and considered concerns put by the Electoral Commission and by Dr. Richard Wyn Jones and Dr. Roger Scully of Aberystwyth university, who said that the new arrangements could be seen as serving

9 Jan 2006 : Column 82

partisan interests and could therefore undermine confidence and participation in the electoral process. The First Minister laid into them, saying

"I think this is not their finest hour",

and claiming that their statements were "poor and unsupported". The Secretary of State himself then accused the Electoral Commission of being out of touch with political reality. It was all very unsavoury. Those tactics only served to reinforce the impression that deep partisan motivation underlies the changes in the electoral arrangements, and that the Labour party has no desire to achieve any cross-party consensus on the issue.

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman has been very honest in his answers to earlier interventions. Does he agree with his own Conservative association? He has named academics that gave evidence, but is he listening to his own constituency association, the only Conservative association in the UK to give evidence? Does he support it, yes or no?

Mr. Crabb: Pembrokeshire is a very independent-minded place and, as much as I try to train my association, we take different views. The person who wrote the submission to the consultation takes a different view from me and I have discussed it with her. I am happy to be transparent about that.

To conclude, I want to see a strong, effective Assembly that is an expression of a vibrant political culture and embraces the full breadth of Welsh society, making decisions that deliver real value to the people of Wales. I would prefer to see such an Assembly rather than a remote and irrelevant one that has been designed and shaped by an ivory tower Welsh policy elite, far removed from the preferences of Welsh people. Yet that latter scenario is exactly where I think we are headed with the Bill. It must be for the Welsh people alone to dictate the pace and direction of devolution.

Mr. Dai Havard (Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney) (Lab): Constitutional affairs is not top of the queue in Merthyr. People do not talk about it on the bus very often. I do not have people coming up to me and saying, "What about this Government of Wales Bill, Dai?" What they do say is, "How can Mike German come third in an election in Caerphilly and then, a few weeks later, end up as a deputy, running the whole outfit?" I have to say that the reason for that is the stupid and twisted electoral process that we have in order to populate the assembly. It is not rocket science, but it is some form of science to which I may return later.

Hywel Williams: To refer back to the hon. Gentleman's constituents on the bus, would they, or the hon. Gentleman himself, have given evidence to Mr. Glyn Mathias at the Electoral Commission, who told the Welsh Affairs Committee that this was not an issue for Mr. German or any of the other candidates in that election as far as it could find out. Does the hon. Gentleman have any superior knowledge?

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-25.htm

Mr. Havard: The last time I saw Mr. Glyn Mathias was in Carmarthen castle at an event for the Historical Society. I have had plenty of opportunities to talk to Glyn Mathias, but I do not think that he is instrumental in this.

I do not demur from the idea that it is daft to have someone standing on a list and also in a constituency. It is political gerrymandering of a sort, which does nothing at all for the legitimacy of the institution and does not do anything partisan for the Labour party. It also goes to guts of the proportional representation system that populates the institution. My right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) talked about different processes to deal with some of the issues.

Personally, I will not vote for PR. However, I also do not favour referendums. Since the time of Harold Wilson back in the 1960s, it seems to have become the

9 Jan 2006 : Column 84

thing to have referendums on constitutional issues. The test that I applied earlier was whether the measure was required now. It certainly will be required later, and what is good about the Bill is that it institutionalises the idea that there will not be primary powers unless a referendum takes place.

We are not dealing with my worries about the current electoral process. My concern is that I might not get the opportunity to deal with them later either. The Bill talks about "the question"—not "the questions"—which will be whether we have primary powers or not. Where is the question about the electoral process? Does the Bill actually debar that from happening at that point? That is the crunch for me and it will make the difference at Third Reading as to whether I support it. That question underlies a lot of the problems that have been talked about in terms of the interim measures on the electoral process.

I was in favour of devolution and I still am. The Welsh people—narrowly, as the hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mr. Crabb) said—voted to democratise the powers of the Wales Office. They did not vote for much more than that. We therefore have to be very careful, which is why the power for extension has to remain here. That is where the Welsh people wanted it to stay. Unless and until that changes, that must be the point at which a referendum takes place. In that referendum, we will also have to deal with the electoral process. I want to know whether, by voting for the Bill, we will avoid that—by default, design or some sleight of hand—or whether that is the point at which the debate will take place.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-26.htm

Albert Owen: The hon. Gentleman touches on a very important point about scrutiny by the National Assembly. Is not the fact that it sits only two to three days a week one of its downfalls? Would it not be better to extend its sittings? Of course, if that happened the hon. Gentleman would be in a very uncomfortable position, because he would have to stay there to scrutinise such legislation, rather than being here. Would he be prepared to give up his dual mandate for the sake of better legislation in the National Assembly?

David T.C. Davies: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I am doing what the Government of Wales Bill

9 Jan 2006 : Column 87

allows me to do. Perhaps he should have foreseen the possibility of people winning in two places; indeed, many did: many Labour Members of Parliament went on to become Labour Assembly Members. I shall deal with the question of the number of days that the Assembly sits in a moment, if he will allow me. In my opinion it would be completely unconstitutional and undemocratic to overturn the wishes of the people of Wales, who in a referendum clearly voted for an Assembly, not for a Parliament.

The changes to the voting system are being made for only one reason, and we all know that. They are being made for the benefit of the Wales Labour party. That is the only possible reason for the changes, and I thought that the flimsy excuses about Assembly Members who were worried because someone had opened an office in their constituency were pathetic. It has been my

9 Jan 2006 : Column 88

experience that whenever people want to protest about anything, the first person they go to is their constituency Member of Parliament and the second person is their constituency Assembly Member. Only if they meet with no luck from either will they find out who their regional list Members are. What is really annoying the Labour Assembly Members is not that they are at some sort of electoral disadvantage but that they have lost the huge advantage that comes with incumbency. That must be making many of them very worried.

Mark Tami: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but is it not the same old argument that additional list Members should not be given the same staffing and office costs allowances as properly elected Members?

David T.C. Davies: There is a huge argument to be had about the relative merits of all sorts of different proportional representation systems, but we should not have a governing party using its majority to push forward changes from which it will gain electoral benefit. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Havard) was right to say that PR is not an issue on the omnibuses of Merthyr Tydfil, in the hostelries of Monmouthshire or in the supermarkets of Cardiff. Nobody is interested in proportional representation and the Government will get away scot-free. But everyone in this Chamber who knows about PR knows why the Government are doing this, and the Electoral Commission knows why they are doing it. It is a great shame that the sort of tricks that we might have seen in South Africa in the 1970s to prop up a failing regime are being imported into south Wales.

Ian Lucas (Wrexham) (Lab): The person who did most to deliver devolution in the United Kingdom was Margaret Thatcher. She alienated the people of Wales and Scotland so profoundly that she created the circumstances in 1997 that led to the setting up of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. We know from history that devolution referendums had been held before and had been unsuccessful. It was only because the Conservatives alienated people in Scotland and Wales so much by the manner in which they ran their Government between 1979 and 1997 that devolution was ever established.

Mr. Evans : The hon. Gentleman sets a dangerous precedent with his argument. Does he not appreciate that even at the last general election the Labour party lost to the Conservatives as a percentage of the vote? The valid point was made by the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) that resentment will

9 Jan 2006 : Column 89

grow in England because Scotland has a Parliament and Wales has an Assembly, now with increased powers. The only part of the UK that has been totally ignored is England.

Ian Lucas: I am very conscious of the relationship between England and Wales, England and Scotland, and England and the UK, because of the nature and position of my constituency, which I discuss regularly in the Chamber and will touch on in my speech. We have made progress with referendums on a regional basis. We had had approaching eight years of Labour Government before the referendum in the north-east. In those circumstances, the people said no. They said, "We've got a Labour Government, so what do we need an assembly for?" The position would have been different if the north-east had been asked that question in 1997.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060109/debtext/60109-27.htm

Ian Lucas: My second essential point was about the proposed provisions relating to the electorate and changes to the electoral system. I strongly support the proposal to disallow regional list Members from standing for constituencies. I would like the Bill to go further. Under the present Assembly electoral system, we have two votes. At the last Assembly election, I was able to vote for the Labour Assembly candidate in my constituency and on the regional list.

Mr. Evans: He lost.

Ian Lucas: Yes, that is correct. My regional constituency candidate lost, yet the strange thing is that the largest party at the Assembly election for the north Wales region was Labour, which gained 55,000 votes from individuals such as me—more than any other party in north Wales—but on the regional list, the Labour party gained no Members at all.

Mr. David Jones: It is called proportional representation.

Ian Lucas: It is called defrauding the electorate; it is called wasted votes—something about which the

9 Jan 2006 : Column 91

Liberal Democrats have a lot to tell us. In 2003, they talked about wasted votes in their election literature, which I have with me. They said:

"If enough Labour voters switch to the Welsh Lib Dems with their 2nd vote, we can have a Tory Free Wales . . . Our region has 2 Tory AMs. Don't waste your 2nd Vote—Back the Welsh Liberal Democrats to beat the Tories!"

I thought about that and it was true. I voted for Labour because it is my party, but I wasted my second vote and so did 55,000 other people in north Wales. We have an electoral system that is defrauding the people of north Wales and a political party that wants to exploit their views by trying to suggest that they should not vote for the party in which they believe. That is dishonest. That is gerrymandering and it should not be allowed.

Mrs. Gillan: I should have so much more sympathy with the hon. Gentleman, and would share his views, if the system were not one that his party brought in. I do not understand how Members on his Front Bench can ignore his strongly held views, but it was the Labour party's mechanism that was introduced.

Ian Lucas: I understand that point. I am expressing my views to my Front Bench colleagues and I am sure that they are listening to them carefully. The same views have been expressed by other Labour Back Benchers today and I am sure that they will also be listened to carefully.

There have been many accusations today from Opposition parties about Labour party gerrymandering, yet the Labour party is the only party to create an electoral system that disadvantages it. That is exactly what it did in 1999 when it set up the Assembly and allowed the introduction of proportional representation. It sent the Tories a lifeboat and a lifebelt. It gave the Liberal Democrats more representation th