Orders of the Day — Government of Wales Bill — [3rd Allotted Day]

House of Commons, 30 January 2006.

[Sylvia Heal in the Chair]

Clause 103 — Proposal for Referendum by Assembly

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

Six days ago, I was stopped mid-sentence when referring to Splott market, and hon. Members may or may not recall that the purpose of my mentioning the market in Splott or any other marketplace in Wales was to try to bring to the House's attention the fact that constitutional matters, such as those that we are discussing, may be of enormous interest to us, as politicians, and perhaps to academics, but the Bill and any legislation passed by the House of Commons and the House of Lords refers to people's lives. Hon. Members will recall that, over the past one and a quarter hours, the House has been dealing with an extremely important matter regarding the health service. So I make no apology to the House for saying that the basis for every Bill that we consider must be an improvement in the services that our people receive in Wales. However, we must understand that the way in which the Assembly Members are held to account by the people of Wales through the ballot box is also of great interest to our constituents. The amendment refers to the need to have proper consultation in the months ahead on the nature of the electoral system—in particular, the so-called top-up system—under which the National Assembly for Wales is elected.

If hon. Members look at clauses 8 and 9 or paragraph 57 of the explanatory notes, they will see a rather convoluted and complicated description of how the so-called top-up Members are elected. That is for us to consider, but I recall that when I left the polling station after voting during the first election to the Assembly, a little old lady came out with me, clutching what she thought was a manifesto or an election address from a political party. As it turned out, it was the second ballot paper for the top-up Members. She asked me what to do with it, and I suggested that she should go back into the polling station and vote according to her conscience. But she did not know what that paper represented, and there had been plenty of publicity about the nature of the second electoral system.

The figures speak for themselves about how it is that our constituents do not understand what it is that they do when they go into the polling station to vote in the second ballot. For example, my constituency is in the South Wales East region, which has almost 500,000 electors. At the last election—this applies to all parties other than mine—the Liberal Democrat, Mr. Michael German, won. He gained 17,661 second votes out of 500,000—3.76 per cent. of the people in South Wales East. At the same time, he stood for my constituency—Torfaen—and received 2,746 votes. Of course, he did not win, but he did win in the ballot for the top-up seats. It is virtually impossible for people in our constituencies to understand how it is that they pile up their votes—for example, in South Wales East, for Labour—yet none of them count in determining the second group of people who are elected to the National Assembly for Wales. Therefore, we need to take a very serious look at that system. Proportionality seems to be the answer for the second ballot. Why do people who elect Assembly Members not have them elected on the basis of proportionality and according to the votes that they cast?

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

I have had the same experience as my right hon. Friend. People at the count have asked me how many candidates we have had elected only to find out that, despite topping the poll, we have had none. That is the same for any political party. Clearly the longer this flawed system goes on, the more it will act as a disincentive for people to take part in the second vote. They think that a vote for whatever party will not deliver them anything.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

There is complete confusion among the electors of south Wales, north Wales and middle Wales about the whole question of how votes are distributed.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

How does the right hon. Gentleman reconcile the statement that he has just made with the evidence provided by the Electoral Commission to the Welsh Affairs Committee that this was not a contentious issue? Certainly it was not a topic of conversation on the bus in Dowlais.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I disagree with the Electoral Commission, and I do so on the basis that I have been elected to various bodies in Wales for the past 40 years. The people in this Chamber have been elected by the people who send them here and we talk to our constituents. The Electoral Commission is absolutely wrong and it is about time that it started listening to the people whom we represent.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is making the point that there is widespread and large concern among his constituents and, indeed, throughout Wales. However, would he care to share with the Committee all the letters and e-mails that he has had about this system over the years that the Assembly has been in existence? I would like that large body of evidence to be made available to everybody. If he has such a large body of evidence, we will all be able to understand it. However, the Electoral Commission says that there is no such body of evidence.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

If the hon. Lady came to Wales and asked people—whether in Pontypool market, Splott market or anywhere else—what they thought about the second system of electing Members of the Assembly, I have not the slightest doubt that they would show confusion and a complete lack of understanding.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

Obviously, democracy depends upon understanding, so can my right hon. Friend tell us what percentage of the population understand the d'Hondt system?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I suppose that I am one of the few people in the world who does because, as my hon. Friend knows, the d'Hondt system has been used in Northern Ireland after the Good Friday agreement.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I must admit that the d'Hondt system is enough to confuse anybody; I am not necessarily supporting a system. However, surely the right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to rely on prompted questions to his constituents or people in Wales. If the concern is widespread, there must be some spontaneous evidence of that in the form of letters and e-mails to all the hon. Members in Wales. I can assure him that my hon. Friends who represent Wales have not received enormous postbags containing concerns about this issue, so we would very much like to see his evidence.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

Those Members did not receive such postbags because only one of them was elected to the Assembly under the first-past-the-post system. [Interruption.] We do not need e-mails and letters. Let us walk around the streets and go to the markets in our constituencies to talk to the people whom we represent and who know about politics. Despite what the Electoral Commission, academics and e-mails say, those people will say that the system is flawed and discredited. They will certainly say that it is unloved.

Much against my better judgment, I supported the system when I was a member of the Government. In the early days when we discussed the best system for the National Assembly, my personal preference would have been for first past the post. There is no better system than one that has a direct link between the Member in the Assembly or Parliament and those who elected him. If we are to have a different system—I accept that there is a case for having a slightly different system for the devolved institutions—it is right to consider the alternatives. However, I simply think that the one that has been chosen is the worst of the lot.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I have been to Splott market, as a matter of fact, because my daughter lived in Splott until very recently, but I have not heard anyone in Splott showing any concern about the subject, and much less in the part of north Wales that I represent. May I take the right hon. Gentleman back briefly to the point about the d'Hondt system made by the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David)? The right hon. Gentleman says that the existing system is complicated, outmoded and flawed. Would he thus support our amendment to clause 29 that would stop the use of that system for determining the composition of Committees?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I will have a look at the amendment when it comes up, but we are dealing with something totally different at the moment. The hon. Gentleman will recall that I referred to the markets when talking about the way in which the Assembly relates to people in Wales and their lives, whether that is due to its impact on the health service, education or any other matter. An electoral system that cannot be, and is not, understood by people is flawed. The problem is that the second system that we are using does not produce a result that is proportionate to the votes cast for the second group of Assembly Members. I could live with it if the system was properly proportionate, but those Members are added to first-past-the-post Members and people simply do not understand how their votes can pile up, yet be useless.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am listening to the debate with great interest, although I suggest that we might be pre-empting a later group of amendments about the process. As we are having such a discussion, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question? If he thinks that the public are so dissatisfied because people who do not win an election in a constituency can nevertheless be elected, will he explain why he does not feel ashamed of being a member of a party that refuses to change an electoral system that is such that his party can become the Government of the United Kingdom with one third of the vote? Two thirds of the electorate voted against Labour, yet it formed the Government. The logical consequence of what he says is presumably that he would also like to change—

Sylvia Heal (Deputy Speaker, Halesowen and Rowley Regis)

Order. The hon. Gentleman's comments are very wide of the amendment.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

As tempted as I am to comment on the hon. Gentleman's points, I shall leave that for another debate.

Amendment No. 110 is precisely about consultation. I am expressing my personal views to the Committee. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) talks about e-mails and other hon. Members mention letters and a lack of consultation, but the amendment would allow us to find out people's opinions. I am not prepared to listen to the Electoral Commission so that it can make up my mind on what the people of Wales think. There should be a properly co-ordinated and constituted consultation on the nature of our electoral system. That might result in agreement with the system that we have. I simply say that if a system is not understood, it is not a good system.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Does it follow that the right hon. Gentleman will support our amendments to the provisions in clause 7 that will bring about changes to the electoral system with absolutely no consultation of the people of Wales whatsoever?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I assume that the hon. Lady is referring to the proposed changes regarding dual candidacy. One of the bad effects of the present system is that it creates problems of dual candidacy, which I shall not discuss now because that is for another time this afternoon. Such problems result directly from the existing system. That is why I think that it should go, but that is not the purpose of the amendment. The amendment would establish consultation. We should ask the people of Wales what they think about the system.

There are a number of alternatives. Some years ago, several of us suggested that there should be 80 Assembly Members, with two elected for each constituency. That would have solved the problem of gender balance in my party. We would have been able to elect those Members by the alternative vote, which would have been a different method from the first-past-the-post system. Lord Richard recommended using the single transferable vote. I am not too keen on that, but it would produce something that was more understandable than the existing system. I would not support it, but at least I can see the sense behind it, which is not the case for the existing system.That is why I support the amendment. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Minister will consider it carefully and reflect on the need to ask people in Wales what they think about the current system. There is a risk to the legitimacy of the Assembly and to solid, firm, sound and strong government because of the results that the current system produces. Worst of all is the fact that the system is not easily understood by the people. That makes it a bad system.

There are many ways of reforming the arrangements—a single vote, a single constituency for the top-up Members from the whole of Wales, or some other system— but the present system is not doing the job. In my view it should go, but at least we should examine it.

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

I too shall speak in favour of the amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), and I shall take up a couple of the points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) about the confusion in the current system. The amendment is sensible because, as we are asking for a referendum about more powers, and the Assembly creating Acts, it is only right and proper that we should consider how Members are elected to carry out that new responsibility, and also how many Members are needed to conduct proper scrutiny of the additional responsibilities and powers that will be bestowed if the referendum supports them.

One concern about the amendment is that it curtails the consultation to 120 days. That is a little ambitious. However, if the Assembly and the two Houses of Parliament allow additional powers, I presume that the debate will already have begun, and people will be finding out how the scrutiny works, and whether additional Members are needed.

In my opinion, additional powers and responsibilities will mean additional Members. The part of the Bill that will come into force is about enhanced powers, and I believe that there is flexibility within the current arrangements for the National Assembly to deal with those powers. However, for full primary legislation we need to examine the number of Assembly Members who will undertake that work, so I am grateful that the amendment was tabled.

The present electoral system is flawed and confusing to members of the public. In 1999 I was a candidate in the Ynys Môn constituency. I was the runner-up, I have no complaint about the fact that the people voted for their candidate. That time was the high-water mark for nationalism in Wales, and the nationalists had a runaway success; ever since then they have been in continuous decline, and I think that that will go on into the next Assembly elections. The winner won, and the first-past-the-post system clearly identified who the people of Ynys Môn wanted as their Assembly Member. I was the runner-up, yet through the list system the Conservative, who came third, was elected as an Assembly Member. The runner-up was out of the game, but the candidate who came third was elected. If that is not confusing for people, I do not know what is.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I apologise for being out of order before, Mrs. Heal, but given the nature of the hon. Gentleman's argument, I am sure that I will be in order if I now ask him to explain how he justifies to people who are confused the fact that a party that two thirds of the electorate voted against formed the Government. How would he justify that, according to the democratic principles that he is now supporting?

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

You said that the hon. Gentleman was wide of the mark when he first asked that question, Mrs. Heal, so I presume that you would be consistent and say that if were to stray into that area, I would be wide of the mark as well. However, the honest response is that we are talking about proportionality. When people vote for the National Assembly for Wales on a second ballot, they are voting for a party to represent them in that region, so many thousands of people are disfranchised because of the current d'Hondt system, which is there to help the minority parties and other parties that do not win constituency seats. That is a serious flaw.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

Is my hon. Friend aware that at the most recent Assembly elections in north Wales, the Liberal Democrats put out a leaflet telling people not to waste their second vote by voting Labour, because the person for whom they would be voting would never be elected? They were absolutely right, because despite topping the poll in north Wales, no Labour top-up Members were elected.

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

My hon. Friend, who has raised this matter before, is right. The inconsistency in the Liberal Democrats' argument does not surprise me in the least. What does shock me, however, is the fact that many people are disfranchised, and we need to address that. The consultation can be used to demonstrate the arguments and allow people to have their say, which would lead to greater clarity.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing against proportionality as expressed in the d'Hondt system, or against proportionality in general? If he is in favour of proportionality, which system would he like?

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

I was coming to my preference, but I am against the d'Hondt system, because it is confusing and people do not get what they want. When electors vote in a region for a particular party which is identified as a second vote, distinct from the first vote, they should get proportionately what they voted for. I would prefer the additional Member system to be one of strict proportionality if the single transferable vote is used.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I am desperately concerned that we are deep in a debate which, in fact, relates to the group of amendments on the way in which we elect Assembly Members. I therefore seek your guidance, as there is a danger that if we conduct such debates on each group of amendments we will never reach that particular group.

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

I accept your guidance, Mrs. Heal, but I am referring to the amendment, which talks about changing the voting system and the number of Assembly Members. In response to the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), my preference is for 80 additional Members, with two for each constituency, in an alternative vote system, as that would give people a choice. If we increased the number of additional Members and kept the constituencies, I would prefer to have a straight STV, because that would be a simpler and quicker method and people would understand the proportionality involved. That is the way forward. The current system is flawed, and I do not understand why hon. Members are afraid to consult the people of Wales. If we accept, as the result of a referendum, that people want additional powers we should consider how we will elect Assembly Members.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

The hon. Gentleman is rightly talking about consultation on the powers, the method of election and the number of Assembly Members. Does he not agree, however, that there was such a consultation recently under the cross-party commission chaired by Lord Richard? What weight does he give its recommendations?

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

I certainly give greater weight to the general election that has just taken place. The manifesto of the party that received the greatest number of votes in Wales made provision for the Bill. That is democracy. At the top of the agenda of Plaid Cymru, the nationalist party, were full law-making powers equivalent to those in Scotland. That was rejected in my constituency and many other constituencies, so I give a great deal of weight to what the people of Wales say. When the time is appropriate, we should conduct a consultation.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

As I recall, the Welsh Labour manifesto did not say that the party would gerrymander the voting system at all, but that is what the proposal amounts to. More importantly, on the question of consultation, I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Electoral Commission was consulted, but its view was thrown away. The Arbuthnot commission in Scotland has been consulted, but its advice has been rejected out of hand. The thousands of people, including myself, who gave evidence to the Richard commission count for nothing in the eyes of the Government—again, our views are just thrown away.

Albert Owen (Labour, Ynys Môn)

Nothing has been thrown away. I repeat that we had a general election in which the Conservative party advocated no change in Wales. However, the Labour party is the single biggest party in Wales, and the general election provided us with an important mandate, which we must carry out.

When we consider enhanced primary powers for the National Assembly, we must consult to ensure that we get the right number of Members, who should be elected under a less flawed system. I will listen to the Secretary of State with great interest, because this is our only opportunity to vote on additional Members. If the referendum concerns only primary powers, then the opportunity will be lost.

I want to improve the way in which Members are elected, and I want Members to be more accountable. The biggest difference between me and my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) is that I want the additional Members, whom we need, to be appointed regionally, because the additional Members should consider regional interests and take a strategic view.

I will listen to the Secretary of State, because the amendment is important and this is our only opportunity to consider the subject. I also look forward to the winding-up speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas).

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do not want to delay the Committee and shall make a couple of brief points.

I have some sympathy with amendment No. 110. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) wants to empower the Secretary of State to consult the people of Wales on the voting system for the Assembly and on the number of Assembly Members, if we reach the stage at which the people of Wales are afforded a referendum on the granting of full legislative powers. I approve of consulting the people of Wales, but I wish that he had been more supportive when Conservative Members made that point.

Methinks they doth protest too much; make no mistake that the voting system is the Labour party's voting system. The hon. Member for Wrexham was in a significant position when the proposal was introduced, so I do not sympathise with his pre-empting the people of Wales by imposing his will on the situation.

The amendment is dishonest. Although it mentions the number of Assembly Members, it does not refer to the reduction in the number of Members of Parliament in this House if full legislative powers were given to the Welsh Assembly after a referendum.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I will not give way, because I have intervened enough.

I would have been more inclined to support the amendment had it involved an opportunity to discuss representation in this House, as well as representation in the Assembly, and if the change to the voting system had not been selected by the Labour party.

Dai Havard (Labour, Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney)

It is shame that we do not have time to continue to explore the Opposition's arguments.

On Second Reading, I mentioned my concern that the Bill refers to the referendum question. Part of my motivation in supporting the amendment is having this debate. Without the amendment, we would not have had this debate, which is important for the people of Wales.

Opposition Members have referred to my constituency, because on Second Reading I mentioned what people on the bus in Merthyr said. As my hon. Friends have said, people are confused, because in my constituency 47 per cent. of them voted for a second representative and got nothing. People do not feel that that is fair, which is the usual claim made on behalf of the system. The system engineers a situation between the parties in the institution of government, which is why I oppose it. It breaks the link between the people and their representatives, but I do not have time further to explore that argument.

My motivation was to stress that we needed to discuss this at some point, because I feared that the Bill closed the argument down instead of opening it up. The amendment would facilitate that discussion, but in a particular context; that is, assuming that there will be a referendum about primary law-making powers. The present situation is unhealthy in terms of democracy and of the institution's ability to build its capacity and gain its own legitimacy. At some point, the dog's breakfast that is the current voting system must be sorted out.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I understand that there are some arguments in favour of this change, but we have not heard them tonight. The extraordinary revelations in certain contributions by Labour Members underline the fact that this is political opportunism. This is not about finding the best system, because if Members wanted to do that, they would be able to answer this question. Why do they think that it is absolutely fine for the Government to have a large majority although two thirds of the British electorate voted against them in the general election? Sadly, they do not have an answer.

Without going too far into the debate that we will have later on the merits and demerits of the voting system, I hope that the Minister can explain the contradiction between what his Back Benchers said and what those Opposition Members who secured a majority of the vote in Wales, and who are opposed to this change, said at election time and are saying now.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I pay tribute to the measured way in which the Committee has approached the scrutiny of the Bill. The Committee will be aware that much of the Bill—indeed, 140 out of 165 clauses—is carried over, with only minor modifications, from the Government of Wales Act 1998, or implements changes on which all parties are agreed. We have properly focused our scrutiny on those clauses—just 25—that are new or controversial instead of reopening debates that were settled six years ago and procedures that have worked well since. I am particularly pleased with the detailed consideration of parts 3 and 4, which form the core of the new provisions. I hope that we can make good progress on the initial clauses of part 1, which include the remaining key provisions of the Bill.

The amendment ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and supported by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) touches on two separate but related issues; the system of voting used to elect the Assembly and the number of Assembly Members.

On the voting system, I understand and respect the position of my hon. and right hon. Friends; indeed, I share many of their concerns about the operation of the present system. In retrospect, all Labour Members would have preferred a different option. However, achieving the necessary consensus on a new electoral system would not be easy. For example, a return to first past the post, with a man and a woman elected from each constituency, would ensure equal representation, but it would also decimate representation for minor parties, including the Welsh Conservatives. That would be seen as deliberately partisan; politically desirable from our point of view, perhaps, but constitutionally very difficult, to say the least.

I believe that the best way forward is to seek to fix the flaws in the current electoral system through a ban on dual candidacy. I know that my hon. and right hon. Friends strongly support that. I hope that they also support clause 36(6), which requires the establishment of a code of conduct to ease some of the tensions between constituency and list Members. I hope that the Assembly Committee that is considering Standing Orders will also consider allowances for the different categories of Member.

With regard to the number of Assembly Members, I recognise my hon. Friend's concerns about the Assembly's increased workload, but there is plenty of scope for it to reorganise; for example, by changing the way in which it considers secondary legislation and by sitting longer hours for more weeks of the year. The Presiding Officer has made that point publicly in agreeing with me.

A fundamental difficulty with the amendment is that it would require unspecified further primary legislation to resolve the issues that my hon. and right hon. Friends have rightly highlighted. There is no guarantee that a Government sympathetic to their views would be in power at the time of such a review. Perhaps a different amendment would be appropriate to achieve my hon. Friends' proper objectives but I am not inciting them to table one on Report.

In the light of my comments, I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Ian Lucas (Labour, Wrexham)

I am grateful for my right hon. Friend's measured response, which I contrast with the rather graceless contribution of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan). She suggested that the amendment was somehow dishonest because it did not make clear the fact that there would be a reduction in the number of Welsh Members of Parliament if Assembly membership increased. It was especially graceless because the hon. Lady intervened on me in our debate last Tuesday to ask me a question to which I gave a straight reply; she is clearly not accustomed to that. It is therefore unfortunate that she would not allow me to intervene on her to remind her of that fact. Never mind.

I respect the position of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. My concern about the Bill has always been that we are contemplating a position that is some years ahead and we do not know how successful the Order process will prove. We do not know exactly how the Assembly will perform between now and then. In those circumstances, it would be sensible for us to have at least an opportunity to consider the voting system and the number of Assembly Members. More important, the people of Wales should have that opportunity.

The amendment was clearly a probing amendment at this stage. My right hon. Friend has heard that there is a great desire on Government and Opposition Benches for a debate on the issue. I assure him that that extends to the people of Wales.

I am sure that we will return to the matter but, at this stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 104 — Commencement of Assembly Act provisions

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I beg to move amendment No. 124, in clause 104, page 57, line 38, at end add—

'(5) This section is subject to section [Commencement of provisions relating to Welsh language].'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 13, in clause 35, page 21, line 35, leave out from 'effect' to 'to' in line 36 and insert

'save in exceptional cases where it is not reasonably possible to do so'.

Amendment No. 16, in clause 61, page 36, line 10, at end add

', including the implementation of any of the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993.'.

New clause 10—Commencement of provisions relating to Welsh language—

'(1) Sections 106 to 112 and 114 shall come into force on 1st April 2007 in respect of paragraph 20 of Schedule 7 (the Welsh language).

(2) Section 102 shall not apply to the commencement of subsection (1).'.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I begin with amendment No. 13, which would delete the words

"so far as is both appropriate in the circumstances and reasonably practicable"

in clause 35 and replace them with,

"save in exceptional cases where it is not reasonably possible to do so".

The wording in clause 35 comes from the Welsh Language Act 1993. I hope that hon. Members of all parties recognise that there is a great deal of dissatisfaction with its operation. One reason for that is the wording that the amendment would delete. We argue that it places Welsh speakers at a disadvantage. Because of the clause, Welsh is not equal with English but is to

"be treated on a basis of equality",

which is entirely different and has led to the Welsh language being treated less equally. The provision has been characterised as meaning that all languages are equal but some are more equal than others.

I should like to make a few brief points about the long and gradual journey of the status of the Welsh language to its current position. Welsh was used in government as an official language until the Act of Union 1532. Three measures in the past century—the Welsh Courts Act 1942, the Welsh Language Act 1967 and the Welsh Language Act 1993—have covered the subject.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

On a historical point, there was no Wales-wide Government prior to the Acts of Union. There were various Marcher lordships, which were pretty much a law unto themselves, and Welsh-speaking feudal lords, who controlled other areas. There was no Wales from the point of the view of government and it is therefore not correct to say that Welsh was the language used in government before the 1532 Act.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

It was used.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) for making the point that the Welsh language was used, although perhaps not exclusively. We can avoid having these historical discussions simply by recognising that, at one time, Welsh had a different status from the one that it enjoys today. Perhaps we can also agree that progress has been made as a result of the three pieces of legislation that I have mentioned, most recently the Welsh Language Act 1993, which was passed by the Conservative Government.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Supported by Labour.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Not all of them.

The Welsh Courts Act 1942 allowed the use of Welsh in the courts, while the Welsh Language Act 1967 provided for the equal validity of anything said in Welsh or English. It conferred a kind of honorary status on the Welsh language. I have already mentioned the 1993 Act.

Our amendment would provide not for full equality, but for a reasonable and gradual move in that direction. It would allow for circumstances in which Welsh need not be used on the same basis as English, but that would involve exceptional cases in which it would not reasonably be possible to do so, in contrast to the provisions in the 1993 Act. We hold that that would be entirely reasonable, because we do not want the language to be used when it would be unreasonable to do so.

I shall give the House a brief example, involving some work that I did before I was elected to the House. I was proof-reading a quality assurance manual in Welsh, although it was going to be superseded in four months. I was paid quite well for doing the work, but it was a complete waste of time. We would not want to see the Welsh language being used if it were unreasonable to do so. However, we believe that such cases would be exceptional.

Given the exemplary development of the Assembly's simultaneous translation service, the quality of its translations, the large number of Assembly Members who speak Welsh or who have learnt it—very well indeed, to their credit—and the growing number of Assembly staff who speak Welsh, it would be entirely possible to introduce the provisions in our amendment. It would be quite proper for the National Assembly for Wales to treat equally the two languages that are widely used in Wales.

A growing number of young people speak Welsh as the result of educational changes introduced by the previous Conservative Government and by this Government, and I pay proper tribute to those Governments for doing that. Changes in the demography of Wales mean that more young people than older people speak Welsh, and there is a growing use of the Welsh language by private businesses. The National Assembly could give a clear lead by treating the Welsh language more equally, if I can put it like that. I shall be interested to see whether the Minister argues that the present situation—which is characterised by the Welsh language being treated unequally—is acceptable, given the advantages of our amendments. They would provide for the principle being breached in exceptional circumstances.

I note that amendment No. 16 is also supported by the Conservatives. It would add to the list of subjects that the Welsh Ministers may consider it appropriate to support:

"the implementation of the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993."

Clause 61 contains a long list of subjects that the Minister might care to support, starting with "archaeological remains in Wales" and ending with "the Welsh language". The Welsh language certainly should not be classed as archaeological remains; it is a living language spoken by a quarter of the population as a whole, and by a third of young people in Wales. Welsh is getting younger. The amendment would add

"the implementation of the provisions of the Welsh Language Act 1993"

to that list, so that Ministers could do anything that they considered appropriate in respect of culture, including the implementation of the Act.

As I said earlier, the principle behind the Welsh Language Act 1993 was to treat the Welsh and English languages on a basis of equality, but there has been dissatisfaction with the way in which the Act has been operated. However, given that we have the Act, even in its present form, it would seem reasonable that Ministers should be able to act to support its implementation.

This amendment should also be considered in the context of the First Minister's decision to bring the Welsh Language Board into the Welsh Assembly Government. It is entirely unclear to me and to a great many others how that will be done. Perhaps the Secretary of State will explain.

The 1993 Act set up the board, which carries out certain functions. It seems to me that, for the board to disappear, we might need another language Act. If it were set up by an Act, it should be taken into the Welsh Assembly Government by another Act. On that, the First Minister is equally unclear.

There is then the question of the regulatory functions of the board. The First Minister talks about setting up an office of y dyfarnwr, which means the adjudicator or the referee. It is unclear to me on what legal basis that office would be set up, as there is no reference to such a person in the 1993 Act. What power will he or she have to ensure the proper implementation of that Act? Where are these ideas laid out? I have no idea; perhaps the Secretary of State has. Whatever the fate of the Welsh Language Board in 2007, given that uncertainty, we would argue that it is feasible for Ministers in the Welsh Assembly Government to be able to support the implementation of the 1993 Act.

Lastly, amendment No. 124 and new clause 10 are more contentious, or perhaps less. They would allow for the commencement of Welsh language provisions in respect of Assembly Acts that begin on 1 April 2007; that is, the Assembly could pass one of its measures in respect of the Welsh language immediately in 2007, without having gone through a referendum. That is a peculiar exception. It would apply only to the Welsh language and to no other field. There are several reasons for proposing it.

I have already referred to the widespread dissatisfaction with the 1993 Act. By the way, that Act was introduced in the face of much opposition from no other person than the First Minister, Mr. Rhodri Morgan, who was a Member of Parliament at that time and, I think, shadow Secretary of State. He promised the House that the new Labour Government would introduce a proper Welsh language Act, but, eight years later, we are still waiting.

In those circumstances, why should not the Assembly have the opportunity to use its power to introduce such a measure? The First Minister and, I think, the Culture Minister in Cardiff, as well as, possibly, the Government here, have already said that they will not expend a single moment of Government time on introducing a new Welsh language Act. If the Government will not do it, although they promised through Mr. Rhodri Morgan in 1992 to do so, why should the Assembly be prevented from doing so in 2007, without having to wait?

I will not go much further into the reasons for a new Welsh language Act. As I said, there is a great deal of confusion and some mystery as to the probable fate of the Welsh Language Board. Interestingly, there is a coalition of thought across Wales, across a number of groups in Wales and across a number of political parties in Wales that we need to look again at the 1993 Act. We need to do so in the new circumstances that are being brought about by Mr. Rhodri Morgan.

The 1993 Act was an answer of sorts in 1993, but we contend that it has run into the buffers and needs to be considered carefully. The Secretary of State, in other arguments, talks about the need for the National Assembly to bed in. He has said that we need some time for it to prove its worth. The 1993 Act has had ample time to do so. I do not want to discuss the merits or otherwise of that Act, and I pay tribute to Lord Roberts for his work on it, but the day has come to look at it again. Given its deficiencies and the pressures for reform, and given the Government's refusal to make time here, there is a strong case for the Assembly to have the power to pass a measure on this quintessentially Welsh issue.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

Given the time pressures, I do not intend to reiterate what the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) said in relation to amendments Nos. 13 and 16, which we have supported. At the very least, those are important probing amendments, to which the Secretary of State should respond.

We are less inclined to support amendment No. 124 and new clause 10. Our interpretation is that proposed new subsection (2) makes it clear that the referendum would have no effect on the commencement of full law-making powers in respect of the Welsh language, and that if a future referendum were lost, that would likewise have no impact on full law-making powers in this area. Amendment No. 124 therefore makes it clear that, effectively, none of the commencement provisions in clause 104 apply to the assumption of full law-making powers in respect of the Welsh language, which would come into effect on 1 April 2007 should new clause 10 be passed.

We would prefer all the subjects set out in schedule 7, including the Welsh language, to be subject to a referendum. We see no case for stripping out the Welsh language from that list of subjects.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

We all support, on a cross-party basis, the increasing progress made in relation to the Welsh language in recent years. However, as the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) has just explained, amendment No. 124 and new clause 10, which would give the Assembly primary legislative powers in relation to the Welsh language, are both unnecessary and undesirable.

If the Assembly identifies a need for legislative competence on matters relating to the Welsh language, or if the Welsh Assembly Government identify such a need, the Order in Council procedure under part 3 of the Bill would enable such competence to be sought. It would not make sense to grant the Assembly primary powers in relation to the Welsh language alone, but then to have a referendum on whether it should have primary powers at all in relation to all the other subjects listed in schedule 7. That was the point argued by the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale. The electorate rightly would feel that they had been bypassed on an important subject. A referendum vote must be on the whole package, not one that has already been broken into.

The amendment would also have the complication that, in relation to this one area of legislative competence, the Assembly would have to have procedures in place—for example, under its Standing Orders—for the passing of both Acts and Measures at the same time. On amendment No. 13, what is the point of deleting a reference to the Assembly treating English and Welsh equally

"so far as is . . . appropriate in the circumstances"?

Is the suggestion that the Assembly should act inappropriately, if necessary, to comply with that obligation? Whatever the intention behind amendment No. 16, its actual effect is unclear. The amendment as worded would seem to add little if anything to the existing wording of clause 61 and the powers that Welsh Ministers have under the Welsh Language Act 1993, because they have already been transferred to the Assembly.

Certain functions under the Welsh Language Act 1993 have not been transferred to the Assembly and therefore are not currently exercised by the Welsh Assembly Government. The most important of those concerns the use of Welsh in legal proceedings. As England and Wales are a single legal jurisdiction, however, it is entirely appropriate that this issue should rest with the Lord Chancellor. The Bill is already clear in giving Welsh Ministers the power to do anything that they consider appropriate to support the Welsh language, and in enabling the Assembly to acquire legislative competence in relation to the Welsh language beyond that which it has at present. I therefore invite the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I thank the Secretary of State for his response, and I take many of his points. He will accept that there is still dissatisfaction among Opposition Members, and a great deal of worry, about the consequences of the steps that the First Minister proposes to take in respect of the Welsh Language Board. We might want to revisit the issue on Report, but in the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 104 to 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7 — Acts of the Assembly

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I beg to move amendment No. 33, page 115, leave out line 17.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 149, page 116, leave out line 6.

No. 34, page 116, line 19, leave out from beginning to 'monopolies' in line 20.

No. 36, page 116, leave out lines 44 to 47.

No. 37, page 117, leave out lines 1 to 7.

No. 44, page 117, line 15, at end insert—

'Energy

5A Energy.'.

No. 38, page 119, leave out line 2.

No. 39, page 119, leave out lines 38 and 39.

No. 40, page 119, leave out line 42.

No. 43, page 120, line 17, at end insert—

'Police, probation and prison service

13A Police. Probation. Prison service.'.

No. 275, in clause 120, page 65, line 6, after 'State', insert 'or any other person'.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Amendment No. 33 refers to hunting with dogs, which has been the subject of much controversy in this place. I had the dubious pleasure of serving on the Standing Committee that considered the Hunting Bill for many weeks. We discussed the issue very fully, and one of my amendments proposed that the Assembly should have responsibility for hunting in Wales. I shall briefly rehearse the arguments that I presented.

Agriculture is a devolved matter, and I think it fair to say that the Welsh Assembly Government and the Assembly have established amicable relationships with the farming unions in Wales. Farming in Wales has profited greatly from the existence of the Assembly. Agriculture in Wales differs from agriculture in England in that we have a great deal of upland farming, and fox predation is a considerable problem. Hunting, too, is different: there are many farmers' hunts and, I understand, miners' hunts in the south. Farmers' hunts are essentially a co-operative activity. The co-operation is similar to that between farmers at harvest time.

A number of practical issues have come to my attention since the passing of the Bill that became the Hunting Act 2004. I think that that is a good argument for a change so that the Welsh Assembly can take a view. One of the issues is the effect of fox predation. We have a number of forests in Wales, run by the Forestry Commission and others. The commission lets contracts for hunting, because it recognises the difficulties caused by fox predation to upland farmers in particular. The hunts are finding it extremely difficult to control fox numbers in upland areas where there is forestry. There is a strong feeling in the country that the issue needs to be revisited. I think it appropriate for the Assembly to deal with it, at least in respect of upland farming, and to take the heat out of the problem.

Amendment No. 38, another amendment tabled by members of my party, refers to railway heritage. There are many small lines in Wales—great little lines. There are three in my constituency. I have no idea why the Assembly should not have some say in the development of the lines. That would accord with its control over tourism. I favour an integrated approach.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Amendment No. 33 makes sense to us on purely devolutionary grounds. I accept that there were different views on whether hunting with dogs should be curtailed, but—leaving aside the position that each of us took at the time—surely anyone who feels that Wales should have parity with Scotland in terms of powers will recognise that the matter was devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, it seems reasonable that this issue, too, should be devolved to the Welsh Assembly.

The hon. Member for Caernarfon eloquently described farmers' specific concerns about the Hunting Act. Notwithstanding his arguments on that point, even if one supported a ban on hunting with dogs, one should recognise the principle of allowing Wales to make the decision for itself.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

I, too, wish to speak about hunting with dogs. The points have been well made by the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) and my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik), but hunting in Wales is not just about fox hunting as we know it; hunting with dogs involves flushing out foxes to guns, and it has been conclusively demonstrated that the element of the law that limits the number of dogs that may be used in that pursuit to two is quite inadequate and does not achieve the intended object. Given that different ways and means can be used to achieve things in Wales, it is appropriate that the matter be devolved.

The amount of land in Wales owned by the Ministry of Defence has been brought to my attention. The MOD has responsibility for pest control in those areas. How will it carry out that duty if the letter of the law as currently expressed is adhered to?

Finally, there is the question of energy. As we go towards the energy review and the possibility that nuclear power will be part of the recipe for providing energy for the United Kingdom, I believe that the question of whether nuclear plants are allowed in Wales should be within the Assembly's planning powers. For those reasons, I support the amendments.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I have some sympathy with the amendment. I have made it fairly clear that I do not in general favour more powers for the Welsh Assembly, but there is the occasional circumstance in which there might be some logic to them. An active agriculture Department is already up and running in the Welsh Assembly, which is responsible for payments to farmers. The payments may at some point be affected by whether farmers allow hunts to take place on their land, particularly if the hunts are found to be doing anything illegal, which I am sure will not happen in Wales and which certainly does not happen in Monmouthshire among the hunts with which I am closely connected. On this occasion, there is a good reason for considering whether a power might be best devolved to Wales and dealt with by the agriculture Department there and by the many Assembly Members who have first-hand experience of agriculture.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I shall speak to amendments Nos. 39, 40 and 43. We had a debate on similar matters last week, and I do not propose to speak for long—I see the Secretary of State grinning at that. I merely restate that it is high time to consider devolving the probation service, the police service and the prison service. It does not make a great deal of sense to have them stand out as reserved matters, but since I made a longer speech last week, suffice it to say that I once more put down a marker on that subject.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I have some sympathy with the amendment on hunting with dogs. The difficulty, which we must face up to and which comes even more to the fore on the amendments to do with prisons, probation and the police, is that if we are to have a unified legal system, as England and Wales do, then while it is possible to have diversity within regulatory frameworks, to start to move towards dealing with fundamental issues of law and to have a divergence would mean that the principles of a unified legal system became increasingly difficult to operate. Of course, that applies more strongly to the police than to issues such as hunting with dogs. It could be argued that hunting with dogs falls within the regulatory framework, not that of fundamental legal principles. It is a difficult area, but as long as the people of Wales wish to see the maintenance of the union between Wales and England, with a measure of devolution and the retention of the principle of a unified legal system—which is one of the underpinnings of that union—we should be wary before we split the responsibilities for certain legal areas between London and Cardiff.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

I apologise for not being here for the beginning of the debate, but I had a meeting with the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

The amendments seek to expand the competency of the National Assembly in various areas. On broadcasting, there is an anomaly in the devolution settlement: cultural policy is devolved and will continue to be so, but broadcasting remains entirely a reserved matter. That is not acceptable, because broadcasting is arguably one of the most important and far-reaching cultural media we have.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I understand the principle behind the hon. Gentleman's argument, but given the way in which the Welsh Assembly has behaved with the Arts Council for Wales and the creeping politicisation of the arts, does he really think that it would be a good idea to give even more potential influence to the Welsh Assembly over areas such as broadcasting?

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

The hon. Gentleman's point is well made in the context of recent events—it would be inappropriate to go into detail at the moment. The issue of the arm's length principle in cultural policy is a broader question. I have some sympathy for the continental European model of Ministries of Culture, but in that instance it is for the Ministers involved to use those powers responsibly. That may not have happened in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers.

In the European Union, local television and radio are not reserved under the Spanish constitutional settlement and that has allowed the Basque region some flexibility in developing a Basque medium television service in the different regions of the Basque country. Broadcasting will need to remain a competency at the UK level, but these proposals do not even allow for the possibility of shared competency. Given the likelihood of further developments, such as television through the internet, the clear dividing line in legislative competence in this Bill will not be conducive to such developments.

Competition policy is a wholly reserved matter under this Bill, as it is under the Scotland Act 1998, but there are areas of confusion where competition policy has an impact on devolved matters. One example is the confusion over changes in pharmacy regulation that the Office of Fair Trading wanted to introduce some years ago to give supermarkets the power to increase their market share and to deregulate the sector. There was confusion about where legislative competence lay, as obviously there was an impact on health, which was devolved in Wales and Scotland, yet it was also a competition matter. Allowing some degree of shared competence in competition policy would clarify where legislative competence lies.

The proposals for the postal service are probably the most bold and radical in the group of amendments. As the Liberal Democrats have raised the spectre of Post Office privatisation, perhaps we should devolve responsibility for postal services or give the National Assembly the ability to get involved in their regulation. There is no guarantee about the future operation of postal services and we are all well aware of what has happened under the recent closure programme for urban and rural post offices.

Finally, I return to the St. David's day public holiday—an issue that I have raised with Secretary of State on several occasions. It is part of the wish list that the Welsh Assembly Government have sent as part of their legislative demands. Unfortunately, the Government at Westminster have not seen fit to accede to those demands. It should not be a matter of wish lists; it should be the right of the elected representatives of the people of Wales through their Government to decide whether we, like most other EU nations, should have an annual public holiday on our national day.

There may be a case for a public holiday on St. George's day, although this is not the time for that debate, but we in England and Wales have only eight public holidays by right, which is the lowest number in any EU country apart from the Netherlands. Of course, workers in the Netherlands are entitled to more annual leave, so there is a compensatory allowance. As the Secretary of State will know, there are 10 annual public holidays in Northern Ireland. We are asking only for one extra day, not two.

Bank holidays are entirely devolved to the Scottish Parliament and discussions about creating a national day are ongoing there. I understand that there has been reference to the possibility of creating a new annual British national day—for example, on Trafalgar day—so, surely, under the Bill the National Assembly for Wales and the Labour Government in the National Assembly should be given the right, for which they have asked, to have the same devolved competence as the Scottish Parliament so that, like most EU countries, we can have a public holiday on our national day.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I am grateful for the discipline that Members have shown in general in this debate.

I respect the position of the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price). He wants many matters to be transferred to the Welsh Assembly, but they are outside the terms of the devolution settlement. He cannot just toss off in the middle of a speech a series of powers for devolution, ranging from energy, the police, probation, the Prison Service, public holidays, hunting with dogs, broadcasting, the generation, transmission and supply of electricity, oil and gas and Sunday trading, to licensing the sale and supply of alcohol.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

It sounds like something the Liberal Democrats would do.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I shall not go there.

All those matters may have points in their favour, but they must be considered properly on their merits and there are proper procedures under existing transfer of function orders and arrangements and there will be machinery, under the Bill, to take such matters forward if the whole of Parliament desires it.

I shall resist the temptation to get into arguments about hunting with dogs or about public holidays, although in respect of the request for a public holiday on St. David's day there was never a bid from the Assembly for legislation and there was never any consultation with business or anybody else who might have been affected by Wales having a different public holiday from England when cross-border trading and business arrangements are so highly integrated.

The Bill does not alter, and is not intended to alter, the boundaries of the current devolution settlement. Any proposals to adjust the boundaries should be left to the machinery for that purpose contained in the Bill. Indeed, the National Assembly for Wales has not asked us to adjust the settlement in the way Members propose.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Did the Secretary of State say that there has never been a request from the Welsh Assembly to look at making St. David's day a public holiday, or did I mishear him?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

As I hope Hansard will show, I was careful to say that the Assembly passed a motion to that effect, which was transmitted to me, quite properly, by the First Minister—in fact, I think it was transmitted to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy)—but the Assembly has never made a bid for a Bill to that effect. That is the point. The Assembly has never made a specific request for a piece of legislation to take its place in a hierarchy of bids over and above other bids.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I appreciate the fact that the Secretary of State chose his words carefully, because I was led to believe that the matter was one of the points of issue in bringing in the Order in Council mechanism. It was one of the matters on which the Secretary of State had refused to grant legislation requested by the Assembly. I understood that from the First Minister himself; I hope I do not misinterpret him.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

There has been no specific request for legislation. The motion passed by the Assembly was transmitted to me by the First Minister and I said that I did not think it appropriate to take it forward. I was particularly concerned that there had been no proper consultation with the business community in Wales.

For all those reasons, I hope that hon. Members will withdraw the amendment.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The Secretary of State may say that there is a colourful miscellany of requests and a huge variety of aspirations, but that is a measure of the ideas among Plaid Cymru Members about how the devolution settlement could be developed, and will be developed in future.

In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 7 agreed to.

Clause 108 — Legislative Competence: Supplementary

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

I beg to move amendment No. 159, in page 59, line 18, after 'Parliament', insert 'or

(aa) has been laid before each House of Parliament and has been approved by a resolution of the House of Commons, but has been rejected by the House of Lords,'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 160, in page 59, line 21, at end insert—

'(4A) If subsection (4)(aa) applies, the Order in Council shall not take effect until one year has elapsed since the date on which the House of Commons came to the resolution.'.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

The amendments refer once again to the position of the House of Lords in relation to proposals in the Bill, so I do not want to detain the Committee unduly.

There are proponents of bicameralism and of unicameralism, but what the Bill seems to propose throughout is tricameralism. There are sets of proposals whereby measures such as demands for a referendum or any changes in the competency of the post-legislative powers of the National Assembly would still have to go through three hoops: the Assembly, the House of Commons and the Chamber down the Corridor. That is not acceptable to my party, nor probably—privately—to many democrats on the Labour Benches.

As some Members of the Assembly have said, it is almost as though we are returning to the dark days of the Poynings law when the Irish Parliament had to send its proposals to Westminster for approval. On several occasions, Catholic Members of the Upper House who came to Westminster to support those proposals ended up in the tower. I am not suggesting that that would happen nowadays, either under the Labour Government or a future Government of another hue.

I reiterate the point that we have made throughout proceedings on the Bill: it is unacceptable for the democratic wish of the national representative institution of the people of Wales to be frustrated by an unelected Chamber. Self-government is ours by right. We have a right to self-determination; it is not something that should be doled out through the largesse of an unelected institution. Therefore, we argue that the House of Lords has no proper role—certainly not after an affirmative vote by the people of Wales to set up a properly constituted law-making Parliament. We therefore ask the Government to remove the House of Lords from that role.

As Lord Livsey has said, such a role could fan the flames of Welsh nationalism—so perhaps arguing against that could be contrary to our own interests if that interpretation is correct. If the House of Lords ever frustrates the democratic wishes of the Welsh people, it would certainly lead to a constitutional crisis, and I am sure that the Secretary of State would not want that to happen.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

We have covered this ground in some detail earlier in our proceedings, but I congratulate the hon. Member for Carmarthen, East and Dinefwr (Adam Price) on making a speech that he had not expected to make and on doing so very competently. As I have said before, we cannot in the middle of the Government of Wales Bill overturn the whole constitutional relationship between the House of Commons and the House of Lords and, in effect, pre-emptively apply the Parliament Acts to the House of Lords on Welsh legislation alone. I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that. I heartily agree with him, although I am bound to point out that substantial parts of the Bill—particularly part 3, which we considered previously—implement remarkable constitutional innovations and the Government do not seem to be troubled by that at all. On the basis of the Government's approach, I am a little startled, but rather reassured to hear the Secretary of State adopt such a constitutionalist position.

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

Yet again, I am disappointed, but hardly surprised and certainly not shocked by the Secretary of State's rejection of our restatement of the Welsh people's democratic right to self-determination. However, on the basis that we will not finish the unfinished business of the House of Lords reform this evening, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 108 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 110 — Proceedings on Bills

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I beg to move amendment No. 192, page 60, line 15, leave out subsection (2).

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 193, page 60, line 29, leave out from 'Welsh' to end of line 31.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

We return to a subject that we touched on when we considered part 3. I am mindful of the fact that different criteria will apply to each part. Nevertheless, it would be helpful if the Minister could take this opportunity to explain to the House how he considers that the Standings Orders will operate to expedite proceedings on Bills and what checks, if any, will exist if the view is that the way in which the Assembly conducts its business is preventing full debate from taking place.

Even if the Assembly gets its part 4 powers, it will still be a subordinate legislature. People are entitled to some reassurance that the Assembly will conduct its scrutiny in a manner that the House finds acceptable. I am sure that the Minister will appreciate that there is at least a risk that Standing Orders could be introduced that short-circuit the full consideration of Bills. If that were to happen under part 4, what redress would individuals have if they wanted to challenge the decisions that the Assembly made within its sphere of competence? I should like the Minister to address his remarks to that issue in particular in dealing with amendment No. 192.

Again, amendment No. 193 revisits the use of English and Welsh. That issue was raised in identical terms in part 3, and the only reason why I raise it again is to find out whether the Minister has anything to add to my suggestion on that occasion that the Bill confined the text used to English and Welsh, whereas the Minister mentioned the possibility that one might wish to write part of the text in Latin—for example, to identify medicinal products. The current wording prohibits that, however, and I do not think that that is what the Government intend.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I rise very briefly to support amendment No. 193, as I did last week in support of a similar amendment. There is no point dwelling on the subject: it is a proper amendment, and I hope that the Government will give due consideration to it.

As for the use of Latin words, I am sure that we could accommodate Latin words in a Welsh text. There were times—for example, in the laws of Hywel Dda—when laws appeared in both Welsh and Latin, to the exclusion of English, of course.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I can claim no expertise in Welsh, but my recollection is that Welsh includes a number of Latin words anyway.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

It probably does—the Welsh were a very scholarly people and would have taken in a few useful words from Latin, as and when necessary. I shall not spin things out—my Latin is not that good—except to say that I fully support amendment No. 193, and I hope that the Government will give a full response to it in due course.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

May I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Gale?

The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) is right to say that we rehearsed these arguments last Tuesday. In fact, I wrote to him to clarify some of the points that he wanted clarifying. The purpose of the clause is to ensure that, in emergency circumstances, the Assembly can introduce Bills to address a problem. The hon. Gentleman expresses concerns that perhaps the Standing Orders could be used to truncate the proper scrutiny of the legislation. I am sympathetic to the view that Assembly Acts must receive proper scrutiny, but clause 110(2) will not circumvent that. Instead, it recognises that there may be circumstances in which the Assembly's standard scrutiny procedures may not be appropriate, because the Bill under consideration requires urgent attention.

The important thing is that the Assembly should be able, as the House is, to introduce legislation to address a particularly urgent problem. In my letter to the hon. Gentleman, I referred to the fact that the House had to pass a new Act to delay the local government elections in England because of practical problems that related to foot and mouth disease. That is a good example. I assure him that I am absolutely certain that the Standing Orders will ensure proper scrutiny, although it may well be truncated in order to pass emergency legislation, as happens in the House.

On amendment No. 193, both the hon. Member for Beaconsfield and the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) make interesting points, but I assure them that the wording will not prevent an Assembly Act from including words in languages other than English and Welsh if their use proves necessary.

Bearing in mind that we had a good debate on the issue when we were considering part 3 and following my letter, I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I am most grateful to the Minister for his response. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 111 and 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 113 — Power to Intervene in Certain Cases

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I beg to move amendment No. 45, page 61, line 38, leave out paragraph (a).

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 148, page 61, line 41, leave out paragraph (b).

No. 46, page 61, line 43, leave out paragraph (c).

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

We had a full if not lengthy debate on these issues last week. In my view, clause 113 gives the Secretary of State almost carte blanche to prevent Assembly Bills from going forward if he is so minded to do. In the debate last week, we considered in detail the provisions in subsection (1)(a), which are very broad. It says that a Bill could be stopped by the Secretary of State if it

"would have an adverse effect on any matter which is not listed under any of the headings in Part 1 of Schedule 7 (or falls within any of the exceptions specified in that Part of that Schedule)".

Paragraph (c) is also very broad and says that a Bill could be stopped if it

"would have an adverse effect on the operation of the law as it applies in England".

I took even greater exception, however, to paragraph (b), which refers to water resources. In the debate last week, I took an intervention from the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) and we discussed the issue. I continue to be of the view that what I said about water resources is legally correct. I was hoping that I would be proved wrong by letter or by advice, but I am afraid that I am right and that, in future, if the National Assembly decided as a matter of policy that it would not sanction the creation of any further dams for water resource purposes, that Bill could be overridden by Parliament.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

indicated dissent.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The Minister shakes his head, but one of us is right. I am not saying that I must be right but if I am wrong, prove me wrong. He need not do that tonight; he can do so between now and Report. I will gladly accept an explanation and I will fully and humbly apologise if I am wrong. However, I think that I am right, so we need to get the matter clear. The clause could be far reaching and damaging. Members from throughout the Assembly have said that it does not treat them in an adult manner and used other quite flowery language. They, like us, are owed a full explanation so perhaps the Minister will take advice from parliamentary counsel. If I am wrong, I will gladly admit it.

I will not delay the Committee any further, because we had a debate last week and even had a Division on the issue. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond in due course, if not necessarily today, in the manner that I have requested.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is quite right. We debated this issue when we discussed very similar amendments to clause 100. We had a Division, and I remind him that the result was 317 to seven.

The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. Paragraph 6 of schedule 3 to the Government of Wales Act 1998 is replicated in this clause. It is a direct replication; nothing new is added. In the six years since the Act was enacted, an issue relating to this subject has not arisen. Perhaps we have just been fortunate, but all the provision does is provide a fall-back position.

Many cities in England are very dependent on water supplies from Wales and it is important to consider what the Bill says. The hon. Gentleman is understandably exercised by this issue and by clause 113(1)(b), which contains the words

"might have a serious impact on water resources in England, water supply in England or the quality of water in England".

If the Assembly introduced a Bill that would prevent further valleys from being flooded to supply water to England, we would have to consider whether it would seriously affect the water supplies and the quality of them in England. That is the point that I made last Tuesday, and I reiterate it.

I will, however, seek further advice, because I recognise that the issue has caused some consternation. I will also double-check. The first check shows that when we debated schedule 3 to the Government of Wales Bill in 1998, there was no debate on this issue either in this place or in the other place. However, before report, I will be able to let the hon. Gentleman know what I subsequently discover. With that reassurance, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

I am grateful for that reassurance and for the manner in which the Minister has responded. I am pleased to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 113 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 114 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 115 — Welsh Seal and Letters Patent

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

This clause is about the Welsh Seal and the Letters Patent and I did not want it to pass by completely unnoticed. When I saw that it was in the Bill, I was absolutely fascinated and wanted to do a little research so that I could ask the Minister a couple of questions.

The Great Seal of the Realm, the chief seal of the Crown, is used to show the monarch's approval of important state documents. In today's constitutional monarchy, the sovereign still acts on the advice of the Government of the day, but the seal remains an important symbol of the sovereign's role as Head of State and goes back, I believe, to the 11th century.

The seal meant that the monarch did not have to sign every official document in person and authorisation could be carried out instead by an appointed officer. I can find reference to the separate seals that exist for Scotland—the Great Seal of Scotland—and for Northern Ireland, but I found little if any reference to a Welsh seal. My first question for the Minister therefore is whether this is the first Welsh seal ever. If so, is it not right and proper to mark its arrival in the Bill and eventually in statute by holding a short debate?

Her Royal Highness Her Majesty the Queen has had to have two seals in the time that she has been on the throne. The Great Seal of the Realm—the monarch's stamp of approval—has worn out because it has been used approximately 5,000 times since 1953. In 2001, Her Majesty had to have a new seal commissioned.

If this is the first Welsh seal, it is an historic moment. However, my second question is about how it will be used. The Great Seal matrix is obviously used to cover a wide range of documents requiring royal approval, including Letters Patent and royal proclamations, commissions and some writs. Can the Minister therefore tell us whether the Welsh seal will be used in relation to the writs for the election of Members to this place? The seal is also used for documents that give power to sign and ratify treaties. At the moment, about 100 documents a year pass under the Great Seal. Will the Minister tell us how it is envisaged that the Welsh seal will be used and the documents for which it will be used?

Interestingly enough, when the sealing occurs in the other place in the office of the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, the seals are colour coded. Dark green seals are affixed to letters patent that elevate individuals to the peerage. Blue seals are used for documents relating to close members of the royal family and the scarlet-red seal is used for the appointment of bishops and most other patents. As part of a run around the field of the history of our great countries and in view—hopefully—of a big mark in the history of Wales, will the Minister tell us how he envisages the Welsh seal and how it will be used?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

That was an interesting little speech. May I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), or perhaps her researcher—

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

No, it was me.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I congratulate the hon. Lady on her work. I do not think that I will be able to answer all her questions, but I will certainly write to her if there are any omissions.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I will be grateful if the Minister will write to me, but it would be nice to have his comments on record in Hansard. Will he thus answer me by way of written statement?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I will certainly consider that.

The hon. Lady asks whether the seal will be the first Welsh seal. We think that it will be, but I will check and let her and the rest of the Committee know. Let me set out the position. As the Bill stands, the Welsh seal will be relevant only if we enact part 4 following a successful referendum to give the Assembly the power to enact Acts. The seal is relevant in the context of Royal Assent because clause 114(4) provides that Royal Assent is given only when letters patent under the Welsh seal are signed with Her Majesty's own hand to signify her assent to a Bill.

I do not know the answers to the hon. Lady's questions about treaties and Members of Parliament, but I will write to her.

Dominic Grieve (Conservative, Beaconsfield)

I think that the Minister is likely to find that there were previous Welsh seals. Llewellyn the Great undoubtedly had a seal to evidence his Acts.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

My research will reveal what the situation is.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

May I draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that Owain Glyndwr had a seal, which was appended to the Pennal letter—Llythyr Pennal—that was sent to the King of France?

Adam Price (Plaid Cymru, Carmarthen East and Dinefwr)

A French letter.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

We will not go down that route.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I must remind the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams) that Owain Glyndwr, of whom I am a distant descendant, did not control the whole of Wales and was quite unpopular in large parts of Monmouthshire, which he ravaged. In fact, Newport was so badly damaged that there was a great debate about whether it should even be rebuilt after Owain Glyndwr had finished his depredations.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I will not respond to the hon. Gentleman because we need to make progress.

I shall write to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. She raised interesting points and I am sure that all hon. Members will be enlightened when they read the responses.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 115 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 1 — The Assembly

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 1, line 7, leave out subsection (2) and insert—

'(1A) The Senedd is to consist of eighty members elected through the single transferable vote from multi-member constituencies.'.

Roger Gale (Conservative, North Thanet)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 8 and 9.

Amendment No. 2, in page 1, line 17, at end insert—

'(3A) The system of election shall be a single transferable vote system under which—

(a) a vote is capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates, and

(b) a vote is capable of being transferred to the next choice—

(i) when the vote is not required to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or

(ii) when, owing to the deficiency in the number of votes given for a prior choice, that choice is eliminated from the list of candidates.'.

Amendment No. 3, in clause 2, page 2, leave out line 2.

Amendment No. 4, in page 2, line 7, leave out 'four' and insert 'sixteen'.

Amendment No. 71, in clause 6, page 4, line 6, leave out 'two votes' and insert

'one vote which will be cast preferentially'.

Amendment No. 72, in page 4, line 7, leave out subsections (2) to (6).

Amendment No. 73, in clause 12, page 8, line 16, leave out paragraph (a).

Amendment No. 7, in clause 13, page 8, line 26, at end insert

'and

(d) the number of Assembly constituencies.'.

New clause 7—Senedd constituencies—

'(1) The Senedd constituencies shall each be formed from more than one parliamentary constituency in Wales.

(2) Each Senedd constituency shall be comprised of no more than one-tenth and no less than one twenty-fifth of the eligible electorate of Wales.

(3) The Boundary Commission for Wales shall periodically recommend Senedd constituencies.'.

New clause 8—Elections and franchise—

'(1) This section applies to elections of members of the Assembly, including by-elections.

(2) Each vote in the poll at an election shall be a single transferable vote.

(3) A single transferable vote is a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency; and

(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when the vote is not needed to give prior choice the necessary quota of votes or when a prior choice is eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the number of votes given for him.'.

New clause 12—Elections and franchise—

'(1) This section applies to elections of members of the Assembly, including by-elections.

(2) Each vote in the poll at an election shall be a single transferable vote.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a single transferable vote is a vote—

(a) capable of being given so as to indicate the voter's order of preference for the candidates for election as members for the constituency; and

(b) capable of being transferred to the next choice when—

(i) the vote is not needed to give a prior choice the necessary quota of votes, or

(ii) when a prior choice is eliminated from the list of candidates because of a deficiency in the number of votes given for him.'.

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

There are two points behind our amendments in the group, both of which are crucial to the future capacity and legitimacy of the Welsh Assembly. The first refers to the fundamental point of how big we want the Assembly to be. The Government seem deeply opposed to increasing the size of the institution. Our primary concern is the quality of the scrutiny to which legislation in the Assembly will be subjected. One does not have to be Carol Vorderman to work out the maths. If a party with 30 Members forms the Government of a 60-Member Assembly, and thus appoints 12 Ministers and deputy Ministers along with a presiding officer, it is left with 17 Members to make up a majority on all the Committees. If one accepts that no Committee can be properly run with fewer than eight Members, one is left with a maximum of four Committees. However one does the sums, one is left with an unsatisfactory answer.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Does the hon. Lady also agree that one does not have to be Carol Vorderman to work out that if the Assembly sits only two afternoons a week, there is plenty more time in which it could sit and absolutely no reason why we should pay for an extra 20 politicians?

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I am referring to Committees rather than the sittings of the Assembly as a whole—the two are very different.

Numerous voices, including the Richard commission, have warned the Government that if extra powers are given to the Assembly, it will need to expand. The vision laid out by the Richard commission two years ago was an 80-Member Assembly with primary powers. The Welsh Liberal Democrats endorse that vision, but it is being short-changed by the Bill.

A further aspect of the Richard model was the voting system. The Government's proposals on the Assembly's electoral system have rightly attracted much controversy, as we have heard today, because they have abjectly failed to come up with any evidence to support their move to ban dual candidacy. However, we must see the dual candidacy debate for what it is: a major row about a minor point. By focusing so intently on it, we are guilty of missing the wider wrong.

There is wide consensus on both sides of the House that problems due to low voter turnout and the public's engagement with mainstream politics exist throughout the country. Much of that is dismissively attributed to voter apathy, but my experience shows that the public are not apathetic at all. Although I do not wish to rehash arguments that have already been heard today, many people are fundamentally disillusioned with a voting system that does not represent their will. Banning dual candidacy will do nothing to improve that situation, but introducing single transferable voting would. Even as a Lib Dem, I cannot believe that the first amendment that I am moving in the Chamber is on STV, but I am sure that my colleagues are very proud of me.

STV is an inclusive and fair system. By failing to adopt it, the Government are missing a huge opportunity to put Wales in the vanguard of electoral reform. The Secretary of State would give the public a system that ensured that they got what they voted for if he was truly worried about the "disincentives" that he says that voters face and the

"integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public".—[Official Report, 15 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 264.]

That system is STV.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I had not intended to speak to the group of amendments, but given the views of the Liberal Democrats on amendment No. 110, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), I am rather puzzled by their position on the group. Amendment No. 110 was quite modest in comparison because it referred to consultation with the people of Wales on whether the electoral system should be changed. The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) more or less dismissed the amendment by going on about the number of people who voted for the Government at the general election. However, I now assume that the Liberal Democrats and those who support the amendments in the group believe that the present system of top-ups is flawed and discredited. It is fair enough if that is their view, but it seems to contradict what was set out to the Committee half an hour ago. I find that difficult to understand.

We could spend hours and hours debating whether single transferable voting is a good or bad system. The question is: has there been sufficient consultation of the people of Wales about whether this is the appropriate system to replace the system with which the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) now says she does not agree?

In a previous debate, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) implied that we were not allowed to change our minds—but the whole purpose of the Bill is to change the system on the basis of the experience of the past seven or eight years. Hers is a flawed and preposterous argument, and if it is used further in this debate, it should be knocked down with the ferocity that it deserves.

The amendment would not allow anyone in Wales to be properly consulted about whether we should have the single transferable vote. I am not arguing about the STV system itself, but about whether there should be a proper consultation on it. It has been argued that Lord Richard's committee was one, but that was not about the electoral system alone; it was about a whole host of systems. My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) and I argued that there should be a specific consultation among the Welsh people about the way in which we elect our Assembly.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman can explain his transformation on the road to Damascus on the subject of consultation. His party's Government have displayed an utter and abject failure to consult on some profoundly important issues, stretching from—as one can predict—nuclear power, to reforms in the police service. Why does the right hon. Gentleman choose to defend this one constitutional issue as an appropriate one for wide consultation, when this Government repeatedly force their will on the Welsh people on a minority of the vote?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

Because we are now debating the Government of Wales Bill; that is why we are considering this particular subject. The hon. Gentleman has been involved in Welsh politics for some years, so he will understand that these issues need to be resolved in the light of experience.

The Richard report was one way of looking at the matter, and should be taken as part of the consultation process. Others argue that an electoral commission could give us some idea of where we should go. I say that ultimately, the people of Wales should be consulted in a referendum—on the major change in the electoral system, not on dual candidacy. A change from the present system, which I agree is partly flawed, to a completely new STV system strikes me as a proper candidate for a referendum, when—or rather, if—we eventually reach the stage of changing the law-making powers of the Assembly.

To change the method of voting completely would be such a fundamental change in the way in which the Assembly works that it deserves a referendum at some later date. Before that, however, there should be a proper consultation of the people. The Liberal Democrat amendment would change the voting system fundamentally without asking the people of Wales.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

First, I am reluctant to intrude—

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. There seems to be some misunderstanding. Is the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) going to continue his speech?

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

indicated assent.

Roger Williams (Liberal Democrat, Brecon and Radnorshire)

Thank you, Sir Michael. We misunderstood the right hon. Gentleman's intentions and thought he had finished, so I apologise to him.

It seems strange to me that the right hon. Gentleman insists on a referendum in Wales and a consultation on STV for the Assembly, yet his Government introduced the same sort of proportional system for the election of Members of the European Parliament without any such consultation.

Paul Murphy (Labour, Torfaen)

I did not like that either—but that is another issue. I respect the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams); he is a good Member for his constituency, and is rooted in Welsh politics, so he will understand that this is such a fundamental change that people should be given the opportunity to debate it properly. As I said earlier, the Richard commission touched on the matter, referred to it and made recommendations, but as part of a wider range. This issue is so fundamentally different that we ought to have proper consultation on it. Then, perhaps if we have a referendum on law-making powers, it should be combined with a referendum on how we change the electoral system.

There was one thing that I found interesting in the speech by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham—and presumably it will be echoed in later speeches. Labour Members were derided when we said that we had some doubts about the present top-up system. The system now suggested would completely replace that, and I assume that the Liberal Democrats and others who support the amendment do so, as a matter of policy, because the system that it would introduce is better than the top-up system from their point of view—not from the point of view of electoral advantage, but because they believe that it is right. However, the amendment is wrong, because it does not give the people of Wales the opportunity to be consulted and to vote on such a fundamental change.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I hesitate to intervene in this private spat between the Labour party and the Liberal Democrats, but we too have tabled amendments supporting an STV system with five regions and 16 Members for each region. The virtues of the STV system are obvious to us, and I hope to other hon. Members too, so I need not rehearse them; they have certainly been debated here many times.

Oliver Heald (Conservative, North East Hertfordshire)

Can the hon. Gentleman point to one single benefit of STV, given that it is so damaging to any constituency link between Member and voter?

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The system proposed in our amendment would retain a regional element, in that there would be 16 Members for each of the European regions. I accept that that is a large number, but STV has been successfully operated in other countries. We only have to look across the water to Ireland to see that.

I finish simply by saying that in future, I hope to see consistent support on the Labour Benches for consulting the people of Wales on all sorts of other matters. I would like to see that happen.

David Mundell (Conservative, Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale)

The last time I stood up to oppose the introduction of a system of single transferable votes, it was for local government elections in Scotland. Sadly, the Labour Members of the Scottish Parliament voted that system through, despite the fact that it had no clear mandate or support from the people of Scotland.

I confess to the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that I have not been to Splott market, but I have been to other markets and similar places, and I have never heard anybody there talking about the merits of the single transferable vote. It was recommended by the Jenkins commission, which the Prime Minister set up—a very long time ago now, it seems—and it is a particularly opaque system of representation and election. It takes two days to count the votes in such an election, and the two days that I spent witnessing such a count in Northern Ireland did not endear the system to me.

I do not think that the people of Scotland, who now face local government elections under such a system in 15 months' time, are yet ready to determine how they should allocate their seventh, 11th or 15th preference, or how that process can ultimately elect the person who they want to represent them. As has already been said in interventions, that system also breaks the important link between constituent and elected Member.

At least this debate is honest, as was the debate on amendment No. 103, because we need a debate about electoral systems, and about which system can command the support of the people of Wales, rather than having a false debate on changes that, as we shall see when we discuss the amendments to clause 7, would simply be gerrymandering the existing system.

Yes, one can argue against the additional Member system. One can also argue against first past the post, and for and against the single transferable vote. We do not support the amendments on the single transferable vote, but those are legitimate debates. We cannot justify the introduction of measures that would create an election system that exists hardly anywhere else in the world. Accepting the criticisms that the right hon. Member for Torfaen made of the Electoral Commission and academics, we cannot justify the introduction of an electoral system that falls outwith international democratic norms. There is an important debate to be held on amendments to clause 7, and I do not wish to delay the House any further, other than to reaffirm the fact that we do not support the amendments in this group.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

First, may I congratulate the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Jenny Willott) on the way in which she moved her very first amendment in the House? I wonder whether she may change her mind, however, and decide to back our proposal when she replies, given that she backed the last Liberal leader one day and called for his removal the next.

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

I would like to put on the record the fact that the incident to which the right hon. Gentleman referred was reported in the newspaper as a mistake on its part.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

In that case, I grovellingly withdraw my outrageous accusation.

I very much agree with the excellent contribution by my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) on the principle of the change advocated in the amendments to a single transferable vote system, which would fundamentally break the link between elected Members and constituencies of a manageable size. Equally powerful was his point that there has been absolutely no consultation on the change, which would simply parachute an entirely new system on to the people of Wales without any debate or serious consultation.

Amendment No. 67, which was moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, would provide for 80 Assembly Members for Wales, rather than 60 as at present. The main argument for the increase is the extra work load that will accompany the Assembly's additional powers. However, as the hon. Lady and the House know, the Assembly meets in plenary session only two days a week. Indeed, it meets only on two afternoons a week, between 2 pm and 5.30 pm on Tuesday and Wednesdays, and for rather fewer weeks in the calendar year than the House. Indeed, the Presiding Officer, Lord Elis-Thomas, has suggested that the Assembly's timetable could easily be based on a much longer working year, rather than the 33 weeks that appear to be current practice. He suggested that the Assembly sit on Monday afternoons and Thursday mornings as well as Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Indeed, he was admirably frank in an interview published on Boxing day in the Daily Post:

"I agree with the Secretary of State, we all have to work harder here. There should be three to four days of proper scrutiny . . . we should sit for at least 40 weeks a year . . . we finished for Christmas at least a fortnight before Parliament".

He is therefore making a powerful case for dealing with the problem of the extra work load and the scrutiny responsibilities that will fall on the Assembly after May 2007. That work load will be even greater after primary powers are implemented, if a successful referendum is called in the next decade or thereafter. I agree with Lord Elis-Thomas. The existing 60 Members are perfectly well-placed to perform their functions both effectively and well in the interests of Wales, so there is no need for further elected politicians.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Is the Secretary of State confident that there will be sufficient Members to staff the Committees, given that many Government Members will be tied up in duties as Ministers or Deputy Ministers?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The Bill provides for a dozen Ministers—a combination of full Ministers and Deputy Ministers—which leaves, according to my arithmetic, 48 Members to staff Committees. If the Assembly sat from Monday afternoon until Tuesday afternoon, it would be perfectly possible for them to perform such a role.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The right hon. Gentleman may recall the Cardiff conference at which these matters were discussed. I put a question to him from the floor, and asked whether there would be a trigger in the Bill to increase membership if and when it was necessary. He said that there would be, but clearly there is not one now. However, what if he is wrong, and the Assembly cannot cater for additional scrutiny and legislation as it lacks the capacity to undertake such work? Would we have to return to the House and find parliamentary time to increase the membership?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman is right—that would be the case. For the reasons that I explained at the conference, I looked at the option of including a provision in the Bill to increase the number of Assembly Members, perhaps by increasing the number of list Members, as it is difficult to do so in any other way under the existing additional Member system. However, that would alter the balance between list and constituency Members, with constitutional and political consequences, so I did not think that it was right to proceed with such a provision. Primary legislation would therefore be needed. If that were the case, we would need comprehensively to rethink the electoral system in a way that is neither possible nor desirable in the Bill. That leads us back to the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas), my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen and other Labour Back Benchers.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

The right hon. Gentleman said that a radical rethink of the electoral system would be required if the number of Members increased from 60 to 80, but does he not accept that Labour would almost certainly lose its built-in majority because, if the additional Assembly Members were elected under the current system, the overwhelming majority would not be Labour party members?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

That is not certain at all. In fact, if there was an expansion of the list system it is quite possible that many more Labour Members would be elected, as we do not have any list Members at present. In the 1999 elections, one was returned from Mid and West Wales, but that was the exception. The political effect is not obvious, but there would be one.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

No, I should like to make progress in dealing with matters raised by hon. Members who have been present throughout our proceedings.

Amendment No. 67 and related amendments propose that the Assembly's electoral system should be changed, and that the single transferable vote system should be introduced. The Plaid Cymru amendment proposes that the 80 Assembly Members should be elected from the five regional constituencies which were formerly used for the election of MEPs and which would be created from the existing electoral regions. Each constituency would return 16 Members. That is a fundamental change, and it would mean that Assembly Members would serve gigantic constituencies, both geographically and in terms of the number of electors. It would damage severely the important link between constituency Assembly Members and the people they serve. The Mid and West Wales constituency, for example, would stretch from Harlech to Welshpool and from Fishguard to Crickhowell, and would thus be an enormous area to try to represent. The North Wales constituency would extend from Holyhead to Wrexham, and South Wales West from Gower to Bridgend, and so on. Two of the constituencies would have almost 0.5 million electors, and even the smallest would have nearly 400,000.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Under the status quo, the North Wales is exactly as the right hon. Gentleman describes. At the first Assembly election, Simon Thomas, who represented Ceredigion in the House, served as a list Member for an area extending from Eglwysbach in the Conwy valley in the north of my constituency, five minutes from Llandudno, all the way down to Fishguard. Things were far worse than they would be under our proposal.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

That takes us to list Members as opposed to constituency Members, who represent constituencies of a manageable size. If the people who elect constituency Members do not like them, they can get rid of them. The problem with the STV system is that it is difficult to get rid of a particular Member whom the electorate think is underperforming or with whom they disagree politically. The STV system breaks the fundamental principle at the heart of our parliamentary system—the link between the elected Member and their constituency—which still forms the base for our devolved legislatures.

If we compare our experience in the United Kingdom with that across the rest of the European Union, it is interesting to consider the close links between Members and constituencies in the UK. Those links increase democratic accountability between hon. Members and Members of the devolved legislatures and their electorates, which is a point that does not apply in vast multi-Member constituencies and still less in list systems.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Is the Secretary of State speaking in a personal capacity or on behalf of the Government in opposing the system that was used to elect our Members of the European Parliament?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Changing how we elect our Members of the European Parliament has not been a happy experience. From my vantage point in Welsh Labour, although I guess that this is generally true, I have noticed that individual Members of the European Parliament used to have a relationship with their constituency. They were able to attend civic functions and party meetings, which led to the constant injection of European issues into the wider political culture. Since that relationship was broken, accountability has not been the same. In retrospect, whatever the advantages of that change—it was introduced to try to obtain fairer representation—it served to break the link between MEPs and local electors.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The point is important in terms of understanding the Government's position: is the Secretary of State saying that the Government regret changing to large constituencies?

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I have not said that. In Wales—I am not aware of a difference elsewhere in the United Kingdom—the relatively organic relationship between individual MEPs and the electorate has been broken, and I have noticed a decline in interest in European issues and in the quality of debate.

The practical consequences of the amendment would seriously affect voters. The ballot paper would contain 16 candidates and four parties for each regional constituency, and it would be even bigger with 80 Members—if it were to include party logos, I do not know how big it would be.

The alternative proposition—the creation of multi-Member constituencies containing between 90,000 and 220,000 electors—reminds me of Liberal Democrat proposals on STV in the 1980s. Those proposals would have created lots of constituencies in urban areas, making it easier for Liberal Democrats to get elected in Labour-controlled areas, but a smaller number of constituencies in rural areas, where it would have been more difficult for Labour Members to get elected. In our democratic system, constituencies are of a relatively manageable size, and if the electorate do not like an individual Member, they boot them out, which is an important feature to retain.

Amendment No. 7 would confer on the Secretary of State the power by order to change the number of Assembly constituencies. It would not be sensible to give the Secretary of State such an unfettered power, which would have serious democratic consequences.

For those reasons, the Government are not willing to accept the amendment. We propose to retain the existing electoral system, which we will improve. After improvement, the system will still have imperfections, but it will have far fewer imperfections than the fundamentally flawed STV system.

Jennifer Willott (Liberal Democrat, Cardiff Central)

I am not satisfied by the Secretary of State's response. For the Liberal Democrats, this is a matter of principle. We think it important that people get what they vote for, which is why I have no alternative but to divide the Committee.

Clause 4 — Power to Vary date of Ordinary General Election

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I beg to move amendment No. 196, page 2, line 35, leave out 'one month' and insert 'three months'.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The amendments need not take up the Committee's time. I am sure that the Secretary of State appreciates that they are probing amendments, which cover the powers in the clause to vary the date of the ordinary general election. With the hindsight afforded by the foot and mouth epidemic and perhaps the prospect of an avian flu epidemic, I wanted to ensure that we had built in sufficient flexibility in terms of altering the date and that we were not creating another Procrustean bed on which to tie ourselves in knots. Boxing ourselves into a corner on timing is inappropriate, not least because I would envisage some changes in a state of emergency or circumstances in which the movement of people was undesirable.

I should be grateful if the Secretary of State responded in the spirit of the way in which I tabled the amendments, gave us further and better particulars of what would happen if some unforeseen outbreak occurred and explained whether we had the desired flexibility.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I greatly appreciate the way in which the hon. Lady moved the amendment. She made some important points.

Clause 4 enables the Secretary of State to change the date of an ordinary general election. However, it must be considered as a reserve power that would come into play only when it was necessary to deal with short-term emergencies, such as foot and mouth disease.

I am concerned that extending the variants to three months either side of the first Thursday in May would give too great a margin of discretion. It could arouse suspicion that a Secretary of State was seeking to move an election date in a way that was politically advantageous to the Government.

The current provision is carried forward from the Government of Wales Act 1998, so the Bill simply re-enacts it. It would cover, for example, circumstances in which the nation was thrown into mourning close to the election date. A more prolonged crisis, which raised the question of whether the election should be postponed, would, and should, be a case for emergency legislation. I do not believe that a power for the Secretary of State to vary an election date by three months should sit on the statute book, because people could claim that it would be used for nefarious purposes, perhaps by a Secretary of State, who, unlike me, was unscrupulous.

I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the amendment.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Secretary of State has considered his response to the amendments, which I shall withdraw. However, perhaps he would undertake to examine the drafting of the clause and ascertain whether anything could be built into it later to cover an emergency so that we did not have to rely on emergency legislation. Circumstances could arise that were purely local to Wales and it would be a shame if the Bill did not include the possibility of extending the time from a month to six weeks in exceptional circumstances.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

I shall examine the matter afresh because the hon. Lady has a point. Since we are re-enacting a provision from the 1998 Act, we believed that the current provision was the right way in which to proceed, but I shall have another look at the matter.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am most grateful but I hope that the Secretary of State understands that, simply because we are re-enacting a provision, there is no need for me to rubber-stamp it without asking what I believe to be sensible and reasonable questions on behalf of the people of Wales. Given that the right hon. Gentleman has said that he will re-examine the clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I beg to move amendment No. 8, page 2, line 40, leave out 'seven' and insert 'twenty-one'.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The amendments are probing and they follow representations from Members of the National Assembly. They suggest that the Assembly should meet after 21 rather than seven days purely as a matter of convenience, given the possibility of discussions, for whatever reason, between the time of the election and the meeting of the Assembly. I simply seek the Government's opinion on the relative merits of allowing seven or 21 days for the potential discussions.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

As the hon. Gentleman said, the amendments would allow three weeks before the Assembly first had to meet either after an ordinary election when the date had been moved by up to a month or after an extraordinary general election. That might be convenient for political parties to consider the implications of the election results, but the public would fail to understand why, if they elected an Assembly, it did not get to work immediately.

Until a new First Minister is elected, the person who was in that post before the election will continue to hold office. The Assembly will have 28 days from the date of the poll in which to nominate a new First Minister and I fail to understand why it would benefit even Assembly Members and political parties for the Assembly not to have to meet for the first three weeks of that period.

The Assembly has to elect a Presiding Officer and a Deputy Presiding Officer at its first meeting. The public might take a poor view of an Assembly that did not manage to achieve what Parliament, the Scottish Parliament and the Assembly itself have achieved after each general election.

The offices of Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer should stand above politics. It should not take potential candidates long to decide whether to stand and it should not take Assembly Members long to decide, according to Standing Orders and the choice before them, how to vote. I believe that the amendment would bring the Assembly into disrepute and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I beg to move amendment No. 69, page 3, line 14, leave out from 'the' to end of line 15 and insert

'Senedd has passed a resolution in favour with at least two-thirds of the Assembly Members voting to support it.'.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I presume that the amendments are uncontentious and that the Government will accept them. The right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy), a former Secretary of State for Wales, and others have made great play of the importance of consultation and ensuring that the maximum number of people are involved in any decision.

It follows, I am sure, that he and others, including the Secretary of State, will be persuaded of the benefits of allowing the decision of the date of an ordinary election to be subject to a resolution by the Assembly, rather than simply being decided by the Secretary of State. I presume that he will also agree that the requirement for a two-thirds majority would provide sufficient security to ensure that such a judgment would not be party political.

Amendment No. 70 would make it slightly easier for an extraordinary election to be called. The resolution would have to be passed by two thirds of the Assembly Members voting, rather than by two thirds of the total Members. We make that recommendation simply because it seems reasonable to ensure that a resolution for an extraordinary election should not be thwarted simply by the non-attendance of those who might not be keen to see it take place. I look forward to hearing the Minister's views on the amendments.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

Amendment No. 69 would remove the requirement on the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers on changes to the date of an ordinary election, and replace it with a requirement for two thirds of all Assembly Members to vote in favour of such a change. The Secretary of State's power to vary the date of an ordinary election would serve in exceptional circumstances; for example, if the nation were thrown into mourning. In such circumstances, I would expect there to be a national consensus. There would also be a problem with taking the decision in the way in which the hon. Gentleman proposes if the National Assembly were not sitting at the time.

Amendment No. 70 would reduce the trigger for an extraordinary general election to a two-thirds majority of those voting, rather than of all Assembly Members. The calling of an extraordinary election would be a most serious occurrence. It would mean that no party or coalition had been able to form a viable Government. The Assembly would quickly fall into disrepute if an extraordinary general election could be triggered without being supported by two thirds of all Assembly Members.

If our proposal increases the pressure to reach agreement on a viable Administration, that is exactly the intention. In practice, one would expect all Assembly Members to vote on such a serious issue. However, the Bill as drafted leaves no doubt as to what constitutes a two-thirds majority; it must equate to two thirds or more of all Assembly Members. The amendments would increase uncertainty at critical times in the life of the Assembly, and I therefore urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw them.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I understand the right hon. Gentleman's disagreement with amendment No. 70. We simply have a difference of view, and, in the light of that, we can hardly negotiate towards an agreement. I was not really persuaded by the Secretary of State's argument on this issue, and we might have to return to it on another occasion.

On amendment No. 69, I really do not see why the Secretary of State, who is admittedly pro-devolution, is nevertheless intent on preserving this privilege to an individual who will almost certainly not sit in the Assembly. I do not see why the Secretary of State thinks that someone who has been appointed by the Prime Minister to serve in a Government in Westminster is best equipped to determine the date of an ordinary election in Wales.

I am disappointed that the Government, and specifically the Secretary of State, take a rather intransigent view on this matter. Every fibre in my body tells me to divide the Committee on it. However, given the excitement that we have had in the past half hour, and the fact that I shall have the opportunity to return to the matter on Report—if I feel provoked to do so—in a couple of weeks, and given that the Secretary of State has made his point and I have made mine and we have agreed to differ for now, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 5 and 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 — Candidates at General Elections

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I beg to move amendment No. 50, page 4, line 32, leave out subsections (5) and (6) and insert—

'(5) The list must not include a person—

(a) who is included on any other list submitted for the Assembly electoral region or any list submitted for another Assembly electoral region,

(b) who is an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region or another Assembly electoral region,

(c) who is a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency which is not included in the Assembly electoral region, or

(d) who is a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency included in the Assembly electoral region but is not a candidate of the party.

(6) A person may not be an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for the Assembly electoral region if he is—

(a) included on a list submitted by a registered political party for the Assembly electoral region or another Assembly electoral region,

(b) an individual candidate to be an Assembly member for another Assembly electoral region,

(c) a candidate to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency which is not included in the Assembly electoral region, or

(d) a candidate of any registered political party to be the Assembly member for an Assembly constituency included in the Assembly electoral region.'.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

We now come to one of the meatier sections of the Bill, as I am sure the Secretary of State appreciates; I see him grinning. It is indicative of the strength of feeling on this side of the House that only one amendment in this group is supported only by Conservative Members, that only one is supported only by Liberal Members, and that only one is supported only by Plaid Cymru Members. The rest are supported jointly by Plaid Cymru and ourselves. That illustrates the strength of feeling about what the Government are attempting to do in clause 7.

When the Labour Government came to power in 1997, there was only one system of voting, which was understood by everyone in the country; first past the post. Now, we have five systems of voting throughout the United Kingdom. We have the first past the post system, also known as the plurality rule, for the Westminster constituencies and local council elections. We have the supplementary vote, which is used in the London mayoral elections and 12 local mayoral elections. The list proportional system—proportional representation—is used for the UK European elections, except in Northern Ireland. The single transferable vote system is used in Northern Ireland for Assembly elections, local elections and European parliamentary elections. Finally, there is the additional member system, which is used for elections to the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for Wales and the Greater London Assembly.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

The single transferable vote system is also about to be used for the Scottish local elections.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me. This just goes to show how many voting systems we have on our small set of islands.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

I hate to add to the hon. Lady's list, but there is yet another example. Single transferable voting is used for the replacement of hereditary peers in the House of Lords.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

These voting systems are really coming out of the woodwork now. It is only when we start to list them all that we realise exactly the extent of the constitutional vandalism that has been perpetrated by the Labour Government on these islands. If we change the electoral system in the way that is being proposed, yet another system would be added to the list.

Jim Devine (Labour, Livingston)

The hon. Lady will be aware of Brian Monteith, a member of her party in Scotland, who stood in a constituency and lost, but was elected to the Scottish Parliament via the list system. He was then expelled from her party, yet he still sits as an MSP. Is not that a farce?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do not want to pre-empt any debate that we might have on these issues later, but the hon. Gentleman will perhaps have noticed amendment No. 213. Rather than answering questions about my party, I hope to have the opportunity to probe the Secretary of State on how he views such matters if we reach that amendment later. However, I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter, because I shall be interested to hear how he would want to apply the rules to members of his own party.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that we are accepting that, so far as this system is concerned, we have got it wrong, just as her own party seems to be accepting that it has got wrong everything that it ever believed in?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do like a man who has learned to say that he is sorry. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is one of those rare people.

This is a serious group of amendments, on which I have a number of points to make. I shall be listening carefully to what the Secretary of State has to say about them, as will many of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members on this side of the House. We deplore the Labour Government's attempt to rig the electoral system to satisfy Labour Assembly Members, who do not like competition in their own back yard. The Government intend to do this by disqualifying candidates from standing both for a constituency and for the regional party list.

Significantly, and reinforcing the Labour bias that I allege in the proposal, the Labour-dominated Welsh Affairs Committee, whose report on the Government's White Paper, "Better Governance for Wales", was published in December. I know the Secretary of State goes to bed reading it; divided on party lines on this issue. It is quite evident that it is the Labour party versus the rest.

It is not good enough for the Secretary of State to argue that the proposal was in the Welsh version of the Labour manifesto at the last general election and that he therefore has a mandate. I have a copy of the Welsh Labour manifesto here, and it says Labour will

"end Assembly Members being elected via the backdoor even when they have already been rejected by voters."

I do not agree that such Members are elected by the back door. They are elected by the front door, because they are very much in evidence in the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament.

The Secretary of State has not bothered even to consult or take the views of some of his colleagues. I want to set the debate in context by referring to the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who gave a speech to the Hansard Society on 16 January. I am sure the Secretary of State is familiar with her words. The speech was entitled "A New Deal for Democracy", and the Secretary of State can find it on the speeches section of the Department for Constitutional Affairs website, as it is a published document. Under the heading, "We need to adopt a non-partisan approach", the Minister said:

"Whilst the political parties have a vital role in our democracy, we have to approach change in electoral administration and democratic systems on a non-party basis.

And though I've stood for election seven times as a Labour candidate, it is not difficult for me to get into non-party mode in carrying out these responsibilities in my new department because there's no other way to do this job. You simply can't make progress in addressing electoral issues from a party-political basis.

So I work as closely with parliamentarians from the other parties as I do with those from the Government's back-benches."

Nobody from the Wales Office has worked closely with parliamentarians from other parties. From some of the speeches that have been made during scrutiny of the Bill, I am not even sure whether people from the Department have worked closely with Government Back Benchers, although this is a telling phrase:

"You simply can't make progress in addressing electoral issues from a party-political basis."

And yet, what we have before us is a proposal on an electoral process that is steeped in party-political aims and ambitions.

This change has not been called for by anybody except Labour Members. It has not been called for by the Welsh people, nor was it recommended by the Richard commission. I checked in the Library, because I thought that a flood of papers might have been put there by the Secretary of State, which would amount to the body of evidence of the demands for those changes on which we could draw as a Committee. But after checking again as recently as this morning, I am afraid to say that no body of evidence has been deposited by anyone from the Wales Office. I can only conclude that this is not a measure that has been demanded by the people of Wales, but one designed to suit the interests of the Labour party.

Significantly, this is being proposed when Labour has no regional AMs. There was no such proposal made before the 2003 Assembly elections, when Labour had one regional AM and no complaint about the system was heard at all. [Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Opposition Members are confirming that I am exactly right in my suppositions on that point.

I shall turn to comments made by other bodies; why rely on what politicians say? Let us consider some independent commentary on our electoral systems. The Electoral Commission is an independent body established by a Labour Government in 2000 under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000. It is independent of the Government and of political parties, but it is directly accountable to Parliament through a Committee chaired by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It exists to do something very special; to foster public confidence and participation in elections by promoting integrity, involvement and effectiveness in the democratic process. I think we can all be encouraged by that.

What does the Electoral Commission say in response to the Government proposals? Its submission to the Welsh Affairs Committee inquiry on the White Paper concluded:

"In light of the need to encourage voter participation at the Assembly election in 2007, we would caution against any change that is perceived to be partisan and could add to a prevailing distrust of politicians.

On the evidence available to the Commission . . . we do not believe that the case for change has been made out."

In fact, it urged the Government to provide more information regarding the justification underpinning their statement.

The Electoral Commission continued:

"In the time available to respond to the White Paper, it was not feasible for us to commission public opinion research on the issue of dual candidacy. Drawing on our quantitative and qualitative research on public attitudes to the National Assembly election in 2003 . . . we note that the 'Clwyd West problem' as described in the White Paper did not emerge in any of our attitudinal research about voting in the election. As our research included unprompted questions to the public about their reasons for voting or not voting, this may suggest that there was in fact low public salience of the issue at the time.

In the absence of any research findings on voter attitudes on dual candidacy in the public domain"

the Electoral Commission urged the Government

"to provide more information regarding the justifications underpinning the statement in the White Paper that voters are confused and concerned about the issue".

It went on:

"It is possible that some of those members of the public said to be critical of dual candidacy may"

not be critical of dual candidacy at all. They may

"in fact be criticising an outcome of proportional representation, compared with the majoritarian 'first past the post' system to which voters in Britain have been traditionally accustomed."

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am willing to give way, but before I do so I must point out that that goes to show that voters are confused because, since 1997, the Government have introduced so many different electoral systems that it has been hard to keep pace.

Peter Bone (Conservative, Wellingborough)

Is not the heart of the problem the fact that there are two systems—a list system and a constituency system? Therefore, dual candidacy is quite fair. I cannot see why, other than for political motives, this change is being introduced. A word of warning to the Secretary of State: with the Conservatives on the up and Labour on the way down, this might not be the right way for him to go.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I leave my hon. Friend's intervention to stand alone—perhaps the Secretary of State will heed his warning—but, yes, that is the crux of the problem.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

Does the hon. Lady accept that, given the complexity of the electoral system, if more people understood it, they would be aware of its unfairness?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do not think that we are at odds on that, for the simple reason that if people understood the system better they would have no problem with dual candidacy. The Government are particularly confused about this, as the Electoral Commission alleges, perhaps because people are finding it hard to get used to the perception of proportional representation. Certainly, Labour AMs are finding it hard to get used to. They have been used to having things all their own way and I am afraid that this has been a shock to their system, as I have no doubt we will hear again from the Secretary of State.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Are we not in danger, however, of underestimating the sophistication of the electorate in Wales? We are constantly told that the electorate are confused about the system. Is it not the case, however, that at the last Assembly election in Clwyd, West, the Labour party won on the first-past-the-post basis, but the Conservative candidate had the greater share of the vote on the list basis? Does not that tend to suggest that the electorate are more sophisticated than the Government suggest?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

If my hon. Friend is saying that the electorate are learning how to play the system, I think that he is absolutely right. I am sure that that is to our advantage in Clwyd, West.

The Electoral Commission, in preparing its response, contacted all political parties registered to contest elections in Wales. Of those who responded, the majority strongly opposed the change. A perception exists that the change favours incumbency and the current party of Assembly government that holds the large majority of constituency seats—the Labour party. The conclusion that the Electoral Commission drew on the provision says it all. On the evidence available, it said, it did not believe that a case for a change had been made. The Secretary of State should think hard before going against the opinions of one of our leading independent bodies.

Opposition to the ban has also been expressed forcefully by the Electoral Reform Society, which concluded:

"We urge the Government to reconsider their proposal to ban dual candidacy, a controversial and divisive argument for which the case has not been adequately made."

Yet another independent organisation is therefore criticising the proposals.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

As I pointed out on Second Reading, the Electoral Reform Society is not an independent organisation. It is an organisation that has set out to promote proportional representation for our system. Arguing that it is some sort of independent voice without its own agenda is totally false.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The Electoral Commission is independent. The Electoral Reform Society is certainly not financially supported by my party. I do not know whether it is supported by the Liberal Democrats.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Would the hon. Lady like to try the Arbuthnott commission, appointed by no less a judicious person than the Secretary of State for Scotland? Surely that was an independent commission.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

The hon. Gentleman anticipates my next point. He must have seen the document that I have in front of me.

Scotland currently has the same system for election to the Scottish Parliament. As I understand it, however, there are no proposals for change. Had the issue been a great concern, even at election time, when preparing the Labour party manifesto, the issue could have been addressed. Were the Scottish system so imperfect, changes could have been made when the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004 was passed. The Arbuthnott commission, however, reported last week, and concluded:

"Candidates for election to the Scottish Parliament should not be prohibited from standing in a constituency and on the regional list at the same election".

The Secretary of State was so worried by what the commission said that he had to get a press release out really fast. His response to the Arbuthnott commission on boundary differences and voting systems in Scotland stated:

"The commission's recommendations apply to Scotland, and do not reflect the different circumstances in Wales."

I hope that the Secretary of State will let me know what conversations he has had with Sir John Arbuthnott. I do not know how many Members have read the Secretary of State's press release, because he went on to say:

"I am confident that if Sir John Arbuthnott had considered the systematic abuses carried out by list Members in Wales, he would have reached exactly the same conclusion as we have—that a ban on dual candidacy is the only effective solution."

I hope that the Secretary of State has discussed that with Sir John Arbuthnott. I tried to ring Sir John this morning to find out his opinion, but he is away on holiday. I spoke to another member of the Arbuthnott commission this morning, however, who said that the commission considered the situation in Wales exceedingly carefully, so much so that the Secretary of State will find that the Arbuthnott commission refers to Wales in several places, specifically in paragraph 4.21, which alludes to the parallel situation and, for those Members who are interested, states:

"Referred to in Wales as the 'Clwyd West' question, this might in Scotland be called the 'Cunninghame South' question".

Wales was therefore at the forefront of the minds of members of the Arbuthnott commission. It also refers to Wales in paragraph 4.58, noting specifically that these proposals would affect the quality of candidates. I agree with that. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State is now laughing, so, obviously, he is rubbishing the Arbuthnott commission.

Wayne David (Labour, Caerphilly)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

No, I will make some progress.

At paragraph 4.58, the commission states:

"As the Commission on the Powers and Electoral Arrangements of the National Assembly for Wales (Richard Commission) noted, it may encourage parties, particularly small ones, not to field strong candidates in constituency seats, where they have less chance of success, keeping them instead for the region where they would be more likely to be elected. This could have a negative impact on the quality of constituency contests and unduly favour incumbent candidates."

Therefore, the Arbuthnott commission has definitely considered the Welsh situation, and is making points that are applicable.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I have been generous in giving way to Labour Members. I will give way to some Opposition Members.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

Would not paragraph 4.60 of the Arbuthnott commission's report be an even better example? It sums up the commission's opposition to this undemocratic practice by quoting from evidence in the response to the White Paper on Wales, which criticised the Secretary of State for trying to preserve Labour's hegemony.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Yes. I will not read out that part of the Arbuthnott commission report.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Has my hon. Friend noticed paragraph 4.57, in which the commission comments specifically on the assertion in the White Paper that the present system

"both devalues the integrity of the electoral system in the eyes of the public and acts as a disincentive to vote in constituency elections"?

Did she note that the commission commented that it

"is not convinced that there is any evidence to support the claims made regarding these perceived problems. There is no survey evidence to suggest that dual candidacy is an issue for voters, or a disincentive to their participation in the political process"?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

My hon. Friend has encapsulated the point.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

No, I will make some progress. [Interruption.] No. Plenty of Members want to speak in the debate. I have been generous in giving way, and Members can make their contributions when the time comes.

It is obvious that the Secretary of State needs to read the Arbuthnott report carefully. He is worried about it; otherwise, why would he have put out a press release on 19 January, shortly after it was announced? He also needs to have a word with Sir John Arbuthnott, because I am worried about a paragraph in a press release that prejudges what the leader of that commission might say. I am worried about the impression that the Secretary of State is giving. We have already seen him trying to give the impression that he has consulted Committees in another place, which is not the case. We need to know exactly what he means when he says things, to whom he has spoken, and how he can put words into the mouth of Sir James when Sir James has not the opportunity to respond. Sir James may agree with the Secretary of State, and that is all well and good, but I note that the Secretary of State has not intervened to tell me that he has spoken to Sir James.

Chris Ruane (Labour, Vale of Clwyd)

He was on holiday.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

He went on holiday at the end of last week; there was plenty of time for the Secretary of State to speak to him before he went on holiday and before the press release was issued on 19 January. He was not on holiday then.

Interestingly enough—as if to compound all this—the Secretary of State for Scotland was answering questions in the House on Tuesday. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) asked him a simple question: was he aware of what was happening, and would he rule out the introduction of the changes that he proposes in Scotland? The Secretary of State replied that he did not

"expect any early changes to be made to the Scotland Act 1998",

and that he had

"made it clear that I do not think any changes will be possible before the coming elections to the Scottish Parliament."—[Official Report, 24 January 2006; Vol. 441, c. 1291.]

Why would that be? Might it be that Labour Members in Scotland are in the list system, which does not apply in Wales? I leave the Committee to draw its own conclusions. Other Members may wish to allude to the subject, but I believe that more than one Member is in the list system in Scotland, and one may be a Minister. If that does not represent a level of hypocrisy, it is hard to understand why.

Jim Devine (Labour, Livingston)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

Of course, but it will be the last time.

Jim Devine (Labour, Livingston)

May I point out that it is Scottish Labour party policy for candidates not to stand in a constituency at the next election, but to stand in a list?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I do not think that it could be described as a matter of principle. That is what I call a convenient intervention from Scottish Members, who have obviously been got at because of all the problems thrown up by the Arbuthnott commission. If that is what they have agreed, of course, they will not be forcing it on the other parties. That is a matter for the Labour party. I assume that the other parties will be able to stand according to the list system and in constituencies as they wish. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to do that in the Labour party we are happy for him to do so, but he should not force it on the other, smaller parties.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman's intervention was all that clever. Why should something that is not happening in Scotland happen in Wales?

If, as the Secretary of State says, systematic abuses are taking place, we want to see them listed. We want to see them formally recorded. We want to see them dealt with. Instead of altering the electoral system and confusing people even more, why should not the Government alter the Standing Orders? Why should there not be some decent guidelines? Why should the matter not be discussed in the Assembly with the aim of reaching some sort of arrangement? As far as I can see, the only evidence produced by the Secretary of State consists of a load of spats between list and regional Members. We should not legislate to change the electoral system because people cannot get on with each other and are bitching about each other. Why does the Secretary of State not give Assembly Members power to make up their own minds, and allow them to alter their Standing Orders to deal with the so-called abuses?

I also disagree with what the Secretary of State has said on many occasions—that he must change the system because people who are losers are perceived to be winners. That upsets the Secretary of State a great deal. I am not sure how his proposals will go any way towards dealing with it, however. If the closed list system is retained, even if dual candidacy is prevented, parties that had lost the constituency election will still be seen to have won a regional seat. There will still be people who are losers, but on this occasion it will be much more apparent that parties are seen to be winners. That is what Kay Jenkins said when she gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee.

Mark Tami (Labour, Alyn and Deeside)

Will the hon. Lady give way?

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I have given way enough, and am nearing the end of my speech. I feel that some of the interventions have been less than helpful, and indeed rather frivolous. This is an important matter. I can tell from the laughter on the Labour Benches that the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a joke, but it is not. We are talking about a serious piece of gerrymandering on the part of his party, which the Committee must discuss. [Interruption.]

Michael Lord (Deputy Speaker, Central Suffolk and North Ipswich)

Order. There have been enough sedentary interventions, especially from the parliamentary private secretary, who is not supposed to intervene—certainly not on a regular basis from a sedentary position.

Dame Cheryl Gillan (Conservative, Chesham and Amersham)

I am grateful to you, Sir Michael.

This is a party-political move. Labour politicians in Wales and Assembly Members have had it all their own way, and, as I have said, they now face a bit of competition in their constituencies. There is no demand from the voters—I defy any Member to produce the huge body of evidence that people are clamouring for the change—and there has certainly been no demand from any other party. The Secretary of State has had no intention of discussing the matter with other parties, unlike the Minister of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), who as recently as this month said that it should be discussed across parties. Recently both the Electoral Commission and the Arbuthnott commission opposed the proposal. Academics are against it, but the Government are pressing for it.

I am appalled that the Government are continuing along these lines, and I invite Members to support our amendments. Unless the Government withdraw their proposals, we shall press ours all the way. Even if the Government use their huge majority to win the vote tonight, I am sure that those in another place will want to cast an eye over the changes, and not to cast aside words of wisdom that have come from so many people as lightly as the Secretary of State is introducing this measure.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Like many other Members, I went to the constituency office on Saturday morning; but the pattern of events was different from usual. I could not get into the office because there were tens of thousands of letters from constituents who were concerned about the patent unfairness of the dual candidacy system. It was so bad that I had to order a truck to carry the post away. I could not possibly answer it all. If Labour Members want evidence, there is literally tons of it in Dolgellau waiting to be picked up. I am sure that that will reinforce the facile arguments that we have heard from them so far.

I rise not just to be a wisecracker but to speak to the Tory amendments and to amendments Nos. 10 and 11, to which my hon. Friends and I have added our names. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan), the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives and my party—and, I might add, the Scottish National party—have united in this instance. It does not happen very often, but it is only right that it should happen when such a fundamental matter is involved.

Peter Hain (Labour, Neath)

The hon. Gentleman says that it does not happen very often. It has been happening pretty well every week in the Assembly lately, with an unholy grand coalition of opportunistic oppositionists including Plaid Cymru voting alongside the Tories.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

The right hon. Gentleman says that it happens every week, but I was not aware that the Scottish National party had Members in the National Assembly.

Alex Salmond (Scottish National Party, Banff and Buchan)

We're coming.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

They might be at some point.

Chris Bryant (Labour, Rhondda)

This is risible.

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Risible arguments are precisely what we heard earlier. What nonsense has been put around. I have great regard for the right hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) but when he was pressed about the evidence, even he could only say that he had had the odd conversation here and there. Nobody has produced a shred of evidence to prove the case.

Let us look at the international situation. Dr. Wyn Jones and Dr. Scully said:

"The proposed change is internationally anomalous".

Their report goes on:

"After extensive consultations with the expert academic community, we have only been able to discover one place where the change proposed in Wales has been implemented. This was in Ukraine, prior to the 2002 parliamentary elections . . . The only other instance we have been able to find where this has even been seriously proposed is very recently for New Brunswick in Canada. Therefore, the suggested change does, frankly, make Wales look odd."

I would certainly say that that is true.

The Electoral Commission was cited earlier by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and it has looked dispassionately and independently at the situation. What it had to say about international comparisons is interesting:

"There are around 30 countries that have mixed or additional member electoral systems."

But no other country bans dual candidacy on the lines of the proposal in the White Paper. We feel that going down that road requires more compelling reasons without those other examples. If we are to operate outside international democratic norms, we have to have particular reasons for doing so.

The Secretary of State's response, of course, was to rubbish that and pretend that academics highly respected in Welsh and international politics had somehow got it wrong. If he says later that the matter has been considered in New Zealand and Canada, he will be right, but it has been turned down in both, which hardly helps his argument.

The Secretary of State also offered a gratuitous insult to the Electoral Commission in saying that it played a valuable role but could get things wrong and had got this wrong. If we are all, collectively, getting it wrong, why does not the Secretary of State give us some proof instead of conjecture and stories about thousands of people who are beside themselves all night because of the unfairness of the system?

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Does my hon. Friend find it strange that the Secretary of State and the First Minister have rubbished the Electoral Commission but that the head of that commission has only just been reappointed for a further five years? If he gets things so wrong, why are they reappointing him?

Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru, Meirionnydd Nant Conwy)

Precisely so. That is a question that the Secretary of State may wish to address. We are told all the time that the Government like to consult: indeed, they do consult, but if they do not like it, they throw the consultation paper away because it is not what they wanted to hear. What is happening is obvious to anyone who can read. It is disgraceful.

The Bill has good things in it but also contains machinery for the worst possible kind of gerrymandering. That is absolutely obvious. The First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, said there was widespread support across non-political people in Wales for this proposition. Where is that widespread support? Dr. Jonathan Bradbury of the university of Wales, Swansea, and Dr. Meg Russell of the constitution unit at University College, London, said that when they were looking for evidence there was

"public disquiet over defeated candidates winning lists",

but conceded:

"This is the principal problem cited in the White paper. However, it is the weakest part of the case given the lack of clear evidence to prove that there is a problem".

They went on:

"However, there is no evidence that there is actual public disquiet. Of course, there is also no evidence to clearly prove that there is not."

Glyn Mathias, an electoral commissioner, said:

"This issue did not figure in that research. We asked a whole series of questions and sought unprompted replies and this issue did not arise . . . what concerns us is that there is no evidence whatever in the White Paper to back up this proposal. There is no evidence at all to back up this proposal and therefore we came to the conclusion that we think that the case for change has not been made."

In evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee, Dr. Scully and Dr. Richard Wyn Jones, from Aberystwyth, said:

"Firstly, in the White Paper there is a very bold, unqualified statement about public opinion, which is not backed up with any reference to evidence at all. Secondly, we say that when we go back and look at what evidence does exist that is relevant to it, it does not appear to support the statement that is made in the White Paper . . . The total number of people who mentioned anything at all as a reason for not voting in 2003 in our sample was two; that is out of more than 500 who said that they did not vote. That would suggest that the electoral system was not an important factor, as the White Paper puts it, 'acting as a disincentive to vote'."

In other words, it was absolute nonsense. In somewhat more colourful language, the two doctors tore into the White Paper:

"Given that the reasons offered in the White Paper do not stack up, frankly, are not supported by the evidence, given also that Labour currently do not have any members coming through the list so if it is going to create problems for any parties it is going to create problems for other parties, it is difficult to rule out the hypothesis of partisan motivation. I have no particular private evidence on that matter but, as we say, even if this is not intended it is unfortunate because it is going to look deeply partisan. Whether or not that was the original intention it is going to look that way and if there is one thing that people dislike almost as much as paedophiles living nearby and bent coppers, it is politicians who seem to be stitching things up for themselves . . . it does appear to be trying to adjust the electoral system in favour of one party against the interests of other parties, and it is not being done"—

The rest of the debate is in Hansard.