Government of Wales Bill

I have limited time, and I need to make progress so that the Opposition have an opportunity to reply to the debate. These proposals would affect all parties equally, not least the six Labour Assembly Members with tiny majorities. In one case, a dozen votes could go the other way and deprive the Member of a seat. They will be prevented from standing for election on the list. Criticism of dual candidacy has come not just from the Labour party, but from right across the political spectrum. The respected Welsh academic, Denis Balsom said:"““Candidates use the list as an insurance against failing to win a constituency contest. This dual candidacy can also confuse the electorate, who may wish to consciously reject a particular candidate only to find them elected via the list. It should remain a basic democratic right not to elect a particular candidate or to be able to vote a member out.””" I completely agree with him. Evidence has come from academics across the field and from Canada, New Zealand and Japan. More recently, research by the independent Bevan Foundation on public attitudes to duel candidacy in Wales has concluded that there is indeed ““considerable public disquiet”” about the issue. Whatever questions may be directed at people in focus groups and so on, that is the only independent research conducted in Wales. Amendment No. 52, which Opposition Members support, would take us backwards. The Government of Wales Act 1998 already provides that candidates who are on a regional list may not stand for a constituency in a different region. People who lose should not then be allowed to stand for election on the list. The Opposition now propose that those people could lose in south Wales and pop up in north Wales. What sort of system is that? Lord Richard, the chairman of the commission, has backed the Government’s policy on the matter. Lord Steel, the former Presiding Officer of the Scottish Parliament—we have heard lots about Scotland this evening, even though this is a debate on Wales—has also supported the Government’s policy in this respect. To illustrate the cross-party concern about the issue, I want to put on record a number of other quotes. Lord Carlile, a former leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats, said:"““I am sure that many in Wales will welcome . . . the removal of the absurd dual candidacy opportunity.””" Lord Crickhowell, a former Conservative Secretary of State for Wales, said:"““The present arrangements are really pretty indefensible””.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 15 June 2005; Vol. 672, c. 1216–17.]" Glyn Erasmus, Plaid Cymru regional co-ordinator, said in a letter to The Western Mail on 17 December 2005:"““with the vast majority of regional list seats being taken up with constituency candidates there is a blockage that excludes other people from coming to prominence. This means that the ‘elite’ of a party protect their own elitism by preventing others from gaining a personal profile . . . To finalise with a personal observation, ‘two bites at the cherry’ and ‘having your cake and eating it’ are both universally recognised as symptomatic of selfishness.””" Finally, just for completeness, let me give another quote. Preseli Pembrokeshire Conservative Association said:"““We agree to the proposals to prevent individuals from simultaneously being candidates in constituency elections and being eligible for election from party lists.””" That is the only consultation response that we received from any Conservative in respect of ““Better Governance for Wales””—long may those involved continue to have such wisdom. I conclude with a few final points. We have heard a whole series of specious arguments in the debate this evening and in the debate in Wales. First, we heard that the proposal—regrettably this point was repeated by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan)—could affect the quality of candidates. We have the proposition that bright high-quality candidates actually need two bites at the cherry. These bright candidates in all the opposition parties are so worried about being defeated by the electorates in the constituencies where they stand that they want an insurance policy, an each-way bet and a lifebelt. It is a funny sort of brightness that has no respect for democracy and no respect for the verdicts of the people. What are the opposition parties afraid of? What are Plaid Cymru, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats united in this unholy coalition to seek to defeat the Government on this matter afraid of? I submit that they are afraid of the voters, because what this proposal does and what the Government are seeking to do is put the voters, and not the parties, in charge. It says that if a candidate is defeated in a constituency, that candidate should not pop up on a list as has been happening right the way through. This will affect the Labour party equally, and some may say disproportionately worse than the other parties. It is not a question of party bias. There have been charges of gerrymandering, which is a very serious charge to make. Gerrymandering comes from the process of rigging constituencies and rigging election systems for a particular party to gain party advantage. There is no way at all that any party can gain party advantage from this. Not one seat will change hands. Either a party will win a constituency or it will not. Whether the party wins or not will determine the number of party representatives on the list seat. Banning candidates from standing in both categories does not affect the party outcome at all. It does not affect it by one seat; it does not affect it by one iota. This is another of the specious attacks on the Bill. If there has been gerrymandering, it has been by those list Members abusing their position and abusing their Assembly allowances—I think the Assembly ought to address this matter—to set up constituency offices in target seats deliberately to target the Members who beat them the last time. That is an abuse of democracy and one of the reasons why the Government will fight to the very end—and the House of Lords ought to respect our manifesto commitment and the Salisbury convention—to have a clean system in the Welsh Assembly elections and to make sure that the voters are in charge once and for all instead of the parties manipulating the system for their own advantage.