Government of Wales Bill

If the hon. Gentleman reads his contribution at column 112 of Hansard on 30 January, he will realise that it did not reflect the simplicity of the intervention that he has just made. Let us consider the Bevan Foundation’s research. I shall concentrate on the summary and I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a copy because I should like to remind him of its conclusions. It was not based on an enormous sample—indeed, there was"““a predominance of people aged over 45 and of those who were either retired or not working for other reasons.””" The relative absence of people under 45 and those working full-time means that the results are not statistically representative—they were not intended to be. One wonders why the hon. Gentleman sponsored work that has such a caveat. However, as he has prayed it in aid, it is right to examine the results. The report states:"““There is little in-depth analysis or empirical evidence to support the various arguments made both for and against dual candidacy””." That is apparent from our discussions. However, the small-scale project aimed to explore whether the public had views on the issue, as is often claimed. The summary continues:"““We found slightly more of the total number of respondents said that dual candidacy was unfair compared with those who felt candidates should be free to stand in both.””" I emphasise the word ““slightly””. That could mean as much as one in a sample of 47. The summary goes on:"““This suggests that any proposals about dual candidacy—whether to change or retain the current system—need to be based on sound evidence and be mindful of the differing views amongst the public.””" I agree with that. It is obvious that the Government have not based the proposals on sound evidence. The summary states:"““This suggests that there should be clarification of the roles of the two types of Assembly member.””" We can all agree with that because there is confusion about the roles, not least among Assembly Members. As expected, those views were part of a wider lack of understanding of the electoral process among many people and a division of views about proportional representation. The hon. Member for Caerphilly, who prayed in aid the report, has played straight into our hands. Again, I emphasise that there is slight evidence that respondents believed that dual candidacy was unfair. It hardly constitutes an overwhelming piece of research to back up the Government’s proposals.