Government of Wales Bill

The hon. Gentleman and I are of one accord on this. What seems important is whether the Bill suits the Labour party, not whether it suits the people of Wales or contains what is best for the people of Wales. I was at a Scottish Affairs Committee recently at which some eminent people, including Sir John Arbuthnott, were giving evidence. One of the Labour members of the Committee even wanted to know how many degrees Sir John had. I think that that Member was trying to make the point that Sir John was so intelligent that he could not relate to ordinary people. Well, perhaps that was the case, because I believe that Sir John replied that he had 11 or 12 degrees. That certainly put that Labour Member in his place. The Government have tried to fall back on the old line that there is widespread and systematic abuse—I think that was how the Secretary of State described the situation—in Wales. If the abuse is so widespread and systematic, why has the Secretary of State failed to respond to letters from Nicholas Bourne, the leader of the Conservative group in the Assembly, written on 4 November and 27 January? Those letters contained a request for information about the Secretary of State’s assertions. I see that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Carmarthen, West and South Pembrokeshire (Nick Ainger), is looking slightly blank. Nicholas Bourne’s letter of 27 January to the Secretary of State says:"““I enclose a copy of a letter I sent to you on 4 November 2005, to which I have, as yet, received no response.""I am concerned that you have made assertions regarding alleged abuse by List Assembly Members of their position in relation to expenses. This is a claim that, as far as I am aware, has never been substantiated.""If you are making such a claim it is clearly a very serious one””." The letters of 4 November and 27 January from the leader of the Conservative group regarding the systematic abuse that has been prayed in aid in relation to changing the system have not even received a response from the Secretary of State. I hope that a response will now be forthcoming. Another argument that the Government have used is that the banning of dual candidacy will end the confusion caused by the present system. However, I am not sure how that would follow. The research that I have seen suggests that banning someone from standing in a constituency system or a list system would not address the problem that people fail to understand that there is a first-past-the-post system coupled with a proportional representation system. That is where the sticking point seems to be with the electorate. Clearly, some analysis and research is needed to back up what the Government are trying to do. I want to deal with the Secretary of State’s arguments in Committee. I was particularly interested in the way in which he responded to the debate on clause 7. He said:"““We should start with the facts. Interestingly, the National Assembly for Wales does not support the Opposition proposals for preventing a ban on dual candidature. That is fact No. 1.””—[Official Report, 30 January 2006; Vol. 442, c. 122.]" Well, it is not quite fact No.1, because I decided that I would examine the voting and the debate on the relevant amendments to the Bill in the Assembly. If the Secretary of State thinks that the Assembly voted against the idea, he is skating on thin ice. The amendments were only defeated on the casting vote of the Presiding Officer, who was obliged to vote against them under standing orders. I do not know how he would have voted had he been free to vote as he wished, but we need only examine the voting of members of his party to discover where his heart might have lain. To say that the National Assembly for Wales does not support the Opposition proposals is therefore to flirt with the truth. On amendment No. 1, in the name of Lisa Francis, Conservative Assembly Member for Mid and West Wales, the voting was 29 for, 29 against, and 0 abstentions. On amendment No. 5, in the name of Jocelyn Davies, the voting was 29 for, 29 against, 0 abstentions—casting vote. On amendments Nos. 7 and 11, the voting numbers were exactly the same. The Secretary of State’s opening gambit in his response therefore takes the biscuit. Given the opportunity of a free vote by the Presiding Officer, we might find that the National Assembly for Wales does not support the Government’s proposals. However, the Labour party supports them, and it is its amendments that we are considering. Labour Members also displayed a lot of partisanship when they said that one of their problems was with list Members setting up rival camps. I am not sure how this change in the system will stop that because there will still be list members, who will still be able to set up rival camps. The evidence session given by Professor Sir John Arbuthnott and Dr. Nicola McEwan to the Scottish Affairs Committee on Tuesday 14 February, which I attended, provided an interesting insight into the psychology of the Labour party. I heard the Committee Chairman, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Sarwar), utter the immortal words that are on page 22 of the draft transcript:"““I represent Glasgow Central. I have 11 MSPs interfering in my constituency.””" That is the Labour party’s attitude to Members of the Scottish Parliament and, I presume, to Assembly Members. That is appalling. We have touched on the real reason for the proposals in the Bill to change the electoral system.