Wales Bill

Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth Excerpts

Tuesday 11th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Gale]

My Lords, I speak to this amendment in support of what my noble friend Lord Anderson said. When the Welsh Assembly was set up as an elected institution, it was the Labour Party that introduced PR for the regional list—along with the traditional first past the post system—which was in direct opposition to its own political interests. It is only a few years ago that we had a referendum for the people of this country to decide what system of voting they wanted. Overwhelmingly, they decided that first past the post was the best system.

Removing the ban on dual candidacy would mean that candidates who have been rejected by the electorate under first past the post could get into the Assembly via the back door. We believe that that is subverting the will of the electorate. The majority of people responding to the Government consultation on this issue disagreed with the Government’s position. We share the wider concerns of the public that removing the ban would be anti-democratic. As my noble friend Lord Anderson clearly illustrated, it would allow losing candidates to be elected by the back door. It is not what the voters want.

As I said on Second Reading, it is not surprising that two significant surveys carried out on dual candidacy have both found a clear majority in favour of a ban. One was the Government’s own consultation and the other the Bevan Foundation study. According to the Government’s own consultation, there was a small majority in favour of the ban. It does seem strange that the Government are completely ignoring their consultation—I assume because it did not give them the answer that they wanted.

The Explanatory Notes on the Wales Bill say that this change will be made to the benefit of the smaller parties in Wales. They say that studies by the Electoral Commission and others,

“have demonstrated that the prohibition has a disproportionate impact on smaller parties who have a smaller pool of potential candidates to draw upon”.

If that is the case, we are changing the law in order to help smaller parties because they cannot find enough candidates. I have seen no evidence of that. At every election, every party in Wales fields a full slate of candidates, so to me there seems to be no problem. If that is the reason for changing this, it does not hold up very well because no party has had any candidate vacancies.

There should be strong democratic reasons for a change back to dual candidacy, but I do not think that the Government have produced any. I can give a commitment that if Labour is in power after the general election, and if this is carried through, we will reintroduce the ban on dual candidacy.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth (Con)]

My Lords, Amendment 7 tabled in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, would remove Clause 2 from the Bill. The clause overturns the ban on dual candidacy by the previous Labour Government, thus reversing their own position as set out in the Government of Wales Act 1998. Dual candidacy refers to the situation at an election where a candidate stands in both a single member constituency and on a party list at the same time. Perhaps I may say first that the amendment seems to be supported only by the Labour Party. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Howarth, referred to the fact that the three other parties are very much against this change, which should suggest to noble Lords that this is something of a partisan manoeuvre on the part of the Labour Party; it would seem that everyone else is out of line except for that party.

Let us look at some of the arguments which have been put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Anderson, knows that I respect him immensely, but I cannot understand the argument that when people go into a polling station and cast their vote, they are voting against candidates. They are voting for a candidate. There is no evidence to suggest that when people voted in Clwyd West they were voting against Brynle Williams, Eleanor Burnham and Janet Ryder; they were voting for Alun Pugh. Unless noble Lords on the other side are suggesting that some candidates have more validity than others or some Members have more validity than others, it is hard to see their objection to people being elected on the proportional list who have been candidates for constituencies. I cannot follow the argument that people are voting against candidates; they are voting for candidates when they vote.

[Lord Anderson of Swansea]

There may or may not be validity in what the noble Lord is saying. Some people may vote positively for a candidate while others, knowing certain candidates, will vote against. It is not a question of either/or.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

This comes back to the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord German where the candidates’ names are on the list. I should like to see the evidence that people are voting against candidates; none has been brought forward that I have seen.

When the last Labour Government introduced the ban on dual candidacy in the Government of Wales Act 2006, Ministers claimed to have done so as a result of the general public’s “considerable dissatisfaction” with dual candidacy. I have heard it suggested again today that an overwhelming majority of people are against it. Let us look at the two surveys referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale. I turn first to the Government’s Green Paper. It was suggested by the shadow Secretary of State in another place that an overwhelming majority of respondents to the consultation were opposed, but in fact the summary of responses published by the Wales Office in 2012 notes only a small majority—in fact, it was a majority of one.

Let us look at those who actually submitted to the consultation. The majority in favour of removing the ban were Labour AMs with responses written in remarkably similar language. I would ask noble Lords to look a little more closely at the evidence before they assert, as was done in another place, that an overwhelming majority of respondents thought that it was right to have the ban. Frankly, that is not the case. It is true that the 2006 paper produced by the Bevan Foundation found that a small majority did consider it to be unfair, but the foundation went on to say that any change should be “based on sound evidence”.

Perhaps I may take noble Lords with me to look at some of the evidence. Independent bodies such as the Electoral Commission have disputed the change. They have suggested in evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee that the view is clear that prohibiting dual candidacy in Wales is not something that they are in favour of and is not supported by evidence as necessary. It seems to me that no evidence has been brought forward since then that suggests that such a change is necessary.

An acknowledged expert on this issue is Professor Roger Scully—who has already been mentioned—from Cardiff University’s Wales Governance Centre. I do not know his politics, but I know that he does not vote for the Conservative Party. He said:

“No substantial independent evidence was produced at the time of the GOWA”—

the Government of Wales Act 2006—

“(or, to my knowledge, has been produced subsequently) of significant public concern about dual candidacy. The claims made about dual candidacy ‘devaluing the integrity of the electoral system’, and ‘acting as a disincentive to vote’ therefore remain wholly unsupported by solid evidence”.

It is a fact, and one recognised by the Arbuthnott commission established by the last Labour Government, that dual candidacy is a feature of mixed-member proportional electoral systems the world over; yet of all the countries that use this system, it is only Wales that has such a ban.

That brings me to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Anderson. Taiwan, which I believe he mentioned, Thailand and Ukraine all have a different system where they have two completely separate lists that do not interact; so it does not apply in the same way. In New Zealand, whose system he also recommended, the Electoral Commission has urged against introducing such a ban, so there is very little evidence elsewhere out there that this ban is desirable.

I come to a point that has not been touched on—rather significantly—that, apparently, at the same time as we were saying that this ban was so necessary for Wales when it was introduced for Wales at Westminster, for some strange reason it was not introduced in relation to the Greater London Assembly or to Scotland. At the time, of course, both bodies had regional members who represented the Labour Party, whereas in Wales there were no regional members for the Labour Party. Cynics might suggest that there is something to read into that, but we have not heard any mention of why the ban is only something that is right for Wales, but not right for Scotland or Greater London.

[Baroness Gale]

If one looks at the votes that are cast for the regional lists and the constituencies, Labour tops the poll in each of them. Because of the way the proportions are divided out, Labour does so well in the constituency section that it cannot—under the d’Hondt system—get many seats in the list system. This time around, we had two seats, even though we topped the poll in the regions. In the whole of Wales, Labour got 36.9%, the Conservatives 22%, Plaid Cymru nearly 18% and the Liberal Democrats 8%. As far as Wales is concerned, therefore, Labour tops the poll in the regional lists and in the constituencies, so we are grateful to the people of Wales for showing their support for us. I cannot see the validity of what the Minister is saying.

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

I thought that the noble Baroness was going to address the point about Scotland and the Greater London Assembly, but she did not. In relation to what she has just said, she has just expressed the essence of a proportional system. Nobody needs to explain to me that, the better a party does on first past the post, the more likely it is to lose seats on the list. I certainly know that to be the case, but that was the essence of the system that the Labour Government introduced, and I applaud them for it—it is a proportional and fair system. However, the question the noble Baroness did not address is why it is right to have the ban in Wales, but not right to have it in Scotland and London. I leave Members to ponder that one.

I return to the point that this, as I see it, is a partisan measure—I am afraid I have to say that because that is what I believe—and I cannot see other than that, particularly in light of the fact that in Scotland and Greater London it seems to be all right by the Labour Party to continue the system. Therefore, although I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, I cannot agree with him on this point, and I invite him to withdraw his amendment.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Norton, for his amendment, which allows us to discuss a clause in the Bill that we have not touched on in our previous discussions. I should also say that this is an additional matter that was not covered in the Silk report. The noble Lord comes to this debate on Report with an enviable and well deserved reputation on constitutional issues. I listened very carefully to what he said.

The noble Lord touched on the 2009 report from the Committee on Standards in Public Life, which did indeed recommend that the practice of Members of the House of Commons holding a dual mandate with a devolved legislature should be brought to an end by 2015 at the latest. As my noble friend has set out, that has so far prompted action additionally in relation to Northern Ireland.

The committee questioned whether it was possible for someone sitting in two legislatures simultaneously to do justice to both roles. The Government share the committee’s concern, and listening to noble Lords across the Chamber, it seems that this is a widely shared concern. I very much agree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that this is not just about serving the needs of constituents, although, of course, that is important; it is also about the ground rules and the practicalities of what is going on in the institutions concerned.

No Assembly Member is currently an MP but, historically, a number have been so. Indeed, we have two distinguished ones here today who could probably speak to the difficulty—near impossibility, I think—of doing both roles, certainly on a sustained basis. In the Government’s 2012 Green Paper, Future Electoral Arrangements for the National Assembly for Wales, the Government consulted on whether the practice of having multiple mandates should be brought to an end. A large majority of respondents—this time a reliable sample, I think, and a very large majority of respondents—agreed that it should, including opposition parties in the Assembly and the Electoral Reform Society.

Although the Welsh Government did not consider legislation to be necessary, at the Bill’s Second Reading in the Commons the shadow Secretary of State agreed with the proposal, as my noble friend Lord Norton affirmed. Following consultation, in March 2013 the Government announced that we would introduce legislation to prohibit multiple mandates between the House of Commons and the National Assembly at the earliest opportunity. This clause provides that membership of the House of Commons automatically disqualifies someone from sitting in the Assembly, subject to specific exceptions.

If a sitting Member of Parliament is subsequently elected as an Assembly Member, they are given eight days’ grace in which to vacate their seat in the House of Commons, by requesting appointment to a disqualifying office such as the Crown Steward and Bailiff of the Chiltern Hundreds. The eight-day period also applies if parliamentary and Assembly elections are held in close proximity and a candidate is elected to both legislatures. This is to allow them to decide which post to take up. Similar provisions apply in Northern Ireland.

No grace period is given to an Assembly Member who is elected as an MP except where a scheduled Assembly election is expected to take place within a year, the maximum possible period actually being 372 days between parliamentary and Assembly elections. In this instance, an individual will be able to retain both seats for that limited period of time to avoid a costly Assembly by-election when a scheduled Assembly general election is relatively imminent. The draft Wales Bill allowed for a six-month grace period, but following pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill, the Welsh Affairs Committee recommended that the period be extended to one year, and the Government have accepted this recommendation. This clause does not apply to the House of Lords, where there are no constituency interests to represent.

This clause will ensure that an Assembly Member will be able to concentrate on representing the constituents and can contribute significantly to the institution. There was cross-party agreement on these proposals in the House of Commons, and I would therefore ask my noble friend Lord Norton to withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

My Lords, it is precisely because there was cross-party agreement that there is a valuable case for raising the issue. I am grateful to those who have spoken. The noble Lord, Lord Howarth, invites me to digress somewhat on to the proposal for a senate of the regions and nations—the words “back of an envelope” come to mind. In terms of the principle that would apply, it would be that which I have enunciated. He talked about caution, but I think that caution should apply to the very proposal for such a senate, rather than the method by which its members should be chosen.

On the points that have been raised, the principal argument deployed from both Front Benches against the amendment is, in essence, that being an MP is a full-time job. There are two problems with that. It was not accepted by the Committee on Standards in Public Life in its report, where the challenge was a conflict with the primary role, not an argument about its being a full-time job. It is also belied by the fact that the House of Commons is not unable to function because MPs are doing other jobs. It is quite possible for an MP to fulfil the functions of a Member of Parliament while being a Minister of the Crown, for example. I really do not see the argument that—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Crickhowell]

I am grateful to my noble friend for giving way. I was—

[Lord Bourne of Aberystwyth]

Perhaps I could remind the House that, after the Minister has spoken, it is only the mover of the amendment who can speak.

[Lord Norton of Louth]

In that case, I will not be able to anticipate what my noble friend Lord Crickhowell may have been about to raise with me. My point is that the objection to what I am bringing forward is one of practice. I am challenging whether, in effect, one can really do that. Essentially, when your Lordships think about it, those who are making that case are saying: “We know best”. That is not an argument for restricting the freedom of electors. The task may be difficult. It may be close to impossible, which is the point being put forward, in which case it is open to those people not to stand and put themselves up to fulfil those dual roles and it would be open to the electors to make the decision not to elect them. As the Committee on Standards in Public Life made absolutely clear, there is at least transparency in this respect. You know what you are getting into, at least on whom you are electing, because of the positions that they hold, so I think that that principle holds.

The other argument put by the Committee on Standards in Public Life is that of a conflict of interest. However, I do not regard that as being persuasive either, because Members of Parliament have at times a conflict of interest between what their party wants and what they see as the interests of their constituencies. I suppose that the logic of that would be to ban MPs from being elected on a party label, which I think is not what the parties particularly want.

In response to the arguments put forward, there is a practical argument, but I do not think that it is sufficient to overcome what is a fundamental issue of principle. We are restricting the right of electors and it is important to get that on the record. That may not suffice today to prevent such rights from being restricted but I hope that it may help to give thought and prevent such incursions in the future. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.