| Previous Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: Having already spoken to the amendment, I merely thank the noble Lords, Lord Elystan-Morgan and Lord Roberts of Llandudno, for their strong support for the name. A debate has been had on this issue and I have judged the feeling of the Committee on it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 4 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 4A.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 4:
"(2) The Senedd is to consist of eighty members elected through the single transferable vote from multi-member constituencies."
The noble Lord said: The amendment proposes that election in multi-member constituencies should take place by the single transferable vote and that the Senedd should consist of 80 members to bring that about. It would replace Clause 1(2). As far as support for the amendment is concerned, I refer the Committee to the Richard report, whose conclusions on this issue are very straightforward and easily understood.
Paragraph 47 of chapter 14 of the report states:
"If AMS [additional member system] is to be replaced, the best option for electing an 80 Member Assembly is the STV [single transferable vote] system. This would not necessarily produce a more proportional outcome than AMS - it might not, depending on the size of the constituency (Chapter 12). The case for adopting the STV system would be to maintain the principle of proportionality while ensuring that all Members were elected in the same way, and enjoyed the same relationship with the electorate".
As regards this amendment, that is very straightforward.
I shall also refer to other amendments in this group which are put forward in our name. Amendment No. 7 refers specifically to multi-member constituencies, which is a concomitant of creating the STV system, and Amendment No. 14 refers to single transferable vote constituencies. Constructing a system via these amendments would give each Member of the Assembly equal validity in terms of the voting system.
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1069
It would create what we believe to be a fairer Assembly. Amendment No. 21 refers again to single transferable vote elections. Amendment No. 24 refers to the lowering of the voting age to 16. This is a comprehensive group of amendments put forward in our name, which we believe to be worthy of consideration by the Committee.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord has said in favour of this amendment and the substitution of the single transferable vote system, as described by the Richard commission report. However, the amendment generates a number of concerns. Changing the number of elected representatives and the voting system would be a huge adjustment for the Welsh Assembly. Furthermore, accepting this amendment would mean introducing the system without any serious consultation or debate. I am very antipathetic towards that.
It is essential that before any new system is considered there should be extensive consultation about whether the people of Wales see the single transferable vote as a suitable replacement to the current additional member system, which we will come to shortly. STV is also damaging to important constituency links between Member and voter and impacts on the democratic accountability that those links enable. Much larger constituencies with more Members will fundamentally reduce the link between an MP and his or her constituency. Accepting this amendment would lead to a fundamental change to the voting system in Wales. We cannot support an amendment which calls for such a change without prior consultation with those that it affects. I am therefore of the opinion that we should maintain the current additional member system, as I shall argue shortly, which enables us to include the best features of the first-past-the-post system while including proportionality between parties through party list voting.
Lord Richard: Since my report has been mentioned, perhaps I may explain why we came to our conclusions. Briefly, this was a severely practical argument that resulted in what I hope was a severely practical conclusion. We looked at the work the Assembly would be called upon to do and concluded that 60 Members would be insufficient. If one takes away from the total the number who would be Ministers, one is in a situation in which it is barely possible to man the committee system which the Assembly has operated for some time with the remaining Members.
If the Assembly is too small in terms of manpower, one has to ask this question: if you increase the number of Members, can the electoral system be left exactly as it is? Again, we came to the conclusion that 80 Members would be the right number. There is nothing magic about the figure; it is a sensible number to recommend for an assembly with the additional powers that we had recommended for it. I agree with the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, that
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1070
the Assembly is now going to have some legislative powers and therefore the burden being placed on it by this Bill is not all that different from the burden that would have been placed on it if the recommendations of my commission had been accepted in their entirety.
From there, we asked how to get 80 Members elected to the Assembly. During the course of the commission we heard a fair amount of evidence to suggest that there were difficulties between the Assembly Members elected for the constituencies and those who were on the list. The Committee will forgive me if I do not go into the detail of what those difficulties might be, but there is no doubt that 40 directly elected Members and 20 from the list system has created certain inner tensions, which it was difficult to see how to resolve by increasing the number of list Members. If there are problems with a 40:20 division, the problems with a 40:40 split would be infinitely greater.
We then came to the following conclusion as the result of what I hope was a fairly logical sequence: if the Assembly is to be given more powers and 60 Members would make it too small and 80 is the right number; if you cannot have a system of 40 elected and 40 list members, what should you have? I have to say that when the commission started out on this exercise, I was not an unquestioning adherent to the single transferable vote. But I am also bound to say that once we had looked at all the alternative systems of proportional representation—we accepted that there had to be an element of proportionality built into it, otherwise we would end up with one-party domination of the Assembly which even those on my side would agree might not be entirely appropriate—we had to ask which system should be adopted. We looked at all the different systems of proportional representation in order to achieve a system in which, first, every AM would have equal validity and, secondly, there would be broad proportionality across the Assembly in order to reflect in broad proportion the views of the people of Wales. However, with the best will in the world, we could not come up with a different or better system. A system with a number of constituencies grouped together so that the operation of the single transferable vote could take place would result in an Assembly that was broadly proportional and large enough to do the job the commission wanted to place upon it.
If the Bill goes through in its present form, we will be placing burdens on an Assembly of 60 Members which personally I doubt whether they will be able to fulfil. By all means let them try—I can see the argument which says, "Very well. We think we can do it with 60 Members". If that is the message sent by the Assembly, it is not for this House to stand in its way, saying: "If you think you can do it with 60 Members, try it with that number". However, I have no doubt whatever what the eventual result will be: the Assembly will not be able to function properly with a membership as low as 60, and there will then be pressure to increase the number. If that is so, we will have exactly the same electoral difficulties as the ones my commission tried to face.
19 Apr 2006 : Column 1071
4.30 pm
Lord Roberts of Llandudno: I support everything that the noble Lord, Lord Richard, said. I am delighted to hear him—as the one who, in great depth, went into the method of electing Members to the Welsh Assembly—say it today.
The noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, referred to the loss of connection between a Member and his or her constituency. Already we have STV for European elections in Wales. We used to have five regions; now we have one list for the whole of Wales. Wales has taken a step towards STV and people there understand the different forms of election. We do not have that direct connection as regards Europe but we now have four European Members. I do not think that anybody would say that they are less effective than the previous regional Members.
One of our big problems with the Bill is the validity of the role of the regional list Member and the constituency Member. If we continue with the top-up system of additional Members, it will be whether or not we have the same people on the list as in the constituencies. We have not tackled properly the role of the regional list Member compared to that of the constituency Member, and one day we will have to. STV would sort it out for us; the single transferable vote would give equal validity and the same role to every Member, as at European level.
I will refer to the Welsh institution as a Senedd, as I hope that one day it will become the Senedd. There are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament, one for every 39,000 people; in Northern Ireland there are 108 Members, one for every 15,700 people; and in Wales there are 60, one for every 48,000 people. Therefore, the burden on Welsh Assembly Members is greater than that on Members in Northern Ireland or Scotland. As we heard today, the Government's landmark legislation will create more responsibility; yet how many Members will there be to shoulder that extra responsibility? There will be just the same number. Of that number, 12 are in the Government and there is a Presiding Officer and a Deputy Presiding Officer. If you subtract those 14, you are down to 46 Members, of whom the Government have a minority share. I am sure that the Government will see the validity of our argument that it would be far more beneficial and effective in carrying out scrutiny and dealing with legislation to have 80 rather than 60 Members in the Welsh Assembly or Senedd.
| Next Section | Back to Table of Contents | Lords Hansard Home Page |