Government of Wales Bill

HL Deb 15 July 1998 vol 592 cc259-76

3.1 p.m.

Lord Carter

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Government of Wales Bill, has consented to place her prerogative and interests so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

Read a third time.

Clause 4 [Voting at ordinary elections]:

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish moved Amendment No. 1:

Page 2, line 44, leave out from ("have") to end of line 9 on page 3 and insert ("one vote (referred to in this Act as a constituency vote).

(2) The constituency vote is to be given for a candidate to be the Assembly member for the Assembly constituency.

(3) There shall also be calculated the number of additional member votes for each registered political party which has submitted a list of candidates to be Assembly members for the Assembly electoral region in which the Assembly constituency is included.

(3A) The number of additional member votes for each party shall be the same as the number of constituency votes for the candidate of the party in that constituency.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I wish to speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. Some of your Lordships have heard me speak on this subject before.

Noble Lords

Oh!

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I am glad that some of your Lordships at least recognise that. I am happy to say that I return to this subject for the last time—I was going to say in Welsh—on the Welsh Bill. This series of amendments tries to offer the Government two possible solutions to what I believe is a real problem which could occur with the additional member system which the Government have chosen for the electoral system for the Welsh assembly.

I shall recap the position briefly in case some of your Lordships are approaching this subject for the first time. The position is that 40 members of the Welsh assembly will be elected for the current parliamentary constituencies by the traditional British first-past-the-post method. I think the majority of your Lordships will recognise that that is the sensible method on which to base electoral systems for a parliament. However, the gremlins have got at the system, so to speak, and a measure of proportionality is to be introduced by what is called the additional member system. In the additional member system, each parliamentary constituency is assigned to a regional seat. Those regional seats happen to be the regions making up the Euro parliamentary seats at present. In each Euro seat, there will be four additional seats.

The electorate will have two votes. The first vote will be in the traditional first-past-the-post ballot, but the second vote will be only for a party or for an independent. I shall come back to that in a moment. At the end of polling, the first votes will be counted in the normal way and members will be elected by the normal first-past-the-post system. The second votes for the parties and the independent or independents will be totalled and a mathematical formula called the d'Hondt system—I shall not bore your Lordships with it—will be applied in order to achieve proportionality. Parties will then gain one, two, three, four or even none of the additional seats in such a way that the proportionality of the total vote will be achieved. A party may have three or four first-past-the-post seats, but when the d'Hondt system is brought into play it may be discovered that it deserves one other seat in order to achieve greater proportionality in the total. It will therefore get one of the additional member seats.

There are a number of problems with this which we have discussed at length in Committee and on Report. One of the problems is rather a philosophical one; namely, that proportionality ought to be based on the first vote; in other words, the constituency vote. I shall return to that matter shortly. The second problem is that as the second vote is designed to ensure party balance, it seems a little odd that independents can stand and gain votes that have nothing to do with the need for party balance as a result of the first-past-the-post seats.

However, in my view, the most serious problem is that political parties could play games with the electoral system in order to gain advantage. If a party wins many seats in the first-past-the-post system, it is unlikely to gain much, if anything, from the second vote and the additional member seats. Therefore, a temptation is being put in the way of the parties.

I shall illustrate that by using the example—I have used this before—of the North Wales Euro constituency and the 1992 general election and assume (as one has to) that the first votes and the second votes are the same. That is not an assumption that one can properly make, but in the absence of any other evidence it is the best anyone can do. In the 1992 North Wales Euro constituency, the Labour Party won four seats; the Conservative Party won two; the Liberal Democrats did not win any; and Plaid Cymru won two. However, if all the parties' votes are added up and the d'Hondt formula is used, out of the four additional seats the Labour Party gained one, to take it to a total of five seats; the Conservative Party gained two, to take it to a total of four seats; the Liberal Democrats gained one, which gave them one seat; and Plaid Cymru did not gain any and therefore remained with two seats. That was closer to the proportionality of the total votes cast in that constituency than was the case under the first-past-the-post system.

Let us assume for a moment that the Conservative Party decided to play this little trick. It is not a trick on the electorate; it is a trick which the electorate would fully understand, especially those members of the party playing the trick. They would see the advantage of it and, in my view, they would be prepared to go along with it quite happily. Instead of the Conservative Party standing in both ballots, it would suggest that a few of its members registered a "Unionist Party" with the registrar of political parties. That is a Bill which is yet to come to your Lordships' House, but it is key to the whole additional member system.

Let us assume that the Conservative Party stands in the first past-the-post ballot and achieves its two seats, but it does not stand in the second ballot; it allows the "Unionist Party" to stand in that ballot. As the "Unionist Party" has no seats, it is in quite an advantageous position. When the d'Hondt calculations are done, the Conservative Party, instead of getting two additional seats—as it did previously—gets three additional seats. Therefore, three out of the four seats go to the "Unionist Party", none goes to the Labour Party; one goes to the Liberal Democrats and none goes to Plaid Cymru. The end result is four seats for Labour, instead of five; the Conservatives gain five instead of four; and the other two parties gain one and two seats respectively. The Conservatives come out with more seats than any other party despite the fact that the Labour Party had more votes.

In the same Euro seat in 1997, the game could have been played much more dramatically by the Labour Party. The Labour Party did rather well in Wales in the previous election, as some of your Lordships may recall. It won six seats in the Euro North constituency. The Conservatives won none; the Liberal Democrats still won none; and Plaid Cymru won two, so the number of seats for Plaid Cymru stayed the same. When the d'Hondt calculator is applied to the last election, the Labour Party does not receive any additional seats; the Conservatives receive three additional seats—simply because, although the Conservatives did not win any seats, they had substantial votes in all the seats they failed to win; the Liberal Democrats gain one; and Plaid Cymru is still left with no gains, because it did not win a large vote over the whole area but did well in two constituencies. So Labour gains would be none, and Labour seats would remain at six; the Conservatives would have three; the Liberal Democrats, one; and Plaid Cymru, two.

If the Labour Party split itself into two, registered the Co-operative Party as a separate party and stood in a first-past-the-post election, gaining six seats, but did not stand on the second vote if the Co-operative Party stood on the second vote—because the Co-operative Party had no seats in the first round—it would gain three of the four additional seats. The Conservatives would gain only one seat; the Liberal Democrats would not gain any seats; nor would Plaid Cymru. The net result would be: nine seats for Labour, one for the Conservatives, none for the Liberal Democrats and two for Plaid Cymru. The House will see that that trick changes considerably the outcome of an additional member system election.

In case some noble Lords think that I have rehearsed that argument again to show that I have cleverly thought up the whole problem, I assure them that I have not; I am not so original. It was thought up initially in a paper by Dr. Michael Dyer, of the department of politics and international relations at Aberdeen University. He presented the ideas in a paper in Scottish terms to show the Labour Party that it could gain considerable advantage if it used that particular trick in Scotland.

On the results of the last election, the Labour Party could gain considerable advantage in Wales if it used that trick. A Labour MP—albeit a Scottish Member, but still a member of the British Labour Party Mr. Ian Davidson, thinks that it is a very good idea. He thinks that it is not necessarily a manipulation of the system but that it would be an excellent idea if the Co-operative Party ran separate candidates. On 28th January in the other place he said: would thank it for reflecting my idea".—[Official Report, 28/1/98; col. 448.] So he clearly thrills to the idea. A Minister at the Scottish Office—I apologise, my Lords, at the Welsh Office; I have managed both Bills to date without previously confusing them. I am sure noble Lords will forgive me. Mr. Win Griffiths of the Welsh Office acknowledged this on 2nd March this year. He said: I concede that there may be scope for collusion between and within parties to exploit the two-ballot structure of the additional member system in the manner that he [the right honourable Michael Ancram] described". He went on to say: Such cynical manipulation of the system would be an affront to the electorate and would undermine the democratic credibility of the elected body".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/3/98; col. 804.] I am not exactly sure about that. Contrary to what Ministers opposite may have said about this matter, I believe that the electorate will play this game and will see it to their party's advantage. People do not go into the polling booth to vote for the Labour Party saying that they will help the Labour Party a little but not too much. They go into the polling booth saying that they want to help the Labour Party as much as they can. Or they do the same in relation to the Conservative Party, the Liberal Democrats or Plaid Cymru. We are wide open to the problem of what is sometimes termed the split ticket, or alter ego party. That is the problem.

The Government have so far offered no solution. They have not denied that that could happen; they have merely said that it will not. But the duty of Parliament is to make sure that things cannot happen—not that they perhaps will not happen, but that they cannot happen. Sometimes we do not see problems; we miss them. They come up at some point down the track and we have to do something to repair the situation. Here is a problem that we all see; nobody denies that it is possible for it to happen. We should do something about it now.

I have looked at a number of solutions, as have outside bodies. Essentially, I have arrived at two that are possible. I offer both in this amendment. The first possibility figures around Amendment No. 1, and the subsequent amendments, Amendments Nos. 3 to 14, 17, 18 and 19. The second is simpler in terms of legislation. It is proposed in Amendment No. 2.

Amendment No. 1 simply states that there will be only one vote. People will not vote twice, but only once. A total party vote will be obtained by adding all the votes cast for the first-past-the-post candidates of the parties. The total Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Plaid Cymru votes will be arrived at by adding up, as we do already for general statistical information, all the votes of the first-past-the-post candidates. We shall then apply the d'Hondt calculation and the additional members seats will be added to the party according to how the calculation comes out. That means that the correction for proportionality would be based entirely on the first-past-the-post seats, and not on any second vote. It would therefore be a calculation to correct any imbalance brought about by first past the post without the complexities of second votes and people moving the second vote around in order to prevent that proportionality happening. So one vote is a potential solution.

I fully accept that there are some problems with that approach. One is that a small party such as the Green Party would find it expensive to field a candidate in every constituency. There is an easy solution to that. The cost of the deposit could be reduced, or something of that nature. It is not an insoluble problem.

Another point that is made is that independents would not be able to stand in the regional list. But if the regional list is designed in order to ensure proportionality between the parties, I find it quite difficult intellectually to understand why independents should figure in the second ballot at all. If the object of the exercise is to achieve proportionality between the parties in relation to the first-past-the-post seats, the concept of an independent standing is rather odd. An independent candidate might not win, but might receive quite a few votes. He or she might be the only named person on the second ballot, because the Government appear to have set their minds against the names of people from the parties being on the second ballot. So the only names are likely to be those of independents. That might give them a slight edge. They might receive slightly more votes—not enough to win, because a large number is needed, but enough to take votes away from parties and perhaps upset the proportionality. Calculations have been done to show that that is perfectly possible.

It therefore makes sense to have the system dependent on the first ballot. The objections of small parties such as the Green Party can be dealt with by reducing the cost of the deposit or changing it from a deposit to a number of names, the number of assentors being increased. That would be easy to do. First, I do not believe that any independents will be elected; and secondly, allowing independents to stand on the second vote would appear to contradict the whole objective of the second vote.

One vote would clearly prevent the alter ego or split list party problem from happening. It would be straightforward and simple. It would mean that constituency votes would be used to calculate the party share. There would be no dispute afterwards as to which party had come out on top. There will be disputes if the party share changes between the first vote and the second vote. There will be disputes about which vote is the true one, the first or the second.

One vote has been used in the past. In West Germany, one vote was used between 1949 and 1953. It was then stopped. But although the West Germans use AMS, it is operated over very large areas, much larger than the whole of Wales. It is also operated on a 50:50 basis, half the members being elected by first past the post and half by the additional members system. So West Germany offers an example.

Another example is Italy where, in the chamber of deputies, a two-vote system is used such as is proposed here, but not quite. I shall not go into the complexities. Two votes are used there, but in the senate only one vote is used as I propose today.

The third point I wish to make is that the 1976 report of the Hansard Society, which has been reprinted, given the interest in all the issues which now arise, recommended the additional member system, but with one vote. So I believe that the one vote system has plenty of precedents around the world. It has a good advocate in the Hansard Society. That is my first solution.

My second solution is Amendment No. 2 which relates those standing in the first ballot to those standing in the second. If a party stands in more than half the constituency seats, then it must put up a list of candidates for the second ballot. If a party stands in the list, then it must put up candidates for more than half the seats. I have made the system work both ways. My problem could be addressed if it only worked one way. If any party which put up more than half the seats were forced to stand on a regional list, it might well be the solution the Government would find preferable. We shall see. It would mean that the Greens and independents could still stand on the second ballot. That is not what I have suggested; I have done an each-way proposal because it is more elegant and appears to be the better of the two ways.

I have offered the Government two possible solutions to the problem. No one has denied that it is a scenario that could come about. All that has happened is that the four parties in Wales, or the individuals representing them, have committed themselves not to do it. That is fine so far as it goes for this election and perhaps even the next election. But time passes and the people who gave the commitment pass. New people come along and here in the midst of the Act there will be a nice way for political parties to gain serious advantage. It is our duty to say to the Government this afternoon "You must do better than just give assurances that the Labour Party would never do it and have assurances from the other three. You must take steps to find a way to resolve it". I offer the Government two methods this afternoon, at the very last stage of the Bill, of resolving the dilemma and preventing the problem arising. I beg to move.

Lord Thomas of Gresford

My Lords, I regret that we cannot support the amendments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. Of course, he has argued them with his usual persuasive and lengthy speech, but we oppose the amendments on principle. The principle to which we refer is choice. There still remains in this country an attachment to the notion that people vote for the man or woman and not for the party, that there should be a link between the elected representatives and the electors who put them into that position.

The proposal that there should be a single vote and no second vote for the regional list means effectively that votes can only be cast for one party. It may well be that an elector will wish to vote for a particular personality, a candidate in a constituency who is well known and well thought of and who has served his constituency well. But at the same time, the elector may wish to register a different view by voting for a candidate from another party on the regional list. One can think of many combinations. It may be that an elector would feel that one of the small parties—the Green Party or an independent—should be represented in an inclusive Welsh assembly and would vote accordingly. Therefore, we think that in order to preserve choice it is necessary to have two votes: one for the constituency member and one for the regional list.

The argument upon which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, rests his case is essentially that the larger parties may be duplicitous in their approach. They may give assurances, as each party has, both in another place and in this House. Each party may say: "We will not split and create a phantom party for the purposes of the regional election. But at some time in the future we will renege on that and put forward another party under a different name". One would hope that the people of Wales would see through such a device instantly and punish that party accordingly.

However, in any event the way to deal with it is not through the processes of this Bill but through the machinery that is being put in place under the Bill that is going through the House for the registration of political parties. It should be a principle embodied in a rule that no political party would be registered without an assurance that it would not indulge in the kind of conduct to which the noble Lord, Lord Mackay referred. He stated that Mr. Ian Davidson, the Member of Parliament for Glasgow Pollok, had said that it would be a good idea in Scotland. Those of us who know Mr. Ian Davidson as a genial, pleasant and joking Member of Parliament will accept that he was joking at the time. But even if he was not, his party hardly supports him because it refuses to allow him to stand for the Scottish party. We believe that the single vote is wrong in principle and we prefer the Bill as it stands.

Lord Davies of Coity

My Lords, it seems fairly clear to me that in the Bill we not only have first-past-the-post which is the traditional means by which we have elected representatives, but we have introduced proportionality for a section of it.

However, the Bill goes further. It ensures that candidates will be entitled to their democratic rights. It also ensures that the electorate can exercise its democratic rights in the widest possible way. It seems to me that the amendments are intended to restrict that democratic function on the part of candidates and on the part of the electorate who will vote in the elections.

I also find it somewhat inconsistent because it was not so long ago that the claim from the opposite Benches was: "Give the trade unions back to their members and introduce postal ballots". They initially paid for them and then withdrew that funding. They wanted an extension of democracy with more people participating. Indeed the legislation went further. It introduced the commission for the rights of trade union members so that they could object at law if they felt they were being excluded from membership or did not participate in elections or were not allowed to vote in elections.

Here we have quite the opposite. What arguments are being advanced in support of the amendments? "Tricks will be played". The way they were described, I would not call them tricks, I would call them "sleaze". We know what the public do when sleaze is involved. Knutsford is a prime example of that situation.

Ian Davidson's name has been mentioned. Yes, I am sure he took a view. But I can also advise the House that he has been firmly persuaded away from that view. He has been corrected. I have heard the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, say that there will be Labour candidates and Co-operative candidates. If he knows the constitution and the arrangement within the Labour Party, he will know that anyone with a relationship in the Labour Party with the Co-operative Party is now called a Labour and Co-operative Party candidate. They are not distinguished from each other, they are as one. Whether the Conservatives would want to set up a unionist party in Wales to be able to play such tricks will be up to them. But I think it would be seen through by the electorate and the press would make hay of such an approach.

The House should support the Bill, support the clauses and reject the amendments. The amendments are intended to restrict the democratic activity of both candidates and the electorate in Wales. That is not acceptable.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for entering the discussion on the Third Reading when I have not been present for the debates on the Bill throughout. However, noble Lords had a debate on the subject last night on the Scotland Bill and I have heard my noble friend repeat what he said last night even more clearly and accurately. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, attempted to disparage my noble friend's speech by saying that it was the "usual long speech". It was a clear exposition of the problem and I hope that noble Lords will not treat this as a matter for party political ding-dong. I hope that the Government will look carefully at what may happen if they continue to provide the system as set out in the Bill.

The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, takes the view—I am sure with great sincerity—that people will see through this and will not want to take part. That was repeated from the Government Benches. I do not believe that. It may be that people in Wales will do that, but I am convinced that people in Scotland will simply see it as a new way of voting strategically.

The Scottish electorate has been voting strategically for some time. It was done successfully in the last election and, as a result, people got what they wanted; that is, to get rid of the party to which I belong completely from Westminster. They wanted to do that and they did it by strategic voting.

The system will be seen as a new form of strategic voting rather than sleaze. It is not sleaze. It behoves Parliament to provide a system which is foolproof, as far as possible. Just putting it in the registration of political parties is not the right way to do it. Quite apart from anything else, individual candidates will be able to distort the system. My noble friend did not go into that at great length, but that could happen. The system should be as proof as possible against strategic distortion of the proportionality which is the Government's aim.

I beseech the Government, therefore, if they are not going to say today that they will accept one of these amendments, to look seriously at them. It may be that my noble friend will divide the House and that the other place may look at this immediately. In any case, I hope that the Government will look at the matter seriously. It is not a party political matter. A former Minister in the Scottish Office was removed from his seat in Scotland by the electorate being able to use strategic voting to obtain the result it wanted. Consequently, the noble Lord knows how the system works. He is also a mathematician, so he is able to work out these things and can explain clearly to your Lordships how the system works.

I hope that the Government will take the matter seriously. They will spoil what they are aiming to do if they do not make some adjustment to the system.

3.30 p.m.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, we are once again being subjected to the fiction of the "Mackay novel", which is the notion that the electorate in Wales can be cheated out of its results in a democratic election by some kind of fictive renaming of political parties or candidates.

I am continually bemused in this place at the ability of the Conservative Party to shoot itself in the foot or to refuse a great opportunity. I want an inclusive assembly, as does my right honourable friend in another place, the Secretary of State, Ron Davies. This is a great opportunity for the Conservative Party to return to serious electoral politics in Wales. There are people within that party in Wales who want to see that happen and I am not sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, is representing them in this debate by his argument.

The Government addressed the issue of a political culture being dominated historically by one party for very good reasons. But they are putting themselves on the line in these matters. They are instituting an electoral system which will enable people to make different choices as between the first-past-the-post system and the second vote. Although it is not an ideal PR system—we debated all this in Committee and do not need to go back over it—it indicates the Government's commitment to an inclusive democratic structure.

I do not see why the Conservative Party cannot join in the game or why they need continually to be setting down centralist strictures to control by legislation the choices of the electorate. What are they worried about? Does not the Conservative Party in Wales have a great potential leader in Mr. Rob Richards? No doubt there are other contenders. They are experienced politicians who have been selected to stand for the assembly. They will get themselves elected either through first-past-the-post or on the list and they will then participate actively in the new structure. What is the problem with the Conservative Party? Why cannot the Conservative Party in this House take on the rules of the game—the inclusive and open rules—which the Government established in this Bill?

Returning to this fiction at Third Reading and apparently suggesting that we should divide on this and perhaps return the Bill to another place undermines the role of this House as a revising Chamber. This is hardly serious revision.

Lord Onslow of Woking

My Lords, I disagree strongly with the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, and shall explain briefly why.

Today we are faced with the introduction of a system which is capable of abuse. The Ministers on the Government Front Bench admitted that. It is generally agreed that there is potential for abuse in the system as it stands in the Bill. I believe—I hope that I can take the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, with me—that Parliament has a duty to protect the electorate and to ensure that all votes are of equal value. If the proposition in the Bill is passed as it stands, all votes in the future will not necessarily be of equal value. That is fundamentally wrong.

I add that I do not believe that, in matters concerning the representation of the people, self-regulation is enough. The law should defend the people. We cannot rely on political parties to do so. The suggestion that some condition should be laid down in the Registration of Political Parties Bill is fatuous. The law should protect the people and it is our function today to see that it does.

Even if we accept the self-denying statements of all party leaders represented here today that they would never take part in such a cynical manipulation as was outlined by my noble friend, this is not a matter necessarily confined to political parties. A non-political organisation may intervene in an election seeking to influence events. It may stand under some such trendy name as "the Peoples' Partnership". It may be in sympathy with two parties at once; for example, the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. It would be a crypto-Lib-Lab party. But it would not be registered as such. It would be a national pressure group and it may well attract support from the media. It is not impossible that the Sun may find it in its interests to give "the Peoples' Partnership" a fair wind in its pages.

The effect would be to encourage the transfer of support in the first ballot from the Labour Party to the second ballot and thus to the Liberal Party. The devaluation of the Conservative Party would be total, as noble Lords should be able to see. It is not encouraging that, while admitting that the problem exists, the Government failed entirely to deal with it. All they say—I suppose Minsters will say the same today—is that there is a problem, but that the remedy is worse than the problem. I find that difficult to accept.

My noble friend is entirely right. Shame on a Government claiming to be purer than pure that they should seek to enshrine in law a manipulative device like this.

Viscount Bledisloe

My Lords, having heard the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, on this topic several times, I think I now see that there is a real problem, certainly mathematically. I am also prepared to accept that it is a problem that is not just mathematical but is real, because from these Benches I am perfectly prepared to believe that any political party will commit any dirty trick which it thinks will be to its own advantage. However, having said that, I have to say also that, at least in regard to the first solution of the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, the remedy is worse than the problem. On that I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thomas. Surely the remedy propounded by the noble Lord is a total discouragement to anyone voting for a candidate on account of his individual characteristics. If, by voting for an individual because he is a very good MP or voting against him because he is a very bad one, one is then doing the same as voting for the list of candidates who come behind him, one is discouraging any form of choice of individuals. It seems extraordinary that it should be suggested in this House that we should discourage choice of individuals on their merits rather than merely by their party label.

The solution to this problem lies in the Registration of Political Parties Bill because the whole matter comes from the noble Lord's assumption that one can register two parties, one of which is a stalking-horse for the other. Why cannot that Bill provide that no party shall be registered without giving an undertaking that it is a genuine independent party and also make provision for deregistration if it uses itself merely as a stalking-horse for another, in the way the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, suggested.

There is a problem. To my mind, the solution is unacceptable. But surely it can be thought out that other way.

The Solicitor-General (Lord Falconer of Thoroton)

My Lords, as many noble Lords have pointed out, we have discussed this issue on a number of occasions and every time I have heard it debated, the noble Lord, Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, has made a truly great speech. Like all great advocates, he puts his case brilliantly and omits to mention any save the weakest arguments against his case.

Perhaps I may summarise the Government's position. First, we think it is unlikely that the problem will occur but we accept the theoretical possibility of the problem. I draw attention, as the noble Lord fairly did, to the fact that each of the major parties has undertaken not to indulge in the kind of practice to which he has referred. Secondly, if the practice was indulged in, we believe that the people of Wales, no doubt assisted by the media, would very quickly see through the kind of manipulation that the noble Lord has in mind. Thirdly, in any event, all the proposals that have been put by the noble Lord, whether today or on other occasions, are much worse than the problem he appears to perceive in this area.

As I understood the noble Lord's speech this afternoon, he is proposing alternative solutions. The first is that your vote for your constituency member should be counted for regional list purposes. The second—I am not sure whether it is an alternative or is part of the first solution—is that you can put up a regional list only if your party stands in half of the ordinary constituencies.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for giving way. They are alternatives.

3.45 p.m.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, that is how I understood the noble Lord's speech.

Perhaps I may deal with the first of the noble Lord's proposals; namely, that your constituency candidate would then be counted for the purposes of the regional list. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, that would give each voter only one vote. The vote would be taken automatically to be a vote for the same party's list in the electoral region. On the noble Lord's first proposal, voters would not have the option to vote for the party list. They would have to take the composition of the list into consideration when making their constituency selection. That would reduce the election for the four additional members in each electoral region to an indirect election.

If voters want to vote for the candidate of one party in the constituency and for the list of another party in the electoral region, why should they not have that choice? That point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. Under the noble Lord's proposal, you would have to vote for a particular party if you wanted that to be reflected in the electoral region. We believe that is not democratic and does not give effect to a direct election system.

The second problem with the noble Lord's proposal is that it would have a serious impact on the ability of small parties to mount a realistic campaign for seats in the assembly. It would, as he expressly acknowledged, prevent independent candidates from being candidates at regional level. For smaller parties, their main hope for winning seats in the assembly may be the party list vote in the electoral region. To maximise its potential for party list seats, a small party would have to run candidates in all the constituencies in the electoral region. That would be a daunting prospect for such a party, which would have to find suitable candidates and the resources to contest between seven and nine constituencies per region. That may be beyond many of them. Why should they be denied the opportunity to concentrate their resources to their best advantage? Why should not the electorate have the option of voting for particular favoured constituency candidates but for small parties in the regional list? I submit, for the reasons I have given, that the noble Lord's proposal is much worse than the problem as he perceives it.

His alternative proposal, as presently drafted, is contradictory. He proposes to amend Clause 5(1) to say that a registered political party may submit a list of candidates to be assembly members for the assembly electoral region provided it puts up candidates in half of the constituencies in the region. It permits a party to put up a regional list only where it has candidates in half the constituencies. Yet the second part of Amendment No. 2 states: A registered political party shall submit a list of candidates to be Assembly members for each Assembly electoral region in which there is a candidate of the party in at least one half of the Assembly constituencies included in that Assembly electoral region". The first part of the amendment provides that a party is allowed to put up a regional list if it has candidates in at least half of the constituency seats; the second part of the amendment provides that once a party has put up candidates in half of the constituencies it has to put up a regional list. The amendment is contradictory. It is doing precisely what the noble Lord said he was not doing in his second amendment; namely, requiring a party to put up a regional list where it stands in half of the constituencies.

As a matter of drafting, the amendment is fundamentally flawed. But the problem goes further than simply drafting because one cannot tell from the amendment which of the two choices the noble Lord has made. Is he saying that a party has to put up a regional list when it has candidates in at least half the assembly constituencies, or is he saying that a party may put up a list when it stands in half of the constituency seats?

Whichever it is, all parties wanting to put forward a party list for an electoral region would be required to contest at least half the seats in that region. In four of the regions that would mean contesting four constituencies and in the North Wales region the threshold would be five seats. I do not accept that the state should be entitled to exercise such authority over the political parties. It is for the parties to decide where to mount their campaigns and where to target their resources. We should not be directing their involvement in the political process. It would be very wrong if we were to oblige parties to engage in what were token contests in some areas simply to allow them to pursue their real intent in another.

I do not exaggerate when I refer to token contests. Parties which ran candidates in at least half the constituencies in a region would be obliged to put forward a party list for that region, whether they wanted to or not. Why should these token contests be inflicted on the electorate? What intrinsic democratic purpose would they serve? We would have party lists which were no more than penalties imposed for exceeding the approved threshold for the number of constituency candidates in a region. The noble Lord has not addressed any of those concerns. It was the skill of his speech that made the argument sound so attractive. He did not address the real problems in the proposals that he was making. We have thought carefully about the problem that the noble Lord identified, which we accept exists in theory. But for all the reasons I have given I submit that both his solutions are substantially worse than the alleged problem. I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment. If he is not minded to do so, I invite the House to reject it.

Baroness Carnegy of Lour

My Lords, with the leave of the House and before the noble and learned Lord sits down, is he saying that the Government are not going to think any more about this matter because they do not accept that there is a great flaw in their arrangements, even though they do not like my noble friend's suggestions? I accept that there are disadvantages in what my noble friend has said, but are the Government not going to give any more thought to this problem? Are they totally satisfied?

Lord Falconer of Thoroton

My Lords, the Government have thought carefully about this. They are aware of the problem. All the proposals that have been put forward to deal with it, including those put forward by the noble Lord this afternoon—and all the others—in the Government's view are much worse than the alleged problem in their effect. Plainly, if someone provides a solution that deals with all the problems the Government will certainly think about it. They have given considerable thought to it. We do not have a closed mind, but we do not believe that any of the proposed solutions could possibly be better than the alleged problem.

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, I believe that we have made some progress. The noble and learned Lord has gone a good deal further than anyone on the Government Benches has gone before in both accepting the theoretical problem and admitting that the Government have looked at it with a view to finding a way to tackle it. I imagine that the search has been long and detailed; I cannot believe that it has not come up with some solution. Perhaps it lies in the Registration of Political Parties Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. After today I shall perhaps have to turn my attention to that Bill and how I might amend it. I look forward to his support if some clever person arrives at a solution which might allow us to use the Registration of Political Parties Bill as a way of dealing with this issue.

Perhaps with the exception of the noble Lords, Lord Elis-Thomas and Lord Davies of Coity, no one has rejected my proposition that tactical voting could happen. Both noble Lords whom I have mentioned seem to believe that the electorate would not fall for it, but the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said that people would see through it and punish it. As my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour has reminded your Lordships, tactical voting is something which people are perfectly prepared to do. They are perfectly prepared to vote for a candidate of a party which they do not support in order to defeat somebody else of another party. I can assure your Lordships that it is a painful experience to be voted against tactically. There is not a great deal that one can do about it. It is a potent weapon in the hands of an intelligent electorate, which is what we have. Frankly, an electorate which uses its vote in a tactical way will not have a problem with using it in the way I suggest because that is all it is: it is tactical voting on a grand scale. I do not take comfort from the assurances that the electorate would see through it. Indeed, the fact that they would reinforces my fear that they will be happy to use it.

Lord Davies of Coity

My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? I believe that we all understand the problems that can arise and the difficulties with tactical voting. The question is how one finds a solution and at the same time retains the democratic process?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, people will still have the option of tactical voting in the first-past-the-post seats. The two-parties yet one-party problem that I am addressing is a product of the two-vote system. It does not exist in the one-vote system.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that I do not believe that Ian Davidson has been barred from the Scottish parliament because of this particular idea but because he does not actually accord with a new Labour clone. That is his problem and nothing to do with his views.

I say to the noble Lord, Lord Elis-Thomas, that I am not dismantling the additional-member system. I attempted to do that by advocating that we retained the first-past-the-post system. We retain the additional member system. The additional members will be the "top up" members, so to speak, to restore any disproportionality that the first-past-the-post system has created.

Lord Elis-Thomas

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Is he not denying the electorate the choice that the additional member system might be from a different party than was voted for in the first-past-the-post system?

Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish

My Lords, yes, I agree that I am doing that. After all, in our first-past-the-post system people are able to get around the problem by tactical voting, as they have done. I do not believe that that is an overwhelming answer. I am trying to make sure that the rules of the game are not capable of being circumvented. That is our duty at this stage.

I understand the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, made about discouraging independence. But if an independent has enough pull it is likely to be on quite a localised basis. Therefore, he must have a far better chance of winning under the first-past-the-post system than he does if his pull has to be spread over a pretty wide region. I understand from the people who run these issues through computers that not one of the systems has so far produced a single independent victory anywhere. If one considers people as independent as Mr. Tommy Sheridan of the Socialist Workers' Party in Glasgow, who commands a pretty substantial vote, even calling him an independent does not succeed in getting him a seat. I believe that the advantage given to independence is more imagined than real.

The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, was kind enough to address the issue seriously and I am grateful for that. I look forward to some thought being given to the registration of political parties. As regards my two amendments with two different solutions, I do not accept his criticism of the 50–50 provision. There may be a slight error in drafting which a noble and learned Lord like himself can spot at 100 yards. I am sure that that can be easily sorted out. It would resolve the problem.

The better solution—because it resolves other problems as well and has some kind of parentage in reports such as that from the Hansard Society—is the single vote. I feel strongly about this. At this stage I would like to take the opinion of the House on the single vote. I assure the Government that I have no intention of asking for an opinion on the second amendment about the 50–50 provision.

3.57 p.m.

On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 150; Not-Contents, 140.

Division No.1
CONTENTS
Aberdare, L.	Brougham and Vaux, L.
Addison, V.	Bruntisfield, L.
Ailsa, M.	Burnham, L. [Teller.]
Aldington, L.	Butterworth, L.
Alexander of Tunis, E.	Byford, B.
Anelay of St. Johns, B.	Cadman, L.
Ashbourne, L.	Caldecote, V.
Attlee, E.	Campbell of Alloway, L.
Bellwin, L.	Carlisle of Bucklow, L.
Beloff, L.	Carnegy of Lour, B.
Belstead, L.	Carnock, L.
Berners, B.	Charteris of Amisfield, L.
Biffen, L.	Chesham, L.
Blake, L.	Clanwilliam, E.
Blaker, L.	Clark of Kempston, L.
Blatch, B.	Coleridge, L.
Brabazon of Tara, L.	Cope of Berkeley, L.
Braine of Wheatley, L.	Courtown, E.
Brentford, V.	Cranborne, V.

Crathorne, L.	Miller of Hendon, B.
Crickhowell, L.	Monk Bretton, L.
Cross, V.	Monteagle of Brandon, L.
Cuckney, L.	Mountevans, L.
Cullen of Ashbourne, L.	Mountgarret, V.
Cumberlege, B.	Mowbray and Stourton, L.
Davidson, V.	Moyne, L.
Denbigh, E.	Munster, E.
Denton of Wakefield, B.	Murton of Lindisfarne, L.
Dixon-Smith, L.	Noel-Buxton, L.
Donegall, M.	Norrie, L.
Downshire, M.	Northesk, E.
Elibank, L.	O'Cathain, B.
Ellenborough, L.	Onslow of Woking, L.
Elliott of Morpeth, L.	Orr-Ewing, L.
Erne, E.	Oxfuird, V.
Fookes, B.	Palmer, L.
Gainford, L.	Park of Monmouth, B.
Gisborough, L.	Pender, L.
Glentoran, L.	Pilkington of Oxenford, L.
Gormanston, V.	Platt of Writtle, B.
Gray of Contin, L.	Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.
Greenway, L.	Prior, L.
Halsbury, E.	Pym, L.
Hampden, V.	Rankeillour, L.
Harding of Petherton, L.	Rawlings, B.
Harmar-Nicholls, L.	Rees, L.
Harris of High Cross, L.	Renton, L.
Hayhoe, L.	Renton of Mount Harry, L.
Hemphill, L.	Roberts of Conwy, L.
Holderness, L.	Rotherwick, L.
Hooper, B.	Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.
Hothfield, L.	Sanderson of Bowden, L.
Howell of Guildford, L.	Seccombe, B.
Hurd of Westwell, L.	Sempill, L.
Inchcape, E.	Sharples, B.
James of Holland Park, B.	Skelmersdale, L.
Jenkin of Roding, L.	Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.
Johnston of Rockport, L.	Stanley of Alderley, L.
Jopling, L.	Strange, B.
Kenyon, L.	Strathclyde, L. [Teller.]
Kimball, L.	Sudeley, L.
Kinnoull, E.	Swinfen, L.
Knights, L.	Teviot, L.
Lang of Monkton, L.	Thomas of Gwydir, L.
Lauderdale, E.	Thomas of Swynnerton, L.
Liverpool, E.	Thurlow, L.
Lucas, L.	Trefgarne, L.
Lucas of Chilworth, L.	Trumpington, B.
Luke, L.	Tugendhat, L.
Lyell, L.	Vivian, L.
McColl of Dulwich, L.	Waddington, L.
Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.	Westbury, L.
Mackay of Drumadoon, L.	Wharton, B.
Marlesford, L.	Wilcox, B.
Mersey, V.	Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS
Addington, L.	Bruce of Donington, L.
Allenby of Megiddo, V.	Burlison, L.
Amos, B.	Callaghan of Cardiff, L.
Annan, L.	Calverley, L.
Archer of Sandwell, L.	Carlisle, E.
Avebury, L.	Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.
Barnett, L.	Carter, L. [Teller.]
Bassam of Brighton, L.	Clinton-Davis, L.
Beaumont of Whitley, L.	Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.
Berkeley, L.	Currie of Marylebone, L.
Blackstone, B.	David, B.
Blease, L.	Davies of Coity, L.
Bledisloe, V.	Desai, L.
Borrie, L.	Dholakia, L.
Bridges, L.	Dixon, L.
Brightman, L.	Donoughue, L.
Brooks of Tremorfa, L.	Dormand of Easington, L.

Dubs, L.	McNair, L.
Elis-Thomas, L.	Maddock, B.
Evans of Parkside, L.	Mar and Kellie, E.
Ezra, L.	Mason of Barnsley, L.
Falconer of Thoroton, L.	Milner of Leeds, L.
Farrington of Ribbleton, B.	Monkswell, L.
Gainsborough, E.	Montague of Oxford, L.
Gallacher, L.	Morris of Castle Morris, L.
Geraint, L.	Morris of Manchester, L.
Gilbert, L.	Murray of Epping Forest, L.
Gladwin of Clee, L.	Nathan, L.
Glenamara, L.	Newby, L.
Goodhart, L.	Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.
Gordon of Strathblane, L.	Orme, L.
Graham of Edmonton, L.	Oxford, Bp.
Grantchester, L.	Paul, L.
Grenfell, L.	Peston, L.
Hacking, L.	Prys-Davies, L.
Hampton, L.	Ramsay of Cartvale, B.
Hardie, L.	Randall of St. Budeaux, L.
Harris of Greenwich, L.	Rea, L.
Haskel, L.	Redesdale, L.
Hayman, B.	Rendell of Babergh, B.
Hilton of Eggardon, B.	Richard, L. [Lord Privy Seal.]
Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.	Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.
Hollis of Heigham, B.	Russell-Johnston, L.
Holme of Cheltenham, L.	St. Davids, V.
Hooson, L.	St. John of Bletso, L.
Howie of Troon, L.	Scotland of Asthal, B.
Hoyle, L.	Sefton of Garston, L.
Hughes, L.	Sewel, L.
Hughes of Woodside, L.	Shepherd, L.
Hunt of Kings Heath, L.	Shore of Stepney, L.
Hylton, L.	Simon, V.
Hylton-Foster, B.	Simon of Glaisdale, L.
Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]	Simon of Highbury, L.
	Smith of Clifton, L.
Islwyn, L.	Stallard, L.
Janner of Braunstone, L.	Strabolgi, L.
Jay of Paddington, B.	Symons of Vernham Dean, B.
Jenkins of Putney, L.	Taverne, L.
Judd, L.	Taylor of Blackburn, L.
Kilbracken, L.	Taylor of Gryfe, L.
Kinloss, Ly.	Thomas of Gresford, L.
Kirkhill, L.	Thomas of Walliswood, B.
Kirkwood, L.	Thomson of Monifieth, L.
Lester of Herne Hill, L.	Thurso, V.
Linklater of Butterstone, B.	Turner of Camden, B.
Lockwood, B.	Wallace of Saltaire, L.
Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.	Weatherill, L.
Ludford, B.	Whitty. L.
McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]	Wigoder, L.
	Williams of Elvel, L.
Mackie of Benshie, L.	Williams of Mostyn, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.

Clause 5 [Party lists and individual candidates]:

[Amendment No.2 not moved.]