---

Government of Wales Bill

I agree that it would not stop them; the noble Lord, and, even more, the Secretary of State for Wales are right in that. However, it would constrain them substantially. It would really limit their ability to do what we are discussing. Even if you cannot stop them completely, it is right to limit them. But perhaps I have it wrong. Perhaps the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats want to do exactly the same as Leanne Wood. Perhaps that is why they have tabled the amendment and are pressing it. I want to deal with Arbuthnott. I have made my next point before. When I said it previously there was a sharp intake of breath. I have noticed that happen once or twice when I make speeches in this House. Arbuthnott in his conclusions did not reflect the evidence that he received. This is one example of a case where he did not do so. Arbuthnott himself admits that,"““many interviewees had specific concerns about the list system when provided with background information on how the system worked . . . the main frustration lay with . . . individuals who lost in the constituency vote being elected on the list. Some interviewees described this as an ‘escape route’ for losers””." People’s views were canvassed. A man from Glasgow said:"““If someone stands in a certain area you should get elected in that area. It’s not fair that they lose and get forced on another area. They never voted for them. If they don’t get in a certain place then tough””." Another man from Glasgow said:"““If someone wants to get put in as a person for the Glasgow area then they should hold a separate election instead of having an additional list””." Arbuthnott and his committee ignored a lot of evidence that was presented to them. I know why that is. I know most of the members of the committee. I know John Laurie, a Liberal Democrat, and a number of others who pushed very hard for the recommendations, even if the evidence did not support them, because they have particularly strong views. Finally, I pray in aid the Electoral Commission. I have some worries about the power that we have given to it—my party’s Government have done that—a non-elected body, some of the members of which have not even sought election and do not understand elections in the way that those of us who have fought and, occasionally, won elections understand them. We should not accept what the Electoral Commission says as gospel. We certainly should not accept what the Electoral Reform Society says as gospel. It is set up to argue a particular case in a particular way for proportional representation. It is almost a wholly owned subsidiary of the Liberal Democrats so far as its representation, issues and policy are concerned. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Roberts of Conwy, who I know is a sensible person, and some of his colleagues, will think again about the amendment and will consider withdrawing it. It is not in the interests of democracy and, ultimately, it is not in the interests of his party or our party, but more importantly it is not in the interests of either Wales or Scotland.