Government of Wales Bill

Let us look at the results, because the hon. Gentleman was slightly economical in the quotes that he gave. The executive summary to his report says:"““We found slightly more of the total number of respondents””—" that huge figure of 47, including five don’t-knows—"““said that dual candidacy was unfair compared with those who felt candidates should be free to stand in both.””" Even on a sample of 47, it was a fairly close thing. What does the report conclude? It says:"““This suggests that any proposals about dual candidacy—whether to change or retain the current system—need to be based on sound evidence and be mindful of differing views amongst the public.””" The report points out that there is no evidence for the Government’s proposals. The hon. Member for Caerphilly quoted some of the focus groups, so let me quote some of the respondents. Someone from his constituency who was in favour of dual candidacy said that it meant that the power was ““spread out””, which could make ““more of a difference”” in the end. Someone else in Caerphilly said that candidates should be free to stand in both ballots, and that that seemed ““fair enough””. Perhaps he should listen to the views of some of the people of Wales. They are waiting for the evidence. The problem with the proposals, which are perceived to be partisan, is that they undermine public trust in politics at a time of falling participation. My hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the Human Rights Act 1998 and the enacting of the European convention on human rights. He is right to point to that, because article 3 of protocol 1 sets out the right to free and fair elections, which every member state, including the United Kingdom, through the Human Rights Act, has agreed to enact. There is substantial jurisprudence by the European Court of Human Rights in this area. The UK Government’s record is very poor on the right to free and fair elections. They lost a case on article 3 of protocol 1 in relation to Gibraltar, about which the Secretary of State will know something. They also lost a case recently in relation to the right to vote for prisoners. The Government’s record is therefore poor on the right to vote. There is also substantial jurisprudence on the right to stand. The European Court of Human Rights has made it clear that member states cannot set eligibility criteria that curtail the basic right of free and fair elections. They cannot deprive people of that basic right. As the Arbuthnott report makes clear, people have the right freely to choose their candidates. If the Government do not see sense on the issue, I am certain that they will be challenged, and we will have the unfortunate position of the Government having to defend these iniquitous proposals before the European Court of Human Rights. The proposals are disproportionate. I believe that there is substantial evidence that their aim is partisan and illegitimate and that they will be struck down by the European Court. Surely it is shameful that the Government introduced the proposals in the first place. They demean the political culture that we were trying to create—a fair political culture, working together for the benefit of the people of Wales.