The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Julie James.

Item 8 on our agenda is the United Kingdom Independence Party's debate on Assembly electoral reform, and I call on Gareth Bennett to move the motion.

Motion NDM6645 Neil Hamilton

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the Expert Panel on Assembly Electoral Reform's report entitled 'A Parliament that works for Wales'.

2. Believes that:

a) currently, there should be no increase in the number of the Assembly's elected members; and

b) the electorate must demonstrate their consent to any future increase in the number of elected members by way of a referendum.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. We're here today to debate the proposed expansion of the Welsh Assembly. We heard earlier from the Presiding Officer about the report of the expert panel, which has recommended expansion, and about the public consultation that will now take place. We in UKIP believe that the expansion proposals represent a huge change that will be very costly. We have to establish that there is popular consent for it, and that consent can only be demonstrated by way of a referendum. That is why I'm moving today's motion to that effect in the name of Neil Hamilton.

Now to the amendments. There is only one, from the Labour group. We've had a good hard look at their very detailed amendment, which says, 'Delete all after point 1', and we've decided, after much robust discussion, that we oppose the amendment.

Now, the main premise of the report is that there is now so much legislation going through the Assembly, requiring so much scrutiny, that it is all too much for the 60 Assembly Members that we currently have. The suggestion is that we increase the size of this place to something like 80 Members or, more preferably, 90. So, the first thing we need to look at is this: is it true that we are all overworked as Members of this place?

No, not all.

Only those that turn up.

Yes, well I do tackle this point, David and Mike, so thank you.

It is interesting to note that the statutory obligations of an AM, that is, our legal duties, amount to almost nothing, in effect. So, if we are going to say that more AMs are needed, perhaps we first need to lay down a much more stringent set of statutory duties. You will recall how the Assembly was brought into some disrepute recently by the frequent non-attendance of Nathan Gill. Well, we can all shake our heads and say, 'Naughty Nathan Gill', but, actually, here's a question: how often is this Chamber ever near full? It is now, but it wasn't earlier on today. A point I would like to make is that on Wednesdays we now quite often begin proceedings with only about 20 to 25 Members, and sometimes we are down to less than 20. So, even something as basic as attending Plenary is not an obligation, it is optional, as is the rest of the job, and some—[Interruption.]—and some opt not to be here very much. We've even had the Labour Government telling us recently that Wednesday debates are mere opposition debates that don't really matter very much at all, almost suggesting that we don't need to be here. On top of all that, every Friday is free of any scheduled Assembly commitment. Yes, Members do—[Interruption.] Yes, Members do things—[Interruption.] Members do things on Fridays, of course. But the point is that you don't have to do things. Yet this report speaks about us as if we're all—[Interruption.]—as if we're all perpetually snowed under with work.

Can we just listen to the Member, please? I'm finding it difficult.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Now, there is a problem of committee work. This is probably the most serious part of the job, because we could be scrutinising legislation, and the committee work, I find, is quite demanding. However, even there, there are caveats, which the report doesn't go into. For instance, we aren't looking at legislation all of the time on committees, only some of the time. If we look at the forward work programme of all of the Assembly's committees, does all of this work really need to be done? I have to say—[Interruption.] I have to say, from my viewpoint, no, a lot of it doesn't. So, a lot of the committee work is unnecessary. Some of this could be stripped out and the programme significantly reduced. [Interruption.] Oh, yes, I'm going to go into all that now. Some of the committees, in short, could meet every other week rather than every week. That brings us to another question. Do we need eight Members on seven of the committees? Well, actually, no, we don't. You could have six-Member committees with two Labour—

Then UKIP wouldn't have a Member on the blinking committees.

If you would just wait for my proposal, Simon, you might actually have that point clarified. You could have six-Member committees with two Labour, three places between the Conservatives and Plaid, and one UKIP. This would still be proportionate if the Labour Members wielded two votes each in any voting situation. After all, the four Labour Members always vote the same way in any case, with the Labour whip, and this business of one AM wielding more than one vote already occurs on the Business Committee. So, we could simply extend the efficient operation of the Business Committee to these seven current eight-Member committees. This would reduce the workload of the Labour backbenchers, who currently shoulder the biggest burden of the committee work. This is why I'm rather surprised that you don't seem to like this. So, there are ways around this business of AMs supposedly being overworked. We just have to be creative in how we think about this challenge and not simply go for the stale response of, 'We need more Members.' Now, the report says, in the introduction: 

'As an independent, impartial Panel, we have used our expertise and experience to conclude that a 60 Member Assembly does not have the capacity it needs'.

End of quote. Can I give an alternative view on what the panel are actually saying? Beginning of quote: 'We are a bunch of people who make our considerable livings from politics. We live in a political bubble, completely detached from the lives of normal people. We think that the solution to every political challenge is to create more jobs for politicians. Then, hopefully, those politicians will put us on more of their commissions and inquiries, and then we go on making lots of money, all of it funded by the taxpayer.' End of imaginary quote.

The problem is that, to balance the people from politics and governance, we also needed on this panel people who were not from that world. We needed somebody, possibly more than one person, to represent the business community. We also needed someone to represent the man in the pub and the woman in the coffee shop. [Interruption.] But, in appointing this panel, the opinions of such people were never solicited. This failure of democracy means that the opinion of this panel can be completely discounted. There is also something—[Interruption.]

No, sorry. I have asked nicely. Will you please—? Can we listen to the Member? We will listen, please.

Thank you. There is also something more than a little dishonest about this argument over more Members being needed. The 1997 referendum was a vote for an Assembly, which was then set at 60 Members. There was no talk of it having to expand later. The 2011 referendum called for primary law-making powers, but didn't explain that more Members would be needed once this had been achieved. Curiously, though, as soon as the new powers arrived, politicians in Cardiff Bay started to tell us that there was now too much for everyone to do—too much legislation, too much scrutiny.

So, it has been a bit of a circular argument, really. 'Give us more powers', the AMs screech. Westminster, after a bit of a battle, duly obliges. Five minutes later, the AMs screech, 'Give us more Members.' So, the Assembly asks for more powers, gets them, then tells the public they don't have enough people to deal with the new powers they themselves called for. This is basically a political scam to hoodwink the Welsh public into accepting more AMs by stealth. Well, you're not going to get your 30 more Members, not unless we have a referendum on it first. That's my view, and that's the UKIP view, and that's why I'm moving today's UKIP motion.

Thank you. I have selected the amendment to the motion and I call on the leader of the house to move amendment 1, tabled in her name.

Amendment 1. Julie James

Delete all after point 1.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. Angela Burns.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Welsh Conservatives will not be supporting this motion. The Welsh Conservatives believe that we should not pre-empt the views of the people of Wales by closing down options, such as your motion does. The Welsh Conservatives believe we should enable and support the Assembly Commission to conduct a thorough and inclusive consultation process. And the Welsh Conservatives say 'no' to referenda, because, ultimately, we should then have the power and the courage to proceed or not, using our collective political judgment in line with our mandates and in tandem with the views of the people of Wales.

Caroline Jones.

That was quick. Sorry, I wasn't ready. [Interruption.] Oh, I'm ready, believe you me. [Laughter.]

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I want to make it clear at the outset that I'm not ideologically opposed to expanding the Assembly. Labour's great constitutional experiment, introducing different systems of devolution to the three devolved nations, shows that they didn’t have a clue how to deliver true devolution. The scattergun approach left Wales with the short straw, evidenced by the fact that we're constantly having to tinker with the settlement and a new Wales Act every couple of years.

But, putting aside the constitutional arguments, what is the purpose of devolution? It certainly wasn’t to create another layer of bureaucracy. People didn’t vote in two referendums for an institution that would endlessly debate constitutional issues or decide whether we have a Welsh legal system or not. The public didn’t care about these issues. They care about whether they are going to have jobs at the end of the year, whether their children are getting a good education, whether the NHS will be there for their families when they need it. That is why I became an Assembly Member. Over the last two decades, our economy has deteriorated, our schools are failing and our NHS has got worse, not better.

The reason for those failures is not because we don’t have enough politicians. It’s because we have a one-party state, an elected dictatorship—a Labour Government in power for too long, devoid of ambition, vision and ideas. Another 20 or 30 AMs is not going to change that. As long as we have a Government that avoids scrutiny when it can get away with it, another 50 politicians won’t change that. And until we start actually improving people’s lives, no matter how overworked we are, we cannot make the argument for more politicians.

Just weeks ago, we passed a budget that will see massive cutbacks across the board, which will place our public services under massive strain, yet we are asking the public to employ more politicians, not more nurses and doctors. Our NHS is on its knees; it's struggling to cope. People are dying on waiting lists. We haven’t met cancer waiting times in a decade, we have the worst cancer survival rates in Europe, and a massive shortage of diagnostic staff is one of the key factors. We are introducing a new screening test for bowel cancer next year but have set a sensitivity level half that of Scotland’s because we don’t have the capacity in colonoscopy.

Until we deliver real change to people’s lives, how can we possibly expect them to support making our lives easier? We have to work smarter until such time as the country can afford the tens of millions of pounds it will cost to employ more of us. We have to stop playing tribal party politics and truly work together to improve health, education and the economy. Only then will the public support righting the wrongs of the Blair devolution experiment. [Interruption.] I will. 

The Welsh Government need to stop trying to shut down debate, stop trying to do things differently from the Tories in England. Do things better. And we all need to redouble our efforts. Yes, there aren't enough of us. Tough. We have to work with the tools we are given. We could increase our number by two by passing the duties of the Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer over to Assembly clerks. After all, they are impartial and have a rulebook to follow. We can look at it differently and then we will have our full quota of 60 Assembly Members—[Interruption.] We have to run with—[Interruption.] We have to—[Interruption.] My opinion may be different from yours but it doesn't mean it's wrong. We have to run with the hand we've been dealt and, instead of railing against, we have to do the very best that we can.

The more time we spend debating constitutional issues, the less time we spend improving people’s lives. Although—[Interruption.] Although if more powers become devolved, it would be unrealistic not to review—[Interruption.]—not to review this in future, but at this time the country can’t support and cannot afford more politicians. I say 'at this time' because it would be unrealistic not to review more Assembly Members in the future, but if you look at the current state of the economic climate, now is not the time. Thank you.

Can I call on the Llywydd, Elin Jones?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, for my being able to contribute once again on this subject and respond on behalf of the Commission. I also want to take the opportunity to thank all the political parties that have been collaborating over the last year as part of the political reference group on Assembly reform—Angela Burns, Mike Penn, Peter Black and Robin Hunter-Clarke. The meetings of this group have been very beneficial, with all of the parties ready to contribute ideas and comments on the options that are before us. We intend to continue to have those meetings of the reference group as we develop this work further.

Earlier this afternoon, we had the Assembly’s support to note the report on the expert panel on Assembly reform, and to approve the decision by the Assembly Commission to consult on the recommendations of the report. Therefore, we will be moving forward now to engage broadly in a constructive way with constituents across Wales to hear their viewpoints and their priorities in terms of how we can develop our own Parliament for the next 20 years of devolution.

Despite the political differences in this Chamber, I’m sure all of us want to see action in order to promote the democratic process, and to ensure that we serve in the most thorough, representative and transparent Parliament. The motion in this debate tries to temp us to take a position on one aspect of the electoral reforms. As Chair of the Commission, I’ll be allowing the consultation to take place before the Senedd takes particular viewpoints, remembering that any increase or electoral reform through legislation won’t be possible without the support of two thirds of the Members of this Senedd.    

As the woman who prefers to be in the pub rather than the coffee shop, I'm sorely tempted to respond to some of the intriguing proposals from Gareth Bennett, especially the 'vote twice' proposal to alleviate the pressure on our committees. I'm particularly tempted to respond to the proposal by Caroline Jones on Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer roles being undertaken by clerks, but I can see the horror on the face of the clerks in front of us today, so I'd better not say any more on that one. I shall practise what I preach; I should allow the people of Wales now to have their say on the future of this Assembly and not be tempted or sidetracked into supplying my own views at this point.

Can I call on Neil Hamilton to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Well, when we all stood for election in UKIP 18 months or so ago, we said we were coming to this Assembly in order to confront the Cardiff Bay consensus, and I think the debate this afternoon shows that there is a role for a party like UKIP that will do that.

We have been graced in this debate unusually by the Llywydd, who's added lustre to what we've all had to say, and I appreciate her position in doing so, not wishing to pre-empt the decision of the Welsh people. But that's really ultimately what this motion is all about: whether the Welsh people themselves are to be allowed to make this ultimate decision. When Gareth Bennett opened his speech—I won't comment on certain of his recommendations—but I'm sure everybody will agree that I like to allow heterodox opinions to flourish within my group. But on the two basic principles of his speech—that the Welsh people will certainly be concerned about the costs that have mushroomed since 1997, when it was forecast that this would cost us about £10 million a year—. The Assembly now spends about £54 million pounds a year. So, that's a significant sum of money and increasing the size of it, of course, would increase the cost.

But the most important principle is the principle of consent that Gareth Bennett focused upon. I know that some Members of this house are very keen on referenda in certain circumstances to reverse other referenda, but I think if we are to be honest with ourselves, the public at large doesn't really regard this institution with the kind of respect that we all know it deserves. There was never really any full-hearted consent in the first place for its creation. I don't in any way want to detract from the devolution settlement that I've become increasingly enthusiastic about, actually, over the years. As a result of my immersion in the debates of this place, I've seen the merits of it, and I certainly—as I've said many times in this house—believe in bringing Government closer to the people and also in having competition between the various jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. I think that's a very good thing for government and democracy in general.

So, I'm not—as Caroline Jones said in her speech—ideologically opposed to increasing the size of the Assembly. Certainly, in terms of the internal workings of the Assembly, I think there is certainly a very good case for that, and, as I think Angela Burns pointed out earlier on this afternoon, to increase the number of backbenchers in the Labour Party, for example, where perhaps that might lead to greater heterodox opinions within their own party as well, and Lee Waters might not then, perhaps, be quite so concerned about having to step outside the stockade on issues like the M4. That would be a very good thing for the workings of this institution and representative democracy, which we embody.

But I do believe that we need to make the case and carry the people with us. One of the reasons why I was in favour of having a referendum on the EU was not only because I wanted to get out of the EU, but because when we first went into it, the then prime minister, Edward Heath, said that it would not happen without the full-hearted consent of Parliament and people. Well, it did have the tepid support of Parliament because at the time, the majorities were reduced to single figures as the European Communities Bill went through the House of Commons, but it never had the full-hearted consent of the people of this country, as a result of which, over the last 40 years, the European Union has always remained a matter of controversy.

And I think that if the Welsh Assembly is the confident body that I believe it to be, then it shouldn't be afraid of seeking the decision of the people on whether we should increase its size. We know that in the last referendum there was a promise that we should not devolve taxing powers to the Assembly, and that promise was broken. I, personally, am in favour of the devolution of income tax to the Assembly and, indeed, other taxes too, but as we had promised the people that that wouldn't happen without another vote, I think it was a betrayal of trust that it didn't occur. And I do believe that if we are to increase the size of this Assembly, we must carry the people with us and seek their opinion in a meaningful vote. I can't see any democratic reason why that shouldn't be acceptable to all the other Members of this Assembly.

It is vital, I think, that we increase the interest of the people in the Assembly. I think it's quite astonishing that half the people of Wales have no idea that the national health service is administered in Wales by the Welsh Government rather than by Jeremy Hunt and his friends at Westminster. We have a great deal more to do to increase the civic awareness of the Assembly and the legitimacy of what we do in the minds—[Interruption.] Yes, I'll certainly give way.

A lot of us who have the experience of fighting the 2011 referundum and trying to articulate a case that people would understand about moving from Part 3 to Part 4 of the Government of Wales Act are slightly seared by the experience, and the question of whether or not we should change the internal configuration of the Assembly is not, I would suggest, a matter of principle, just as there hasn't been a referendum on whether the number of MPs should be reduced. 

Well, I, indeed had a searing electoral experience in 1997 too, but it was in the 1997 general election. So, I do understand what Lee Waters is saying, but I don't think this would be a complicated decision: it would merely be asking the Welsh people whether they want to increase the size of the Assembly by 50 per cent or whatever figure is arrived at as a result of the deliberations that the Llywydd referred to earlier on. I don't think that's a difficult question for people to understand at all.

We have had extra powers devolved to the Assembly and more yet may come, but I go back also to the argument that Gareth Bennett made in his speech earlier on: are we overworked? Well, maybe we are. I'm on three committees as well as being a party leader and I'm an enthusiastic contributor to the debates of this Chamber, and I also, along with my three colleagues, of course, represent 75 per cent of the land mass of Wales in Mid and West Wales. I don't feel myself to be particularly overworked, but it is a full day and a full week, I quite agree, and we could all do with more time, perhaps, to think as well as to speak. That is certainly an area of my life that I would like to see a bit more freedom to explore. But, on the whole, the main point that we make in this debate is that we are all here as proxies for the people, and in order for us to secure greater legitimacy in the minds of the people—. After all, turnout in elections is dismally low compared with what it ought to be. Indeed, in the by-election in Alyn and Deeside it was only 29 per cent yesterday, and in the Assembly election last year, it was only in the forties. So, that is by no means a ringing endorsement of our institution. And therefore, before we seek to expand the size of it, I do believe that we should go back to our masters, the people, and seek their approval and permission before we take that step.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.

Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly, now, to voting time.