Group 11 is the final group of amendments, and relate to a referendum on the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024. Amendment 37 is the lead amendment. I call on Darren Millar.

Amendment 37 (Darren Millar) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendments 37 and 38, both of which have been tabled in my name, and, of course, we’ve reached Stage 3, towards the end of Stage 3, of the proceedings for this Bill, but we all know that an increase in the size of the Senedd and a change in the voting system are no more popular now amongst the public than they were when we started earlier this afternoon, or indeed, many, many weeks ago, on this journey. And there’s no reason to think that the public mood doesn’t still reflect the findings of the Reform Bill Committee’s consultation on the Bill, because that showed that there was overwhelming Opposition from the public to these proposals.

Now, I know that Labour and Plaid have claimed many, many times that their manifestos from the last Senedd election give them a mandate to push through these particular measures. I’ve read your manifestos out to you, reminding you of what you put in there, and it is very, very clear from those quotes that I have read that none of the proposals that are before us stack up with the clear commitments that were in the Plaid manifesto for STV, or the commitments from the Labour Party, which were so unclear that it wouldn’t be fair to say that that amounted to any kind of mandate from the public to bring forward the proposals before us. We had one pledge to implement a programme of electoral reform, which didn’t say or state what that electoral reform was. It didn’t say that they’d take away some elements of voter choice. It didn’t say what the cost of those changes would be. It didn’t say that there’d be an increase in the number of Members of the Senedd, on the Labour side. We did have a pledge from Plaid Cymru to increase the number of Members of the Senedd, but to implement this entirely different electoral system than the one which is before us.

And of course, both parties are assuming that, even if there were clear commitments—which they weren’t, as I’ve just explained—that they would have been read by the electorate, right. I told you, like an Arthur Daley trying to sell a dodgy car and, in the small print somewhere, someone signing up and saying, ‘Yes, yes, yes, I agree with all of the terms and conditions that you haven’t given to me in detail.’ That is what we find Labour and Plaid Cymru being in the position of.

So, the passages in your manifestos that refer to Senedd reform are not a clear mandate to increase the number of Senedd Members, to change the Senedd voting system, or to spend what amounts to tens of millions of pounds every single year when these changes are implemented. Now, I’m not convinced, and nor are any of my colleagues in the Conservative Party, that these amount to anything that would go down well with the public if they were given the opportunity to speak on them. Now, we know that, back in 2011, the UK Conservative-led Government held a referendum on potential changes to the UK Parliament’s voting system. They suggested that we should have an AV voting system—alternative vote—scrap the first-past-the-post system, which everybody says is horrible in this Chamber, by the way, on those benches, and say it’s very unpopular, and the public don’t like it, and we need to change it, yet, overwhelmingly, the public wanted to keep first-past-the-post in that referendum back in 2011. That’s what they voted to keep. Why? Because it’s clear, it’s easy to understand, it makes you directly accountable to the electorate, and the electorate want people who are directly accountable to them.

There was also a referendum on more Senedd powers in 2011. I remember that referendum; I was campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote in that referendum, as were many of my colleagues here and many people on the other benches. And that was because there was a significant change in the arrangements of the Senedd that we wanted to put to the people, right, okay. We’ve already set a precedent, then, haven’t we, on significant change to the voting system, whereby you are removing some of the accountability and where you're changing the Senedd's responsibilities in a significant way. That, in my view, sets a precedent for us here now, which is why I believe we need to have a referendum on these major changes, giving the public their say so that there's a direct mandate to implement any of the changes. That's why I've tabled amendments 37 and 38.

So, Amendment 37 very simply will insert a new section into the Bill. It will require a referendum to be held before any reforms around extra Members of the Senedd or changes to the voting system can be implemented. Amendment 38 is a consequential amendment to 37. Now, we've heard a lot—[Interruption.] I'll happily take an Intervention, yes, of course.

Thank you. Just on the question of when a referendum is appropriate or not, and he cited the 2011 referendum, after that, the House of Lords Constitution Committee issued a very weighty report that said, in their view, that we should set the bar much higher. It hasn't escaped my notice that, every time there's a proposal to change the devolution settlement, the Conservatives always suggest a referendum. They didn't suggest a referendum for creating new mayors in England, they haven't suggested a referendum for significantly increasing the size of the House of Lords, where people make Laws and aren't accountable. That all seems fine. But it's very strange that, every time devolution wants to be changed or advanced, up pops the call for a referendum, and, as I say, the House of Lords think they've been held too trivially.

So, when there are clear commitments in a manifesto, you have a mandate—[Interruption.] I've just demonstrated to you that you didn't make a clear commitment in your manifesto to take forward this particular package of changes. I can see the former First Minister, and I'll happily take an Intervention from you, First Minister, but I don't recall you making any comments on the campaign trail about any of the details that are in this package of reforms. I'll happily take the intervention.

Let me just assure the Member that the fact that he doesn't recall something is no evidence of it not having happened. [Laughter.] Time after time during the election I made it clear in interviews, in broadcasts, in debates, that my party stood for a reform of this Senedd along the lines that are now in front of it. No referendum of any sort is required.

Well, you'll have to—. If I don't follow your words, and I'm a person with a keen interest in politics, including what the First Minister was saying during the election campaign, how do you think a member of the public—? How do you think a member of the public would know and believe everything you've said on the campaign trail about making changes? I don't recall it ever being mentioned that there would be 96 Members of the Senedd. I don't recall it ever being mentioned that they would be elected on a closed list system. I don't recall it ever being—[Interruption.] I don't recall it ever being mentioned. You say you're losing this one. What are you afraid of losing? You're afraid of losing a referendum, Rhun ap Iorwerth, because you know—[Interruption.] Because you know that these proposals—[Interruption.] You know that these proposals go down like a cold cup of sick with anybody you discuss them with on the doorstep. That is the reality. People don't want these reforms, they would vote them down if there was a referendum, and you well know it. So, let's have a referendum and see who's right. I'll take you first, and then I'll come to you. Mike Hedges.

I was going to say about referendums that we had the alternative vote brought in for mayors and for police and crime commissioners, then we had the alternative vote removed for mayors and police and crime commissioners, without one vote at all. It was just that the Conservative Party saw that the alternative vote wasn't doing them a lot of good.

This was a clear manifesto commitment. Would you like to make—?

There's a police and crime commissioner election taking place this week with a new voting system. I missed that promise in a manifesto to change the voting for this time. I also missed the referendum. Tell me when it was.

It was a clear manifesto commitment.

Well, I didn't see it. I didn't see it.

At least I read your manifesto. [Interruption.] At least I read your manifesto. Where's the STV?

I don't recall it.

It was a clear commitment.

I don't recall it.

It was a clear commitment to change. [Interruption.] It was a clear commitment given by the leadership of the party during the last election campaign. I'll happily take an Intervention.

I literally read out the section—. After you made the exact same point at Stage 2, I literally read out the section from your Conservative manifesto, which had no clear commitment. Don't you remember that?

Look, I've made it clear that if you gave clear commitments on your campaign trails, which you did not, about a closed list system, about 96 Members, about scrapping first-past-the-post, then I would have a great deal of sympathy with the arguments that you represent. But you didn't. You didn't make those clear commitments. You said, 'Let's have STV and more Members', and this party said, 'We'll implement some Senedd reforms.' The First Minister says that he made more detailed, elaborate comments on the—. I'd like to know precisely what they were, because I don't recall ever seeing you mention closed lists, 96 Members, tens of millions of pounds. And that's why I think that it's incumbent upon us all to say that the public deserve a say, right. What are we afraid of in allowing the public to have their say? The reason that you're afraid of allowing the public to have their say is because they will tell you what they think, and they think this: they don't want more politicians, they want more doctors, dentists, nurses and teachers. That's what they want. And if there's money spare down the back of your sofa, they want it spending on the NHS and our schools, they don't want it spent on more luxury offices and they don't want it spent on increasing the number of Members of the Senedd. That's the truth. So, let's have a referendum, support these amendments, give people the opportunity to speak their mind, and, if they vote 'yes', I will back these changes.

That's your social media clip sorted, then. It's really disappointing to see democracy turned into a pantomime. I don't want you to be threatening things or saying, well, things that aren't truthful or based on fact, as we heard from my colleague, Adam Price. You're trying to dismiss manifestos; you're saying that they're small print. I'm sorry; these arguments are extremely weak. And please do not say that you speak for the whole of the people of Wales. I speak to people and they want to know when there will be a UK General Election because of the damage done by consecutive Tory policies that don't fund Wales properly. You're trying to contain Wales into this box where you want to control us rather than actually base the argument on fact, where, time and time again, this has been put to people, we've had a Majority in terms of parties represented here in the Senedd who want to see changes, who believe in devolution. So, I am disappointed by the tone and the way that you are engaging with this, because I don't think it actually reflects your personal views, as individuals here in the Senedd.  

We have to look at the substance of the amendments in the group. As I said, over 63 per cent of the total votes cast during the last election to this Senedd went to parties that had specific manifesto commitments to reform this Senedd. It's also worth noting that this Bill is, in part, a response to the result of the 2011 referendum, when a similar proportion of the votes were in favour of reinforcing the devolved powers of Wales. It is therefore beyond any reasonable doubt that there is an overwhelming democratic mandate for the measures contained in this Bill. Therefore, we won't support amendments 36 and 37, which would override the established will of the Welsh electorate. Furthermore, when we consider your record as the Tory group on constitutional issues affecting Wales, it is clear that you don't have any credibility at all.

We have yet to hear you propose a referendum on the decision to cut the number of Welsh parliamentarians in Westminster from 40 to 32, and you resisted all calls for a public vote on the terms of the disastrous hard Brexit deal, which did not, unlike the proposals outlined in this Bill, appear on any ballot paper or manifesto. And every time the voice and stance of Wales is diminished as a result of decisions in Westminster, the Tory Members are conspicuous in their silence. And yet when it comes to a historic Bill that will strengthen the foundations of our democracy, the Tories are on their feet, trying to hold our democracy back. It is also very striking that a Bill designed primarily to boost parliamentary scrutiny—something that any Opposition party would be desperate to see—is causing so much concern among the Tory ranks.

I would encourage Tory Members here to engage constructively with the measures before us today, and to reconcile themselves to the reality that, after two referenda and six elections, devolution in Wales is here to stay. Focus your energy on making devolution work for the people of Wales, rather than focusing your energy on soundbites for your profiles on social media platforms. Wales and the people of Wales will benefit from having a reformed Senedd, and that is why I and my fellow Members support the steps being taken to reform this Senedd.

The Counsel General.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, Darren, things had been going so well up until now—[Laughter.]—and you've managed to provoke a scrap. You must remind me never to go with you to a soccer match, that's all I can say. As this is the final debate in the Stage 3 proceedings, can I just firstly thank all Members who've contributed to them, in what is historic legislation? In particular, as I referred to earlier, I'm grateful for the constructive engagement, and there has been a considerable amount of constructive engagement with you, but also with other Members, throughout the scrutiny of this Bill. This is a significant, generational piece of legislation, and one that I firmly believe has been improved by the scrutiny of all Members.

Just turning to the amendments, it will come as no surprise to you, Llywydd, that I will not be supporting the amendments in this group. The Majority of Members returned at the most recent Senedd elections, in 2021—those from Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Liberal Democrats—stood on manifestos that committed to Senedd reform. This followed the Wales Act 2017 providing powers to the Senedd to change its size without being subject to a referendum. If Westminster had intended that in order to exercise this power a referendum was necessary, then it would have contained that within the legislation. It is not there—it was never the intention of Westminster that that would be the case.

A referendum is also not required for the reduction of Wales's MPs from 40 to 32, one of the most historic and major changes to Welsh representation in Westminster in a century, as a result of boundary reform changes that were introduced in Westminster that will take place in this forthcoming General Election, or, indeed, for the change to the electoral system used for the police and crime commissioners, or, indeed, for changes in the electoral reform system for the election of English mayors, which was changed in order to change the outcome of those elections without any referendum, or to increase the number of members of the House of Lords.

Llywydd, the case for Senedd reform has been made in a succession of expert reports and it is compelling. It has also been voted for by a majority of Members of the Senedd. The changes put forward by this Bill will create a modern Senedd better able to represent the people of Wales, with increased capacity to scrutinise, to make Laws, and to hold the Government to account. It will improve democracy in Wales. Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd.

Darren Millar to reply.

Well, I was disappointed to hear Heledd Fychan's remarks, suggesting that I was a person trying to undermine devolution in some way. I just explained to you earlier, Heledd, that I proudly stood on a platform back in 2011 to give more powers to this Senedd. I'm a committed devolutionist, as are the Welsh Conservative Members of this Senedd and the party more widely. That is our position, and I do not regard—. You might regard this Senedd as being a bit of a pantomime, but I certainly don't. I take this Senedd very, very seriously. 

I said that your comments made it into a pantomime. I did not call this Senedd, which I hold in very high regard, a pantomime; I would never do so.

And I would never regard your comments as a pantomime, and I'm disappointed that you regarded my comments as being pantomime-esque, as they were not; they were very serious. I think that the public deserve to have their opportunity to have their say on these very serious, this very detailed package of changes to our electoral system and to the size of this Senedd, because they haven't had the opportunity to have that say. You can't hide behind a line about Senedd reform in a manifesto that gives no detail or that proposes a completely different package of reforms, as yours did on page 117 of the very weighty tome that you decided to publish in advance of the last Senedd elections.

I heard what the Member in charge said about the PCC elections and changes to the English mayoral systems, but, of course, that was all about first-past-the-post. We're talking about scrapping first-past-the post. That's the difference here: you're scrapping first-past-the-post. Whenever that has been proposed in the past, there's always been a referendum. You complain about Wales losing seats as a result of the change in the population and demographics here. I'm afraid that that's what being an equal voice is all about; you've got to have fairness in your democracy and in your system. And I'm surprised that you, therefore, didn't support my amendments at Stage 2 to make sure that there's fair representation within Wales, with equal numbers of voters in each Constituency, because you actually voted to protect one area from that so that they could have up to 30,000 fewer in the electorate in that particular constituency than elsewhere, which also seems grossly unfair.

I heard Heledd railing against the Brexit referendum. Well, look, I know you would want to continue to hold as many referendums as possible to get the result that you want, but the people of Wales voted to leave the EU. I know you can't get over that still, and you keep going back to it like a dog returning to its vomit, but that's the reality. Wales voted to leave the EU. The Government implemented their decision. You don't like it, I accept that. I accept that the country was split, that there are many people who are unhappy with that decision, but it's a decision that the country made, and it's a decision that the UK Government followed through on, unlike the Welsh Government, which did everything it could to fight against the will of the Welsh people. [Interruption.] Yes.

Following the 1975 referendum, which voted to stay in the European Union, or the European Communities, as it was then, you then had another referendum to change it. I'm not complaining about that, but that was something that was done. Can I just say that the movement to how police commissioners and mayors were first elected using AV was not first-past-the-post?

So, we have a party that supports first-past-the-post and it's always expressed its position—that that is the position of the Conservative Party. I've explained that to you in the past. We've not been arguing about first-past-the-post today; as it happens, we've been arguing about the proposals that are on the face of this particular Bill, which are deficient. And that's why we need to make sure that we give the people of Wales the opportunity to have their say, via a referendum. Let them make the choice. What are you afraid of? You're afraid of them speaking their voice, which will put a stop on this whole messy system that you want to introduce. That's the reality of it. So, therefore, I move these amendments, and I hope that they can command your support.

The question is that Amendment 37 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. If amendment 37 is not agreed, amendment 38 will fall. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 37. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 37 is not agreed.

Amendment 37: For: 14, Against: 39, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 38 fell.

That means that there are no remaining amendments, and we have reached the end of our Stage 3 consideration of the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill. I declare that all sections of the Bill and all Schedules to it are deemed agreed. That concludes our Stage 3 proceedings today. Good afternoon to you all.

All sections of the Bill deemed agreed.

The meeting ended at 18:08.