We'll move now to group 4, a group of amendments relating to voting systems at Senedd general elections and allocation of seats. The lead Amendment is amendment 32, and I call on Darren Millar to move the amendment.

Amendment 32 (Darren Millar) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I rise to move amendments 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 and 39, all of which have been tabled in my name. These amendments seek to change the voting system proposed by the Bill from a closed list voting system to a flexible list voting system.

Llywydd, 'democracy' is a word in ancient Greek, and it literally means 'rule of the people', so it would be natural, therefore, to conclude that when this Senedd considers a Bill that we're told will strengthen democracy, that that is what it would do, that it would give more power, more choice, and more voice to the people of Wales, yet, unfortunately, this Bill does none of those things. In fact, perplexingly, it will do precisely the opposite because it will scrap the current first-past-the-post voting system by which two thirds of the Members of this Senedd are currently elected, and extend the closed list voting system to 100 per cent of Senedd Members. That closed list voting system is a system that will prevent voters from being able to vote for an individual candidate of their choice. 

Llywydd, a closed list voting system will take power away from the people and put it into the hands of political parties. It amounts to a power grab by political parties from the public. Members of the Senedd will become more responsive to the views of their party elites and members who have the control over the electoral lists and the ranking of candidates than the views of the people we are here to serve. Now, when people have the opportunity to vote for an individual candidate, there's a strong relationship of accountability between the public and their elected representatives. Voters can reward Members of the Senedd who represent them well, and they can also punish those Members of the Senedd who don't. And we see already the difference that that makes at Senedd elections already, don't we, because we see the differential in the votes for parties and people on the two-list systems that we currently have, because people can vote for a Constituency representative and a regional party. And we see the difference that that makes.

Now, I'm genuinely open to hearing anybody in this Senedd make a compelling argument that the electoral system currently proposed by the Bill will make Senedd Members more accountable to their constituents than the current arrangements, because I can't think of a single argument for it, and I haven't heard anybody make it to me either. In fact, I challenged people at Stage 2 to make a compelling argument as to why this closed list system was better than a flexible list system, which could still achieve all of the aims of the proponents of this Bill in ensuring that there's proportionality in the Senedd, but still protect that fundamental opportunity that people want to be able to vote for an individual person and hold that individual person to account. And this is why the Reform Bill Committee, when it was considering this matter, in its Stage 1 report, called for measures, and I quote,

'to ensure the electoral system provides greater voter choice and improved accountability for future Members to their electorates.'

Because we recognised that the big flaw in the current package of reform was this lack of accountability and this lack of voter choice that is presented to them in this particular Bill. And that recommendation in the Senedd reform committee report at Stage 1 reflected not just my views, but the views of all of the members of that committee that contributed to its work and shaped that recommendation. It was a cross-party report that sought to make a serious improvement to the Bill. So, I was very disappointed to see the negative response of the Welsh Government to that recommendation, and I was particularly disappointed to see that Labour and Plaid voted against amendments that I tabled in order to bring that recommendation into effect at Stage 2. And it was difficult to comprehend particularly why Plaid voted against them given that the flexible list system is much closer to a single transferable vote system, which does allow people to vote for an individual candidate of their choice.

Now, I'm no less certain now of the damage that will be wrought to Welsh democracy if this aspect of the Bill goes through unamended. That's why I've tabled a series of amendments that seek to overcome this most important shortcoming in this Bill. And if my amendments are agreed, they will strengthen the Bill by ensuring that voters can retain the power to vote for an individual candidate of their choice whilst accepting the Government's position in terms of wanting to ensure that there is proportional representation in a way where candidates can be listed on the face of the Bill, but still giving that choice to individual voters to reorganise those lists. Now, I appreciate that the previous First Minister and the previous Welsh Government seemed wedded to the closed lists ideal, and I've still heard nobody make an argument for closed lists, by the way, and I hope, in the absence of no good reason for them and no good reason for not changing to a flexible list system, that the current First Minister and his new Government, albeit the same Member in charge, might take a different view.

So, Amendment 32 would allow voters to cast a vote for either a political party or an individual candidate on that party's list. Amendment 33 would ensure that any votes cast for individual party candidates are included in the overall party vote totals for the purposes of seat allocations. And amendment 34 stipulates that candidates receiving more than 10 per cent of the votes cast for their party would go to the top of the party list. And if more than one candidate gets more than 10 per cent of the vote, then they would be ranked in accordance with the percentage that they get at the top of those lists. Now, why 10 per cent? It's because 10 per cent was the percentage recommended by the expert panel when it looked at these matters back in 2017. Amendment 35 would require returning officers to use the reordered party lists to notify the Presiding Officer if a Senedd vacancy arises, and amendment 36 is consequential to amendment 35.

And finally, amendment 39 is to provide for a review mechanism, okay. So, that would allow—would require—Welsh Ministers to conduct a review within 12 months of each election to report on the voting system and any proposed changes to the 10 per cent threshold for the reordering of party lists. And where a change is proposed, it would require that change to be put to the whole Senedd and to be supported by at least two thirds of Members of this Senedd in order to change the threshold.

Now, Llywydd, open or flexible lists of this kind are the norm across many European democracies—Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Slovakia and many, many more. Voting for a flexible list system in the way that I am proposing will allow for the proportionality of election outcomes that is sought by the Welsh Government while protecting the principles of voter choice and direct accountability in our democracy. It would keep them at the heart of our voting system and truly strengthen our democracy in a way that the current Bill doesn't, and actually undermines. That's why I commend these amendments to the Siambr, and I implore Members to think very carefully when casting your votes on these amendments, because we are making a serious mistake, in my view, by chopping off this direct accountability to the public by introducing a closed list system—an exclusively closed list system—and not having that direct accountability. It would be a big step backwards.

I am surprised to hear Darren Millar say that he doesn't know why Plaid Cymru is voting like this, because I don't think it's been a secret at all as to Plaid Cymru's view on this issue, and I would hope that, during every stage of this process, I have been clear in saying that this kind of electoral system has been a contentious issue. This, in itself, is something that we should welcome; it shows the strength of feeling that clearly exists regarding the nature of our democracy, the fact that we're having a conversation about the voting system and that people feel very passionately about it.

In terms of my party, to be entirely unambiguous, we have been clear from the outset that the STV system, or open or flexible proportional lists, is the system that we would prefer, and that's the one that represents the most progressive option for the electorate of Wales. It is disappointing that the Government has not seen the value of this option, but, as a party that puts the interests of the nation first, we have worked pragmatically to develop an option that will, hopefully, be able to pass through the Senedd with the necessary support of two thirds of Members.

And it should be no surprise to anyone that this system is a compromise. That is often the nature of democracy. But, despite its shortcomings, there is no doubt that these changes will be a significant improvement on the current system, ensuring that the number of seats won will be a fair reflection of the votes cast, and bringing to an end, completely, the first-past-the-post model, which has been so harmful to democratic vitality. 

Our priority is, therefore, to ensure that a bold package of reforms is in place by 2026, which is only two years away now, with further reviews able to take place as a result of the review mechanism that is facilitated by this Bill.

And while we recognize the entirely valid concerns that have been expressed about closed lists, the idea that presenting a list of candidates somehow impairs voters' ability to understand who they are voting for is entirely at odds with the reality of our history of devolved elections in Wales, where closed lists have been an element of the elections for regional seats from the outset. It is also worth emphasising that the Westminster system, which continues to enjoy the enthusiastic support of the Tories, is itself a version of a closed list, where electors choose the preferred candidate of the parties standing. That's a closed list of one.

For all of these reasons, we are unable to support amendments 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 or 39 in the name of Darren Millar, which will reopen the debate about the electoral system and will undo the work that has been done to get us to this point. 

I'd like to make a brief Intervention to respond to some of the points Darren Millar made. It was a fair and reasonable speech, and I'm sure we'll have sympathy for elements of it across the Chamber. But, of course, as we know, electoral systems are famously an alphabet soup. There are so many of them, and everybody has their own preference, and I'm sure, around this Chamber, if we were to give people a free vote on preference of which system they would like, we would have a range of options put forward, but there needs to be a consensus found. We already have, as Heledd Fychan has noted, a tradition of closed lists in our devolved Parliament, so this is not outwith our tradition. The advantage of it—. He asked for an argument to be made in its favour, and, in truth, I'm ambivalent about it, but I'm ambivalent about all voting systems, because they all have flaws; they all have pros and they all have cons. The advantage of this system is that it is easy to understand, which is one of the tests that is made for first-past-the-post; it gives every voter an equal weighted vote; and, subject to the threshold, allows all opinions in the Constituency to be represented. That is a huge advantage on first-past-the-post, and it is a variation of our current system. The names of the candidates will be on the ballot. And it is a way for us as a Senedd to create a consensus and move forward with Senedd reform, which I appreciate is not something he wants to see. But none of this is set in stone; if we find there are flaws, and if we find that there are unsatisfactory results from this, just as we have changed our voting system over the last 25 years and tweaked it, we'd be able to do the same again. So, though his arguments are attractive, I don't think there are any knockout blows there for this, and the larger prize of Senedd reform is one that I'm prepared to hold my nose on some of my doubts over, recognising, as I said, every single voting system has its flaws, and, whatever system he came up with, we could all point out the flaws in them too.

Counsel General.

Diolch, Llywydd. There is, I think, a genuine, a constructive, difference of views on this, but I can confirm I will not be supporting amendments 32, 33, 34, 35, 36 or 39, which would give effect to a flexible list system and a mechanism for subsequently reviewing the associated threshold for a candidate to be moved up a party list.

It is necessary that the proposals in this Bill can command a supermajority in the Senedd. I remain confident that it is the case for the provisions currently in the Bill, including those relating to a closed list system. So, having debated this Amendment at Stage 2, I know I'm at the risk of repeating some of the same points, but they remain important. The proposed closed list system removes the disproportionality of first-past-the-post in our current electoral system, meaning results will better reflect votes cast. The proposals provide for a simple single route to election, with votes requiring only one ballot paper, instead of two. A closed list system is familiar to voters in Wales from the current regional list ballots. A closed list system also facilitates candidates being accountable to the public for the national manifestos of their political parties, while still retaining a need for candidates to cultivate a local personal vote to boost their party's electoral prospects. It also provides a mechanism for improving diversity, which flexible lists do not. It also ensures that, in Senedd elections in future, every vote will count.

Whilst some may argue that such a system does not provide the same level of voter choice as flexible or open lists, I'm clear that it does not remove from voters a choice that they currently have. Under the first-past-the-post system, parties select their candidates, they control the selection mechanism, as they will do in a list-based system—a list, in fact, of one, under the first-past-the-post system. The choice for the voter remains as one where they vote for the candidates selected by a party or for an independent candidate.

And of course, at Stage 2, the Committee of the Whole Senedd agreed to Jane Dodds's amendment to the Bill that ensures that the conduct Order will require the ballot paper used at a General Election in a Senedd Constituency to include the names of all the candidates. It was always the Welsh Government's intention that that would be the case—

Will you take an Intervention?

Certainly.

Thank you so much. I wasn't going to speak on this. I virtually had to chain myself to the chair in order not to say anything on the voting system. However, thank you for referring to me. I suppose my question, really, is that you do say that the Amendment has now been included, in terms of the names being next to the party, but is it not the case that those names are decided by the party, not by the public? Diolch.

Well, in exactly the same way as, under the first-past-the-post system, candidates are selected by the parties. It is exactly the same, but this is a system that has far greater proportionality, and I think is far more democratic than anything we have at the moment. Of course, the Bill does provide also for a post-legislative review by a committee of the next Senedd to consider the operation and effect of this legislation. Whilst the exact scope of that review will be a matter for the next Senedd, the experience of closed lists would seem to be a very relevant consideration. Diolch, Llywydd.

Darren Millar to reply.

Diolch, Llywydd. Obviously, I'm disappointed to hear the responses. Everybody in this Chamber knows that a flexible list system is a better option than a closed list system. I'm still yet to hear a reason why the Government thinks that a closed list system is preferable. All of the arguments you seem to make were actually against the first-past-the-post system, which I haven't even attempted to defend, although it's obviously got a very strong accountability framework within it. Of course, you make the comparison—. I think both Heledd and the Member in charge made reference to, effectively, that being being a closed list system of one. Well, it may well be, but at least you can reject the candidate by voting for somebody else, can't you? You can't do that in quite the same way by rejecting an individual candidate if you have a closed list system with a list of names before you.

If I can just go through the benefits that you say there are to a closed list system, so, you talked about that it addresses proportionality. Well, so does a flexible list. It's simple to understand. Well, so is a flexible list—you vote for a person or a party. There's one ballot paper. So is the case with a flexible list. You hold people to account for national manifestos. Well, that's the job of individual parties when putting candidates on that list, no matter what ranking they're placed at in the first place. Addressing diversity. Well, we've got another Bill going on in the Senedd at the moment that would allow for a quota system, or a zipping system. You can still do that even on a flexible list system, and, if anybody has read the expert panel report from 2017, it made it quite clear that you can still deal with the diversity issue through a flexible list system. You say every vote will count under the closed list system. It won't, actually, because, of course, if your candidate gets less than 12 per cent of the threshold in your particular seat, they're unlikely to get a single seat. So, it's not as proportionate, in some respects, as it is currently with our regional situation. But a flexible list system would be exactly the same, just as proportional as your closed list system. So, I'm still waiting for the argument as to why.

Now, the other argument you threw about was, 'Well, this is the only thing—the only possible solution—that can get us to a two-thirds Majority.' I'm not sure it is, actually. I'm sure that, if there was discussion on the matter and people were given a free hand to be able to vote, particularly on the Labour benches, then we might arrive at a completely different solution. But it seems to me that you're just wedded to it, for whatever reason I do not know. Presumably, you've had an instruction from somewhere that you can't possibly deviate. You've heard from the Plaid Cymru benches that they would prefer a flexible list system, so they're being forced, effectively, by you lot over here to support a system that is inferior to a flexible list system, which we all have the opportunity to introduce right now by supporting these amendments. I just don't get it.

The other argument you make, of course, is it's not set in stone, I think Lee Waters said. It's not set in stone. There'll be reviews. These things can change, just like we're making changes now. It's taken 25 years to get this far. How long are going to make changes? Is it once every 25 years, like a comet coming round? Is it only like that? Is that the way we make changes here, once every 25 years? Look, let's seize the opportunity now. Let's nail this thing, improve the Bill, make sure there's some direct accountability, which is a benefit that your closed list system doesn't bring, and make sure that we get it right for our democracy, because I fear we'll actually see a lower turnout in future, because people can't vote for a person and they'll think they have even less of a say and opportunity to make change, because that's what your system is going to do. [Interruption.] Sorry, did you want to make an Intervention?

Yes, I would like an Intervention, and it's important that we have this discussion. Of course, it will be very clear on the ballot paper who is standing. People will be able to make a choice about who is on the top of the list and who is likely to be expected. It's up to us to explain to people across this party that this a democratic system, it's not some made-up, non-democratic system; it is a robust system that all of us will be in a position to explain to the people of Wales as their system, which we hope we can change and strengthen for the future, but this is the Majority that we can get here to drive this important reform forward.

Well, it's the Majority that you're accepting, frankly. I mean, I frankly think you should've driven a harder bargain from your Labour masters in order to get the package of reforms through that was actually going to deliver the sort of direct accountability that we're now going to lose if this Bill goes through unamended in terms of the way that we'll be able to deal with these lists.

So, look, of course I accept that people can look down a list and say, 'Oh, I don't like that person', or 'I don't like that person, therefore, I'm going to vote for another party', but don't you think it would be better to have that direct accountability, where members of the public can vote for an individual candidate on a party list to say, 'You know what? I don't particularly like that person, but I think that person does a better job for me locally and I want to be able to reward that person with my vote'? We know that that happens already, okay, within the current system, where people can vote and express a view for an individual candidate on a first-past-the-post basis and then do something on the closed lists, regional lists, as well. And, by and large, local people who work hard for their constituents are rewarded in that first-past-the-post vote. They'll still be able to reward those individuals if you have a flexible list system. So, we're making a big mistake here, Member in charge, and a big mistake on the part of the Labour Party. It's a retrograde step; it could take decades to sort out in the future. We're never sure if we're ever going to get a two-thirds majority in the future, so we need to seize this opportunity; get it nailed and don't make a mistake.

The question is that Amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 32 is not agreed.

Amendment 32: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 33. Is it moved, Darren Millar?

Amendment 33 (Darren Millar) moved.

Move.

It's moved. Is there any objection? [Objection.] There is. We will proceed to a vote on Amendment 33. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed.

Amendment 33: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 34—is it moved? 

Amendment 34 (Darren Millar) moved.

It is moved by Darren Millar. If Amendment 34 is not agreed, amendment 39 falls. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will proceed to a vote on amendment 34. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 34 is not agreed and amendment 39 falls.

Amendment 34: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 39 fell.

Amendment 35, Darren Millar, is it moved?

Amendment 35 (Darren Millar) moved.

It is. Is there any objection to Amendment 35? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. A vote on amendment 35. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 35 is not agreed.

Amendment 35: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 36—is it moved?

Amendment 36 (Darren Millar) moved.

Move.

It is. Is there any objection to Amendment 36? [Objection.] There is. A vote, therefore, on amendment 36. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions and 38 against. Therefore, amendment 36 is not agreed.

Amendment 36: For: 15, Against: 38, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected