Reshaping the Senedd

(Pic : viewpictures.co.uk)

There's been a fair bit of discussion for several years on how many Assembly Members we need. The general consensus within the "Bay Bubble" is that 60 AMs is too few to meet the growing demands of the legislature – which will have tax-varying powers from 2018 and, at some indeterminate post-Brexit point in the future, some of the responsibilities of the EU.

• How many AMs do we need? (7.12.13)
• Assembly Commission steps up to the oche (27.1.15)

In light of proposals to reduce the number of Welsh Westminster MPs (Boundary Commission Carves-up Wales) - and the future redundancy of our 4 MEPs – there are further calls for the size of the Senedd to be addressed, but with a greater sense of urgency.

Cardiff University's Wales Governance Centre and the Electoral Reform Society collaborated to publish Reshaping the Senedd (pdf). There's additional commentary from one of the report's co-authors, Dr. Owain ap Gareth, at Click on Wales while Prof. Roger Scully has had the unenviable task of going in front of the cameras.

This comes weeks after a similar paper by the centre-right think tank, Gorwel, which proposed a "cost-neutral" expansion of the Assembly from 60 AMs to 70 AMs by an extra 10 AMs elected via the five regional lists (pdf) – "paid for" by the reduction in MPs.

Key Principles of the New Electoral System

Reshaping the Senedd is just as much about general electoral reform in Wales as it is about expanding the Assembly (which is the headline-grabbing stuff). The paper outlines seven key principles to create a "lasting electoral system" for the National Assembly:

1. Proportionality – The number of seats a party wins should generally match the proportion of votes a party gets. The new system should be more proportional than the one at present, which is a hybrid of first-past-the-post (constituencies) and D'Hondt proportional representation (regional lists).
2. Simplicity and Coterminosity – Boundaries for Assembly seats should be similar to/the same as boundaries of pre-existing seats (in this case Westminster). This will make it easier for the public to understand who represents their area, but may require parties to reconsider how they're structured at a local level.
3. Sustainability and Stability – The electoral system should be reformatted with a sense of permanence so dramatic changes aren't needed in the future. This means having an appropriate number of AMs to scrutinise the Welsh Government and fulfil their other roles in committees etc.
4. Broad-based consensus – If/when powers over Assembly electoral arrangements are devolved in the Wales Bill it'll require a two-thirds majority in the Senedd to approve any changes, so any new system has to neither advantage nor disadvantage any particular party.
5. Strong and equal mandates – All AMs should have the same mandate (instead of the current, mainly psychological, distinction between constituency and regional list members).
6. Fair Representation – Better representation of the population as a whole by creating a system that encourages under-represented groups to stand as they may have a better chance of being selected and elected.
7. Substantial support – AMs should need a substantial level of public support to get elected, so some sort of "electoral threshold" would be appropriate – whether that's requiring a party to achieve a minimum percentage of the total vote or an individual quota.

Could the current system be adjusted?

The paper goes into a detailed exploration of the advantages and disadvantages of multiple electoral systems – which I've decided to skip – with discussion on why they do or don't meet the seven core principles.

In terms of tweaking the current system – where we elect 40 constituency AMs by first-past-the-post and 20 AMs in five regional lists by D'Hondt PR – the paper argues it can be changed, but "only with some difficulty".

Change is inevitable. If the Assembly decides to keep the new Westminster constituencies and same proportion of regional list members, we could end up with a 43/44 member Assembly, so the chances are that – like in Scotland – Assembly constituencies will, at the very least, be different to Westminster ones, which breaches the principle of coterminosity.

Another option is to elect 2 AMs from the new Westminster constituencies (58AMs) whilst increasing the number of regional list members to 29. The constituency AMs would either be elected by splitting constituencies into two or by some form of multi-member election. Obviously all this would be very confusing and there would still be some measure of divide between constituency and regional AMs.

What do the WGC/ERS propose?

The proposed new Westminster constituencies, which
the report recommends we use to elect three AMs each.
(Pic : Wales Online)

The paper comes up with two options that meet most/all of the seven principles outlined.

• Electing three AMs from each of the proposed 29 constituencies (87 AMs in total) by single-transferable vote – You rank candidates by preference. Lower ranking candidates are eliminated and their voters' preferences redistributed until all available seats are filled. Parties can stand more than one candidate in a constituency, so voters will be able to select who to represent them from each party in addition to ensuring a (relatively more) proportional result.
• Electing three AMs from each of the proposed 29 constituencies (again 87 AMs in total) by open-list PR – Under this system, parties put up a list of candidates and people vote for a single candidate. The total number of votes for parties as a whole are then used to award the seats - whether by D'Hondt or another system - with the candidate for the party with the most votes elected first. At the moment we have a closed list system where parties decide who's placed first on a regional list.

The Public Sell

Deny it all you want, but True Wales were right....
....just for the wrong reasons.
(Pic : True Wales)

As I've said every time this has been brought up, while getting agreement between the political parties will be difficult but not impossible, it's going to be a whole different story trying to convince the public this is a good idea. However, the paper wasn't written to set out the arguments there, only to present possible solutions.

At this moment in time I would be against expanding the Assembly, whilst knowing full well there are problems.

As for why: the pay rise. The "pay better money, get better AMs" argument has been blown out of the water. I have little confidence the Assembly Commission and its associated panels – independent or not - can correctly balance political expediency and public opinion (English: They come up with ideas and look for evidence to support what they want from within and around the "Bubble"; they don't listen to the rest of us). In the current anti-establishment, anti-politics climate that's playing with fire.

The key questions that haven't been answered are how you quantify an AM's workload? Is it abnormal for a full-time politician? If so, to what extent?

For government ministers and the Llywydd that's obvious, but for backbench AMs it's more difficult to assess. It'll be dependent on: what their area of expertise is, their committee and casework workload, an individual AM's work ethic and attitude (put it this way, if an AM needs to tell other people they're "hard working" they're probably not) and how individual AMs delegate responsibilities to support staff.

For example, tax-varying powers may well be a big constitutional step, but it's not as if it's going to take up a large amount of individual AMs time, or place significant burden on the Assembly as a whole. The closest most AMs will get to doing anything - if they're not a member of a relevant committee - is either giving a 5 minute speech during a one or two hour debate (which their support staff likely researched and/or wrote), or staring at the back of the head of the party spokesperson giving that speech.

If we're going to have more AMs I'd want guarantees that, first of all, it's not going to cost us any more than we all currently spend on politicians. They can do that to a certain extent by instituting a pay cut for AMs and slashing expenses and perks. If 60 AMs earn a basic £64,000 a year, then in an 87-member Senedd – with the workload better shared – a floor of £43,520 a year could be set.

Secondly, I'd want guarantees that levels of scrutiny will actually improve and the Assembly makes the best use of the people and resources it already has. How many committees do we really need? Should AMs be banned from double-jobbing as councillors? Are parties doing their best to ensure the best candidates are selected? What are the bare minimum qualifications for the job? Should there be a cap on the number of government and Assembly Commission positions?  What impact has constitutional change/extra powers had on support staff? Do they deserve better terms and conditions instead of AMs?

As for calls to put this to a referendum – from Rachel Banner in the main – if it were part of a wider constitutional package I would agree because it would be a question on a broad principle that we can all have a serious public debate over, not technical matters (like the 2011 referendum).

For example, I would/did support holding a referendum on a general principle of tax-varying and borrowing powers (as opposed to one specifically on varying income tax) – but that ship's sailed.

If TPTB are determined to press ahead with Assembly expansion, Reshaping the Senedd is probably the best practical outline of how it should be done in electoral terms, and I'd favour the STV option; though I don't think coterminosity is all that necessary and maybe we could have larger multi-member constituencies based around local authority areas (which people are perhaps more familiar with than parliamentary constituencies) as an alternative.