Reform Bill Committee

I welcome Members and the public back to this morning's evidence sessions in relation to the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill. And in the second evidence session we have this morning, we have representatives of the Commission of the Senedd. Can I welcome Elin Jones, the Llywydd? Would you like to introduce your team for the record, please?

Yes, thank you very much, Chair. I will allow officials to introduce themselves if that's okay. Manon.

Manon Antoniazzi, clerk and chief executive of the Senedd Commission.

Alun Davidson, clerk, parliamentary business strategy.

Siwan Davies, deputy chief executive and clerk and director of Senedd business.

Thank you for that, and for your time this morning. We have some questions for you, but perhaps I'll start off with a more general question.

The Counsel General, when he came before the committee, clearly stated that it was not a Government Bill; it was representing the wishes of the Senedd. How do you view the Bill? Is it a Government Bill? Is it a Senedd Bill? How do you perceive the Bill coming forward?

Well, the Member in charge of the Bill is a member of the Government, but the background of the Bill is more, possibly, unusual in its construct than other more straightforward Government Bills that come via manifesto and programmes of government that a Government would put forward. So, we know the history of the Bill, the long-standing discussion and independent reports and committees of the Senedd that have looked at the numbers of Members and electoral systems that would be appropriate for future Senedds. The committee, of course, the special purpose committee, came up with a set of recommendations, and the Senedd endorsed those recommendations, and then tasked the Welsh Government to bring forward the Bill as we see it.

I think it's also clear that the Bill itself has been part of the co-operation agreement that has been discussed between Labour and Plaid Cymru, and therefore there's that interesting aspect to this Bill as well. But in terms of our Standing Orders as a Senedd, then the Member in charge is a member of the Government and the Welsh Government have introduced the Bill as they have introduced other Bills into the Senedd over the past years.

Because, again, the Counsel General indicated that he was actually implementing the recommendations of the special purpose committee, but there are elements in this Bill that weren't part of the recommendations, so did the Senedd or the Commission have any discussions with the Government in regard to those aspects?

As I said, technically, the Bill is a Bill of a Welsh Minister, introduced into the Senedd. The spirit of the Bill, of course, part of it, has emanated from the motion agreed by the Senedd to ask the Welsh Government to bring forward this Bill. It has parts within it that were not part of that motion, and therefore the Welsh Government has introduced those as part of that. As chair of the Commission, as Llywydd, I was informed that that was going to be introduced just before introduction. We weren't involved in any of the detail around the discussions of those aspects of the Bill that weren't part of the motion from the Senedd, no.

Thank you for that. It's important for us to clarify that, because, obviously, the Counsel General will come back before the committee and we want to be sure as to what the boundaries are when we come back to the next set of questions with him. So, I move on now to Sarah.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you all for being here this morning. As you can imagine, in the current context of a cost-of-living crisis, and with cuts being made by the Welsh Government to its budget, the area of interest that I'm getting questioned on a lot by my constituents is the Senedd Commission's involvement in the cost estimates and how that's all come about. So, to start with, would you be able to explain the Senedd Commission's role in providing those cost estimates for the Bill's regulatory impact assessment, and if you could also elaborate on the conversations that the Senedd Commission has had with Welsh Government about those estimates, and any queries that have come about because of those estimates, please?

Okay. In terms of the costs that were provided by the Senedd Commission to the Welsh Government and have appeared in the regulatory impact assessment, we were requested to provide those costs by Welsh Government back in last December, and then the officials—and they can discuss in a bit more detail how they put those figures together—. And those figures were then looked at by the Commission and agreed by the Commission, and presented to the First Minister at some point—I forget the date—and then the First Minister responded in advance of the Bill being presented to me, wearing my other hat as Llywydd, that there had been some alteration to the figures in order to meet how they were looking to present their regulatory impact assessment. And we can discuss those issues with you as well.

So, I'll ask Manon to lead on how we put together the figures in the first place, and how we, within the Commission, look to meet the exact expectation your constituents have—if we're doing this, then we have to do it as prudently and as wisely in terms of public finance as is possible to do.

Before Manon comes in, can I just ask one question? You just said you presented the Welsh Government with figures, they looked at it, but they came back and presented some additional figures to you. Did you therefore go through the additional figures prior to the Bill being laid, or was it for you to consider?

The two aspects that were subject to change in that process were, first, to reduce the length of time of the period of years, because one year, the 2023-24, would have been a spent year, in that the funding would already have been spent by the time the Bill had gone through its scrutiny process. And the other was to conform to how the Welsh Government itself provide these figures in terms of staffing costs. We had costed it on the basis of every single member of staff that was identified as needing to be added to the complement of staff to be paid, at that point, at the top level of their scale. We know, in reality, that that never happens at any point, both for Commission and for political staff, and, therefore, to provide the Welsh Government with how they assess it, which is on an average of salary bands, we were part of realigning those figures in accordance with how they undertake their costings as a Welsh Government.

Manon.

Thank you, Chair. We had to find a basis on which to plan, and, therefore, common assumptions were developed. And in view of the inter-dependency between the Commission itself and the independent remuneration board and the Business Committee, these assumptions were developed in conjunction between the three organisations, and then ultimately agreed by the Commission.

Then, as Commission staff, we started off, as we always do, with service level planning, and those figures were then scrutinised at every governance level within the Commission, with the executive board finally satisfying itself that those cost estimates were modelled correctly, that there were no gaps or duplications, presenting those figures to the Commission. And then the Commission agreed the cost estimates and sent them to the Welsh Government at the end of March. So, what we had then was a snapshot in time, at that point, with high-level estimates of costs. As the Llywydd has already explained, there was then a dialogue with colleagues in the Welsh Government so that they could understand exactly what the figures represented. There were certain changes, as the Llywydd mentioned, in terms of the cost estimates, to conform with the Welsh Government's RIA methodology, and to reflect other provisions, such as the four-year terms. And then, the final figures that were to be used in the RIA were decided upon by the Welsh Government, and the Commission was informed of that before the Bill was laid.

Thank you very much. We've just heard evidence from Professor McAllister and Professor Renwick on the expert panel. I thought what was interesting was that they, obviously, looked at the costs, the cost-benefit analysis, really, but they reported six years ago. And so we did ask them did they think that the costs now were in line, I suppose, with things that they couldn't have predicted at the time, which was inflation and other rising costs that we have. So, in that context, I suppose, do you believe that you now have a level of certainty in the robustness of the cost estimates provided and, for example, whether, following the experience of resourcing two additional committees in this sixth Senedd, you think that any changes will be made to the estimates made for the resourcing of additional committees in the seventh Senedd, which is, of course, one of the things that people are saying is a benefit of this legislation?

Well, I think that the costings that we supplied to the Welsh Government were the most accurate, robust costings we could've supplied at that time, given the fact that we had the basis of assumptions, of course—that there is a minimal change and a greater change—and we modelled, on both bases, a scenario of costings on both bases. But, as you've alluded to, even as we move closer to 2026, there will be factors that may need to change. The Commission is tasked with providing a budget for each financial year, as we are more current in how we are doing that. The budgeting process will provide a different analysis, a different set of figures, that may be greater or lesser than what we have in the RIA. But, ultimately, it will be for the next Senedd to decide both on what it wants to do, how many committees or how many times Plenary wants to meet, and it will be for the Commission at that point to provide the resource to meet the work and expectation of that Senedd. Therefore, these things are the best costings at the time, but we are in a dynamic Parliament and that can fluctuate up or fluctuate down—fluctuate up in terms of activity is how it usually works, by the way; as you've mentioned, two extra committees even in the midpoint of this Senedd.

Absolutely. And just a couple of very specific questions, I guess, on how the Senedd Commission has modelled the impact of larger constituencies and an increase in Members from mid and north Wales on the financial support provided to Members. So, you know, it's to be noted, as a result of the changes to the UK parliamentary boundaries, that there would be a disproportionate increase in the number of Members of the Senedd elected to represent mid and north Wales. Is this something that you've considered?

I'm going to ask Alun, because we obviously have costed for the increased costs of travel and maintenance and overnight spend that an additional number of Members will have, and I'm guessing that some of those issues will have been looked at in terms of, especially, overnight spend for those Members from mid and north Wales who will be having to stay overnight in the Senedd, and the travel costs as well.

Yes. There has been some, in the modelling that was done around the determination costs, consideration given to the different bandings of allowances in the different areas, to try and reflect the increase in different areas of Wales in terms of the Members. Those were factored into the figures.

Okay. Thank you very much. And I'd just ask, then, about the modelling and assumptions used when estimating the cost of the proposed refit of Tŷ Hywel, where, obviously, as Members of the Senedd, we work, and I suppose whether things have been considered like us doubling up in offices, like MPs do, for example, and the cost-benefit analysis of that refit.

Yes. Manon and Alun.

Yes, and I'll draw in Alun as well. I think issues such as the use of space is a matter that we need so much political input to that we haven't gone a long way down the road of considering that sort of thing, which the Members who are using the offices will need to determine in the long run. We have looked at reconfiguring the offices. The assumptions included that there would be still an office for each Member. So, that's where we are at the moment. And, as the Llywydd mentioned, there is a high-level estimate and then, each year, we will be putting forward a budget where we will be taking additional costs into account, such as inflation, closer to the date, and any emerging design considerations, any business considerations, that emerge closer to the date. And also, of course, we will be looking hard for savings through ways of working, and that is the difference between the budgeting system and the high-level estimates that we put forward in March.

Okay. That's very helpful. Thank you.

Only to add very quickly, the assumption is that Members, for the purposes of the cost estimates exercise, would be provided with their own office, and their staff be accommodated as they are now. That was the assumption made in terms of developing cost estimates, exactly as the chief executive and clerk has just said. There's a process of consultation that's really beginning now with Members, and, of course, final designs and plans will take account of some of that feedback.

Okay. Thank you.

And I think, looking back at all of this, over the period of the last five to six years when I've been Llywydd, and thinking that this could be coming along the line as the expert panel had developed their work, et cetera, one of the assumptions of course is that all additional Members and staff would be able to be housed in Tŷ Hywel. I think that it would have been very difficult pre COVID for us to have made that assumption. That assumption is now based on a different working pattern, both for politicians, political staff, and especially Commission staff, which is allowing us to think about how we deliver office space in a different way post COVID. Therefore, knowing that we haven't needed to go out to look at additional office space in the rest of Cardiff Bay has meant that this costing has been far more prudent than it could have been in a pre-COVID context.

That's really good to know. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Darren.

I do just want to test this area of costs a bit, because, looking back at the expert panel's recommendations back in 2017, the costs even then—the capital costs—were higher than the capital costs the Commission has put forward now. Obviously, now's costs you would expect to be far greater, because of the increased costs associated with inflation, wouldn't you? So, for example, the refit of the Chamber and the refitting of offices in order to provide accommodation for Members is estimated to be £1.8 million across two financial years, in the figures provided by the Commission to the Welsh Government, yet the refit of a single corridor in Tŷ Hywel a number of years ago was £1.8 million. So, are they really realistic? Was it just a finger-in-the-air job? Where did you estimate these figures from? You must have had some cost estimates that you were able to associate with the works that you thought might be necessary.

Well, let's start with 'finger in the air'—no, it wasn't, and I'm sure that everything I've explained to you to date shows how the Commission itself, both in terms of staff and in terms of the Commissioners, looked at the figures carefully that were provided to the Welsh Government. In terms of the expert panel and their assessment of capital costs, I can't comment on that, but I would go back to the point I just made earlier: an expert panel sitting in 2017 would have possibly assumed that there would need to be extra office space in the context of everybody working in Cardiff Bay at all times, and that may have factored into their thinking at that time. But we haven't needed to do that now in how we've assessed our costs, because we believe that Tŷ Hywel is, on its own, able to accommodate in 2026 the additional Members and their political staff that are necessary.

In terms of the cost of the corridor refurbishment, comparing with any costs for both Tŷ Hywel Chamber and this Chamber permanently, then I'd make the point that—and Manon can make this in a bit more detail—that corridor refurbishment was not just a refurbishment, it was the development of two additional technical translation booths. It relocated our security presence from where it had been on that corridor to a fitted out, more purpose-built area within Tŷ Hywel. So, it was a big job at the time, not just new paint on the wall and new walls. But I think Manon and Alun will want to clarify some of the figures that you've alluded to there that may not be totally the right comparators to make.

That historical example was actually a very major building project. It stripped that area back to the bricks and, as the Llywydd mentioned, it created some new technical booths and also a new security hub for the whole building, which was needed at that time. We benefit—. In terms of the sheer building costs, which is what you refer to there, we benefit from the fact that the Siambr has a back wall that can be removed, so the construction costs aren't as big as they might have been otherwise. There is also included in the number that you quoted a lot of IT kit and equipment for the project. The capital cost in the RIA, if you add that in, it actually gets to £2.7 million, so it is actually more than that earlier project cost. Alun, do you want to add anything?

Yes, that's correct. In terms of what's in the regulatory impact assessment, if you like, the total costs around the Siambr and Tŷ Hywel works come to about £2.7 million. It includes an element of the sunk costs that are presented in there, so 2023-24 costs, as well as the headline accommodation line costs. And you also find the Siambr ICT kit upgrade that's required within the other capital costs in the regulatory impact assessment, and that totals about £2.7 million.

Yes. I'm just trying to understand why they're so wildly different, and why even those figures are still less than those that were in the report in 2017. So, the figures I've got in front in me from the 2017 report have the costs of the alteration of the Chamber, they have separate ICT costs, which are way under the costs you've proposed here, so I can see that they've gone up, those sorts of related costs. It's the costs of the changes to the building that don't seem to make any sense, and we all know that construction inflation is higher than the general rate of inflation as well. So, even back in 2017, additional office accommodation in Tŷ Hywel, not in a separate building, for 30 Members, not 36 as proposed, was £1.6 million. And, on top of that, £720,000 for ICT, £400,000 for the Chamber alteration, £250,000 for ICT within Members' offices out and about in their constituencies for 30 Members, so that's £3.29 million versus you're saying a total of about £2.7 million. It just doesn't make any sense.

Well, we have—. The figures that we estimated in March were planned robustly, as usual. I have assurance from the people with the relevant expertise within the organisation. They have been put together with help from the external consultants that we normally use. It is not to say that they won't be subject to change. Part of the sunk costs that Alun mentioned just now are the design costs that we'll have to undertake this year in order to keep the project on track, and decisions will have to be made by the Senedd in the course of that process that will influence the cost of the final design. We also have changes that will happen from year to year, as I mentioned before, as it comes to budgeting. There are some additional costs that have emerged, as I was scrutinised on by the Finance Committee recently. And there are additional costs that are emerging in terms of the configuration of the space in Tŷ Hywel, so we have laid those out to be as transparent as possible. But that is the nature of translating the high-level estimates into budgetary reality from year to year. I’m confident that the costs put forward were reasonable according to what we were being asked to provide in March, yes.

At the time. And there was no challenge from the Welsh Government about the assumptions that had been made on those capital costs in particular.

I don't think so.

No? They were just accepted.

Before Darren—. I just want to clarify something for myself, Darren. Because Darren's mentioned the figures from the expert panel back in 2017—I think it was 2017. Can you tell me, did they actually come to you for figures or did they actually produce those figures themselves? Do you know? Can you remember?

I wasn't here, I'm afraid, Chair. I believe that there was input from the Commission on those costs then. However, it would probably not have been subject to the same rigour of estimate in terms of the detail, and indeed in terms of the assumptions that fed into those estimates at that time, as they have been for the current purposes.

It would help us to have that comparison. If you perhaps could provide us with some information as to how those estimates for that report were produced, that would be very helpful, for us to know that.

Just to put it into context, the costs laid out in 2017, which were for a 90-Member Senedd—the upper-scale costs—in today's money, according to the Bank of England's inflation calculator, would be about £4.2 million. So, it's significantly different than the costs that you've been able to provide us with. So, I think a breakdown would be really useful, actually, just in terms of helping us to get our heads around it. Thank you.

Heledd.

Thank you very much. If I could perhaps now turn to resources and support required, clearly you've mentioned that it's difficult to know, until you know exactly what's going to be happening, how you can plan, but of course the work is ongoing. You suggest in your evidence to the committee that an executive board is leading on this work. Can I just be clear? Is that an executive board of senior officials in the Commission that is driving this work, and where is the input or oversight and political ownership in terms of all of this?

Well, in terms of Commission business, including this, the executive board of officials very often brings papers forward to the Commission, and it's a matter for the Commission then, who are Commissioners from political parties, to agree or otherwise—for example, in this case, on the cost estimates that were submitted to Government for the RIA. And therefore the final decisions on issues such as this sit with the Commission, and they are of course representatives of political parties.

Thank you. One of the things that struck us in terms of policy development and so on, and if we look at how the Senedd will work, and so on, was that it is a little strange at the moment that some of the funds that political parties receive to develop manifestos or policies often depend on the number of MPs they have in Westminster rather than how many Members of the Senedd they have. So, I was wondering whether there's been any discussion or whether any consideration has been given in terms of discussion with the Electoral Commission or to look here at the use of something similar to Short money in Westminster, which clearly gives political parties more flexibility than is allowed by our rules, in terms of the political element.

I would say that that discussion isn't a discussion that will feature in this Bill, or the work to date on the Bill at least. But, certainly, in terms of implementing the Bill, and implementing the change, then the different partners involved with this—the Commission and the rem board—will need to consider where some of the implications or new ideas can appropriately fit. So, I do think that there is an opportunity there to have that discussion as the rem board and the Commission discuss in greater detail how we should implement in 2026, and as the parties, through their various representatives, bring forward new ideas as to how different aspects of political life should be funded. Perhaps Siwan would like to add to that.

As the Llywydd said, this is part of the planning work for how the new Senedd will operate in terms of support from Commission staff, in terms of funding from the remuneration board and so on, and discussions are starting now between the Commission and the remuneration board on this. And also at the moment, the remuneration board is involved with a programme of work, and part of that is to review the PPSA, for example. So, negotiations are starting now with the remuneration board and Members in their groups, and their staff and so on, but this is all part of the framework—you asked about the work programme—so, the Senedd reform programme, which is something that co-ordinates the work that all of those decision makers would do—so, the Commission, the Business Committee, the Chairs' forum and the remuneration board—so that they can work together. Although they're making independent decisions, they can have an overview of each other's timetables and they're all working to the same assumptions initially in terms of costs. And in terms of development then, they can work jointly, so that all pieces of the jigsaw fit together. So, as the Llywydd said, this is the start of the process, and until the Bill is agreed as an Act, then some of these things won't commence until that time, but it is all timetabled for the work programme.

Thank you. And if I may just ask, the Commission has a role in educating and engaging with the public on the electoral system that's proposed in the Bill, and clearly there was also such a role in introducing votes at 16 and 17, so, can I ask whether any lessons have been learned from that experience? Because, clearly, it will be a change for the public, and I know that in terms of the Commission's resources, that they are scarce at the moment, so, I was just wondering who is leading on that work at the moment, and how many lessons have been learnt that may be things that you would do differently, perhaps.

Well, yes, that work in preparing, particularly those who were voting for the first time following that electoral change in 2021, the Senedd was involved with that, the Electoral Commission also, and, of course, the Government too, along with local government. So, there are many different partners responsible in different ways in order for that to happen. And I do think it wasn't a lesson learnt as such, but the partnership that we developed during that time, prior to the 2021 election, we will need to work in the same way for the next elections, namely ensuring that those partnerships that have different responsibilities or areas of work all co-ordinate that work rather than duplicating it, and that everyone is working in a structured manner to ensure that everyone does the different tasks that will provide the right interventions. Because I do agree that this will be a major change that electors will be facing in 2026, and we do have to be clear with those electors so that they are aware of the changes and how they impact them. Did you have anything to add?

Yes. The Senedd reform board is looking at issues between ourselves, the Government and the electoral sector more generally, so that we can be clear through all parts of the process who is responsible for communication. So, we have a strategy at the moment whereby Government leads on communication because this is a Government Bill, and part of that role will fall to the Commission, for example, this committee communicating with the public on its work—and the Chair's already written an article, for example—and you, as a committee, communicating with the public. And then we've mapped out, in terms of every part of the process, who is responsible for what when the Bill is agreed—if it's agreed. And that's when the Commission will have a role in educating the public and so on, in partnership with the Electoral Commission and others in the sector. But that is something that is clearly set out, that everyone has distinctive roles, but we don't want to see duplication, and we want to see things being done effectively in terms of public expenditure. As the Llywydd said, we are learning the lessons from the work we did in terms of educating people about the change to the voting age, and the work that we do as a Commission more generally in engaging and communicating, about the role of the Senedd and so on. So, it is part of the programme, yes.

Thank you. And just one final question, if I may, on this section. The Bill refers to 'a member of the staff of Senedd Cymru'. To what extent do you think there is need for more clarity on what staff exactly are meant within this umbrella term? Is it Senedd Commission staff, Member support staff or party group staff?

Are you aware what that question's about?

Yes. There is some terminology that's used in other legislation, such as 'Parliament staff', and in other sections it mentions more appropriately 'Commission staff' or Members' staff'. So, that's something that the committee may want to consider and to question the Minister about. And perhaps we could be more clear when we're differentiating between Commission staff and Members' staff, and I'm not speaking on behalf of the Government, but I think this relates to everyone who works within the system, and that's what we're talking about. We need to be perhaps clearer about what people's roles are within that. But there may need to be consistency between various pieces of legislation where that terminology is used.

Thank you.

And just to say that it's very important at all opportunities, in this legislation and elsewhere, that we are clear as to whether we're talking about non-political Commission staff or political staff working for Members. If there is any ambiguity in the Bill on that point, then I would welcome the committee in highlighting that in its work.

We will try to do that, don't worry.

I know. I'm not telling you what to do.

I want to move on to job sharing issues. Jane.

Thank you very much. Could I just ask one question of the Llywydd, please? Now, the Bill states that you have the power to lay a motion on the situation around job sharing. Can you just explain that and what your understanding of it is, please?

Yes. The Bill places a requirement on the next Llywydd in the next Senedd to bring a motion before the Senedd to establish a committee to look at the issue of job sharing. It is unusual, as I understand it, for a piece of legislation of this kind to place a duty on a Llywydd in the next Senedd to introduce a motion to establish a committee. Now, of course, the Bill makes it clear that that is a motion for the Senedd, and the next Senedd will have the ability to decide not to carry out that work.

So, it will be a decision for the next Senedd as to whether this work happens or not, and that's an important principle, I would say—that a Bill of this Senedd doesn't entirely tie the next Senedd to a particular course of action. So, it will be a matter for the next Senedd to make that decision, and the next Llywydd will have to introduce that motion, and, as I've said, that is unusual. But insofar as it is that Senedd that will make the decision, and that that's in the legislation, then I do understand why the Government has introduced that.

Do you have any view on the criteria used by the next Llywydd for the establishment of this committee? Do you have any thoughts on what that could look like?

No. And it will up to the Llywydd in terms of the motion tabled. I assume that it will be quite a simple motion, and then the Senedd will decide how that simple motion should be taken further through committee membership, should they decide to establish such a committee, or through the committee's terms of reference or membership and so on.

The only thing I would say at this point is that what we are seeking to achieve in parliamentary reform and increasing the number of Members is to create more space for the next Senedd to develop expertise and develop the work of various committees, and this Bill, in and of itself, tries to establish two committees for the next Senedd, in its first year of operation. So, we need to balance that with the day-to-day activity of the next Senedd also.

Thank you very much. If I could ask one question on the Welsh language. I'm not sure who'd want to respond to this. But in the regulatory impact assessment, it states that steps to increase the size of the Senedd will improve the Senedd's scrutiny in terms of culture and the Welsh language—if you look at page 201. Could I just ask what was behind that? I think I understand, but I'm not entirely sure. It's in paragraph 672 in my version.

There is a requirement on the—. I assume that this is the Welsh language impact assessment that the Government has carried out in introducing this Bill. I'm not aware of the content of that at this point, but I would suggest, perhaps, that it's a question for the Member in charge of this legislation.

Do you have any view, or—?

Well, my view is that it's important that the assessment has been carried out. Yes, it's in the context of naming constituencies.

Yes.

That would be a requirement on the Boundary Commission for Wales to look at that, at that particular point, I would say. And I would hope that they would carry out that work.

Could I ask the question—? I'm going back to the question on job sharing, and I understand the point that was being made as to the establishment of a committee in the next Senedd, and the duty upon the new Llywydd to establish a committee. Theoretically, it is possible that that motion is voted down, therefore no committee is established. Has the Commission looked at what the options might be in such circumstances, and should they be included? In other words, should there be something in the Bill that says, 'This needs to be undertaken', and rather than a motion to establish, there should be a duty to actually establish a committee, full stop, rather than a motion that could be defeated? Secondly, should there be in the Bill a requirement for the Government to act upon the recommendations of such a committee?

Several things come to mind when thinking about that question. I think the most fundamental thing is that, any Senedd, even this Senedd, could establish that committee now if it chooses to do so, it doesn't require an Act of this Parliament to establish a committee. So, the freedom is there to do that now, should we wish to do so, and the protection is there for the next Senedd to decide that it doesn't want to do so, even if the Llywydd has been charged with putting that motion down. I think the freedom of the next Senedd to decide on whether it wants to do this work and prioritise it in its first year, because there is a time constraint on the establishment of the committee, if I remember correctly—it is a freedom that the next Senedd should have. It may decide, in its first six months, that it doesn't want to do the committee at that point, and it votes the Llywydd's motion down, but it could return to it in another year or so and decide to establish that committee because it thinks it's a more appropriate time to do it, or it's changed its mind, and Senedds can do that, even.

So, should this be in the Bill, in that case?

Well, it wasn't at the request of the Llywydd for this to be in the Bill, so it is a matter for the Member in charge to respond to that in terms of why it's in the Bill, and for you as a committee to think about whether it should be in the Bill or not. I would be far more uncomfortable with this provision in the Bill if it was a duty on the next Senedd to implement this committee. As it is, the Senedd can vote down the Llywydd's motion, even though that might be embarrassing for the Llywydd at the time, whoever that person may be.

Okay. Thank you. Darren.

Do you think 96 Members is the right number of Members for the Senedd and what complications might that throw up for the working arrangements in the Senedd Commission?

I don't think there's a right and wrong number, and there are various expert panels and others who have considered what the number should be, or what the range of the number should be. The expert panel itself that looked into this issue in 2017 came up with a range of 80 to 90, veering towards the upper end of that range. Obviously, this is the number that the special purpose committee came up with, and, therefore, it's in the legislation that's before us. It seems to be a significant number, and it will mean that there will be far more capacity to undertake the work that this Parliament needs to do and flexibility to do that work in the next Senedd, so I'm comfortable with the number.

There's no proposed increase in the number of Senedd Commissioners. You obviously chair the Senedd Commission. Do you think that that is a problem? Do think that we need more Commissioners, or do you think, actually, it could function, with 96 Members, with the same number of Commissioners?

The Commission looked at this itself, and there are no further responsibilities for Commissioners to undertake as a result of this legislation, so it felt comfortable with the number of Commissioners as outlined in this Bill. There is more work for the Commission in terms of its staff to do, and that is, obviously, reflected in the costings. But for the Commission itself, as the political representatives, we're comfortable with the numbers.

Obviously, I appreciate the Business Committee has discussed some of these matters as well—which I and other people around this table also attend. There is a proposal, of course, to increase the number of Ministers from 12 to 17, possibly up to 19, by a simple majority vote in the Senedd. Do you, as a Llywydd, have a view on that mechanism for increasing to 19, in particular, Elin, or—?

I don't have a Llywydd view on it to share with you this morning, but I was interested in both the written and the oral evidence given by a previous set of witnesses you had where there was specific mention of the fact that it would be more appropriate for primary legislation to look at the increase beyond 17 to 19, or possibly, as you, I think, alluded to there, that it would be in the context of a two-thirds majority, because it could be too straightforward for a Government with a majority to move quickly from the 17 to the 19. I would also urge any future Government to always remember—and for all of us to always remember—that these are maximum numbers. They do not have to meet the maximum at all times. I know there is a tendency, sometimes, to see it that way, but we should make sure that we always are responsible in how we allocate these roles and that a maximum is not a figure to aim for, it is just a maximum.

And I think we all have accepted that, obviously, some of the ministerial briefs are extremely wide, the portfolios are extremely wide. Some of the subject responsibilities of committees are very broad and wide as well. But, of course, if there were to be another five Ministers or seven Ministers, is the maximum scenario set out in the Commission's consideration of this of just three additional committees going to really deliver the additional scrutiny that everybody aspires to as a result of this Senedd reform programme?

I think the issue not to overly fix on here is the numbers of committees, but to think about how those committees in another Senedd and in this post-2026 Senedd could work. We know at the moment that the ability of committees to meet during a working week is restricted by the membership of those committees sometimes sitting on other committees that can't meet at the same time. The point that I'm making is that the committees themselves, even though they may be the same number of committees, can work a lot more than they currently are able to do. They could meet twice a week rather than once a week, they could meet for longer periods of time, they could have more responsibilities or fewer responsibilities depending on how often they meet.

I would say that one or three additional committees is quite a crude way of thinking about it. We had to do it in a way where we could base our costings on something tangible, but the next Senedd will be free to devise a timetable of committees that could see committees working twice a week, because Members would be free on both the Wednesday and the Thursday to do that because they're not sitting on another committee. So, there's far more scope that will be available once we have more Members to populate these committees in a different way.

Thank you.

You mentioned earlier that the Bill requires you to put motions forward for two additional committees—one being the committee on job sharing, and the other one being the committee to look to review the process. Based upon what you just said, where perhaps the ways of working will also be something that could be considered as things may change, should such a committee therefore be undertaken by the Senedd or should we look outside, to someone who has an outside view of both how we review the legislation, but also how it's working? Because sometimes when we work internally, we tend to have our own positions, our own views on it. Somebody from outside might actually be a better judge of that.

If the next Senedd was to establish such a committee and decide that the Llywydd's motion to establish a committee should be undertaken, and that the review of the implementation was looked at by a committee, then the implementation of this new legislation is considerable in terms of how elections have gone and how preparations worked, or didn't work, and what it's meant in terms of the establishment and the ways of working of the new Senedd. I would suggest that all committees always should look to have a degree of independence to how they assess their work, and to get expert advice in—as this committee is doing.

I would say that my main concern with this area of work would probably be on the timetable that's been placed on this committee to report. Is it within a year of the election? That would be May 2027. So, it would need to have been set up, and we know from experience that it can take a while for committees to be set up—a motion can be agreed, but then there can be some discussion around the membership, and the chairing of committees can take weeks to decide. So, even if you meet the initial criteria of bringing the motion by six months—. Is it within six months? Yes.

It's within six months of the first meeting of the Senedd, and the report within 12.

And then you have a further six months just to do the work, which as I've said, is quite considerable on this, if it's to be done properly. So I have a degree of concern about putting a guillotine on that committee's work in terms of it has to report by May 2027. I'm not sure why that is in the legislation in that way.

I appreciate what you're saying, that there's a lot to be decided upon by the next Senedd as a consequence of this, but because this Bill actually is putting a requirement and duty upon things for the next Senedd to do, should we be ensuring that there's guidance and a direction of travel that we would expect that committee or those committees to follow? If we are telling the Senedd, 'You need to put a motion forward to establish, because we think these committees are important', should we also be putting in place guidance as to how we see those committees focusing and the areas that we would expect them to review?

I certainly wouldn't want to see that in the Bill. Whether a Business Committee of this Senedd wants to prepare the way for committees that will be the subject of discussion in the next Senedd is a matter that could be considered, although as a point of principle I think it's important that we allow the next Senedd and then, ultimately, any committee that's formed to decide on how it wants to do its work. I find binding the hands of a committee in a future Senedd to be not an issue that I would consider that a piece of legislation should involve itself in.

Okay. Frequency of elections was not part of the recommendations from the special purpose committee. It's gone from five to four. You and I know that it went up from four to five anyway, because of other aspects. Were you consulted on the frequency? Has the change in the frequency impacted upon, perhaps, some of the calculations and workings that the Commission undertook in its preparation for the Bill?

We weren't involved in the decision making around this or consulted in any kind of formal way. We were informed that it was going to be part of the Bill and we reflected that in our final costings as well. The profiling of the costings, of course, differs quite considerably from an election year to a non-election year. So, that's the main difference in how the costings needed to be reprofiled, is it, or were there other issues about the four-year versus the five-year term?

That was the main issue. It came in after the Senedd Commission had submitted its cost estimates, and that was one of the adjustments that then was needed to the cost estimates to reflect that four-year term, so in effect reprofiling those election costs.

So, those figures have been adjusted.

They've been adjusted. That's what we've got in the RIA.

That's what's in the RIA, yes.

Okay. And have you identified any possible unintended consequences of this? We always talk about Bills and we always want to look at the unintended consequences of parts of legislation. Have you been able to identify any unintended consequences?

A possible consequence could be on the appointments by the Senedd that currently, because of our five-year term compared to four or eight-year terms of, say—. Is it the auditor general?

The auditor general, yes.

There is a greater likelihood, possibly, with the four-year term that there may be some coincidence of appointments that is avoided by five-year terms. I probably haven't explained that very clearly.

I think it's just to reflect, I suppose, the point that you made earlier, Chair—that the term had changed from four to five and now we're back to four, so there are many statutory office holders who would have predated the five, but there are some—the auditor general, the standards commissioner, the remuneration board—who have terms that are not the same as Senedd terms and so there would be an impact in terms of when these people are appointed. But it would depend on the nature of the term of the individuals and whether, when the legislation creating those offices was put together, it was done on the basis of the Senedd terms, and it would depend on the officer holder in question. But it would have an impact, potentially, as to which Senedd and at what point in the Senedd term an office holder was to be appointed.

So, we'll need to make some consequential amendments to other pieces of legislation, potentially.

Or not, as the case may be. That's a matter for your consideration.

Would you be able to provide us with a list of those posts you think would be affected by this consideration? Okay.

I'll come back to Deputy Presiding Officers later on. I think one of the big issues that is being raised is the residency issue and also the question of vacancies beyond. I know that this is something that has been discussed by the Business Committee. But let's take the residency issues. Are there any concerns that the Commission has in relation to residency and as to whether that would exclude individuals from it? And the biggest question we perhaps have here is the issue of someone being unregistered on the electoral register, which basically at the moment means they can no longer serve as a Member of the Senedd. There may be an appeal to that, but in the meantime, by the time the appeal is heard, they could have been replaced, for example. So, is there a view from the Commission as to how you want to handle the situation? Should there be grace periods allowed for this type of situation? Should we ensure that no-one is disadvantaged because of an error that perhaps they had no input into? What's your view on that situation?

Well, not 'could have been replaced', but 'would have been replaced' without there having been an appeal by an individual heard in time for somebody who is appealing the fact that they were no longer on an electoral register in Wales and that they were appealing that fact with the electoral registration officer. Who knows how long an appeal process of that nature could take? And, of course, once disqualified because of not being on the electoral register, then the seat is vacant and there is a process that's outlined to fill that seat, and that seat would be filled. Therefore, there would be no opportunity for the Member that had been disqualified, if their appeal was successful, to regain their seat. That's how we've interpreted the legislation in front of us.

So, should there be a grace period as a consequence of that, so that people aren't disadvantaged because of an error they had no input into?

We know that errors can happen. A computer can say 'no'. And the right of appeal is important for anybody who could end up in that situation rightly or wrongly. I think it's a matter that does need a bit more thinking by both the Welsh Government and others in how the right to appeal could be enabled in this situation. I haven't got the solution to that, but I am bringing to you the possibility that this could become an issue for an individual that had been properly elected to this place but might find themselves in a different set of circumstances and was appealing that issue with the proper judicial process.

Darren, did you want to come in?

Yes. And of course it's worth us considering the fact that the next Senedd elections would be undertaken at a time when automatic voter registration is taking place as well, and that, because of its first implementation, could also throw up challenges, couldn't it, potentially?

It could.

On vacancies, there's a clear situation about vacancies at the moment: if it's a closed list, it goes to whoever's next on the list, if this is a party position. If it's not a party position, if the individual either leaves a party or was elected as an independent, then that vacancy remains for the duration of the Senedd. What's your view on leaving a gap in a situation where, perhaps, a constituency may therefore lose representation in the Senedd as a consequence of that vacancy?

If a constituency has nobody that can represent it, that is an issue of some concern to those people who are electors in that constituency and also probably to the workings of the Senedd at any point, because it will change possibly quite dramatically the numbers, the configuration of how we do our work in terms of Government and opposition, even, but specifically committees and numbers of committees. I don't think that these possibilities will happen often, but my experience of the last years, especially the time I've been Llywydd, is that sometimes you can't quite believe what configuration and changes can happen even within a Senedd term. So, it is an issue of some concern, but unlikely to happen that there are no representatives for a constituency. But whether this Bill should have some kind of mechanisms to trigger a change at that point, whether that is by another election at that point for that constituency, then that's a complicated avenue to go down, but I think it may be worth further investigation by the committee.

That opportunity also applies to party lists, which I think the Bill states should be eight, but it's a very strong possibility that Members on that list either leave that particular party or are no longer resident in Wales, for example, and so it could actually happen on more occasions than just an individual being left as an independent; it could actually be a party list situation that creates that vacancy as well.

Yes, it could.

Should there be a recall in the Bill?

Well, I'm not an expert in working out whether there are mechanisms that are easily implemented to have recalls in a list system. I think, if I'm right, the Business Committee gave some thought to this and decided not to recommend anything for this particular Bill, but I think—. We don't currently have a recall, so we have to remember that. I think there are plenty of people who are interested in the recall provision of the Westminster House of Commons system, but we're moving away from being able to match that system in a constituency by-election, but how we would do that, I wouldn't be able to offer any solutions to you at this point. I think it certainly is something that may not feature in this Bill, but it's something that will feature, possibly, in terms of some discussions that either political parties or future committees who are interested in this may want to look at.

I understand the current situation, because clearly there are two ways of being elected to this current Senedd, which is the constituency first-past-the-post or the regional, and therefore a recall would have to cover both agendas. But in a proposed closed list system, there would only be one system of election, so that should make a recall scenario—. A mechanism—. Obviously it would be complicated, but it would be a single mechanism rather than perhaps a dual mechanism.

I think that's a good point to reflect on, because we certainly wouldn't want to be in a system where, if this system was retained currently, it would be possible to recall a constituency Member but not possible to recall a Member on a regional list. So, yes, it's more straightforward in terms of that.

Jane.

Yes, if I can just follow up on that, please, we heard in our previous session that there are fewer people who have high opinions of politicians like ourselves, and I just wanted to hear more of your view on that system, because, as I understand it, Westminster has implemented a recall system, and they didn't initially have it but they do now. I just wanted to hear more. If we don't include it in the Bill now, then what kind of system could be available, in your view, in order to progress that?

The answer to that is 'I don't know,' because by-elections are more difficult in the context of a list system, so by-elections and triggering by-elections, which is the recall system used in the House of Commons, appears to be quite a straightforward approach, and it's happened on a number of occasions, and it may be about to be triggered again. That by-election system would be complex in the context of a list system, so I don't have the expertise to tell you what the best scenario in delivering that would be.

Thank you. But just as one further point—I'm not sure if it's a question or not—as I understand it, Westminster needed legislation to ensure that there was a recall system in place. Now, I know it's difficult, but perhaps it's not a reason to say, 'Well, we'll just wait and see what happens', because it is important that we get this right from the outset in the legislation. So, that might be something for us to think about, perhaps, in terms of recall. I hear your comments, and it is difficult, but it's no reason for us not to look at what can be done in that context.

No, I agree with that point of principle. What I would also say is that one thing that you should bear in mind is that the desire for recall for individual Members may be lessened in a Senedd of four years as compared to five years, particularly the closer one gets to the end of that Senedd.

We'd hope so. Something might happen in the first month.

Well, yes, of course. I said it's a reduced possibility; the possibility doesn't disappear.

No.

Well, we would all hope that. A question on the relationship between the proposed democracy and boundary commission and the Senedd, because I think it's proposed that, perhaps, there should be pre-appointment scrutiny by the Senedd. Or should there be pre-appointment scrutiny by the Senedd?

I don't think it's in the legislation, is it?

Okay, let's say 'should there be?', because we pre-appoint quite a few other posts, and this is an important part of the review in one sense, because they are reviewing the boundaries, and it's an element of how that progress is moving. So, should the Senedd be involved in the appointment of the chair of the board?

Well, I would make the point that this commission is different to any other commission, in that it will have far more interest to political parties and potential politicians—direct interest in how constituencies are configured. So, the principle of retaining the total independence of the boundary commission from the party political process is quite an important principle to guard. So, I would say that how the Bill is currently introduced, and making sure that neither the Welsh Government or the Senedd itself can change or vote down any proposal on boundary changes, so that they are merely laid, and that the principle of—a word I've learnt this morning—automaticity is adhered to, are important to retain.

Now, on whether the Welsh Government or the Senedd should be involved in appointing the commissioners and the chair of the commission, I think the Bill allows the Welsh Government currently—it's a role that the Welsh Government has to appoint commissioners—and whether there should be pre-appointment hearings, I think that's a matter for some consideration, given that it's a Welsh Government appointee.

Particularly as previous witnesses referred to the fact that they should not be party politically involved, and there should be independence, and there should also, perhaps, be a single term. I just wondered what your views were in relation to that, and then Heledd will come in.

I probably don't have a view on whether they should be single term or not as appointments. It's good to refresh on a frequent basis.

Heledd.

Just in terms of the democracy and boundary commission, do you see that there's a role for the Llywydd's Committee in that regard?

I exclude myself as Chair of the Llywydd's Committee.

As the Llywydd, I am not a member of that committee at this point. Siwan, do you want to outline some of the issues around pre-appointment hearings?

I guess the—

And the Llywydd's Committee.

Indeed. The Bill is conferring functions on an existing commission that would be in relation to the Senedd, but, currently, the commission looks at local government, and I guess that the committee may want to look at models elsewhere, for example in Scotland, and I believe you'll be hearing from the chair of the boundary commission there, which does combine those functions as to what would be the appropriate model for appointing commissioners, for example. As the Llywydd says, there is consideration for the Senedd as to whether appointments made by Welsh Ministers are subject to pre-appointment hearings by Senedd committees, and there are agreements in place in relation to a range of those. As you say, there is mechanism currently in relation to the Electoral Commission. The oversight of the Electoral Commission of the Senedd elections is the responsibility of the Llywydd's Committee, and that is something that came in in recent times, in terms of the changes that we made to the Senedd in the last constitutional piece of legislation. So, that is another model that you may wish to look at as a committee.

I guess, in Westminster, the model around the commissions pertaining to the elections to Westminster is, clearly, an older model, but it's, in theory, chaired by the Speaker, but that person never presides because they're a politician, so it's usually a presiding judge. So, there are a number of models in the United Kingdom that you could look at, or look at models elsewhere. But, currently, this legislation is conferring additional functions via the Senedd on something that was created, I suppose, for a different purpose, and so, as a committee, you may want to consider the pros and cons of different involvement of people who are part of the Senedd more broadly.

Diolch.

Darren.

Is it okay to move on to something slightly different?

Yes, okay.

The Deputy Presiding Officer role, Deputy Presiding Officer.

I didn't want to touch on that.

So, obviously, the Bill makes a proposal for the possibility of two Deputy Presiding Officers, and one thing it doesn't stipulate is, if there are to be three individuals, acting as Llywydd and two deputies, whether each of those should be from completely different parties or whether there's a possibility that two of them could be from one political party. Do you have any thoughts about that and whether those roles ought to reflect the political balance? I think that at the moment it simply says that the Llywydd and the Deputy Presiding Officer must be from different—.

Well, no. I'm loath to correct you, Darren—

Please do.

—but I think that the additional Presiding Officer also is caught now in the discussion.

So, it would have to be across three parties, was it?

Yes. Siwan, you can just remind me of exactly how that is constructed in the legislation, but it does have a kind of order to it.

So, the present legislation has provisions in terms of not being in the same party and not being—

In the executive.

—of an executive and both in the executive. However, there's an override provision, in terms of the Standing Orders and the two-thirds majority, and my understanding of the provisions—and I stand to be corrected—in terms of the additional Deputy Presiding Officer would be that you wouldn't have all three coming from a group with an executive role. So, you could imagine that they would have permutations of parties, potentially, and it comes down to how many parties you might have in a Senedd, because, in theory, you could have two. But I think the key principle is around not having a majority from the executive. Now, there's a moot point as to what would happen if everybody in the Senedd was, but then there's another problem there, isn't there? But my understanding is that the legislation reflects the recommendation of the Business Committee, in relation to having flexibility to have an additional Deputy Presiding Officer, that it wasn't a requirement. So, that's why there are two different provisions—the existing and the additional provision. But the Business Committee was clear about needing to have some sort of protection that they weren't all from the same party or from the same executive or non-executive, as is the current case. But I think it's recognising that, to some extent, what happens will depend on the composition of the new Senedd and the views of the new Senedd as to how it operates. So, that's why it's an optional provision as opposed to a requirement, as is currently the case, where you have to have a Llywydd and a Deputy; you can't not.

And you are right, it says they must be from different political groups, which is very important. Can I just test this issue of the name of—the English titles, if you like, on the face of the Bill? So, we've got used to Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer, haven't we, over the years, but the public at large are more familiar with the terms 'Speaker' and 'Deputy Speaker' in most parliamentary democracies. I know that you've shared a personal view in the past, Llywydd, that you would like to see those titles change. Can you give us further reason as to—? You know, the Welsh Government says it can't be done on this Bill, but can you give us a reason why it could be?

Well, I think the Business Committee, as well as myself personally, took the view that the Bill could consider the opportunity to change the title in English to 'Speaker' rather than 'Presiding Officer'. My experience, both within Wales and certainly outside of Wales, is that parliamentary systems are more used to using 'Speaker'. If I find myself outside of the UK, especially in other Parliaments, or when meeting visiting Speakers to here, then I tend to refer to myself as a 'Speaker', because that's the familiar term in the context of Parliaments. So, the Business Committee, in its view to the Welsh Government on this issue, along with others, did suggest that the Welsh Government could look at this. The Welsh Government did come back, in a letter at some point, to say that it was no longer able to look at this, because it considered that there were complicating factors around the legislation—[Interruption.]—yes, on 21 June—in the original legislation, in the Government of Wales Act 2006, that may make it an issue of competence as to whether we had that or not, and the Welsh Government decided it wasn't going to test the competence issue in that respect and therefore wasn't going to include it, which is fair enough.

Does the Senedd Commission have a view on whether the competence lies with the Senedd or elsewhere?

We haven't explored it in detail is how I'd answer that question at this point, yes.

Okay.

Can I go back to section 19 of the Act, which is the review aspect, and the Act talks about the Senedd establishing a committee to review? It doesn't refer to the Welsh Government having a responsibility to review. Now, I appreciate the Senedd committee would expect to take evidence from Welsh Government, as part of its process, but should there be a duty upon the Welsh Government also to undertake a review, so that it's not just the Senedd looking at how the Bill went through, it's also going to be the then Welsh Government looking at how the Bill has been implemented and whether it needs to take action? Because it seems—. I know there's still a clarification as to who actually owns this Bill, effectively, and it's clear the Member in charge is a Welsh Government Minister, but he keeps saying, 'We're only implementing the will of the Senedd.' So, should there also be a duty upon Welsh Government to undertake a review? As I said, that would be part of the committee's role, and they will give evidence, but that's not the same as making sure they undertake a full review as well.

Well, I probably don't have a view on whether there should be a duty in here for the Welsh Government to undertake its review. Post-legislative scrutiny is a good model to follow generally, but the review, in this Bill, is quite a bit broader than post-legislative scrutiny; it's about the general health of the democracy and other—

Well, that's a question as to what that means as well.

Yes, and you'll have to pose that to the Member in charge. So, it's a wider discussion about how the election went, how the change went, how the implementation of everything went, and whether anything should change for the future. I would expect the Welsh Government certainly to have a view on all of that at the time. Whether that's done in its own review or whether it's done as evidence to a committee of that Senedd is probably not—it's not something I feel I need to come to a view on myself, other than to say again that I believe that doing all of this work, if that's what's intended in this catch-all review, within the first year of that new Senedd, is a challenge if it's going to get it right and if it's going to include both Welsh Government having analysed internally how it thinks everything went in order to provide its view to the committee, and also, importantly, the point you made earlier about some kind of independent scrutiny, that either a committee could commission or various universities could offer as a result of that. We know that all of that analysis on election results, for example, usually takes a good six months for a university to turn out after an election, so I am concerned about the timetabling in this Bill.

Have any other Members got a question? We're coming close to the end. No. I have got one I'm thinking of. We all know that this is a Bill, and there's a second Bill coming, which we anticipate. Has the Senedd Commission considered the implications of a second Bill, linked into this, and particularly how it might impact upon this Bill? We will look at the detail of the second Bill at another time. But in your consideration as a Commission, how have you viewed the possibility of the things that are left out of the special purpose committee's recommendations and the consequences that would have on this Bill? Because there might be some unintended consequences on this Bill on the basis of that. We're told about gender quota—we know that's a part of it, but will there be other elements of the special purpose committee's report?

Well, you're almost tempting me to—

I am.

—consider unknown unknowns there. So, I'm unsighted—

Perhaps the question is: what discussions have you had with the Government about looking at how it all fits in?

Well, I haven't had any direct discussions with the Government on this. Maybe something we haven't outlined to you is that Siwan sits on a joint assurance board with Welsh Government. You can explain how that has met in the context of this Bill, and whether it's meeting or not in the context of the next Bill.

There is a joint assurance board, as the Llywydd says, which is chaired jointly by myself and the director of EU transition, constitution and justice of Welsh Government. And the purpose of the board was to set up, because of the interdependencies between the work of the Government and the Commission in relation to Senedd reform, to share appropriate information and to assure our decision makers that we were working together in relation to these matters. So, we've been meeting since June last year, in terms of planning, mostly around timetables, for introductions of Bills and scrutiny, and then implementation thereof, from a Commission perspective. So, a big piece of work was around the costings.

In terms of content of legislation, that's not something we've been discussing, other than to be assured that the resolution of the Senedd vis-à-vis the special purpose committee recommendations were to be taken into account. So, that was something from our perspective that was important. In terms of legislation, we were aware that there would be more than one piece of legislation from a planning perspective, and so that is something that we've been scheduling in terms of the side of the Senedd reform programme that is looking at the scrutiny of the legislation, so making sure that we have arrangements in place, like we did with this committee, to advise you on establishing a committee, staffing the committee et cetera. So, you'll know, those of you who are members of the Business Committee, it's something we've been considering in terms of which committee looks at pieces of legislation, and the interaction between those and other relevant electoral legislation, like the version that is before another committee.

So, in short, to answer your question, yes, there have been discussions at that official level about legislation, but not in terms of the particular content of it, other than it was addressing recommendations of the Senedd. So, I think, to answer your question, Chair, in terms of the impact, it would be a matter for Senedd scrutiny to bring that out, as it does in terms of the interrelated other pieces of legislation that the Member in charge of this Bill is also in charge of, in other parts of the Senedd.

No, he's not, because he's quite categorically informed us it's the Deputy Minister for Social Partnership who will be in charge of the other Bill.

Indeed. But in relation to the electoral reform versions, yes.

Oh, that one, yes.

Correct, yes.

I'm just concerned, because, as we go through the process on this Bill, that other Bill will be starting its process and we will not have completed one to the other one yet, so the inter-links between the two, and the possible connections, will be important to identify, at the end of Stage 1, and before Stage 2 and Stage 3, going forward.

Okay, on that basis, we've come to the end of our time, and no-one else has questions. So, can I thank you all for your time this morning? As you know, Llywydd, you will receive a copy of the transcript, and if there are any factual inaccuracies, please let the clerking team know as soon as possible so we can get them corrected.

Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr. And with the end of that session, we will now take a break for lunch, and we will reconvene at 12.45 p.m.

Good afternoon. Can I welcome Members and the public back to today's sessions of the committee? We're viewing the Senedd reform Bill, and we're on to our third evidence session this afternoon. Can I welcome Professor Stirbu to the committee, and we'll go straight into questions, if that's okay with yourself? And we'll start with Darren.

Thank you very much, Chair. Can I ask you, professor, what your views are on whether we actually need more Members of the Senedd?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Darren, for the question. The size of the Senedd has been of great concern and recognised in many important reviews, the Richard commission being the first one all the way back in 2002 and 2004, and more recently, obviously, by the expert panel in 2017. And the concern has always been about this mismatch between the capacity to scrutinise, to make legislation, to represent and engage with the people of Wales, and the pace of change that the Assembly, now the Senedd, has had to absorb, especially after 2007 and then 2011.

You've heard a lot of evidence, and there's a body of excellent evidence there, saying that the Senedd is operating under the optimal floor size. By any international standards, the Senedd is under-resourced on the political side. And whilst it has done a great job of overcompensating for this weak political capacity with adapting and adjusting its administrative capacity to support politicians more, I think there's a great danger there around the scope, the nature and the quality of political democratic deliberation, which should be the essence of this.

So, whilst you've heard all that evidence, what I wanted to bring new into this whole debate is, actually, the views of the Members and the people that work in the Senedd. I did some research in 2020-21 looking at the effectiveness of the Senedd committees, and I interviewed a lot of the committee Chairs and a lot of the parliamentary staff that support committees. And by their own acknowledgement, the challenges in terms of capacity have been absolutely phenomenal. So, in terms of this goal of effective scrutiny, the evidence that I've heard in that research on how the small numbers lead to ineffective work—. So, we heard how committee membership, for instance, was quite unstable, when you have committees of six Members, for instance, and during the fifth term, that tended to be quite unstable. So, lots of turnover in committees. Then what happens is that you lose some of that committee cohesion, that committee memory, and you get people midway through a committee term that are finding it quite hard, actually, to pick up on the work of the committee and engage fully.

I've also heard from committee Chairs how difficult it is for them to actually keep track of everything that is happening, to read all the briefs and actually deal with Members who obviously do not have time to prioritise all the work in all the committees they serve, because there might be people that serve in two, three or even four committees. Obviously, I don't need to tell you all that, because I think you're still experiencing that, but we have a body of evidence that actually suggests that by politicians' own admissions and people that work in the Senedd, the challenge of the small size of committees, of lack of time to properly scrutinise, to properly engage with committee work, is actually quite big. And put this in the bigger context of the bigger challenges that are coming ahead in terms of perhaps additional powers, and now, with Brexit, the complexity of some of that work. So, I think, yes, the Senedd does need to increase capacity, and frankly I think it’s been kicked out in the long grass for far too long.

I've been a Member of the Senedd for 16 years, Professor, and of course the work of committees ebbs and flows, but the membership of those committees, and the stability of the membership of committees, isn't going to be affected at all by this Bill in front of us. That's a matter, effectively, for political parties, to determine who attends committees and who doesn't, and who's appointed to committees and who isn't. So, it's not going to address that instability issue that you talk about. Are there not ways that some of the concerns that may have been raised with you could be addressed through changes to ways of working rather than simply adding more and more Members to the size of the institution?

I fully agree with that, Darren, and I think the qualification I will make here is that increasing the size of the Assembly is absolutely a necessary thing, but it’s not sufficient. Actually, my report shows that there’s a lot of things around ways of working, around prioritisation, around committee stability, committee membership stability—there are all these other things that are really important to ensure effective scrutiny and effective committee work. But, as you will know, and you'll all appreciate, I think the greatest currency in a parliament, and the greatest currency for effective scrutiny of legislation and of Government, is time, Members’ time. And that is what the increase in the size of the Senedd will bring. Now, the extent to which that is sufficient—you know, there are other things that need to be done alongside that.

So, 96 Members is the proposal in the legislation before us. The expert panel recommended a range of between 80 and 90, which is obviously different. What's your view on whether this is the right number or not?

Obviously, I would defer this to the great expertise of the body of evidence that the expert panel has already built around this. What I would say is that I don’t think there is an easy way to calculate and to determine an optimal size of a parliament in terms of the numbers of Members. What I would say is that, actually, lack of capacity in a parliament operating under optimal floor size—you can see that, you can spot that very easily, and I think we’ve been able to do that in terms of the Senedd.

Now, the expert panel recommended towards the upper end of the 80 to 90 bracket; the Bill puts forward a proposal for 96. In my view, there are benefits. The benefits are only increased because, as I say, the currency, Members’ time, will increase. But obviously there is a big job there around justifying those extra costs, perhaps, to the public, but also ensuring that, actually, a 96-Member Senedd does deliver. And that is the job of the politicians, the elected Members in the next Senedd, to do. So whilst, as I said, I don’t have very strong views, and I rely on the expertise of the expert panel, I would only say that the more Members you have, the more Members’ time you have, therefore the more scope for committee specialisation, for reducing multiple memberships of committees and so on and so forth.

So, the more Members you have, the more Members' time you have, but that's got to be traded off against the costs and being able to persuade the public of the need for change. You've obviously done work and research looking at other Parliaments and parliamentary models, Professor Stirbu: is there a minimum number of members of a parliament in your view that a nation the size of Wales should have?

Look, there are countries with populations similarish to Wales that actually have Parliaments in the range of anything from 100 to 130, 140 Members, so—. But, then, if we look at—. We can look at subnational Parliaments across Europe and we see variations there—you can see Parliaments that range from 75 to 94, to 100, 129 and so on and so forth—but I think what we need to be probably looking at—and I think the expert panel has made that point quite clear in their report—is that, by any international standards, by the kind of regional authority index, if you look at the scope of powers and legislative competence that Wales has and the size of the Senedd, 60 Members is far too small.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Darren. Before I ask Sarah, I will put on record that I was a Chair in the last Senedd as well, and I probably was part of the survey that Professor Stirbu undertook, therefore I won't ask too many questions in that area. Sarah.

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you for being here today to answer some of our questions. I'm just going to move on to looking at the size of Welsh Government. So, do you think the increase to a maximum of 17 Welsh Ministers is a proportionate use of the additional capacity available in an enlarged Senedd?

I think it is only natural to expect that the number of Ministers will increase, as well as—. We're talking here also about futureproofing the Senedd against future changes—so, potentially, enhanced powers, potentially extra powers around the devolution of justice, policing and whatnot. So, I think, yes, that it's very expected that we see an increase in the number of Ministers. This is justifiable, in my view, on two grounds: I think currently some of the ministerial portfolios are quite broad, as are the portfolios of the committees, and also the second aspect is, yes, the scope of powers might widen in the future. I think one point, though, that we need to consider is that, with more Ministers, then we raise a question around effective scrutiny. Will we need more committees in order to scrutinise them? And, also, we can all accept that the Senedd, as it stands, is quite heavy on the Executive in terms of the proportion between the number of Ministers and the whole Senedd, and I think that proportion needs to go down rather than up. I think the proposals are in line with that principle and I think you've heard evidence already on that. So, in my view, I think that is acceptable, but there are a lot of issues around how you recast those ministerial portfolios and how, then, you rethink your committee system in order to be able to scrutinise that.

Thank you. That brings me on, then, just to my second question, which is your views, then, on the provision in the Bill for the maximum number of Welsh Ministers to then be further expanded potentially through secondary legislation. I'm assuming that would be a similar answer, but, you are right, we have heard from previous panellists today that it should not be seen as a target, though. I assume you'd agree with that.

Yes, I think I would agree with the fact that when you have this sort of—. Okay, it's a maximum number; we probably shouldn't aim towards that. With regard to a possible increase beyond the 17, I think that I tend to agree—. I think you've heard evidence this morning around how that is done, and I think that that's probably a matter for the Senedd to do that through primary legislation, rather than a Government just increasing its size as and when it wants to.

Yes. Thank you very much and thank you, Chair.

Heledd.

Thank you very much for joining us this afternoon. If I could ask you first about the review of the operation of the Act, and ask for your views on the Bill’s provision requiring the Llywydd to table a motion to establish a Senedd committee to review the operation of Parts 1 and 2 and to consider the extent to which elements of a healthy democracy are

present in Wales.

Yes, I was quite surprised at that. I think that that is quite an unusual and strange type of provision, to place a duty on a future Presiding Officer and a future committee in a future Senedd to do that kind of work. I can understand that the Welsh Government would want to ensure and protect that a review is happening. So, I can understand that, but the way that it's being done—. I think that you'll probably hear more from more constitutional experts than me, but, to me, it did sound quite unusual. What I would say, though, is I think that what I would like to see, actually, is this type of review being part of a more wide-ranging review about how democracy in Wales works and what are the criteria of success here about a healthy Welsh democracy. So, for me, that's more important than whether or not the Bill places a duty on a future Presiding Officer for that.

For me, the type of review that I would like to see is a more kind of wholesome review around a healthy democracy in Wales. What does that mean? What are the criteria of success? I know that the Wales Centre for Public Policy has recently published a report around this, a kind of healthy democracy index. I just came across this report a couple of days ago, so the committee might want to consider that and maybe get some evidence, if it hasn't already, from the authors of that report.

We have a very complex situation here, where you have three different electoral systems and three different types of political representation in Wales. Just focusing on reviewing how these arrangements work at the level of the Senedd elections, I don't think that it will take us too far along the aim of having a healthy democracy in Wales as a whole. So, I would see this as part of a bigger type of review, rather than just focusing on whether these particular arrangements introduced by this particular Bill are appropriate or that they work well.

Another point on this, I think, is communicating the need for change. I think that there is a big piece of work to communicate the need for change in relation to this change—enlarging the Senedd and changing the electoral system. Then you are going to have to do another piece a few years after, and I am just worried that if this is not put within a bigger context of the full range and scope of democracy in Wales, then it's going to create a little bit of fatigue, I think, both for people who are interested in the system but also for the voters.

Thank you. So, in terms of looking more long term, you see merits, then—obviously, some revisions in 2026—but, maybe, after one full term, it may give us a better picture. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but it's a continuous assessment of how this is working, rather than just think, post one election, that we'd review and that's it then, but that there should be also mechanisms to review further down the line as well.

Yes, I definitely agree with that. I think continuous monitoring, evaluation and review of how the system works is necessary. And I would say that what's probably critical to that is really involving the people of Wales in that discussion, in that type of review, rather than keeping it an intellectual exercise and quite closed to experts. I would like to see this issue around how democracy in Wales works and what's important—what are the important criteria there—being part of a broader conversation in the future.

Thank you. And do you think it's appropriate that the Welsh Government is asking a Senedd committee to undertake this work or should it be broader—you've mentioned the engagement with the public and so on—to see how things are working in practice? Is it usual practice for it just to be narrow, or are there examples where other countries have successfully engaged the population? Obviously, part of what we'd want to do is engage more people in democracy, and expand the type of people that want to be in the Senedd making decisions, as well. So, I'm just interested in your views on that, please.

I always find it problematic when a government of the day is trying to impose something or place a duty on a future Senedd. So, I think that is problematic. But I think it's a matter for this committee to see what other alternatives there are to protect and to ensure that this type of conversation and this type of evaluation and assessment actually take place in the future. But I think it's quite unusual, to my knowledge, to have this kind of imposition and to have this kind of prescription in a Bill of this type.

I think, in terms of your other point, around involving the people of Wales in these kinds of conversations, obviously there are lots of mechanisms there to do that, and I think these have been tried and tested in other places. And just opening up the whole concept of representative democracy to be complemented by elements of participatory and deliberative democracy is very important, and I think those can be things that a future government and future Senedd can look at. And I know that Senedd committees have been quite good—comparatively, I have to say—in terms of trying to reach out to the general public and engage with the lived experience. But, obviously, there's a whole lot more to do. And I think this type of discussion and theme around a healthy democracy in Wales would be a great theme for a deliberative or participatory initiative, such as a citizens assembly or a deliberative committee-type of initiative.

Diolch.

Can I just ask one question on that? Clearly, the Bill mentions the word, or the terms

'the elements of a healthy democracy are present'.

Do you think the Bill should actually have clarification of what it defines as 'a healthy democracy' so that we understand the elements they wish for us to review?

I do think that there needs to be clarification about what a healthy democracy means, and there needs to be some sort of clarification of what is the theory of change here for the Welsh Government. What are we looking to improve and what are the criteria for success? I think we run the danger of then thinking that a healthy democracy is just adopting the PR system, which is just talking about representativeness, and so improving representativeness of the Senedd, but then that leaves other elements of a healthy democracy outside that. But I don't know, because it's not necessarily clarified in the Bill what a healthy democracy is, from the perspective of the Welsh Government.

Okay, thank you. Jane.

Thank you very much. There are two issues that I'd like to cover. The first is the element of job sharing that we've heard about. In your evidence, you mention the policy development that we should consider if we are going to go down the route of job sharing. Can you just expand on that, please, particularly on the policy development?

Can I just clarify with you what you mentioned in my evidence—that I talk about policy development around this area? What do you mean?

Around job sharing. So, you think there should be further policy development around the elements of job sharing.

I was part of a team that was commissioned by the remuneration board in 2017 to look at barriers and incentives for a wide range of individuals to stand in elections to Senedd. We engaged with people who either held political aspirations or who were active in their local communities, and either stood for elections at Senedd level or at local government level. We asked these people about what would make them more likely to stand, what would make them really take the big steps in terms of joining a political party, for instance, if they hadn't been active in a political party, or seeking nomination for election, and so on and so forth. And we did quite a lot of work in terms of survey work, focus groups across Wales and interviews, and we also had an online engagement platform open, where we invited people to share their views. In relation to job share, what we heard was that this would be one of those incentives that would make people more likely to stand in elections.

What's interesting about this is that we found that, actually, women and participants who identified as having a disability were more likely to consider job share as an incentive to stand in elections. So, I think this links with that sort of agenda around diversifying the Senedd. What we heard from people, for instance, was that this would enable members with childcare or caring responsibilities to stand, and would enable women, as well as men, to share childcare responsibilities more equally. It was an attractive prospect, in terms of the nature of the job, for people with families, people who were not ready to give up professional careers—so, for instance, doctors that felt that being out of their practice for four or five years would hinder their professional careers—solicitors, and so on and so forth. So, that was an attractive prospect. That's the evidence that we heard, and we put that to the remuneration board in one of our recommendations, to look further into this.

Thank you very much. That's very interesting, isn't it? Perhaps we will contact the rem board on that issue. Thank you very much. Could I just ask a further question on job sharing? Do you have any international examples that we can look at or are you aware of any international examples on this element of job sharing? Are there other nations that have introduced this policy?

I'm aware of two candidates standing in the Scottish elections in 1999, that they wanted a stand on a single ticket, but they were turned down on that. I'm not aware of international examples of particular job share in political office, but there are different arrangements that would be quite similar. For instance, in Sweden, an elected representative who will go on maternity or paternity leave then has an alternate who comes and takes their place for the duration, whether that is three months, six months or a year and a half. So, there are different types of arrangements.

I think it is fair to say, just because maybe we don't have examples from international practice, that shouldn't be a barrier for the Senedd to trial this. There's a great opportunity for the Senedd to lead the way on this type of work, and I'd like to see this trialled. Of course, whilst there is an appetite from certain people—for instance, those who would aspire to be Senedd Members and have a particular set of circumstances—we shouldn't, obviously, underestimate the technical challenges of job share. But, personally, I would like to see this happening and for us to be able to learn from the Senedd and for other countries to learn from the Senedd.

Thank you very much. A final question from me on an entirely different issue. It's a question on the electoral system and I was wondering whether you had a view on the proposal currently within the Bill, namely the closed list system. It would be interesting to hear if you have a view on that electoral system or any alternatives.

I'm not an expert in electoral systems, per se, and I think you've probably heard more expert evidence from other people. But what I would say is that if the end goal here is to make the Senedd more representative and, in a sense, to enhance that element of proportionality, then, yes, the move to a PR system is the right thing to do, and I think there is enough evidence there to suggest that proportional systems would achieve that goal. But, obviously, there are other elements in terms of voter choice and to what extent, for instance, a closed list will enhance or remove voter choice from people. I think we do need to look at the broader context of political dissatisfaction and how this will be perceived by the public. And again, I refer to other expert evidence on this: I think the expert panel has done a lot of work on this and there's a reason they landed on STV and they landed on potentially flexible lists in a PR system. I tend to agree with their assessment, but I also know that this could be the beginning; if then there is a commitment to review these arrangements, then maybe this could be the start rather than the end of the journey.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Chair.

Can I go back to the question of job sharing? Because clearly there are two aspects of it: there's one that is the job sharing of a role within the Senedd once you've been elected, and there's the job sharing of the role of the Member itself, which I think you were talking about, which would encourage people to put themselves forward for election. Do you think the Bill goes far enough in either of those aspects to basically pursue job sharing as a realistic option for election in Wales?

To be perfectly honest, Chair, I don't think I'd like to comment more on the job share, because I don't think I have the right expertise on the technical details of that. But what I would say is that it's something definitely for the committee to look at. It's something that has come up in evidence from Wales in terms of knowing that it is perceived as an incentive for people to stand in elections, and I think that shouldn't be discounted if the aim is to have a more representative Senedd and to increase the chances to attract people from a wider range of backgrounds into elected office in the Senedd. But I admit that the technicalities around what this would mean are beyond my expertise here.

Thank you for that. I'll move on to frequency of elections. Clearly, you did some work on committees and therefore have a good understanding of how the committees operate here, and the workloads upon committees. The proposal is to reduce it back to four years, as it was in the first three Senedd terms—or Assembly terms, as they were then. In your work to date, do you think that will have an impact upon the effectiveness of committees?

I think it's a very good question, Chair. I think there's something about allowing committees sufficient time to pursue their agenda and so on and plan strategically and evaluate their work. I think on the move from five to four years, four-year terms are very, very common across most established democracies. We know that the US is an outlier, because the terms are considered too short, and there's not enough time to push some of the agendas through. If we look back at the Senedd committees before the five-year term, I don't think that would make a great impact, in my view. I would say that it's only reverting to something that was happening before anyway. But I don't have any strong views or evidence that I can rely on on this, and in the 2026 term, this would probably need to be one of the things that we need to look at carefully in terms of evaluating what impact this might have on committees' work.

I will put a rider in for the public record: of course, for the first three Assembly terms that were four years, the Senedd didn't have primary law-making powers at that time.

On residency, have you any views on the Bill's requirement that any candidate, let alone any Member, needs to be resident in Wales as far as being on an electoral register within Wales?

I don't disagree with the principle that when you're standing for election to the Welsh Parliament to make laws for Wales you should also live in Wales and be subject to those laws that you make. I think the principle for me is the right principle. But I also think that this may link into the debate around the electoral system and whether you have an open or closed list and so on and so forth. There could be nothing more frustrating for voters, for instance, than to vote on a closed list system that is topped by someone who perhaps lives outside Wales. It wouldn't be good PR for the party in question; it wouldn't be good PR for the Senedd, in my view.

When you remove that element of voter choice, I think then there's a danger there. I think the requirement to be a resident, to live in Wales, is the right one, in my view. I know there's also the debate around being a local person, so having links and connections to the community or the electoral jurisdiction that you're part of. That's also something quite important and I think there's evidence to suggest that. But I think there's a difference there between local and national politics. Obviously, a debate needs to be had then around what's more important at local and Senedd elections and how that proximity plays within those two layers of representation. But for me, yes, the residency requirement is probably right in principle.

And a final one from me, hopefully. In your work, when you were asked to look at the committees and the effectiveness within the Senedd—. We currently have a single DPO and one Presiding Officer, and the Bill proposes the possibility of an additional DPO. Do you have any views or comments about that? I'll put my hand up and say that I'm the current DPO, as it is.

I think, again, that with an enlarged Senedd, it's probably expected and it's probably normal to expect that. I think, yes, the form should follow function, so it should be very clear then what the role of that second DPO could be.

Looking at international practice, actually, it's quite common, even in small legislatures, to have two or even three deputy presiding officers, deputy speakers or vice-presidents, as they may be called in some other places. For instance, in Catalonia, there are two vice-presidents; in the Basque Country, there are two vice-presidents; in the Parliament of the French Community in Belgium, they have three vice-presidents; in Croatia—a small nation—they have five deputy presiding officers. So, I think that's in line with international practice that I have seen and come across.

Thank you. Do any Members have any other final questions? I've just been passed one. So, the last question: there is a gender quota agenda that was part of the original special purpose committee's recommendations, and we are aware that there will be a second Bill put forward that will focus on the gender quota. Is there anything in this Bill do you think that is going to make diversity more difficult?

Maybe the question there leans towards the PR, closed list system, and there's an argument that maybe the PR system, the closed lists, might ensure, if not guarantee, greater gender diversity, depending on whether you zip that list, placing women at the top. That would be my first thought. But with all these kinds of things you probably need to look at the broader picture, and probably just the zipping of candidates on a list is not enough; you probably have to look at the whole kind of horizontal zipping—I think that's what it's called—of all the existing lists and constituencies as well. So, I don't necessarily think that I can see any barriers to greater diversity in this Bill per se. There are questions there to be raised around the open or closed lists, and I think that's a really important debate to have and put in the context not only of the impact on potentially gender quotas but also within the broader impact of ensuring voter choice, transparency and whatnot.

Thank you for that and thank you for your evidence. You will receive a copy of the transcript of the meeting, and if you identify any factual inaccuracies, can you please let the clerking team know as soon as possible and we'll have them corrected? Once again, thank you for your time.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to all committee members.

For Members, we'll move on to item 5 on our agenda, which is papers to note. There are six papers to note, and I'd like to hope that we can note all six papers in one, unless Members object. All agreed. Therefore, we will note those papers.

Therefore, we move on to item 6, which is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting. Are Members content to do so? Then we will move now into private session.