Welcome, everyone, to this meeting of the Local Government and Housing Committee. The first item on the agenda today is introductions, apologies, substitutions and declarations of interest. We have Sarah Murphy joining us today for her first committee meeting having joined the committee. So, welcome, Sarah. And may I thank Jack Sargeant MS for his contributions to the committee's work, as Jack has left us as Sarah joins?
We've received apologies from Luke Fletcher and Altaf Hussain, committee members. Adam Price is substituting for Luke Fletcher, and Peter Fox is substituting for Altaf Hussain. So, welcome, Adam and Peter. Under Standing Order 17.49, I have agreed that Joel James MS can attend the meeting to speak to the amendment he has tabled, and he will join us later on at that stage.
This meeting is being held in person. There is no facility for participants to join virtually. The public items of the meeting are being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and a Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. The meeting, of course, is bilingual and simultaneous translation is available. Are there any declarations of interest? No.
We will move on to item 2, Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill Stage 2 proceedings. The purpose is to undertake those Stage 2 proceedings on that Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to welcome the Counsel General to the meeting as the Member in charge of the Bill. Croeso, Counsel General.
Members should have before them the marshalled list of amendments and the groupings of the amendments for debate. The marshalled list is the list of all amendments tabled, marshalled into the order agreed by the committee at its meeting on 18 April. So, for this meeting, the order in which we will consider amendments is as outlined on the agenda. Members will see from the groupings list that amendments have been grouped to facilitate debate. The order in which amendments are called and moved for a decision is dictated by the marshalled list. I will advise Members when I call them whether they are being called to speak in the debate or to move their amendments for a decision. Should a Member wish not to move an amendment, they should indicate this at the appropriate point of proceedings. In such circumstances, another member of the committee could choose to move the amendment in question. There will be one debate on each group of amendments. Members who wish to speak should indicate in the usual way. I will call the Counsel General to speak on each group. For the record, in accordance with the convention agreed by the Business Committee, as Chair, I will move amendments in the name of the Counsel General. Counsel General, for expediency, I will assume that you wish me to move all your amendments, and I will do so at the appropriate place in the marshalled list.
If you do not want a particular amendment to be moved, please indicate that at the relevant point. I will also move the amendment tabled by Joel James MS, who is not a member of the committee. In line with our usual practice, legal advisers to the committee, and indeed to the Counsel General, are not expected to provide advice on the record. If members of the committee wish to seek legal advice during the proceedings, please do so by sending a direct message to our legal adviser, Steve, next to me, or the clerk, Cath. If necessary, I will call an adjournment or the legal adviser will reply directly. No breaks have been scheduled, but I will call breaks at appropriate points during proceedings.
Let us move on, then, to our Stage 2 proceedings. The first group of amendments relates to the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru and its functions. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 115, and I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the lead amendment, and to the other amendments in this group.
Thank you very much, Chair. May I say at the outset how much of a pleasure it is to serve under your chairmanship as a temporary member of this committee? I move amendments 115, 116 and 121.
As this is the first group of amendments to be discussed at Stage 2, I would just like to make a few initial general comments. First of all, I would like to thank the clerks and legal advisers within the Senedd, who have provided so much support to me in tabling these amendments, and also our staff within the Plaid group, who have worked heroically over recent days in order to get everything in place. And may I also thank the Counsel General and his staff for the very useful and constructive engagement that we've had throughout this process, and also fellow members of this committee, where we also have had an opportunity to discuss these issues over recent weeks?
At the beginning of these proceedings, I would like to set out some context for this legislation, from our own perspective, and also to outline some of the main objectives of our amendments across the groups today. The broader context, of course, is that the Senedd has agreed the first of two reform Bills, which will significantly strengthen our representative parliamentary democracy. Welsh democracy has reached an important milestone in recent days, and we should never take that for granted, of course. But there is more work to be done, and another Bill to be passed, and further work to be done by us as Members, and others, in order to create an effective Parliament that reflects the population.
Democracy within this state, and across the world, is at a crossroads. There is a crisis in democracy at a global level, with the onset of new technologies, for example, with a lack of trust, as we discussed yesterday. Trust in democratic institutions is falling across the democratic world, and there are also malicious actors, of course, who threaten our democracy, and, of course, we saw that appalling incident just yesterday in Hungary. The Government in London, I believe, has also introduced some policies that take us in the wrong direction—in my view at least—in terms of preventing more people from voting, in terms of turning the clock back on the smallest measure of proportional representation that we saw in terms of changes to the elections for the mayors and police and crime commissioners recently.
But it's also important to note that, close to home, here in Wales, things aren't necessarily healthy in terms of the viability of our democracy: a lack of awareness among our citizens in terms of the devolved system, with that democratic deficit emerging from a deficit in terms of our national media; a general apathy about democracy, which demonstrates itself in the low percentages that turn out to vote at all levels; an inadequate legal framework to support a viable and lively democracy; the duplication of responsibilities and key bodies without the capacity to operate properly; and a lack of equal status for the Welsh language within this context and practical use of the language in the administration of elections.
Now, positive steps and innovative steps have been taken, such as expanding the franchise to young people and foreign nationals in devolved elections, and this Bill seeks to build on those and proposes a number of reforms that are to be warmly welcomed, such as automatic registration. Aiming higher and being more ambitious, I think, is our aim. That's the direction of travel we want to see with this opportunity to reform our democracy once again, and to seek to ensure that we focus on substance and outcomes as well as process. Process in and of itself can't take you far enough. So, we have to have a vision, we have to have structure and clarity as to who has responsibility of delivery, and I'm grateful to the General Counsel and his officials, as I've said, in terms of the discussions that we've had to date.
In terms of the more general themes of my amendments today, we are seeking to safeguard and develop the democratic foundations of Wales, and trust in our democratic institutions, particularly in the age of artificial intelligence and misinformation, and populism too, which is more than happy to lie in order to attract support. The second theme is getting the fundamentals right in electoral administration and securing respect for all of our citizens, in terms of equal treatment for our national languages and the rights of voters with disabilities. Thirdly, building on ensuring consistency with what the Senedd has already agreed in the other Bill, the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill, in terms of the new statutory system of naming constituencies, for example, ensuring alignment between the provisions of the both Bills. And finally, to strengthen the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru so that it is a powerful executive body that is responsible for all aspects of developing our democracy, from remuneration of Senedd Members and county councillors, to monitoring and encouraging diversity in devolved politics and dealing with barriers that prevent people from standing as candidates and is an engine room of information and expertise on the experience of being an elected member, including unacceptable behaviours, and co-ordinating and reporting on a programme of work to improve the health of our democracy.
Turning, therefore, Chair—. And thank you for your patience in terms of my opening remarks. Can I turn, therefore, to this group of amendments, and the first amendment, which is amendment 115, which ensures that the functions of the commission include
'issues related to the democratic health of the nation',
ensuring that the functions that the Government itself seeks to give to the body, as outlined in paragraph 1.2 of the explanatory memorandum, are reflected on the face of the Bill? So, what we've done is to take the wording from the explanatory memorandum on the democratic health of the nation and to place that on the face of the Bill.
The Reform Bill Committee, also in the context of raising awareness of the electoral system for the new Senedd, had noted the need for clarity on who would lead on this co-ordination work. You, yourself, Counsel General, committed to respond in full, and I have tabled a written question to you on this, so I will await that response. But all of this emphasises the need for that co-ordination role to drive this important work forward from an arm's length, non-party political perspective, and that's what we're seeking to achieve with this amendment. The Counsel General and the Government has agreed £1 million in the current budget to implement the recommendations of the constitutional commission, including specifically on democratic innovation and engagement, committing to developing a programme of follow-up work and related structures. Who better to lead on the implications of that work programme relating to democratic health and innovation than a new unit within the democracy commission?
Amendment 116, Chair, goes further, therefore, and seeks to provide executive responsibility to the democracy commission over the co-ordination of a programme of work across the different bodies that I have named, which will encourage democratic innovation and will provide a framework as to how it should carry out its functions for the democratic health of Wales by establishing a specific unit within the commission and to report in an annual report on the impact of this work. The amendment suggests some areas that could be reported on, but without doubt, there will be more, such as people's understanding of which party is in power, or parties, what are the responsibilities of the various different democratic bodies at a local level in Wales and in Westminster and so on. The Counsel General, I know, is highly aware of the innovative work done in this area by The Democracy Box, for example. There is a template there that the commission and this unit could build upon in terms of enhancing awareness of the democratic process and ensuring that there is co-ordination across the general theme of democratic health.
Finally, Chair, amendment 121 places a duty on the commission to monitor gender-based political violence, harassment and abuse of elected representatives. Now, recently, I represented the Senedd at the global parliamentary forum of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and it was very interesting to meet with elected members there from Tanzania, which is one of those nations that has legislated on gender-based political violence. Bolivia was the first, but there is a series of nations now that have introduced laws specifically on this issue of gender-based political violence, because we know, of course, that although this problem of harassment and abuse is a general problem for everyone at almost all level of politics, there is a tendency for it to be worse for women in politics, people from ethnic-minority backgrounds and people from the LGBT community, for example. So, what we have in this amendment is a duty that will be placed on the commission to monitor the level of harassment so that we can see the extent of the problem. We all know that it's a very serious and increasing problem, but we need that data in order to understand the nature and scale of the problem and how we can mitigate it. And therefore a monitoring unit would be created and it would publish data on this issue. And the amendment also gives powers to Welsh Ministers to provide more duties to the commission in this context.
Well, diolch, Chair. If you can give me discretion just to respond generally to some of the opening comments, can I first of all thank Adam and other Members for the constructive work that we've had in looking at this legislation and looking at how to frame the legislation, and also to look at how this whole process may develop?
Can I just first of all say that I agree, I think, with nearly all of the comments that were made in terms of the issues of democracy that I think are completely cross-party and things that we are all very much concerned with? The issue of democratic health, I'm very pleased, is now beginning to feature as one of the key elements of well-being and so on in our society, in our civic democracy.
The two Bills that you referred to, obviously this one and the earlier Senedd reform one, what they do is provide a framework for reform and for improving and strengthening our democracy. But this does not bring the process to an end, because our environment is continually changing and the challenges to our freedom, which is dependent on our democratic system, are continually under challenge as well. I always remember the—I think it was—the Tower Colliery National Union of Mineworkers banner, which had at the bottom of it, 'The price of freedom is eternal vigilance', and I think that is part of what we are actually addressing.
Can I also say that, as we go through this process, many of the amendments that are there—many of which I will be opposing—are not being opposed in terms of the principles or the issues that are raised? For me, part of the issue is to ensure that we get the basics right in getting what is a momentous change that will take place in 2026 in the way our Senedd general election actually takes place, but it's not something that is then exclusive to the fact that there is a need for further reform in terms of many of the other areas that are being talked about.
So, in terms of Adam's amendments 115, 116 and 121, these expand the functions of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru that is taking on the responsibility for the Senedd boundaries, the independent remuneration panel functions, and also to host the electoral management board. The intention in relation to the proposed functions of the EMB is to build, as was mentioned, on the successful Scottish electoral management board in order to ensure the operational independence of it. Some of its operational matters will be, of course, for the board to determine as part of its ways of working. Now, I accept that the issues covered by amendments 115 and 116 could well be very helpful to the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru to consider in the future. As Members will know, as I've said, democratic health is a serious concern for me and, I think, for the Welsh Government. It is the underpinning of the consideration of all our work on electoral reform and, as I say, is an ongoing process. So, we may well look to add these functions in amendments 115 and 116 at a later date through subordinate legislation, and the Member referred, of course, to the explanatory memorandum, which gives further substance, I think, to the direction. I just fear that adding them at this point could jeopardise the DBCC's immediate focus as we set it up.
I think that, in terms of the democratic health, as I point out, it is in the explanatory memorandum—indeed, I think it's come up in committee previously—where the current commission recognises that, de facto, it has a democratic health function anyway. So, I think what we're seeking to do is to formalise and to give that clarity. If it is de facto, then it should be reflected, really, so that citizens are aware that there is a body in Wales that is devolved, that has this broader function. But we may return to this at a later stage, and there may be other ways in which it can be brought forward, as the Counsel General has said.
In relation to amendment 121—and, again, the commission is already involved in work in this field, as you said—I attended a seminar on abuse in politics that was chaired by the current commission, and a piece of work was initiated by your Cabinet colleague, the constitution and finance Cabinet Secretary. Our feeling is that we're already staring into the abyss on this one. Political life has always been difficult, challenging, filled with invective and all the rest of it, but we are entering into a new phase. For some of the reasons that I referred to in my opening remarks, when we're talking about democratic health as a positive, we've got to realise that there is something very, very wrong in the body politic at the moment. There is poison within the system. And if we don't act quickly, urgently, collaboratively, all those of us that, on a cross-party basis, want to see democracy thrive and, I have to say, survive, because there are existential threats out there—. The level of organised—because much of it is, certainly online, organised, and some of it offline as well, isn't it, by anti-democratic forces—. I think giving a focus to that—. I'm happy to discuss outside of these parameters how that could be done and then the legal form and practical form. But I think we need to do something more than we're currently doing. We're of the view that giving a particular focus, giving a home for this work and ensuring as well that data that is being gathered in pots, in silos—. But no-one at the moment is able to give us the complete view, and we're not able to identify over time, and yet, in Wales, we have academics like the HateLab in Cardiff University who are experts in this field—. The commission could work with them to do something that was genuinely pioneering, I think, in Wales. So, I accept that we're unlikely to get this amendment through today, but could I ask that we have further discussions as to how we could achieve the objective of this amendment on a collaborative basis?
Just very briefly, picking up Adam's point, that wonderful quote that you used there from the Tower banner apparently originated with Thomas Jefferson in 1817, and he's a great example of how politics has always been vicious. There have been anonymous, hateful attacks all through the democratic tradition, but the technological leaps we've seen give this a different flavour, and the fake audio we've seen of Sadiq Khan in the most recent London mayoral election and the very convincing visual deepfakes that are now in circulation really should worry us all. So, I'm very pleased to hear you say that you support the initiative and would want to look at how we can bring it in through regulations. I guess there's always the tension, isn't there, about how much we want to focus on the first principles of the Bill and not get distracted by other things, but it'd be good if, at the next stage, you were able to give us a little bit more information and commitment about how some of these ideas might be taken forward.
No, just that I agree very much with those sentiments, and, as I initially said, for me, with such momentous change for 2026, I'm very concerned that the focus is to ensure that 2026 is a robust election that works. It's central, which means there's focus there, but, as I say, all these things are absolutely relevant and things that I think the framework enables us to actually develop and to do, et cetera. So, I agree with it to that extent.
Well, maybe a few of us, those of us who may be interested in this area, possibly could meet with you, Counsel General, to see, in between this stage and the next stage, how we could achieve this objective in different formats. I think that would be very useful.
Okay. Thank you very much. The question, then, is that amendment 115 be agreed to, does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. We will, then, proceed to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 115 be agreed to. Will those in favour please raise your hands? Those against. That doesn't leave room for any abstentions. So, we have three in favour and three against. Therefore, I use my casting vote as Chair against the amendment and the amendment is not agreed.
Yes. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will, then, move to a vote. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed to. Will those in favour please raise your hands? And those against. So, once again, we have three in favour, three against, and, as Chair, I use my casting vote against, and amendment 116 is not agreed.
That takes us to group 2, the second group of amendments, relating to the electoral management board. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 98, and I call on Peter Fox to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Peter.
Thank you, Chair, and thank you for the important opportunity to contribute to the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill. I wish to speak to my first amendment, and it's a probing amendment, so I won't be looking to take a vote on amendment 98. It highlights some of my concerns surrounding the electoral management board. I'm concerned that the Welsh Government has not been clear in providing the full extent of the types of functions that the Minister intends to confer on the electoral management board. As the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee highlighted, we need more information on the types of functions that may be conferred on the EMB, as well as its independence. So, with this in mind, I would hope that the Minister could, therefore, clarify exactly what the functions of the electoral management board would be and what steps would be put in place to ensure that the board would be able to act with independence.
On the other amendments in this group, I will be opposing amendment 1, as my group is against the addition of 'three years'—that's just a position point of the group on that, so I have no great argument to make around that. As for all of the other amendments put forward by the Counsel General, we will be in support of those.
Just very briefly, amendment 1 seeks to ensure that the chair of the electoral management board has been a returning officer within the past three years. Of course, there is disagreement between me and the Conservative spokesman on this, but we think it is important to ensure that they do have a minimum level of relevant experience in terms of managing elections. So, that's the intention of the amendment.
Thank you, Chair. I won't be supporting Peter Fox’s amendment 98, which removes the power for Welsh Ministers to make regulations that specify the provisions for which the EMB would be responsible.
The power is, in my view, required as Welsh Ministers may need to confer further functions related to electoral administration on the electoral management board in the future. So, it's important to have the flexibility within the Bill to ensure that the EMB remains fit for purpose and in case further functions do need to be conferred on the board, as in fact discussed just in the amendment earlier on. So, these functions would have to be created by legislation in the first place, so it provides the mechanism to enable that to happen.
An example of where provisions specified in regulations may add to the functions of the commission is, for example, the Welsh elections information platform. We envisage that the electoral management board would take forward the platform, and regulations could confer functions on the electoral management board in relation to that particular platform.
Amendments 11 to 15 in my name are a set of amendments to tidy up the list of exclusions to the electoral management board. While the EMB will be comprised of people with elections officer experience and two members of the democracy and boundary commission, we wanted to make clear the need for impartiality and independence of EMB functions. So, I'm asking Members to support those amendments.
The purpose of amendment 11 is to clarify that exclusions from membership of the EMB apply for the duration of appointment, not just on appointment. That was already the policy intention, but the amendment clarifies that in law and ensures alignment with other sets of exclusions in this Bill and the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill.
Amendment 12 expands the list of elected members excluded from the EMB, and the purpose of that is to align it with the exclusions to membership of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru via the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill.
The purpose of amendment 14 is to clarify the exclusion of staff of the Senedd from membership of the EMB.
Amendments 13 and 15 are consequential amendments.
Amendment 1 from Adam sets overly prescriptive eligibility criteria for membership of the electoral management board. Of course, it's important that there is experience, but we think it would unduly limit the field of potential candidates. There could be unfortunate consequences. For example, the most suitable candidate could not be appointed if they had worked as an elections officer for several elections more than three years ago. However, someone with only recent experience as an elections officer could be appointed even if that experience was limited or less. So, a requirement for previous experience as an elections officer, combined with a robust selection process, we think, is the best way of testing candidates' experience and suitability for the role. Diolch, Chair.
Obviously, my 98, as I said, is a probing amendment and I'm not looking to take it to a vote, but I was looking for deeper clarity. I don't think I've got that yet, but that might emerge, I think, perhaps in later stages, as you say. So, we'll gain more insight on that. I concur with your views on amendment 1 as well, and am supportive of the rationale for the rest of your amendments, Counsel General. So, with that, Chair, I have nothing more to say.
Amendment 11, then. I move amendment 11 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 11 is agreed.
I move amendment 12 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 12 is agreed.
I move amendment 13 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 13 is agreed to.
I move amendment 14 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 14 is agreed to.
I move amendment 15 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Then amendment 15 is agreed to.
And that, then, takes us to group 3, relating to electoral registration. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 99. I call on Peter Fox to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group. Peter.
Thank you, Chair. I firmly believe that participation in democracy should be a choice, and the provisions laid out by the Welsh Government to increase voter participation do not fundamentally resolve the core issue. The fact is that turnout in Senedd elections is incredibly low—always has been—for a number of reasons, I'm sure, including the lack of knowledge surrounding devolution and a general apathy towards the Senedd. That is why I will be proposing and moving amendment 99, which seeks to increase the notice period of 45 days to 60 days, after which a person will be registered to vote without application. This gives more time for people to opt out, should they wish.
I am pleased to be supporting amendments 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Adam Price. We need to be careful with people's information, especially those who wish to remain anonymous for good reason, such as those suffering from domestic abuse. It is therefore crucial that we make it as easy for people as possible to opt out of automatic voter registration. While I recognise the desire to increase voter participation, I also wish to highlight the fact that we need to ensure automatic voter registration works for all people in Wales.
Too often we see proposals being brought forward with no means by which we can assess their effectiveness. This is why I've tabled amendment 100, ensuring that Welsh Ministers carry out a review relating to the operation of electoral registration without application no later than 12 months from the end of the local government elections in 2027. This will give us an idea of how effective the measure has been and what more can be done to improve voter turnout and make it easier for people to participate in democracy. We need to assess the effectiveness of this legislation, rather than just accept the fact that it has or hasn't worked anecdotally. That's all I need to say at the moment.
Thank you very much, Chair. The lead amendment of this group, 99, seeks to extend the notification period from 45 to 60 days, as we heard, and, after that, the person will be registered to vote without application. We are in favour of removing or reducing the barriers to register voters automatically, so we object to this.
Amendment 100 by the Tories would create provision for a specific review of registering voters automatically. Even though we are of the view that our amendment, which would mean a review of the whole Act in due course, would encompass this, we do not object in principle to this amendment, so we will support it.
Amendments 2 and 3 are our amendments, and they seek to make applications for automatic registration as easy and as flexible as possible, specifically by removing the need for any voter in Wales who wishes to register anonymously to provide supplementary evidence for their application, and removing the requirement for renewing registration for anonymous registrations.
We would appreciate more clarity and explanation from the Counsel General on the need for amendment 16, which removes the requirement to publish and provide an open register of local government voters, as far as we can see. What discussions have there been with the political parties on this and the potential impact on their activities? We will abstain on this, and also on amendments 44 and 45, as they seem to be placing more hurdles in the way as we move towards the automatic registration that we in Plaid Cymru want to see happening as soon as possible.
May I turn, therefore, to amendment 127, which is also part of this group, and is an old discussion point in Welsh politics, and also in other areas where second homes are a widespread phenomenon? There have been a number of attempts in the past at Westminster to get rid of the situation that exists currently, where someone, because they have a second home, has the right to vote in more than one place. We have always been of the view that that is essentially undemocratic. The fact that you have access to more property does not, in our view, give you rights to have more freedom to decide in elections where to vote, and that should be reflected in the electoral system, certainly for national elections.
There is an argument that is sometimes aired that there should be a differentiation between voting in national elections in this context, for the Senedd, for example, and local government. I think there are arguments on both sides, even on a local level. Does living in an area just for part of the time give you the right—the same right, the equal right—to decide on the democratic process within that territory?
But, certainly, for elections in general, we think that there is a need to act to make up for the fact that there is no clarity in terms of this question, because local registration officers have the right currently to challenge people who have second homes under process 1B, or something like that—that is, they can question somebody who is on the register to see if they have enough of a local connection. But, in reality, of course, that isn't implemented consistently. There is a need, I think, to have the statutory certainty to say that having a second home somewhere does not give you the right to vote in that area. You should vote in the place where your main residence is.
There are exceptions, as we set out in the amendment, and they're quite sensible. If somebody lives for a time away from their main residence for reasons relating to employment or service or education and so forth, there should be exceptions in those cases. But if you're only on the register because you have a second home somewhere, that should not be reflected in our democracy.
As I said, there have been a number of attempts over the years by Members from Wales, Cornwall, and other places, to address this democratic injustice—people deciding in what constituency they're going to vote and so forth. You shouldn't have a right to vote in elections just because you have property, and do not have roots or are part of the community in the way that we would understand that you have a real connection. So, that is the purpose of that amendment.
It would be interesting to hear the view of the Counsel General, naturally. We have drafted this as a probing amendment because there are a number of moving parts here, but I would like to hear the support of the Government for the principle that—. Remember, 36,000 people live in second homes in Wales. That is, they 'live', in quotation marks, for a period of time here, and because of that, with automatic registration, unless we put something in this Bill, there is a risk that those numbers, which are concentrated in about four new constituencies, are going to have a big effect on the results in those areas, and in a way that isn't fair. Of course, anyone should have a vote in their main residence in Wales, certainly, but you shouldn't have a vote just because you happen to spend a few weeks of the year in a second home in Wales.
Diolch, Chair. Firstly, I thank Peter Fox and Adam Price for the constructive contributions. I'm not going to be asking Members to support these amendments. Amendment 2 sets two different requirements for anonymous registration between devolved and reserved elections, which would very likely lead to voter confusion. The voters engaging with anonymous registration are likely to be the most vulnerable voters, and clarity of the process, I think, is of utmost importance in supporting them.
The amendment is technically flawed. It would have the effect of removing the requirement to provide evidence, but would not alter the requirements placed on the registration officer around evaluating this evidence. Registration officers would therefore be asked to make determinations without evidence and could reject valid applications, causing greater detriment to vulnerable electors. Additionally, the drafting with regard to the definition of the local government register of electors is inconsistent with that used elsewhere in the Bill and wider electoral legislation. Those are technical points I just draw attention to.
Amendment 3 would set two very different requirements for anonymous registration between devolved and reserved elections, which could lead to voter confusion. It could lead to a voter being removed from the anonymous parliamentary electoral register if they did not know or were not aware of the fact that they needed to then re-apply annually for that register. Voters applying for anonymous registration, as I've said, are likely to be the most vulnerable of voters, and clarity of the process is of utmost importance in protecting them.
I take the points that were made. One of the objectives I've always had in looking at this process is keeping the system as straightforward as possible for voters, recognising that the administrative bodies—the bodies that we set up to run elections, and so on—are managing the same people who will do the reserved elections as well as the devolved elections. Those are clearly factors we want in terms of ensuring the clarity of information that's available.
As with amendment 2, the definition of the local government register is, as I've said, inconsistent with that used elsewhere in the Bill, and that's a technical point.
Amendment 16, tabled in my name, is in response to recommendation 11 of the committee’s report, which called for amendments to ensure the removal of the open register for Welsh elections prior to piloting electoral registration without application, and also to amend the powers contained in the Representation of the People Act 1983, to prevent the Welsh Ministers from subsequently reviving the open register. So, it's a response to recommendation 11.
Thank you. Thank you, colleagues, for your contributions. On the 45 days, 60 days, the 45 is an arbitrary figure, plucked out when you considered this, and, likewise, I suggest that it's always better to give people more time. I understand, Counsel General, your points around a pilot and that a pilot might give us further indication of how people are seeing this, but I will still be wanting to move that to a vote.
And likewise, on amendment 100, I do hear what you're saying about duplication, but I'm still minded—. I think it needs to be a strong signal from us at this point about the need for that. So, I will be also moving amendment 100.
And the other amendments within this group, we will be supporting.
Okay. Thank you, Peter. The question then is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will then move to a vote. All those in favour, please show? And those against. Okay. In relation to amendment 99, there voted 2 in favour, 4 against, and the amendment is not agreed.
Moved. Okay. The question then is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is an objection. We will then move to a vote. All those in favour, please show. And those against. Okay. There voted three in favour, three against, and, as Chair, I use my casting vote against. Amendment 2 is therefore not agreed.
Okay. Amendment 3 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will then move to a vote. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. There voted then three for, three against, and again I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 3 is not agreed.
I move amendment 16, in the name of the Counsel General. The question then is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will then move to a vote. So, in relation to amendment 16, will all those in favour please show. Those against. And abstentions. Okay, there voted five in favour with one abstention, and amendment 16 is therefore agreed.
Okay. Amendment 100 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will then move to a vote. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. Okay. There voted three in favour, three against, and again I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 100 is not agreed.
The fourth group of amendments relates to Welsh elections piloting powers and regulations. The lead amendment is amendment 7, and I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group. Adam.
So, amendment 7 simply specifies an enabling power to bring forward a pilot in relation to universal civic duty voting, which is defined through a consequential amendment. It's the term that I prefer to use, many of us prefer to use, that's supported with a principle, but it is sometimes known as mandatory or compulsory voting. It's important to stress that this is simply an enabling power, which would allow Government, at any point, if it so chose, to bring forward an election pilot using the procedure set out in this Bill, in order to test the impact of universal civic duty voting on democratic health, and particularly in terms of levels of turnout, which is a key concern, as I said earlier, internationally, but it's certainly an issue for us in Wales, isn't it, where we've never had over 50 per cent turnout for Senedd elections, and we also have challenges at all levels, in terms of our elections, particularly at local level.
In terms of universal civic duty voting, many of the advocates of universal civic duty voting have stressed the importance of a piloting process. When you're coming from a tradition of voluntary voting, which is the tradition within the UK, the current position, moving and considering moving towards a framework of universal civic duty voting, then you have many choices as to how that is going to work in practice. There are systems of universal civic duty voting that involve positive inducements rather than negative punishments. So, you can have systems that say, 'Everyone has £20 off their council tax', or whatever, but if you don't vote, then you lose that. There are many different ways of doing it, the levels of the inducement or the fine, et cetera. The way that it is implemented varies quite considerably across those many jurisdictions that have universal civic duty voting. And, as with any electoral reform, piloting it in order to see, possibly doing it in slightly different ways in different areas, in order to learn what works, actually having that as a possibility.
There are many steps in this political process, aren't there? First of all, there would have to be a change of policy, and each party would need to go through its own democratic structures. It would need to be in a manifesto, et cetera. But when you get to that stage, where you have a sufficient mandate, then actually having the technical ability to introduce an election pilot is a useful choice. It might be something that you decide, 'Well, actually that's not appropriate; that's not the way that we're going to take this forward', but you don't want to close that off. And, as I've said, Mark Tami, actually, 25 years ago, who's long been an advocate in this area, when he was a young union official in those days, before his parliamentary career, wrote a Fabian pamphlet arguing for the introduction of universal civic duty voting in the UK, and very strongly made the case for it to be done in a phased way, using pilots at local authority level and then testing, based on the different models that are out there, what works. And, indeed, there is a very, very big debate going on in America at the moment around universal civic duty voting and the main body, 100%Democracy, which is driving that, are very strong advocates of a piloting model. So, you have elections at all levels in America—they seem to elect everything and everyone—and the advocates are very strongly of the view that you learn at different levels of jurisdiction, so you don't have to go in one leap, necessarily, from no system, no tradition of 100 per cent universal civic duty voting; you can actually trial it at different levels, learn and then incorporate that at the national level if it's successful, using the kind of procedure that is well understood and well set out on the face of the Bill.
I should just say that the Counsel General may in his remarks say, 'Well, actually, the Bill already allows that facility because it allows Ministers to add further to the electoral matters that can be piloted under the provisions of the Bill', which would be fair enough, but, of course, amendment 20, as I read it, actually takes away that wide level of discretion that would allow you, in my reading anyway, to use the provisions here to do what I've just described. What the Counsel General giveth, the Counsel General taketh away, I think, possibly. So, we're slightly nervous, Counsel General, about the effect of amendment 20 in this regard, which would strengthen our case for putting it on the table as an enabling power, not in any way suggesting that that is the current policy intent by the Government.
If I can move on to amendment 117, which is in a kind of similar field of, 'What can we do? What different ways can we think of that could have a beneficial effect in terms of turnout?', one of them, which has long been advocated, is moving from elections on a Thursday, on a working day, to elections at a weekend. Most advocates in the UK context have advocated Sunday as the day that's most likely to get the higher turnout. There are problems, I think, in—. It's just become standard practice in the UK, hasn't it, that we vote on a Thursday. I think you've got to go back to the 1930s to find a general election that was on a Tuesday. But there is an argument, certainly, that weekend voting, when we look at places that have moved to weekend voting and when we compare weekend voting areas in terms of the levels of turnout with those that vote in the working week—. Most independent observers, for example Democratic Audit in their evidence to a House of Commons select committee, or certainly a parliamentary select committee that looked at this, estimate a 10 per cent higher turnout from voting at the weekend. Indeed, other expert witnesses to that same inquiry have, based on the research, estimated something like an increase in turnout between 6.8 per cent and 10 per cent. That's very exact, isn't it? But, there is a consensus, I think, amongst most academic experts and independent observers in this field that weekend voting would have a beneficial and positive effect, and again, here, arguably this is covered by the electoral matters list because it does refer to when elections should be held. So, this second amendment is not about giving that facilitative power, because it does exist, as I read it, already; it's about saying that we will definitely do this and that this is something that should be in that first wave of pilots, because it could have a very, very significant effect. And while I am an advocate of universal civic duty voting, it's less of a leap, maybe, than universal civic duty voting, but it takes us on that positive journey towards increasing the levels of turnout.
May I turn now to the other amendments? We support amendment 101 to pilot an electoral cycle of four years—or that's at least how I interpret the amendment—and amendment 104 providing a duty to pilot in rural and urban areas, where appropriate, in order to have comprehensive data on the impact of the various pilots in various different areas.
We oppose amendments 102 and 103, as withdrawing the power to require local authorities to participate in a pilot could hamper its effectiveness, and the need to consult more before trialling automatic registration is a barrier to one of the central aims of the legislation in our view.
I've already talked about our concerns about amendment 20 in the name of the General Counsel to take powers from Ministers to add a list of things that could be piloted in the future, as there would then need to be new primary legislation for us to do that. We will oppose that as it restricts flexibility and doesn't allow the legislation to innovate.
We will abstain on some of the more technical and procedural amendments of the General Counsel in this group, but we'll support others that deliver more transparency for the Senedd.
Thank you, Chair. First off, I'm afraid I can't support Adam here on amendments 7 or 8. While I hear views on a universal right—. While it is a universal right to vote, I don't believe it is a civic duty. This smacks, very much, of forcing people to vote, which goes against the very idea that we are a free society where we are able to vote or not vote as we choose. And I understand that there may be ways to incentivise people to come forward, but that isn't the way you should be empowering people to vote. If there's apathy in voting, it's obviously something we're not doing right, and to force people to vote because of something we're not getting right I don't think is appropriate. So, we struggle with that.
I would also like to speak on amendment 101, which is a probing amendment and, therefore, I won't be requiring a vote on this one either. However, I would like to know what consideration the Welsh Government has given to piloting the reduction of the electoral cycle for the local government elections from five to four years. It absolutely makes sense—if we are advocating that we as a Senedd move to four years, why wouldn't we be advocating the same for local government? Indeed, many of us who were in local government for years knew it was four, and one of the reasons it moved to five was to prevent clashing. If you don't consider four for local government, you're going to get straight back into that same position we had then. Plus, a factor is that accountability is really important, and voters should have the chance to hold their local authorities to account more often than waiting five years. Five years may be convenient for some councillors, but it's not healthy for local democracy.
I want to briefly touch on amendment 103, which highlights the need for the Welsh Government to consult with stakeholders representing a range of vulnerable groups to be involved in planning the pilot relating to electoral registration without application. We need to ensure that those vulnerable groups are supported, and that their best interests are kept when they are automatically enrolled, and that the proper safeguards are put in place to prevent any manipulation or coercion.
Finally, I want to address amendment 104, which will ensure that the Welsh Government conducts pilots across a range of geographical areas, including rural and urban areas. This will ensure that we get a full understanding of the effects of any pilots that take place across all parts of Wales.
And on amendments 117 and 8, I'm afraid I can't support the move to Sunday. I think it would be detrimental to voter turnout in many ways, because it will contradict many practices within faith groups, which could make it difficult for them to engage with the system, certainly on a Sunday anyway. I have no actual evidence for that, but my gut feeling would be that there would be certain religious groups who might find it contrary to their beliefs to vote on a Sunday. So, in that regard, I can't support that. And, obviously, amendment 8 will go towards making it compulsory to vote, and I've shared my views on that already.
I just want to briefly talk to amendment 7 in defence of the Government's position. I am very supportive of the universal civic duty to vote, but, as the Counsel General said earlier, the scale of the changes that are already coming in from this Bill is going to put significant strain on local authorities. Simply adding more and more functions is not consistent with the staffing levels in austerity, which is unlikely to change. We've already put an ability for local authorities to introduce proportional representation in their elections, and none of them have taken it up. So, while I support the symbolic nature of the amendment, I think the reality of a change this significant, which challenges our existing democratic cultures and traditions, is not something that should be done simply as a pilot, without any intention or mechanism to follow up. So, although I think the idea is a sound one, I think the Government is right to oppose that.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I have sympathy with amendments 7 and 8. My personal opinion is that I think there should be a civic duty to vote. I think everyone should do it. I think, in some parts of the world, some people would be very pleased to have the vote, and, I think, sometimes, we take it for granted in our country that we do have the vote. And I think back to Chartists, and all those women who campaigned to get the vote for working people and for women. I think, sometimes, that is forgotten in our democratic history, actually—the great steps we've taken in our democracy here in the United Kingdom to enable everybody to vote. And I think it should be something that everybody should do, but I do agree, unfortunately, with my colleague Peter Fox, and the Government, on this. I do think this piece of work needs almost its own bit of legislation to bring this forward. It's a national conversation, I think, about how we drive up voter turnout, and I think this could be part of a number of measures—and I'm discussing with the Counsel General, maybe at Stage 3, bringing something forward—on how we can increase voter turnout at elections. But I don't think this Bill, judging by the amount of change that is coming forward, is the appropriate way to do that. It's a journey, getting on this road, and I think you've got to take people with you, and to include it as an amendment in this, I think, would be a mistake and probably would fall down at this stage. So, I won't be supporting this amendment, but I am supportive of what the Member is trying to do. Diolch, Cadeirydd.
Well, again, diolch, Chair, and, again, thank you to Adam and Peter for their contributions, but also for to the additional contributions, because I think they show that this is an area where there's a wide range of thoughts and commitment and understanding of the need to explore and to look ahead to all the challenges that we face.
As has been said, amendment 7 creates and adds 'the universal civic duty to vote' to the list of electoral matters on which the Welsh Ministers may make regulations to allow for pilots. Amendment 8 defines that universal civic duty. And, in earlier conversations that I've had—I suppose, to apologise—my earlier understanding was that I thought that the way we draft the regulations would potentially allow for a pilot on this. It doesn't. I'm wrong on that. Clearly, it doesn't. I don't think it changes matters. But I think, just for the sake of having that clarity, I've sought advice on it.
I can't support the amendments, because they would allow Ministers to pilot fundamental changes to the electoral system using secondary legislation, and we don't think it's appropriate that the rights and duties of citizens can be changed in this way through a secondary legislative process but without a clear political mandate from the electorate. Ultimately, Welsh Ministers would be able to make permanent changes through secondary legislation in the event of a successful pilot, and this is not acceptable in trialling the issue. So, moving to compulsory voting is, I think, of such constitutional significance that it can only be achieved through a clear political mandate and the appropriate primary legislation. A couple of comments, just in responding to some of the points that have been made, I'll save right to the end.
Amendment 101, tabled by Peter Fox, adds 'frequency of electoral cycles' to the list of matters that can be piloted. I don't support that amendment, as I don't believe the amendment is practical in its application. Local elections are held on an all-Wales basis, helping raise awareness and participation in the elections. The effects of a pilot in one area would likely mean permanent differences between elections. I will refer to the point that Peter raised in respect of the four years. The reason why it doesn't deal with local government is because it would be inappropriate to change the term of elections for local government without that consultation with local government, and I think it's something local government needs to consider—whether it wants to make that change or whether it doesn't. I think that's the reason why.
Amendment 117, tabled by Adam Price, would require the Welsh Ministers to publish pilot regulations no later than five years after this Act receives Royal Assent, making provision for an election to take place on a Sunday. The Bill already contains provisions that allow for pilot programmes to be developed and thought through in a rounded way, working closely with electoral stakeholders for the benefit of voters. So, putting certain timescales to certain pilots, I think, limits the flexibility, and it could add unnecessary pressures to electoral services, so I don't support that amendment.
To speak to amendments 102, 103 and 104, tabled by Peter Fox, amendment 102 removes Welsh Ministers' powers to conduct electoral pilots without the local authority's consent. This was a matter, I think, that came out at Stage 1. The ability to properly conduct pilots is essential to evaluating the changes being proposed. This means that sometimes Welsh Ministers may need to compel a specific authority so that the demographic profile of Wales is properly represented through the piloting process—a similar goal to that of amendment 104. We have to ensure that the safeguards are in place so this is only used when entirely necessary. So, I don't support that. And I think a point to be made, of course, is that we will be looking at paired constituencies, for example, and there might be a pilot where there might be a part of a constituency. You would not want a pilot to not be as complete as it could. It's probably likely that this would never need to be used, so it is in many ways a failsafe provision that is there.
Just to slightly strike a more positive note, I've always been a person in a hurry and I would like tomorrow to arrive much quicker, but it's not true completely that there is no appetite for democratic innovation at a local government level. Certainly I'm aware that three local authorities and maybe more are now formally consulting on moving to STV, which is welcome. I would like there to be more. So, there certainly is some capacity and appetite there for the kind of level of change that we're talking about here.
I just wanted to ask: if I ask a question of the Counsel General, can he intervene on me? I don't know. Can I invite an intervention?
I was just wondering if you could say a little bit more about the legal point that you are making. If I summarise, you are saying that, as the Bill is currently constituted, you couldn't do an election pilot, if policy was in favour, on universal civic duty voting even without amendment 20. Is that what you're saying? Even without amendment 20, which narrows your ability to add to the list further, the discretion that is currently in the Bill wouldn't allow you to do it. Can you say why?
I think it's just that the drafting of it I don't think incorporates something that will involve a civic duty that would enable something then that would have to create a criminal offence in terms of that penalty. That's, I think, the mechanical part of the answer. The other point, of course, is the one I made, that we have a strong view that there would need to be a political mandate from an election to actually go down that particular road, even though I understand that, across all parties, there is considerable interest, and in other countries of the world, as to this particular issue.
I've found the discussion very useful and the discussion, I'm sure, will continue as we all consider this as a potential development in terms of our democracy here. So, I won't be moving these amendments in relation to universal civic duty voting to a vote at this stage.
I think there's a technical argument to be had still. Say you got to the stage where there was a mandate, we'd been through an election, it was in manifestos, there's a majority in the Senedd, even in bringing forward a piece of specific primary legislation on universal civic duty voting I think there's still an argument to be had as to whether you would at least consider—. It may not be the best way to proceed, but it's certainly something that has been suggested. It could be useful. So, I would just leave that hanging there in the political ether at this stage, but I don't need to press the matter further.
And in terms of Sunday voting, I think, again, it's useful to have this as a possibility. You have the facilitative power; it's something that maybe—in the wake of the 2026 election and the review that will happen in terms of turnout—we can return to in the context of the pilot powers that you have. So, I won't be pressing those amendments.
Thank you very much, Adam. Adam Price has indicated that he wishes to withdraw amendment 7. Does any Member object to amendment 7 being withdrawn? No. Amendment 7 is withdrawn.
I move amendment 17 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 17 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 102, please indicate. All those against. Any abstentions? In favour two, against three, and one abstention. Therefore—[Interruption.] Oh, so, you were against? Sorry. In favour two, four against, so amendment 102 is not agreed.
Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. We will move to a vote on amendment 103. Will all those in favour please show. And those against. There voted two in favour, four against, and amendment 103 is therefore not agreed.
Amendment 104 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote on amendment 104. Will all those in favour please show. And those against. There voted three in favour, three against. As Chair, I use my casting vote against, and amendment 104 is not agreed.
Yes, there is an objection. So, we will move to a vote on amendment 20. Will all those in favour, please show. And those against. There voted five in favour, one against, and therefore amendment 20 is agreed.
We've reached group 5, but I would suggest that now would be an appropriate time to take a short break if Members are content. So, we will resume at 11.20 a.m. Is 10 minutes enough? Yes, 11.20 a.m.
—group 5 in our consideration, with regard to Stage 2 of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill. Group 5 is a group of amendments relating to electoral reform regulations. The lead amendment is amendment 105, and I call on Peter Fox to move and speak to the lead amendment, and to the other amendments in the group. Peter.
Thank you, Chair, and I do move amendments 105 and 106. I haven't got much to say on this area, you'll be pleased to know. But I want to begin by highlighting the need for scrutiny when it comes to creating offences here in Wales, and tabled 105, and 106, together, really, I suppose, because I am concerned that the Bill could give Ministers power to modify offences through regulation, rather than through proper scrutiny. This will give the Senedd and therefore the people of Wales more powers to scrutinise and hold Ministers to account. I'm supportive of the other amendments laid in the group by the Counsel General, but I have nothing more to contribute to them.
Diolch, Chair. I won't be supporting amendments 105 and 106 on electoral reform regulations. The amendments are overly restrictive. Electoral law already specifies numerous offences in various situations, so to essentially exclude these entirely from all future reform regulations could render those unworkable. Amendment 106 could have unintended consequences to making changes to the electoral administration system that is of benefit to voters.
The other amendments in this group are tabled in my name and I would ask Members to support them. Amendment 21 to section 20 about electoral reform regulations is in response to recommendation 10 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report and it will provide additional assurances to stakeholders, because it requires Ministers, where they decide not to accept in full or in part a Senedd committee’s recommendation in respect of draft electoral reform regulations, to lay a statement before the Senedd to actually explain that decision. Amendment 22 clarifies the conditions under which Welsh Ministers may make electoral reform regulations. It sets out that Welsh Ministers do not need to lay an explanatory statement where they've decided to go ahead with making regulations where a committee of the Senedd have not recommended any material changes.
Amendment 23 to section 20 about electoral reform regulations is in response to recommendation 10 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report and will provide additional assurances to stakeholders. It sets out what Welsh Ministers are required to report on where they decide not to accept in full or in part a Senedd committee’s recommendation in respect of draft electoral reform regulations. So, in this circumstance, if the Welsh Ministers make material changes to draft regulations that are materially different from those recommended by the Senedd committee, then they must lay a statement before the Senedd explaining their reasons for doing so. Diolch, Chair.
Nothing more to add. Okay. The question is, then, that amendment 105 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we will then move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Will all those in favour please show? And those against? There voted two in favour, four against. So, amendment 105 is not agreed.
Okay, amendment 106 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will then move to a vote on amendment 106. Will all those in favour please show? And those against? There voted two in favour, four against. Therefore, amendment 106 is not agreed.
I move amendment 21 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to, does any Member object? No, then amendment 21 is agreed.
That takes us to group 6: assistance for voters with disabilities. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 9, and I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group. Adam.
'Although the EM provides significant detail on the Welsh Government’s intention to make similar changes for Welsh elections, the majority of these changes are not made in this Bill. Instead the EM says these will be made using secondary legislation. It does not state which powers it will use to do this, when it will do this nor why these changes are not being made on the face of this Bill.'
Further, RNIB Cymru expressed concern that there could be inconsistencies in the provision across Wales, if it was left to individual returning officers to decide what steps they consider reasonable to support blind people and partially sighted people to vote. On the basis of these concerns, the committee recommended that requirements be included to support blind and partially sighted people on the face of the Bill. Amendment 9 seeks to give effect to this.
The committee also recommended that the Bill should be amended to include a requirement to provide such equipment as is reasonable for the purposes of enabling, or making it easier for, disabled persons to vote independently and subject to the needs identified by disabled voters on the face of the Bill. Amendment 111 seeks to give effect to this.
These amendments reflect and respond to concerns expressed and recommendations made by relevant stakeholders. It's possible that there is a case for combining them or strengthening them, but, in principle, the relevant provisions to support people with disabilities to vote independently and subject to their needs should be included on the face of the Bill. The Government, at least, in our view, should provide a clearer explanation about why this isn't the case.
Yes. Thank you, Chair, and can I thank Adam Price for the work he has done in advocating for partially sighted voters and for bringing forward his amendment? I brought forward 111 to extend that, really, to widen that, as I think we're both in agreement there that this ought to be on the face of the Bill. And if we can find a way to accept one of these or the other, or merge them, I think that would be the right thing to do. We should do everything we can to make sure that there's the opportunity for everybody to vote, if they wish to, at a polling station; you shouldn't have to have a postal vote or stay home, it's a right that you should be able to go and vote, and we need to make sure that everything is in place to enable that to happen. So, at the moment, obviously, I've got down that I would oppose Adam's in favour of my amendment, but, if there's a way that we can find a way forward, that would be helpful.
Thank you, Chair. Diolch, Chair. If I speak first of all—. Thank you for the contributions. It's an important matter that you raise; I will address that towards the end of some of the responses.
Speaking first to amendment 9, amendment 9 places a duty on returning officers to make arrangements to provide tactile and audio solutions at every polling station for the benefit of blind or partially sighted voters, and to have regard to any guidance issued by the Welsh Ministers. We're not supporting this amendment—I'll explain further on. It would lead to different duties for returning officers for reserved and devolved elections in relation to accessibility. It would also require returning officers to consider guidance from Welsh Ministers, rather than from the Electoral Commission. It could lead to complexity, I think, for electoral administrators and confusion for voters in those circumstances. The amendment could also reduce flexibility in terms of meeting people's needs and also keeping up to date with advancements in technology.
Our preferred approach, and it's our preferred approach, to achieve these things is by placing duties on returning officers via the rules contained in secondary legislation—that is, the conduct Order and the local government rules—to provide such equipment as is reasonable to help disabled people vote independently, according to the Electoral Commission guidance. The Bill will provide a level of accountability, because it will place a duty on the Electoral Commission to report on the steps taken by the returning officers to assist persons with disabilities to vote at the election.
The overall approach will mirror that taken by the Elections Act 2022. It means that there can be local flexibility to provide appropriate equipment and support to remove barriers to voting independently and in secret, whilst also giving the voter a consistent experience between Welsh and reserved elections. The election rules framework in place in Wales means that the provisions relating to equipment at polling stations can be amended via secondary legislation by changes to the appropriate election rules set out in the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007 and the local elections rules of 2021.
If I turn now to amendment 111, that would insert a new section into the Bill to amend section 36A of the Representation of the People Act 1983. This would place duties on returning officers in relation to equipment to be provided at polling stations to help disabled people vote at local elections in Wales. It would also place a duty on the Electoral Commission to publish guidance in relation to the type of equipment that should be present in polling stations in order to comply with the duty imposed by paragraph (4).
Thank you, Counsel General, for the explanation as to the position of the Government. I have to say that I don't think that it meets I think reasonable expectations from stakeholders. On that basis, I will still be pressing our amendment to a vote and will be supporting the Conservative amendment as well.
I think stakeholders have very strongly made their views clear that this needs to be on the face of the Bill—it needs to be in primary legislation—to give it that legal standing and, indeed, status as an issue. This isn't a second order issue, and I realise that the Counsel General would say that it is not necessary to interpret using secondary legislation as giving it less of a priority. But, in terms of the nature of the duty, there is no substitute for primary legislation.
I hope he doesn't mind me saying, but there is a slight contradiction in saying, on the one hand, 'We'll do it, but we'll do it using secondary legislation', but also saying, 'We're also keen to have a consistency between reserved and devolved elections.' Because what if the rules and the guidance that you set out, and the duties that you create through secondary legislation, also create a gap between what is provided for in reserved elections?
The way that I would perceive it is that we have an opportunity, through primary legislation, to set the highest standard, and that that will influence the way in which reserved elections then are organised, presumably through their own secondary methods and through guidance. So, let's set a very, very clear standard in primary legislation, and then drive the reserved elections to meet that standard. So, on that basis, we will continue to press our amendment and will support the Conservative amendment.
Okay. So, the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we will then move to a vote on amendment 9. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. Okay. There voted three in favour, three against, and, as Chair, I use my casting vote against. And amendment 9 is not agreed.
No, not at all. That's fine. So, group 7, then, diversity in persons seeking elected office. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 107, and I call on Peter, Peter Fox, to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group. Peter.
Thanks, Chair. Yes. So, I'm sure we all are aware of the increasing levels of harassment that many candidates receive across every political party. I would like to begin with a probing amendment through 107, which seeks to ascertain more information as to what consideration the Minister has given to including issues of harassment and abuse when it comes to questions surrounding candidates' experience. As this is a probing amendment, I do not wish to take a vote on it. However, gathering this data will help us understand the scale of abuse and harassment. It also provides for candidates to highlight these concerns when they are subject to this abhorrent behaviour. This is why I will be supporting amendment 52, tabled by Adam Price, as this seeks to provide security for candidates, to ensure people feel safer to stand for office.
I'm also pleased to support amendment 53, which opens up more opportunity for people with caring responsibilities to get into politics. I know that many who care for others sacrifice so much in order to look after those for whom they feel responsible, and I would hope access to this support would ensure that more people could feel able to stand for political office, therefore widening representation in democracy. So, when it comes to the issue of any financial assistance schemes, it's important that the Welsh Government takes steps to ensure as wide a range of people know about this support as possible. I'm sure the Welsh Government would love to publicise this scheme, but amendment 110 ensures this in legislation.
I finally want to say that I am happy to support amendments 32 and 43, providing guidance for all political parties in promoting diversity, a goal I know that we all agree with.
As we heard, amendment 52 adds 'security' to the list of services that it is permissible to provide in order to improve diversity of candidates. Amendment 53 adds care-related expenses to the list of expenses that financial assistance can be provided in relation to them in relation to this section.
In relation to the security aspect, it is relevant, really, to the discussion that we had earlier in terms of the toxicity of modern politics et cetera, and the way that it does target particularly precisely those groups within society, including women, who are actually a majority but under-represented in most democracies, and ours as well, and other under-represented groups. This issue of security, unfortunately, is becoming more of an issue for democracy worldwide, so it would seem to us necessary, unfortunately, to have that in there as part of the potential provision, for the reasons that I describe.
In terms of the care-related expenses, this was something that the Women's Equality Network Wales have proposed as part of the Stage 1 proceedings. They have made a very, very strong case that providing care-related expenses in a similar fashion and at a similar level to the provision that is already on the face of this Bill and has already been provided in some form in terms of impairment is a very, very important step in terms of ensuring genuine equality of opportunity in terms of political participation. The fact that you have caring responsibilities, of whatever nature, should not in any way be a disincentive for you, a barrier for you, in participating in political life, but that is the reality for many, many people. And so having a scheme that provides those care-related expenses is important. As the Women's Equality Network points out, for sitting Members of this Senedd, and, indeed, I believe, also, in many cases, sitting councillors in those councils that do provide this—. Well, it actually is provided already through the remuneration panel for councillors, and it is provided for us in the remuneration board. So, as elected Members, we do have access to care-related expense provision. What we are seeking to do through this amendment is create a level playing field, both in the broader sense that I've already referred to in terms of those who have caring responsibilities, but also create a level playing field between candidates and elected Members. So, we think that these two amendments are very, very important in terms of achieving an objective that I think is widely shared on a cross-party basis—that we provide the most equal access possible to political participation.
Diolch, Chair. Again, thank you to Peter Fox for opening the debate, and for the contributions that you've made on this, Adam. Can I speak first to amendment 107? This amendment would require candidate surveys to include questions about candidates' experience of abuse and harassment. The Bill seeks to support greater flexibility and relevance of the survey. It is important to keep flexibility on questions that can be asked in surveys, in particular given amending primary legislation is time-consuming and costly. Development of the survey will include extensive engagement with stakeholders. Currently, the issue of abuse and harassment is high on the agenda of these discussions. Previous surveys have included questions on abuse and harassment without the need for the requirement to be specified in primary legislation. And that's the reason, I think, why we're not supporting this amendment.
I turn to amendments 52 and 53, tabled by Adam Price. Amendment 52 would enable Welsh Ministers to provide security as one of the services to promote diversity in persons seeking elected office. The Bill as introduced enables Welsh Ministers to provide services that can assist candidates with their well-being and to keep safe. Such services could include advice, training, coaching and mentoring, as already provided for within the provisions. The content of these services could provide assistance with, for example, staying safe on social media, personal safety, equipment and personal resilience. As a result, such an amendment is not required and, therefore, I do not support it. Providing security per se direct to candidates would be of a very different nature to the other services that are included within this section.
Amendment 53 would allow Welsh Ministers to make regulations making provisions for candidate care and support costs, to enable them to participate in the election. The provision in the Bill as it's introduced enables schemes for financial assistance to be provided to candidates with specified characteristics or circumstances, as specified in the regulations. These regulations could include care and support costs. Therefore, the amendment isn't required. To be clear, the Bill as introduced enables what this amendment refers to; the explanatory notes could be amended to provide specific examples of costs that potentially represent barriers to seeking elected office by people with specified characteristics or circumstances. I am certainly prepared to explore that and look at that further, but I do not support the amendment as it is.
Amendment 110, tabled by Peter Fox, would require Ministers to promote public awareness of financial assistance schemes prior to any relevant election before making regulations. So, whilst I fully agree that promoting awareness of financial assistance schemes is essential to attract candidates with the specified circumstances or characteristics, I don't agree that this amendment is necessary or effective. The purpose of this amendment is unclear. Promoting public awareness before the making of regulations would not be optimal. The optimal time for awareness raising would be after consulting on and making the regulations, when the scheme is available to potential candidates and when people are considering putting themselves forward for selection. Given that the amendment is therefore unnecessary and potentially, as it's drafted, counter-productive, I don't support it.
I don't think I need to say any more, really. The Counsel General's made himself clear. Just to note that I won't be asking for a vote on amendment 107. That was, again, probing. I withdraw 107, but I am supportive of the rest of these in this group and happy to go to the vote.
Group 8 relates to the Welsh elections information platform. The lead amendment is amendment 108. I call on Peter Fox to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in this group.
Thank you, Chair. I want to begin speaking to amendment 108 and raising my concern surrounding the issue of the creation of a Welsh elections information platform. I think there are some issues surrounding free speech and impartiality as well as data protection. Over the last few weeks we have seen several data leaks across a variety of high-value targets, including the Welsh Government and the Ministry of Defence, so I think we need to be careful as to how we use data and situations where it is collated in one place.
I also think there is an issue surrounding the platform's independence and perceived independence. I can envisage a situation where the platform refuses to publish a candidate's statement, calling its independence into question, and vice-versa, I can see a situation where a candidate deliberately tries to create a statement that is not published in order to make a political point. While I see the argument for improving voter understanding and knowledge of candidates, I do not agree that the central platform model created by this legislation is necessarily the way forward.
The other concern I have is the issue of legal liability when it comes to candidates' statements. I have tabled amendment 109, which is a probing amendment and therefore doesn't require a vote, but it seeks to see what steps will be taken to ensure that any statements on the information platform do not break libel laws, and if they did, then who would be responsible.
Similarly, on amendments 49 to 51, I cannot support any more information being provided on this platform, which I've shared concerns about. I'm happy to leave it there, Chair.
Thank you, Chair. Amendment 50 builds on the information that can be included on the platform in order to place the information in its broader context, such as the history of devolution—something that's been at the forefront of our minds, of course, in the last few days—issues relating to democratic health such as the responsibilities of elected bodies elected in the election in question, and practical information on polling stations, for example.
Amendments 49 and 51 in this group extend the reference to 'candidates' in the context of the elections platform to include a reference to both 'candidates' and 'registered political parties'. Too narrow a focus here on candidates appears inconsistent with the system of closed party lists that will be in place for the first Senedd elections in 2026. But more broadly than that, there is a need to recognise the role of political parties given that candidates quite often stand on the policy programmes and manifesto platforms of political parties. That's an important part of promoting citizen understanding of how democracy works.
I should just say I think I come at this from the opposite perspective to Peter. I think the creation of this platform is a really fantastic opportunity to raise levels of democratic engagement and public awareness of how democracy works. I referenced the work earlier of Democracy Box and their report in this area. They're calling in their report for an online—. They have ideas in terms of offline as well, and the excellent work they've done through the talking shops, but they're calling for an online one-stop shop in terms of access to information by citizens. Well, this should be it. And so, in our amendments, we're trying to use this opportunity to achieve the vision that Democracy Box and all the young co-creators that have been part of that have articulated so well.
Moving on to amendments 118 and 119, this is somewhere where we can't afford to wait. I've heard the argument in other contexts and I'm sure I'll hear it later that this Bill isn't the right place for these ideas. In terms of AI, the misuse of artificial intelligence, in terms of deepfake video and audio, we can't wait. We can't wait a single day more. This is coming at us and is coming at us hard, and it could actually completely upend our democracy before we know it. Look at the story just in the last few hours about the role of deepfake video in the Indian elections, the biggest democracy in the world—incredibly frightening. It's organised, it's concerted, and it is accelerating. So, we can't wait, and we have the power to do something about this.
It came as much of a surprise to me, believe you me, as it did to anyone else that we actually have the power to regulate it in this area. And not only that—it's within the scope of this Bill because of this voter information platform. The way that these amendments work is that amendment 118 allows the platform to be used to make people aware of the use of AI in election information material. That's part of its function. And then, amendment 119 compels all electronic material that carries a digital imprint—. We're all aware of that, aren't we? We know that that is within our competence, Counsel General, because I think you said so when you had an argument with the UK Government in terms of the elections Bill, that, actually, for the purposes of elections, then electronic material, as defined in the Bill, is within our competence to regulate that.
And so what this amendment does, it says that all that electronic material that is produced specifically for Welsh elections, under the terms of the Elections Act 2022—how it's defined there—must be registered, must be lodged with this election platform, so that voters can see the information that is being put out there, and in a single place. Why? Because that gives us transparency then, doesn't it—as was argued by Ian Lucas MP, I believe, in Stage 1, who wrote Digital Gangsters, and indeed Reform Political Advertising—by having a single place where all of this electronic material is available, so that civil society, digital rights campaigners, academics, all of us, citizens, can see what is being put out there into the digital ether, much of it containing misinformation, disinformation, much of it using AI for nefarious purposes, much of it involving deepfake video and audio. 'We ain't seen nothing yet', I think is what we should have at the forefront of our minds.
What the amendment does is it actually mirrors existing legislative frameworks. So, other democracies have acted, in the last 12 months, actually, because this has come at us so quickly. So, the European Union has introduced now a very, very wide-ranging framework regulation around the use of AI in elections. And what they've introduced is a right to know that AI has been used in digital election material. So, what this amendment does, it mirrors that, so that all of the electronic material has to be there, searchable, for everyone, and it has to have a flag. So, in the same way that you have to put the digital imprint of 'produced by', et cetera, it also creates a legal duty to say, 'We've used AI in the production of this material.' It's not saying that you can't use it, but it's saying that, if you do use it, you've got to say and it's got to be clear.
Similarly, in terms of deepfake videos, again, a very particular use of generated artificial intelligence, and a very pernicious one, potentially. Because deepfake video, generally, in the political context, is not used for beneficial purposes; it's used to misrepresent an opponent in a very realistic fashion, in saying something that they never said. And before you know it, that lie has gone around the world, as someone once said 100 years ago, but now it's true. So, what this does is it flags up that if you produce a deepfake video for electoral purposes, then it has to be provided to the online platform, whoever administers it, and you have to flag that up, so that we all know, 'Oh, hang on, there's a deepfake video.' And then you can get into other aspects of existing electoral law, can't you, with the Representation of the People Act 2000, which means that you can't misrepresent somebody in a way that actually says something false about their character, et cetera. But if we don't know where these deepfake videos are, then it makes that more difficult, so it flags that up.
Thank you very much, Chair. I want to say a huge 'thank you' to Adam Price, and everybody who has been part of looking at this, and identifying that we have the power. I've also read the book, Digital Gangsters by Ian Lucas, who is very passionate about this. I completely agree with the ethos, with the purpose, with the call for transparency and accountability, because we have that already in many arenas, and it has to be applied to the digital and the data and the social media arena, in particular. It's wonderful that we do have the power.
However, and this is where my 'however' comes in: I don't think it's enough, in a way. That's why I won't be supporting the amendments, and I believe—Counsel General, you might be able to expand on this—that we can actually include it, not on the face of the Bill, but in the regulations, and I just don't think we can do this on its own. I think it needs to be part of a wider piece of work that is actually looking at the guidelines for AI and through a lens of shared prosperity, which is everything that you're talking about. But I think we actually have to encompass more into it, and I would say, like generative AI, and all the principles of that.
And also, when you're asking people to state that they've used this technology and this software, there's also, behind that, training that has to go on, consolidation, consultation with workers who are even using this. I suppose what I'm saying is we almost have to take it a few steps back to, like, 'Why would this even be used?' and, 'Who would be using it?' Yes, I suppose I just feel it's a wider conversation, so that we can actually capture more with this and have a set of guiding principles, not just for now, but for all the new technology that comes down the line.
So, what I would say—and I hope, Counsel General, you can expand on this for us—is that I will vote against the amendments today, because I believe it doesn't need to be on the face of the Bill. And also, actually, because I don't think it goes far enough, and I think that this needs to have a wider conversation with more stakeholders and people involved in it, and I think this is something that is really important. So, those are my thoughts on it, but, truly, Adam, I think this is so important and crucial, but, yes, I think it needs more, so thank you.
I want to commend Adam for bringing part of this forward, because we all see how things work now on social media, with the deepfakes, when one video—. From a political perspective, Adam and I were actually talking earlier about the mental health of politicians, and about how that can be improved. We've all seen instances where fake videos, fake profiles and the rest are put online, through AI-generated images or people just pinching images of people and putting them on different platforms, and then, all of a sudden, it's read, and somebody's political career can be ruined and their personal reputation can also be ruined as well, because of something that they haven't done, but is a deepfake and has been completely misconstrued. Unfortunately, that goes on, and I think anything to strengthen that area needs to be applauded.
I do agree with Sarah; I think it does need to go further in some areas. I think disclaimers on things, the idea is right, but how it works, I think, in practice, with social media companies and others, will be challenging to do that. But, as I said, I think a wider piece of work does need to be done. We're supporting you over the AI amendments, over the platform part, but I do think this is an area of work that does need to be really explored in the era we live in now, with deepfakes and AI, to make sure that politicians are protected, because sometimes we are seen as not doing enough to protect ourselves from some of the abuse that we get online. I think this would be a step towards doing that as well.
Well, thank you, Chair. Thank you, Peter Fox, and also Adam, because it is a very important area that you've raised. Peter Fox's amendment 108 would remove the duty on the Welsh Ministers to provide an elections information platform, and we've made a commitment to provide the people of Wales with an information platform to support their engagement with Welsh democracy. We consulted on this, and there was overwhelming support for such a platform, so ensuring Welsh Ministers must provide such support to Welsh voters will help improve, I think, democratic participation, which is, I think, the key objective of the platform.
Amendment 109 would remove the transparency currently provided for in the provisions. The list of issues to be included in the regulations is not exhaustive, but it will set out those issues that must be provided for. The amendment would also remove the exemption from liability for information on the platform, so I don't support those amendments.
I'm content to accept amendments 49 and 51 from Adam Price because these amendments would provide additional clarity as to what information electors will have access to through the information platform. I agree that providing voters with information about political parties will help them participate in democracy, especially as we move to a new voting system for Senedd elections from 2026.
Perhaps if I turn to amendments 118 and 120, which are really important amendments, which I hope are probing amendments because they do raise very significant issues, and I'll make some comments on some of the points that have been made in a minute. So, Adam Price highlights the important issue of artificial intelligence. Adding duties on Welsh Ministers to make regulations in relation to the use of AI is unnecessary as the regulations can already set out the information to be included, therefore, it does not need to be set out on the face of the Bill.
Amendment 119 also adds to what the regulations on the elections information platform must require, including requiring material covered by the Elections Act 2022's digital imprints regime, disclosures on the use of AI or deceptive material. It may create an unwieldy platform of raw material covered by the Elections Act if the digital imprints regime were to be included. It's also unnecessary, as the regulation-making powers are already comprehensive.
If I can just add to those comments, because certainly in the initial stages, what the information platform is intended to do is to help with engagement, and there is a grave danger that if you overload so much information, that all of the information that is fundamentally important, when part of the engagement is about people who perhaps have never engaged with the system, whose information is basically, 'What is a political party?', 'Who are the candidates?', 'How do I actually vote?', or so on, there's a grave danger that if so much information is loaded and it becomes effectively a repository in that sense, then it becomes a very different thing and the question is whether it would actually function and actually contribute anything to the sort of engagement that is its initial primary objective. I don't see it as something that is going to be static and that needs to be reviewed and so on, and all the issues in terms of, perhaps, what links there might be to other networks, that it would provide links rather than being the repository in itself, but I think there would be a grave danger in terms of what we're trying to achieve with this in terms of, for many people, the basic issue is they don't even now how to vote and have never done it, and you want to encourage people to have at least the core essential basic information that is there. I think how it might develop, how it might develop links and so on and makes accessibility to other information for those who want to get to a next stage, to explore further and so on—I think that is something that is really important and I'm sure is something that will actually happen. I'm just very, very hesitant to go beyond, at this stage, preserving the basic objectives of what we should do, to review that, but to maintain, at this stage, the clarity and simplicity. That doesn't detract from all the things that Adam raises.
Thank you, Chair, and thanks to everybody who contributed. I suppose, in personal principle, I'm not necessarily against the idea of a platform. It's more about anxieties or needing to be convinced how secure it will be. Perhaps that clarity will flow between now and Stage 3. However, I'll stand by our position on that, initially, hence I don't want to see more things going on there. However, I am very supportive of Adam's amendments on AI. I think we do need to be thinking very strongly about that at this point. I know what everybody's said, but I will be supporting that. I think we need to have that conversation much sooner than later, and that needs to be considered early doors. So, with that, Chair, I'm happy to move to the vote.
Thank you very much, Peter. If amendment 108 is agreed, amendments 109, 49, 50, 51, 118, 119 and 120 will fall. Okay, so the question is that amendment 108 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there is an objection. We will move to a vote. So, on amendment 108, will all those in support please show, those who are in favour? And those who are against? Okay, there voted two in favour, four against, so amendment 108 is not agreed.
Okay, amendment 49 is moved. So, let's go to a vote. All those—[Interruption.] Sorry, does anybody object? Sorry. [Objection.] Yes. Okay, so we move to a vote on amendment 49. Will all those in favour please show? And those against? Okay, so there voted four in favour, two against, so amendment 49 is agreed.
Okay, amendment 50 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] Yes, so there are objections. We will move to a vote. So, with regard to amendment 50, will all those in favour please show? And those against? Okay, there voted, in respect of amendment 50, one in favour and five against, so amendment 50 is not agreed.
Amendment 51 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote. Would all those in favour of amendment 51 please show? And those against. There voted four in favour, two against. So, amendment 51 is agreed.
Amendment 118 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We move to a vote, then, on amendment 118. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. Okay. There voted three in favour, three against. So, I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 118 is not agreed.
Amendment 119 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 119. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. Okay. There voted three in favour, three against, so I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 119 is not agreed.
I move amendment 24 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No, then amendment 24 is agreed.
Okay. Amendment 52 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 52. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. Okay. There voted three in favour, three against. I use my casting vote as Chair against. And amendment 52 is not agreed.
Amendment 53 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will, then, move to a vote. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. There voted three in favour, three against, so, again, I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 53 is not agreed.
It's moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote. Will all those in favour of amendment 110 please show? And those against. There voted two in favour, four against. Therefore, amendment 110 is not agreed.
I move amendment 25 in the name of the Counsel General, and call on the Counsel General to speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group. Counsel General.
Diolch yn fawr, Chair—Cadeirydd. These are a set of amendments to clarify matters related to persons excluded from operating a financial assistance scheme. Amendment 25 clarifies that excluded persons are excluded for the duration of the scheme, not just on appointment. That was already the policy intention, but what this amendment does is clarify that in law, and ensures alignment with other sets of exclusions in this Bill and the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill.
The purpose of amendment 26 is to remove a Minister of the Crown from the list of exclusions to persons who can operate financial assistance schemes, promoting diversity in persons seeking elected office. This is because they are covered by other exclusions, namely Members of the House of Commons and Members of the House of Lords.
Amendment 27 is to ensure consistency with other provisions in the Bill. The overall effect of this amendment is unchanged, and staff of the civil service, both within and outside the Welsh Government, will continue to be excluded from operating a financial assistance scheme.
Amendment 28 adds a member of the House of Lords to the list of persons excluded from operating a financial assistance scheme. The amendment ensures impartiality and independence of those operating such a scheme.
Amendment 29 is to clarify the exclusion of staff of the Senedd from persons who can operate financial assistance schemes. The overall effect is unchanged, and staff of the Senedd will continue to be excluded.
Amendments 30 and 31 are consequential amendments to the previous amendments in this group, and I would ask Members to support these amendments.
Amendment 121 is moved. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is a an objection. We will then move to a vote. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. There voted three in favour, three against. Therefore, I use my casting vote against, and amendment 121 is not agreed.
And we reach group 10, Welsh language requirements for returning officers. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 4, and I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the lead amendment, and other amendments in this group. Adam.
Thank you very much, Chair. Amendments 4 and 5 take forward the policy intention that the Government consulted upon originally in its White Paper that was the basis for this Bill, and has been discussed for quite some time, but hasn't made its way onto the face of the legislation, which, in our view in Plaid Cymru, is regrettable.
The Welsh language has equal, official status in Wales in principle. That's certainly what the Government would have us believe. However, as electoral returning officers are independent entities from the county councils with which they operate, and as Welsh language standards have never been imposed upon them, that official status has never been extended in practical terms to electoral administration and the functions that returning officers are responsible for. This varies from producing official papers and forms, announcing results, raising awareness of electoral arrangements, and related activities, such as training staff who support them and developing their skills.
The Welsh language is therefore a matter of discretion, not a specific legal requirement. That's the current situation. This means that the treatment of the Welsh language, and the ability of our citizens to see, hear and use the Welsh language in the democratic process can vary from one place to another across the country, as there is no baseline in terms of expectations. If someone hasn't been able to use the Welsh language, they can't make a complaint to the Welsh Language Commissioner, and it's not possible to enforce the rights of Welsh speakers in this crucial, fundamental part of civic life and national life, namely our democratic process—one of the fundamental privileges of being a citizen.
It is entirely unacceptable that the Government has rowed back on its responsibility to secure the equality of our official languages and on its fundamental duty to ensure that those wishing to use the Welsh language in exercising their democratic rights and to participate in the democratic process in Wales can do so.
I want to restate what I said at Stage 1 about the importance that my party places on this issue of fundamental principle. Why talk of democratic innovation and reform if we can't commit to even the most fundamental things? Also, the failure to implement this frustrates the commitment in the co-operation agreement between our two parties to complete the work of implementing the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011 in full and to introduce standards for all the bodies within the scope of its Schedules. It also frustrates the cross-party agreement within this committee and the Senedd in its Stage 1 report, a recommendation that was unfortunately rejected by Government, and that is a cause of concern and disappointment for us in Plaid Cymru.
The Welsh Language Commissioner told the committee in evidence during our work as a committee at Stage 1 that, although the situation may have improved since previous work done by the commissioner—the Welsh Language Commissioner, that is—in 2015 and 2016,
'there is still a need to eliminate the discrepancy that election returning officers are not subject to any legal duties relating to the Welsh language.'
I would also question to what extent there has been improvement, because only recently, prior to the police and crime commissioners elections, we heard the experience of Mirain Gwyn, who had failed to access training to become a presiding officer at her local polling station in Gwynedd, of all places, through the medium of Welsh, and that she had refused to complete the training in English only and had therefore failed to serve for the first time in 20 years. That is, the situation seems to be getting worse, according to that information. Until standards are imposed, then there is no mechanism to ensure that things like this can't happen in devolved elections.
We must bear in mind that these officers, with all due respect to them for their important service, have had since 2011, when the Welsh language Measure was passed, to prepare for standards, and the Government has been discussing and considering since the inception of the Local Government Act 2020 four years ago, and has failed to make good on its claimed support for this principle of linguistic equality. I know that the Counsel General is very supportive of the Welsh language and has protested, along with other Members of this Senedd, in days gone by for the status and equality of the Welsh language. You have the opportunity today, Counsel General, to implement that vision that you clearly support and have protested in favour of, and to do so within Government.
In terms of the mechanism for introducing standards, using primary legislation as a vehicle to add bodies or sectors to sets of standards regulations that have already been agreed by the Senedd is a long-established method of delivering the aim and one that has been effective and used by Government in other contexts, including the public services ombudsman and the citizens voice body.
Well, can I firstly thank the Member for the amendments and for all the comments that he has made? I'm not going to be supporting amendments 4 and 5. I'll explain perhaps a little bit more about the reasoning behind that, and what I would hope is that there can be some further discussions heading towards Stage 3 of this. Because what I think is that there is an enormous amount of common agreement in terms of what we want to achieve—that we want to achieve standards that are applicable throughout Wales.
Can I say first of all that when I started looking at this, there has been progress, certainly since the 2016 election, and the issue of training that Adam raises is a perfectly valid one? I have been informed, in fact, that the Association of Electoral Administrators have said that all training is actually going to be in Welsh from 2026. But the point he makes is absolutely right in terms of how we get to a stage where those standards can be applied. And, as he says, of course, they have to be reasonable, they have to be proportionate.
The area of concern at the moment, which is why I'm not going to support the amendments at this stage, is because one of the uncertainties that is of concern—and I know it's a concern to those who will be administering these elections—is precisely what those standards would be, the capacity to actually deliver those standards, and the potential implications for returning officers in terms of being able to deliver them. The view I take is that I think that reasonable and proportionate standards should be achievable, but the process in terms of going through the development and establishment of the standards, I understand, could take somewhere in the region of up to 18 months.
What I'm very keen to do—and we've discussed this on a number of occasions—is in terms of the engagement between the Welsh Language Commissioner and also the Electoral Commission, that I would hope that the discussions that have already been taking place can continue, whether it is possible to actually achieve this. One of the difficulties is, of course, that the body that issues the guidelines in respect of the Welsh language—. And there are guidelines in terms of all material having to be bilingual, available in Welsh and English, and in terms of the declaration of results, but of course we want to see that go much further. Training is obviously one of those that's now been addressed, but the other one is in terms of people's ability to go into a polling station and so on, and the extent to which that can be delivered, or by when it can be delivered, and all the organisational challenges in terms of the recruitment of people to person the polling booths and so on.
So, there are all those issues that I know that have been raised. What I would hope is that we can, between now and possibly Stage 3, or whatever, see whether it is possible to achieve a satisfactory, I suppose, approach to actually achieving the standards or understanding precisely what those standards are, as well as the issue in terms of the Electoral Commission being the body that issues guidelines for elections, and any conflicts that there might be on that.
Thank you for that response, Counsel General. I have to say that I am still of the view that there is no logical or practical argument that's been put forward that would convince me that these amendments are not required, and against the principle of placing returning officers under the auspices of standards.
Guidance isn't enough. Convention and good practice and so on aren't as robust as having equal rights in law. And that's the history of the language movement for 70 years; that's been its story. And it is truly upsetting for me that we in Wales in 2024 still have to beg, have to ask, 'Please, can we have equal rights?' It should happen as a matter of course, a right. We shouldn't be having this discussion.
Okay, we will have talks over the next few weeks as we approach Stage 3, but I do hope that the Government will cede on this principle. It is an issue of principle and I don't think that there is any—. There's no concern that the Counsel General has raised that couldn't be dealt with in, in my opinion, in an amendment. If there is concern about the elections of 2026, for example, and how that will practically impact there, well, okay, that can be dealt with, of course, by introducing a clause into the amendment to deal with that issue.
I'm happy to participate in any discussions. I would urge the Government, although time is going to be tight, to have further discussions with the Welsh Language Commissioner, but also with the language campaigning movement—they also need to be part of this conversation—and also ordinary Welsh speakers. But I do understand that time is limited for that, but we do need to reflect their interests in all of this and the reasonable expectations that Welsh speakers have to be treated equally. It is not through an informal agreement or a non-statutory arrangement—that's not the way forward here; we have to have these rights, they must be instituted in law, and the way to do it is to take the opportunity through this Bill. So, I very much hope that, if we haven't managed to convince today, then we will be able to reach that agreement with Government by Stage 3.
Okay. Diolch yn fawr. The question then is: is amendment 4 agreed? Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. So, we will move to a vote on amendment 4. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. There voted one in favour, five against. Therefore, amendment 4 is not agreed.
Okay, amendment 5 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote, then, on amendment 5. Would all those in favour, please show? And those against. There voted one in favour, five against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.
Amendment 111 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. Okay. There voted three in favour, three against. Therefore, I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 111 is not agreed.
I move amendment 33 in the name of the Counsel General, and call on the Counsel General to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Counsel General.
Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. The amendments in this group are all tabled in my name. Amendments 33 to 35 are about campaign finance and are in response to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee recommendation 15 during Stage 1 scrutiny and are intended to remove the committees currently named and require the Electoral Commission to consult with 'the Senedd' on controlled expenditure. This ensures the Electoral Commission can confidently fulfil its obligation to consult, and allows the Senedd to determine for itself the most appropriate committee to engage on the matter.
Now, amendments 36, 47 and 48, which are also being considered in this group, are drafting corrections for provisions elsewhere in the Bill. Amendment 36 corrects a textual error. Amendments 47 and 48 remove references to the Secretary of State in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, which are now obsolete as a result of amendments made to section 5 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 by the Wales Act 2017 and replace the references with references to the Presiding Officer. This will then correctly reflect the current provision in section 5 of the Government of Wales Act 2006. I ask Members to support the amendments tabled in my name.
I understand that these are technical amendments, but could I just ask, if I am in the right group, why amendment 33 seeks to make it less specific in terms of who the commission should consult with on a draft code of practice on controls related to third parties? The amendment, as I read it, actually removes 'Llywydd's Committee' and 'Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee', and replaces these with 'Senedd Cymru', which is far more generic, of course. I suppose that this might be pedantic, and it does appear that there is no reason for not supporting the amendments, but if the Counsel General could just give us a little more background on that particular issue.
Yes, of course. Basically, it's a concessionary amendment that's made in response to recommendation 15 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report at Stage 1 scrutiny.
That takes us to group 12, electoral arrangements reviews. The lead amendment is amendment 122 and I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group. Adam.
Thank you very much, Chair. As a result of passing the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill and the amendments made during its passage through the Senedd, there was support from two thirds of Members to establish a number of important principles and practical arrangements for naming new Senedd constituencies.
In summary, there will be an expectation that every constituency has one name for communication through the medium of Welsh and English, unless that is unacceptable, which, to all purposes, establishes a presumption in favour of a monolingual Welsh name. There will be a requirement on the boundary commission, in the case of reviews of the new Senedd constituencies, to undertake a pre-consultation exercise before different stages of the consultation cycles with the Welsh Language Commissioner on the spelling of names, and the commissioner will be a statutory consultee during the general consultation period and will be able to comment on the substance of names proposed.
In her evidence to the Reform Bill Committee, the Welsh Language Commissioner said that they had a good and successful relationship with the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales since establishing the commissioner's office and, I quote here,
'have provided regular advice to them on naming issues as they undertake reviews.'
She goes on to say that they
'have just started advising the....Commission on the names of communities as part of their series of community reviews.'
She said that she welcomes
'extending this relationship to encompass the constituency names of the Senedd and that the relationship is formalised in legislation.'
While the role and the relationship has been formalised in legislation in the case of reviews of Senedd boundaries, there is no process, principles or statutory basis for the corresponding reviews that the commission will undertake on a local government and community level. With these amendments in this group, we have tried to keep the text as close as possible to what was agreed with the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill and apply the same principles, even though you can't emulate the exact system, as local reviews follow a slightly different process to the parliamentary reviews, and include local authority wards, communities and community wards.
The method that we have gone for, therefore, in amendment 122 is to make amendments to the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013, to set out principles for setting names, and making it a requirement for the commission or the principal council to undertake a pre-consultation exercise with the Welsh Language Commissioner on the spelling of names and to also add the commissioner to the list of statutory consultees already noted in the Act, so that the commissioner can comment on the choice of names during open consultations. I am open to other suggestions, looking ahead to Stage 3, but suggestions that emulate, as closely as possible, the process that will be in place for the new Senedd constituencies.
These amendments are needed to ensure consistency with the principles and process that the commission will follow in naming wards, constituencies and communities on a devolved level. It would be strange if it used different principles and different basic processes for different contexts. In turn, this will formalise and build on the non-statutory arrangements already established and will make a valuable contribution towards the aim of standardising place names in local democracy and promoting the use of Welsh names.
If we don't act, we'll see inconsistencies and strange consequences. For example, I was looking at the commission's review of community boundaries in Ceredigion, which has just closed, and it proposes different spellings in Welsh and in English, such as—and you'd see these best in written form, but—Pontsiân a Pontshaen, and Tregroes without a hyphen in English, and Tre-groes with a hyphen in Welsh, for example. It's clear, therefore, that there's a need for statutory guidance, a clear principle in favour of one name, and consistency in this area, or there is a risk of confusion and inconsistency.
Finally, in terms of the other amendments from the Counsel General in this group, we accept that 38 and 39 are technical ones, but could you explain further what you are trying to achieve with amendment 37? Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. I thank Adam Price for opening this debate on this particular group. Can I just say that I'm not going to be supporting the amendment, but again I'd just make the point that I'm open to further exploration? I think that the steps that were taken in the previous Bill, the Senedd reform Bill, were, I think, important at that constituency level. I think that there are other workability and scope complexities with this.
Amendment 122 places a duty on principal councils to ensure that each community, ward or area has a single name arising from a review, unless the commission or the relevant body considers that this would be unacceptable. One of the problems is that many reviews are undertaken by the commission and are implemented by Orders made by the Welsh Ministers, neither of which would be subject to a similar duty.
The conduct of reviews is subject to the procedure already set out in chapter 4 of the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013, which this Bill amends to require the involvement of the Welsh Language Commissioner as a mandatory consultee. The second part of the amendment relating to the Welsh Language Commissioner is therefore already achieved by section 46(2) of the Bill.
Regarding the third part of the amendment, this would seem not to require principal councils, but only the commission, to conduct a pre-consultation with the Welsh Language Commissioner when they conduct reviews. Consultation with the Welsh Language Commissioner by the commission will be required on section 29 reviews. That's set out in section 34(2) of the 2013 Act, as amended. Pre-review consultation by the commission or a principal council with the mandatory consultees, including the Welsh Language Commissioner, will also be required by section 34(1), as amended.
As I say, on that, it is certainly an area where I'm happy to meet further in terms of trying to explore what might be possible to be achieved. At this stage, again, it's one where I'm not supporting the amendments, but very sympathetic to the objective. I seem to remember that my late wife always used to say, when we went home to Barry, when we were living there, 'Are we going home to Barry with a "y" or Barri with an "i"?' And there are many examples like that. But the issues of consultation, engagement and what we might be able to achieve I just think is something that probably needs to be explored a bit further, particularly bearing in mind those conflicts that I've already listed in terms of the operations of different bodies within the processes. So, I think it would be useful to look at that in more detail.
I turn now to speak to amendments 37, 38 and 39, which are tabled in my name. These three amendments respond to written evidence given at Stage 1 by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales. These amendments to section 45 and 48 of the Bill will remove duplication of the provision set out in section 36 of the Local Democracy (Wales) Act 2013 and rectify typographical errors. I would ask Members to support the amendments tabled in my name.
I'm grateful to the Counsel General. On the basis that the Counsel General has shown a willingness to discuss these issues in more detail as we prepare for Stage 3, I will not press this amendment to a vote, so I'll withdraw it.
Welcome back, everyone, to this meeting of the Local Government and Housing Committee, where we are resuming our Stage 2 consideration of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill. We've reached group 13, publication of contact details for community councils. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 123, and I call on Adam Price to speak and to move the amendment.
Thank you very much, Chair. There is a single simple amendment in this group, and it is to delete the current requirement in the Bill for principal councils to publish an up-to-date list of all of the communities and community councils in their area, and to change it for a broader requirement that includes a more comprehensive list including not only the names of communities and community councils, but also details of the members of those community councils and their political parties, where relevant, their contact details, the contact details of the community council itself and the clerk. The intention is to make it easier and more transparent for those who are seeking information to access it in one central point, rather than having to go and search in all sorts of different places on the website of every community council, and to consequently make it easier to contact community councillors and the community council itself.
We had also hoped to table an amendment that would have mirrored the requirement for independent community council candidates to declare membership of a political party in the 12 months before their nomination, mirroring the same requirement that's in place for county council candidates, and is expected to be in place for candidates for seats in the Senedd. Unfortunately, this was outwith the scope, but I have asked a written question to the Counsel General on this, and as it is tangentially related to this amendment, I would like to put this issue on the record and to ask whether the Counsel General is in a position to respond.
Diolch, Chair. I'm not going to be supporting amendment 123 requiring a principal council to detail communities and community councils in its area. Section 54(2) of the Bill requires each principal council to publish and maintain on its website an up-to-date list of all the communities and community councils in its area with their current names. Section 55 of the Local Government (Democracy) (Wales) Act 2013 already places a duty on town and community councils to provide the additional information.
Transparency and accountability in the town and community council sector are critical, and this is an area being considered by the democratic health task and finish group, which will report in the autumn. In the meantime, principal councils, as I think has been recognised, cannot be held accountable for any lack of transparency by town and community councils. It is the role of the auditor general to ensure the relevant law is followed. But again, just to reiterate, the democratic health task and finish group is going to be reporting, and no doubt there'll be consideration of their conclusions.
The question is that amendment 123 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. With regard to amendment 123, would all those in favour please show? And those against. There voted one in favour, five against. Therefore, amendment 123 is not agreed.
Group 14 relates to the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru and its functions relating to remuneration of elected Members. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 40.
I move amendment 40 in the name of the Counsel General and call on the Counsel General to speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group.
Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I welcome the opportunity to open the debate on this group of amendments, which are concerned with the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru functions relating to renumeration.
The first amendment, amendment 40, is tabled in my name and corrects an error in the terminology used in the Welsh text of the Bill. I ask Members to support this amendment.
If I might now address amendments 54 to 76, 78 to 88, 93 and 96 to 97, which have been tabled by Adam Price. These amendments would allow Welsh Ministers to make regulations that the commission must publish a determination document rather than a remuneration report. These relate closely to amendment 6, which we have discussed already.
This proposes a change from the local government approach currently used by the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales to that of the Senedd remuneration board. The current reference to a report is the report that the IRPW produce on an annual basis. This includes an overview of the areas the IRPW has focused on that year and its evidence and approach. It includes any determinations, that is decisions about specific levels of remuneration, administrative requirements for reporting and provision of information.
The term 'determination' as it relates to the Senedd remuneration board is different, as it effectively covers everything to do with the responsibilities of the Senedd remuneration board, with each of those determinations being required to be laid before the Senedd as soon as reasonably practicable after they are made. That is supplemented by an annual report that is issued, setting out the work undertaken. I therefore do not support these amendments as I will not be supporting amendment 6, which seeks to abolish the independent remuneration board and transfer its responsibilities to the commission.
Amendment 77 tabled by Adam Price requires that, where the Welsh Ministers issue a direction to the commission to reconsider a draft report, they must at the same time lay before the Senedd a statement of their reasons for making the direction. This amendment is not required. Directions are statutory instruments and are published when made; by their nature, they include a rationale. This duplicates existing process, and therefore I do not support this amendment.
Amendments 88 to 91 replace ‘may’ with ‘must’ in relation to commission responsibilities for monitoring payments. A relevant authority must comply with any reporting requirements on the relevant remuneration matters the commission may set out in its remuneration report. Welsh Ministers may direct compliance if it is not forthcoming. This amendment is not required as monitoring by the commission is implicit in the process. I therefore do not support the amendments.
Amendment 92, tabled by Adam Price, requires the commission to publish a report setting out the information that has been collated whilst exercising its monitoring functions under what will become section 69L subsections (2) to (4) of the Local Government and Democracy (Wales) Act 2013. It's not clear what this amendment seeks to achieve beyond publishing reporting requirements in relation to elected member remuneration, which can be required to be published by a remuneration report. Diolch, Cadeirydd.
My amendments in this group are trying to achieve three things, and they have been summarised on my behalf in part by the Counsel General: ensuring that the statutory title of the annual determination document regarding entitlements and allowances available for the financial year to come correctly reflects what it is, to provide clarity to all. The current 'annual report' title is more familiar when bodies report back on the past year, and the commission already has to draw up an annual report, and through another amendment in this group, we are trying to place a requirement to report on the payments it has made. So, there is a risk of confusion here.
Stephen Hughes, the author of the 'Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales: 10 year review' report, noted that the current annual report document is long and complicated, and tries to combine many things in one document. I understand that perhaps there's been some simplification, but I would be grateful to hear further from the Counsel General what work has been done to ensure that statutory titles are still fit for purpose, in terms of accessibility and the understanding of all stakeholders and the public.
I have proposed changing the name of said document, which includes determination for the forthcoming year, to 'determination document' in English and 'dogfen flynyddol o benderfyniadau' in Welsh. I am open to other suggestions, but the words 'determination' or 'penderfyniad' are familiar to us in the Senedd in terms of the remuneration board, and are a better description of this particular document's functions.
Amendments 89, 90 and 91 change the enabling power of 'may' in the Bill so that it is a duty that the commission 'must' monitor different payments made by individual public authorities, rather than being allowed to do so as a matter of discretion.
And finally, amendment 92 seeks to place a duty on the commission to draw together and create a national picture of this monitoring work in one annual document looking back on payments made. This will be useful in terms of transparency, and in terms of analysing how the commission's determination in terms of councillors' financial remuneration is implemented across Wales at grass-roots level.
Thank you for those comments. I'm not sure I can give a very full answer to the point that was raised in terms of the reviews, although it seems to me there is a primary function in respect of the Senedd Commission and Commissioners themselves in respect of work and reviews, and so on. I will look into that again. I'll be honest; I didn't fully understand the issue there, what has happened there, but it seemed to me that it was essentially a matter that the Senedd would take responsibility for, or the Commission. But I would need to give some more thought particularly to that. I don't think I can add anything further to that, Chair.
I propose that amendments 54 to 76 are disposed of en bloc. Does any Member object? No. There seems to be complete agreement. The question is that amendments 54 to 76 be agreed to. Does any Member object? Sorry, Adam, are you moving amendments 54 to 76?
We're voting on amendments 54 to 76 en bloc. Those in favour, please show. And those against. There voted three in favour, three against. Again, in accordance with my role as Chair of the committee, I use my casting vote against, and amendments 54 to 76 are not agreed.
Amendment 77 is moved. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote on amendment 77. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. There voted, again, three in favour, three against. As Chair, I use my casting vote against, and amendment 77 is not agreed.
Amendment 89 is moved. Are there any objections to amendment 89? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote on amendment 89. Would all those in favour please show? And those against. Once more, there voted three in favour, three against. As Chair, I use my casting vote against, and amendment 89 is not agreed.
Amendment 90 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote. Will all those in favour of amendment 90 please show? And those against. Again, we have three in favour and three against. I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 90 is not agreed.
Amendment 91 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. There voted three in favour, three against. I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 91 is not agreed.
Amendment 92 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote. Will those in favour please show? And those against. There voted three in favour, three against, so I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 92 is not agreed.
I move amendment 46 in the name of the Counsel General, and call the Counsel General to speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendment 41 adds exclusions to the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru so as to ensure impartiality in relation to the new independent remuneration panel functions that have been provided to the DBCC via this Bill. These exclusions are members of staff of a national park authority for a national park in Wales—members are already excluded—members or members of staff of a corporate joint committee and members or members of staff of a fire and rescue authority. The amendment also clarifies the exclusion for local authority staff. There is no change to the effect and members of staff of a local authority will continue to be excluded.
Amendment 42 is technical in nature, to ensure amendments relating to the DBCC come into force at the appropriate time.
Finally, amendment 46 is consequential to the amendment made by the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill, which extends the list of exclusions to the DBCC to include members of UK legislatures. Because of that amendment, this provision at Schedule 1, page 59, lines 12 to 13, is no longer needed and therefore is omitted. Diolch.
That brings us to group 16, abolition of the Independent Remuneration Board of the Senedd. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 6, and I call on Adam Price to move and speak to that amendment.
Thank you very much, Chair. We have an opportunity here to start a debate on the possibilities arising from the abolition of the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales and the transfer of its principal functions to the commission to reform the corresponding remuneration arrangements for Members of the Senedd and to create one system and one possible framework for that. This would enable us to ensure that the allowances and support available would support our ambition in terms of encouraging more diversity in politics and would also ensure that there is consistency across the various levels of Government. I don't believe there is much justification, if I'm honest, for having a separate system for Senedd Members here. And, of course, in other contexts, for example, we are talking about creating one public service that bridges between national Government and local government and public services, and the responsibility there would be shared. And I think it's the same principle that broadly underpins this amendment.
The 10-year review of arrangements for the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales, which is the panel that is abolished through this Bill, is what's actually brought about the proposal in the Bill to give its function to the commission. An analysis of some of the limitations of the panel and secretariat model—that's what was at the heart of that review, namely that this panel and secretariat model did have weaknesses and limitations, for example failure to act swiftly to respond to situations as they arose and so on, or press coverage and public perception and so on. Now, many of the points made by Stephen Hughes in his report would also appear to be a fair and relevant criticism of the remuneration board model, which is currently responsible for our remuneration. Now, once again, it is a board and a permanent secretariat that serves the board members who are part-time and only meet occasionally. For example, in the local government report panel, this is what the report says:
'The Panel works with lean administrative support and performs well with a modest budget. However, it is stretched to carry out its tasks, and 12 days a year are insufficient for Panel Members to carry out their role. It does not have the necessary technical support to do its job properly.'
I would argue that that is very similar to my perception of the remuneration board, now that it has been in existence for over 13 years. It was created quite swiftly through a Measure that responded to the crisis in terms of the expenses scandal in Westminster. And I can, of course, understand the intention to act quickly in those circumstances, but almost a decade and a half later, isn't it now time for us to consider whether that scaffolding, which was created quite quickly, is now fit for purpose for the future? That's the question, because many of the criticisms related to the panel and secretariat model in local government—and that's why it's being abolished, of course, and being passed to a permanent commission—well, the same could be applied to the remuneration board.
Therefore, this is the opportunity for us as a Senedd—or rather it was the Assembly, to use its previous title—the Assembly created the original legislation: isn't it now time for us to review that legislation and the statutory framework for dealing with this issue? The amendment proposes one solution, one option, namely to bring everything together to create a unit of expertise that looks holistically at the issue of remuneration for elected Members at all levels, and in doing that, of course, you would create a unit with expertise and adequate resources, not in the form of a panel or board that only meets occasionally and on a part-time basis in terms of their input, but something that is on firmer foundations for the future.
I should note that the PCS union, in their evidence to the Reform Bill Committee, pointed out the deficiencies in the current framework in terms of the responsibility that the board has for staff. That's another element that needs to be factored in here. Now, it's clear that there's been no discussions as of yet, in light of the Stephen Hughes report, on the same lessons applying to the remuneration board, and there has been no similar review of the remuneration board. The board itself commissioned a review into its own effectiveness in May 2022. That review was carried out by the Senedd's head of internal audit. In its response, the board said that some of the feedback to the report that came to hand did cause some discomfort to the board—and the board is saying that—particularly the fact that some Members and support staff had reported a loss of confidence and trust in the board.
I have to say that, in the conversations that I've had with many Members, I do believe that that is reflected across the different groups represented. So, we need to have this discussion. And it was noted that there was a lack of clarity in the relationship between the Senedd Commission and the board. So, they do share some responsibilities in relation to financial decisions. That is also something where a shift to another structure would be a means of providing more clarity.
I just want to thank Adam for bringing this amendment forward today, and I do have great sympathy with this amendment, actually. I think that Wales is a very small country. Do we need all these different types of boards and set-ups to administer how expenses and how salaries of elected members work across Wales? I think probably not. I think we should have one board that looks at councillor salaries, salaries for Senedd Members, and how those expenses are set right the way across the country.
I recognise Adam has put this down as a probing amendment. I know I've just had a chat with Counsel General about this, and I'm interested, Counsel General: is there any way in which this legislation could be futureproofed to include something in there that says that, if the renumeration board here in the Senedd was ever disbanded—there would have to be and Act of the Senedd to do that—could this board take it up? Because I know we don't like putting things in legislation we don't intend to use, but I know, even through this term of the Senedd, we futureproof other pieces of legislation with little caveats in case, in the future, we might want to do something. So, I'm just interested, Counsel General, if you could comment on that, because I think, in a modern world, we do need to look forward, and with 36 more politicians coming into Cardiff Bay as well, we need a new system of how we do manage Members' expenses. And that's nothing against the current panel, I think they do a good job, but I think we do need to futureproof our democracy, and if we're doing that in terms of getting more Senedd Members, and improving accountability at councillor level, it should be done right the way across the piece, and I think expenses should be done centrally together by one body. Diolch, Cadeirydd.
Thank you, Chair. Well, this issue was indeed discussed during Stage 1, and there were strong arguments made in favour of looking again at the Senedd's remuneration arrangements. I will not, as I think Members will understand, be supporting amendment 6, which abolishes the independent remuneration board of the Senedd, and transfers its functions to the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru—the DBCC. This amendment would certainly add to the complexity and the constitutional issues in respect of the DBCC, before work has even begun to assess the impact and consequences of abolishing the remuneration board and then transferring its functions to the DBCC.
The Bill abolishes the remuneration panel—. The Bill abolishes the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales, the IRP, and it creates new provision in the 2013 Act that confers on the DBCC the remuneration functions and the supporting administrative and reporting requirements currently undertaken by the panel in respect of those functions. However, the remit of the Senedd's remuneration board is much wider than the IRP. In addition to responsibility for settling pay for Members, which the IRP does in relation to principal community and town councils, fire and rescue authorities, national park authorities and corporate joint committees, the remuneration board's functions also include decisions about Ministers' payments and the operation of Ministers' offices. So, it would be premature to make additional changes through this Bill. Such a change would require far more detailed consideration of the current arrangements that may result in changes to the current arrangements for the remuneration board.
Ultimately, this is a matter for the Senedd to determine, but the Government would be supportive of further research or work to allow the Senedd to consider in full future arrangements relating to the functions currently undertaken by the Senedd remuneration board. Should this Bill be agreed by the Senedd, further work would happen in the context of a new, independent body existing that would be repsonsible for councillors' remuneration. Diolch, Chair.
Yes, I'm grateful for the response. And I think it was intended as a probing amendment, so I don't intend pressing the matter at this stage. But I think it would be good to continue the discussions, and maybe get some cross-party agreement as to how we could create a mechanism whereby we, first of all, could have the review and then have the conversation if we decide we want to build a different model.
I should say, seeing as we are going to be going on to discuss making misleading statements, then I think that it was, actually, an Assembly Measure, I think it was, rather than a Government Measure. So, I'll correct the record in that regard, but, nevertheless, the point still stands that, I think, whether it's the Government or the Senedd Commission, then if there's a broad majority in favour, I think we should find a way of discussing whether the model works for us in the future.
And we move on to group 17, disqualification from being a Member of Senedd Cymru or local government. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 112, and I call on Peter Fox to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Peter.
Thank you, Chair. So, I wish to speak to amendments 112, 113 and 114 first. I belive that it's down to voters as to who should be able to be elected to represent them here in Wales. If constituents feel their candidate is the best person to represent them, at both community council, or county borough council, then I do not see why we should not allow that. I'm conscious that that's the opposite position to the current, but that's our position.
Turning to amendments 125, 126, 128 and 129—and amendments 128 and 129, I know, are consequential to 125 and 126—I have to say that I agree with many of the principles that Adam Price has brought forward here, and indeed we had conversations, or the Senedd had conversations, in a previous discussion in the Senedd. I thank Adam for his help in explaining things further to me, which I found very helpful, and also to the Counsel General for his advice and thoughts as well.
I have had some anxieties about it. I feel that the practicalities and the implications of these amendments might not have been considered enough, and perhaps they need further work. I had some anxieties around politicians at all levels having to face years of legal battles, fighting claims of disinformation, which could have been laid out in a malicious manner. I certainly see that sort of behaviour, often at county level especially, and much like, I suppose, the hate crime legislation passed in Scotland, where legislation could have dire, unseen effects and consume a lot of police time with false allegations for things. However, my gut feeling was that this legislation needed perhaps to be explored out somewhere else.
I do think it's an important thing—honesty in politics—and I do think we need to consider it. But before I commit myself just in a moment, I think it's important to listen once again to the debate between the Counsel General and Adam Price over the rationale, to help me understand why this is the right place for us to consider taking forward at least parts of what you're trying to do, Adam. So, at that point, Chair, I'm happy to just stand back for a little bit.
Okay, Peter. Well, thank you very much for that. I'm pleased that we've been joined by Joel James—up until quite recently a member of the committee, but no longer so.
Yes. Thank you, Chair. Yes, it's so nice to be back, actually, although it's all changed from when I was last on the committee. Also I want to start by apologising: I'm on the back end of a cold, so it's quite a struggle for me to talk. So, I hope I'm not speaking funnily—bad use of grammar there.
I'd just also like to thank my colleague Peter for his support for this amendment, amendment 10. As many of you will know, I am a community councillor and, for the record, I have been a community councillor now since 2017. One of the things that surprised me was the number of times I encountered a community or town clerk who was also a serving councillor, either on the community council itself or on the overarching local authority. In some cases, they'd even stretch to being cabinet members of that authority, and there are still a number that are out there at the moment.
The concern that I had then is—. I've always seen the clerk as a politically neutral position, a politically restricted position, and then to have someone who is a serving councillor, and in some cases a party councillor, I worry what sort of message that sends to maybe opposition councillors, as to whether or not they would be treated fairly, whether or not there would be impartiality. That's why, really, I've put forward amendment 10. It's just a personal thing that I have that I was hoping would fit in quite well with the rest of the Bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. I sometimes feel as if I've been discussing this all my life. I first introduced a Bill in Westminster in 2007 to prohibit deliberate deception by politicians, and I sometimes feel as if I will be discussing it all my life. I've discussed it so many times with the Counsel General in recent months, maybe we should go on tour—the worst Edinburgh show ever, some people might say—
But, I think, before getting into some of the detail, I'm very grateful for all the conversations that I've had, in all seriousness, because it has certainly developed my thinking and it's reflected in the way that the amendment has evolved as well. At its core, it's a very, very simple but central principle, really, that deliberate deception in politics should never be acceptable. That is a cultural norm that I'm sure that we all share, but what we are doing in this amendment is turning that cultural norm, that standard, and giving it legal force by creating a specific criminal offence around deliberate deception.
In some ways—in many ways—all we are doing is bringing politics in line with other professions. If you're a barrister and you lie, you will be—is it de-barred or disbarred, I've never quite worked it out, but you will be struck off. A doctor would be struck off if they lied in the course of their work, and there are many other examples, from finance company directors, et cetera, and companies can't lie in marketing and trades descriptions, et cetera, and yet in politics there are few consequences, if any, to deliberate deception. Indeed, we even protect it through parliamentary privilege, and I'm sure we'll come on to that in great detail. But if all of that is true, you can understand why people feel increasingly detached from politics, why you are seeing this collapsing trust, et cetera. So, why is this important? Because this is one of the ways in which we maintain, restore and rebuild that trust.
The bizarre situation in Westminster, of course, is that there are more consequences for calling people a liar than actually being a liar. [Laughter.] Well, I don't want to litigate particular examples, because I don't want to offend different parts of the party spectrum, as it were, but that certainly is the case. Look at the quite arcane procedure through the Committee of Privileges that Westminster had to use in order to deal with one particular case. I'll say no more.
The reason that I think that we, of all professions, should have a legal duty not to lie is because the consequences of us lying are actually so serious. We do make decisions that have life or death consequences, don't they? They are long term in their impact, they're lifelong for individuals and they're nationwide. So, it's on that basis, really, that I think it is important that we set this new standard and put it at the heart of our democracy.
In terms of some of the general, quite legitimate questions that people have raised with me: how will the courts decide what is true and what is false? Well, lawyers and friends who are judges have said to me, 'Well, actually, that is the core business of the legal system.' It's deciding on the basis of evidence, in a wide range of circumstances, facts from lies. And, indeed, in many cases, that goes to the heart of many existing offences. So, it's not different in that regard, but it's applying that jurisprudence, that common law precedent, and applying it for the first time to the political realm.
I'd just like to touch on some of the issues that—. The Counsel General has been very generous in sharing his thoughts in terms of some of the practical and technical and legal questions that arise in this case. And in terms of competence, I'm very grateful as well to the Senedd's legal advisers in assisting me in coming to a view, and I've shared some of that material with other members of the committee.
On competence, the very clear understanding that I have from our Senedd legal adviser is based on the particular issue that the Counsel General has raised with me in terms of the Perjury Act 1911. We could happily bring the legal advisers in if we want further detail on this, but I think we're on pretty clear ground that the legislative competence issues don't arise in this particular case. I'm happy to go into further detail on that, but, essentially, the Perjury Act deals with lying under oath; this amendment does not involve giving statements under oath, and therefore it doesn't cause us any competence issues. That is the unequivocal legal advice that the Senedd legal advisers have provided.
Human rights and challenges that could arise under the European convention on human rights, of course, challenges are always possible for every piece of legislation because the ambit of the convention is so wide. So, no-one can say that there couldn't be a challenge, but the question is whether the challenge would be successful. There are two bits of the convention that are relevant here. Article 3 of protocol No. 1 is the right to free elections and the right to stand at an election. So, it is obviously directly relevant to what we're discussing, but we're assisted by very extensive case law in relation to this area.
The reason for that is almost—. I stand to be corrected, but the vast majority of parliaments that are part of the countries that have signed up to the European convention, many of them do have provisions to expel members of the legislature. As a result of that, there have been legal challenges precisely under this protocol, making the case that those provisions to expel infringe the rights under the convention. And the very clear conclusion of the court is that it is possible to have provisions that expel a member from the legislature, or prevent somebody from standing, provided that they're proportionate, and provided that they are also for a legitimate purpose. So, if your purpose is to defend or strengthen democracy, protect people's right to use their vote and to promote democratic health, et cetera, then that's a legitimate purpose, and also as long as it's proportionate.
And so, in this context, that is why, for the amendment on the Senedd disqualification—that's the first amendment, amendment 125—we have limited the extent of the disqualification to a Senedd term of four years, in order to meet that proportionality rule. So, that is one electoral cycle that you would have to sit out, effectively, because you'd been found guilty of the offence in question. And I think that, based on the case law, we are on strong ground to say that we believe that that is consistent with the rules on proportionality in this specific area and a whole number of cases.
The other right under the convention that is relevant is the right to freedom of expression, under article 10. But, again, I think if we look at not just case law in the Strasbourg court, but also case law in British courts, I think it's clear that that right to freedom of expression is not absolute; it is curtailed in a number of ways and, in one very relevant case, which is the case of Woolas, R (on the application of) v The Speaker of the House of Commons—some of you may remember—in 2015, one of the rare examples where the provisions of the Representation of the People Act 1983, which are highly relevant to this amendment—. So, you’ll recall we were referring to them earlier, so it is, actually, that, during an election period, you cannot make a false statement impugning the character of another candidate. And it happens rarely, but it does happen; there was a case brought under that. And the defence which went to the High Court, I believe—or the Court of Appeal, certainly—was that it infringed—. The person in question had been found guilty by the lower courts of making a false statement under the terms of that Act, and they tried to use the right of freedom of expression, and Lord Justice Thomas, no less, in typically pithy fashion, said this:
'The right to freedom of expression under Article 10 does not extend to a right to be dishonest and tell lies'.
So, I think it's pretty definitive, I would say, on the basis of that, what the view of the UK courts are and, indeed, I think it's also consistent with the jurisprudence in the Strasbourg court as well.
Can I turn briefly to the issue of parliamentary privilege? We, of course, do not have absolute privilege in the same way as the Westminster Parliament does. So, article 9 of the Bill of Rights, et cetera, does not apply to us in the same way. If I, even now at this point in this committee, were to incite racial hatred or to commit an offence against the Official Secrets Act, or if I were to divulge breaches of confidence et cetera, or if I was to make a statement that in some way involved contempt of court, I have no privilege. So, we have limited privilege already. And this amendment makes no change to that position. It makes no change to the situation that we have limited privilege already. It creates a new offence that means that, yes, if you lie in Parliament, you could also be liable to face a charge. And remember, this amendment is very cautious. It sets an incredibly high bar, and so it should. Legitimate disagreement of opinion, a legitimate different interpretation of the same facts and evidence, honest differences of belief et cetera—it is explicitly protected in the text of the amendment. We've taken very, very strong legal advice from a whole range of lawyers to get that balance right.
And also the defences there are incredibly wide. It would even allow you to simply retract within a reasonable timescale and say, 'Look, okay, I got it wrong', and that would mean that the whole issue would go away.
The success of this provision is not that there will be a whole series of cases. That's not the purpose of it. What it's trying to do is to create a new culture and behaviour. So, what would happen in practice is people who sometimes get—and we all know, I won't name names, and it's nobody represented here—. Some people get too close to the line. They may not even cross the line, but they're getting a bit close to the line. It would just cool everything down and cause people just to be a little bit more careful and mindful so that we can have a good debate, so that we're not having a situation where people are calling each other names et cetera, where we can just say, 'Look, just step back a little bit and let's have a civil, respectful disagreement, a genuine disagreement.' We know that's when politics works best. So, it's been carefully crafted with that in mind.
There are other aspects of privilege. I'm not so keen on the term, myself, but there are other Parliaments that already do make lying in Parliament a criminal offence by Members of Parliament. So, we're breaking new ground in the sense that we in this amendment would prohibit it inside and outside of Parliament. There are places that prohibit it outside Parliament, but not inside, and there are places that do it inside, but not outside. Well, actually, we need to do both. But there are Parliaments with practice, with experience, that we can draw upon in the further refinement, because this is the committee stage, there'll be a further opportunity, and, indeed, in the process amendment we suggest a very, very wide opportunity for us to have further public consultation and parliamentary consideration.
But there are Parliaments that already criminalise lying. The former Chancellor of Austria has just earlier this year been convicted of lying to Parliament. The leader of the opposition in Singapore has been charged with lying to Parliament—a charge that he denies, it's important to say. What's interesting in the Singapore example, and, indeed, the Parliaments of Queensland and Australia and also, I think, other Commonwealth Parliaments, is they're based on the Westminster model, they have privilege. They criminalise lying by MPs in Parliament, but they also have a system of privilege. So, it's not the case that this amendment is incompatible with a continuing system of privilege. We have plenty of examples where it is possible to have the advantages of privilege, but still allow there to be clarity that no-one should ever deliberately deceive, and that should be true, that shouldn't happen, inside Parliament or outside as well.
I should just say that there are three amendments here. Amendment 125 is virtually identical to the amendment that was presented at an earlier stage, but in a different—at an earlier stage to a different Bill; you know what I mean. Amendments 126 and 128 are new; 126 extends the principle to local government—I know there's a debate to be had there, a different context et cetera, but it's the same principle incorporated. Amendment 128 sets out some ideas in terms of process where we've reflected on what the Counsel General has said in other contexts and we've created, through this amendment, as I said, an opportunity for there to be parliamentary consideration through committee, a public consultation, and a further, not just at Stage 3—remember, we will have a further stage with this Bill—but there will be a further parliamentary opportunity to refine the fine detail of the way this would happen in practice.
I know that the Counsel General, because we've had many conversations on this, if I can anticipate, will say, 'Look, you don't want to do it through this Bill, we've got a better mechanism', which is the Standards of Conduct Committee, which is gong to be, I believe—I was going to say 'interviewing you'; that's not the right phrase to use in this context—scrutinising you, taking your views, Counsel General, in June, I believe, on this matter and on recall. My issue with the process that is being suggested is that I don't think, practically, it's going to be able to deliver, because, in terms of the Standards of Conduct Committee, they have a practical focus, don't they, which is dealing with complaints, and you never know how their agenda is going to have to respond if complaints come in. They have to give precedence to that. So, I'm not persuaded that they have the time and the ability to give this matter the kind of level of commitment that bringing forward a committee Bill would. So, I think it would be better, actually, to look at maybe other committees as a possibility for that.
The other thing—. I hear what the Government has said so far. I'm yet to be convinced. And I'm not being disrespectful or in any way alleging bad faith on anyone's part, but what I hear from the Government at the moment is that you appear to be still weighing up this proposal, because I hear a lot of reasons why you think it might not work. I think, if that's your genuine view, I completely understand that. But that doesn't give me the confidence that a process that is open ended—. Because there's no guarantee that that committee would recommend this proposal and there's no guarantee that the Government would support it, and so, from my perspective as a parliamentarian, this is a definite opportunity that we have now, as parliamentarians, to make our view clear on this matter. Yes, we think we need to use the opportunities that I set out in amendment 128 to refine, to improve, to get it right, but I fear that, if it simply goes to committee, if we don't take this opportunity, I currently—I'm just giving you my honest view—don't think we will end up with a prohibition, we will end up with a new criminal offence that prohibits lying by politicians through that route. And that's why I urge Members to take this opportunity, support amendment 125, which relates to the Senedd, and the others, if you are so minded, so we can take this to the next stage. Remember, there'll be a further stage, even in this Bill, where we can actually amend further. And I think I can say—and I'm sure I'll get agreement right around the committee—that I've said enough at that point.
I'd like to thank you, Adam, for comprehensively setting out your position over the last half an hour. You can come up for a breath now. I actually have sympathy over amendment 125 about Members of the Senedd who deliberately lie. I did have issues around parliamentary privilege, which you've outlined, and I'll address some of my concerns there. Because when I look at it, it's the way it looks to the wider public, in my personal point of view. If we've got Member support staff who look after us on a day-to-day basis, and support us in our office, if they lie, that's gross misconduct. If Senedd Commission staff lie, that is also gross misconduct, and also civil servants as well, if they lie to the public, that is also gross misconduct. I don't think that it's appropriate that Members of the Senedd have some sort of privilege to lie on the record and get away with it. I think you set out earlier in your contribution that, in certain industries, for example, if you're a lawyer, if you work in the health service and lie to people, you're held accountable for that, and I think the wider public would respect politicians a lot more if untruths were untold. I know there are people around this table who have had untruths said about them on the public record by other politicians and others. I think it's very disrespectful to them and I think there should be some recourse for it. You set out very comprehensively your arguments and, on a personal perspective, on amendment 125, I would be minded to support that amendment. Diolch, Cadeirydd.
I'd just to speak to amendment 125 as well, and to thank the Counsel General and Adam Price for their engagement in this, and Adam in particular for the work he's done. I think he's just demonstrated his thorough understanding of the issues, and the fact also that we have cross-party support. Darren Millar and the Conservatives support the principle of this. I think that is quite a remarkable thing that is happening, and we mustn't let this moment pass. As we've discussed all morning, the fabric of democracy is under active challenge, and the events here of recent weeks and months as well have made us realise we can't be complacent about norms and standards. So, I think the issue is very current, and I completely understand the Counsel General's anxiety that this hasn't had the same lead-in time as some of the other elements in the Bill, and, quite rightly, his job is to make sure that we pass proper law, so he wants to make sure that all the various potential unintended consequences are tested, and I think that's an absolutely proper position to have. So, I think what I'm hearing is an appetite for more debate here. I think it would be premature to snuff this out at this stage.
I do think some of the challenge and concerns that the Counsel General has are valid and need to be properly stress tested. I do think, from what Adam Price says, that many of the principal concerns can be addressed. So, my view is let's work in the best spirit possible and try our best to see if we can get this over the line, and if we can't, we have a backstop, which the Government have offered in the form of the Senedd committee. I agree with Adam, I think the chances of that being able to fulfil the First Minister's promise this week of being in place ready to be delivered before people go to the polls is hard to see, given that both the Welsh Government and the Senedd Commission's capacity to bring forward additional legislation is highly constrained to the point of it's not credible, in my view. So, here is a Bill and, yes, it's come late in the parliamentary process, but that's the nature of the parliamentary process. And we do have a window now to make sure that the Government's proper anxieties can be addressed, and if they can't be addressed sufficiently, then we have an option at the next stage to say, 'Well, it was a nice try, but we weren't able to do it this time. Let's see if we can get it in place alongside the recall provision'. I don't think the two need to be coupled. The First Minister said in this Plenary this week:
'we will work with all parties in this place to try to have a workable answer that we can actually use and implement. I think it’s more likely, on this issue, that it should be a committee Bill rather than a Government Bill'—
Thank you, Chair. I've listened carefully, and of course we've had quite a number of discussions over the period of time. I'll deal with a number of other issues first of all.
I do not support amendments 112, 113 and 114 tabled by Peter Fox. Amendment 112 would remove provisions in the Bill to disqualify a member of a community council from being a Member of the Senedd. The relevant provisions within the Bill are important to support fairness, equality and accountability of the Senedd and local government. These provisions will ensure Members have sufficient time to carry out their roles effectively and avoid conflicts of interest and unfair advantages for dual-hatted Members. Therefore, the amendment should be rejected. Amendment 113 is consequential to amendment 112.
Amendment 114 would remove provisions in the Government of Wales Act 2006 that disqualify a member of a county or county borough council in Wales from being a Member of the Senedd. This amendment also duplicates sections 61(5) and 61(6) of the Bill. This amendment would allow county or county borough councillors to also be Members of the Senedd. As with amendments 112 and 113, this would be inappropriate in terms of fairness, equality and accountability of the Senedd and local government.
Could I just turn now to Joel James's amendment, and thank Joel James for bringing in that amendment? I agree with the principles in this amendment. However, there are a few technical improvements, including transition and commencement, which are required to make this amendment work. On this basis, the Government will not support the amendment as drafted, but we will work with the Member to bring forward an amendment at Stage 3 that addresses this important issue.
I do not support amendments 125 and 126 from Adam Price. Amendment 125 would introduce a disqualification from Senedd membership or candidacy if a person had been convicted of a new offence of deception in the prior four years. I have found discussions with the Member very helpful in recent days in airing some of the crucial matters that this issue raises. I welcome the cross-party support for giving this issue the careful consideration it merits during the Stage 3 debate of the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill, with the Senedd to consider the most appropriate and effective way to deliver the intent.
Honesty is an overarching principle in the code of conduct for Members, and the truthfulness of Members sits at the heart of the standards by which we must be held. Trust is fundamental to the proper functioning of democracy in Wales. At the same time, we must be very careful about unintended consequences including in relation to Members’ ability to speak freely on matters that concern their constituents in this Senedd. Careful consideration also needs to be given to potential competence risks in respect of this amendment. The Senedd cannot legislate to create offences of a kind dealt with by the Perjury Act 1911, which includes knowingly and willfully making false statements.
I'll just go into a number of points that were raised now, because this is probably the appropriate time to do that. Firstly, in any piece of legislation, there are many unclear matters that need to be explored and also the way in which legislation is drafted to accommodate those competence issues. There has been no detailed and deep-delved competence assessment that would need to take place. On the points you made in respect of the Perjury Act, they are incorrect once you go beyond section 4 of the Perjury Act, because once you get on to section 5 of the Perjury Act, it deals with declarations and statements that are made that are not related to oath-bound statements. I would say this indicates there is clearly a matter there that needs to be properly assessed. So, I disagree with the assessment you made there.
In respect of the Human Rights Act, well, of course, it's right. The Human Rights Act is engaged, and if we legislate we have to be satisfied that it is proportionate legislation and that there are no other alternatives other than legislation that would be able to achieve the same objective. That is one of the tests and it has to be evidence based. In respect of the case, that's a case where I actually knew the defendant in that particular case, but that is not a case that actually relates, as you suggested, to the issue of freedom of expression. It related to a circumstance where it was clearly acknowledged and accepted that there had been a false statement, and what the court actually said was that in those circumstances, it doesn't give you a get-out-of-jail card because of the Human Rights Act. Freedom of expression did not extend as a protection in those circumstances. That is not the same as saying that legislation, in terms of the way that operates and the impact that it has, is considered. So, that case I'd say probably is not a relevant case in respect of the principles that would need to be considered in a competence issue in this particular case.
The other issue that concerns me is that certain analogies were drawn. Of course, those analogies relate to civic remedies, not a criminal remedy. But there's another matter relating to privilege. I actually think that the privilege that we do have—and you're right that it is not a privilege that is as extensive as the privilege that applies in Parliament—is a very significant privilege. And privilege is not privilege in the understanding of something special that you get; it's actually within the legal sense that it is a protection that it gives. It was a protection that was brought in by the Bill of Rights 1689, which applies to Westminster completely. We have a limited version of that by virtue of section 42 of the Government of Wales Act.
Thank you, Chair. Can I thank Adam for helping me try to understand why this ought to be the right way to go, and Counsel General, for your views? I think, even though I had those strong anxieties about this, there's part of me—. First of all, I'm concerned about 126, around local authorities, and I can't support 126 around local authorities because that needs to be done with a lot more work with the local authorities and I think there's a bigger piece of work to do around that.
However, on 125, I'm conscious we're at Stage 2, and there's a part of me—. I think Lee captured some of my feelings as well. There's a need to allow this to breathe a little further. There's an opportunity for us to look a little more for some of those issues to be fleshed out ahead of Stage 3. I hear what the Counsel General says about what's already supposed to be happening within the standards committee, and I hear the commitment that it will be done by 2026, but I don't think it hurts for us to keep this open to run in parallel, perhaps, for a little longer. If there's an opportunity for it to be looked at a little bit further, I certainly will be advising our group to perhaps change our position a little and support 125, but I would be recommending abstaining on 126 and the consequential amendments there.
Can I thank Joel for bringing forward yours, Joel? I'm thankful to the commissioner who's going to obviously work with you to strengthen that, because I think that's absolutely the right position you've set out there, and I can see—and we've spoken before—the concerns you have and how you can evidence that as well, so I'm supportive of you. I'm not sure what your plans are to do with that at the moment, but, obviously, I would be supporting you on that.
So, Chairman, my position at the moment is, as I've just set out, I think I'm going to be supportive of allowing this to breathe a little longer, but I will be abstaining on 126, 128 and 129.
Can I briefly just ask the Counsel General a follow-up question, briefly? Is that okay? Just to clarify for my understanding, because I'm just trying to reconcile what you said and what the First Minister said on Wednesday, and I think the bits I quoted slightly had a different emphasis from the bits you quoted, because he's saying it's more likely that this should be a committee Bill rather than a Government Bill; that's not definitive—it is more likely. So, he's not ruling out it being a Government Bill, and he seems quite emphatic that he wants this in place before people go to the polls. So, that seems to be that in principle we want this to happen, with the caveat that it needs to be properly road-tested, which we all agree with. Your objections seem to be a bit more fundamental than that, and some of them are in-principle objections, which doesn't feel like further work on testing the argument and refining it would satisfy your anxieties, and they're valid anxieties. But what I was hoping to hear from you was a bit more of a commitment to try, from a point of view of, 'We want to make this happen. Let's work it through', rather than, 'I'm not really sure this can work', which was the tone I was getting. So, I just want to clarify, have I misunderstood this?
The point I'm making is that the most effective way to deliver good legislation and effective legislation is not via this amendment, which I think has inherently a whole series of potential flaws, but is actually through the appropriate committee in any event. Now, whether the committee decides to make recommendations, then it would be the Government that produced the legislation, as happened with the special purpose committee and the legislation that emanated from that, or whether the Senedd committee would choose to produce the Bill itself or whether it would be a collaborative one is basically what would happen. The idea is a Bill would be produced, but it would be produced in collaboration with the standards committee, working with the standards committee. They would actually have the context or the preparation of the policy background et cetera for that, but the actual conversion of that into the legislation would either be Welsh Government doing it, or it would be the Senedd doing it itself, or a combination.
Okay, because my recollection of the Government pipeline is that it was chock-a-block. So, that's why I'm slightly concerned, because that wasn't the impression I got, that there was capacity to put in extra Bills. But you're more upbeat than I am.
—that that is the appropriate course. Don't forget, what this Bill actually does is it says, 'Here we are, we're creating the offence; we know there's a lot of issues, so what we'll do is we'll hand it all over to Welsh Government and give you 12 months to come back with a solution.' That is, actually, I think, exactly the wrong way to do it, and, actually, if you're saying that, what you're suggesting suggests that wouldn't be achievable in any event. I think the combination of Welsh Government working with the Senedd committee, and the resources of the Senedd jointly, will be capable of actually producing legislation to be in place for 2026.
But, of course, this is a committee, isn't it, and this is part of the legislative process, so it's perfectly legitimate to bring an amendment up at this stage—at the committee stage—and for that to be worked through before the further stages. So, I don't think there's any sort of fundamental problem with that. I guess the issue is your point—which, I think, I have some sympathy with—that the amendment as currently drafted needs further work. So, would you be willing to work on a new amendment for the next stage, if it was possible to address some of your concerns in that?
The First Minister made a very clear commitment in the Senedd on Tuesday that he wanted legislation, and he was committed to legislation being in place for 2026. I reiterate that commitment. I reiterate the fact that I will work with that. Whether it's the Welsh Government lawyers that are involved in it, whether it's a joint effort, whether it is utilising, also, the resources of the Senedd lawyers as well, those are matters to be determined. You asked me: am I confident that we could produce legislation that would be in place by 2026? The answer to that is 'yes'.
It will deal with the issue of deception. It will deal with the issue of recall. It might deal with additional issues that relate to standards as well.
'Deal with' is not the same as—. The question is whether you will create an offence of deliberate deception. You're not—. I'm not trying to catch you out, I'm just—
Doesn't it become—? Isn't the issue that what you want is, actually, a standard in respect of deception that is effective, whether that's criminal, whether it is civil, and that would apply to all the analogies that you gave earlier? It's not right for me to pre-judge a Senedd committee that will come forward with recommendations. The fact of the matter is, there is a recognition that the issue of deception, and legislating in that area, is something that the First Minister has said he is committed to, and into the issue of recall, and that we'll work with the Senedd committee to deliver legislation that will be in place by 2026. I don't think it can be any clearer than that.
Yes, it's been moved. There is an objection, so we will move to a vote. So, in relation to amendment 112, will all those in favour please show. And those against. There voted two in favour, four against. Therefore, amendment 112 is not agreed.
Amendment 113 is moved. Is there any objection? [Objection.] There is. We will move to a vote. Will all those in favour please show. And those against. There voted two in favour, four against. Therefore, amendment 113 is not agreed.
Yes, thank you, Chair. I hope you don't mind. I'm grateful for my colleague Peter Fox's support on this, but given the comments of the Welsh Government—and I'm really delighted that they support the principle of it, and I understand it needs a bit more work—I'm quite happy to withdraw the amendment and then hopefully to come back at Stage 3, then, if that's okay.
Amendment 114 is moved. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote. Will all those in favour please show? And all those against. There voted two in favour and four against. Therefore, amendment 114 is not agreed.
Amendment 125 is moved. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, we will move to a vote. All those in favour, please show. All those against. Any abstentions. Okay, there voted three in favour, two against, one abstention. Therefore, amendment 125 is agreed.
Amendment 126 is moved. Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will move to a vote. Will all those in favour please show? Those against. Any abstentions. There voted one in favour, three against, two abstentions. Therefore, amendment 126 is not agreed.
I move amendment 41 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Does any Member object? No, then amendment 41 is agreed.
Okay, we come then to group 18, review of the Act. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 94, and I call on Adam Price to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendment in the group. Adam.
Yes, exactly. And otherwise it will be time for the post-legislative scrutiny. The lead amendment in this group is simply to put on the face of the Bill post-legislative scrutiny. I'm a strong supporter of post-legislative scrutiny. I think it should be normalised as something we do as a matter of course, as some, indeed, legislatures do, and that's what we're trying to achieve with this amendment in this particular context, and I think we all understand what I'm trying to achieve, and I think there's no need for me to detain you any further.
Diolch, Chair. I'm not supporting amendments 94 and 95. We will undertake a post-implementation review of the operation and impact of this legislation, as is our customary practice. As set out in the explanatory memorandum to the Bill, the Welsh Government will ensure continuous assessment of how the legislation has taken effect and influenced the policy intent. For the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales, there is an existing requirement to produce an annual report, which must be laid before the Senedd. This will include the new functions of the commission conferred by this Bill, that is, the electoral management board and the Independent Remuneration Panel for Wales. As ever, the Senedd is able to undertake post-legislative scrutiny of any Bill that it chooses. Diolch, Gadeirydd.
I should just say very briefly that although there are two amendments in this group that relate—. In terms of the voting order under this group, I should say, which relate to the matter that we just discussed in the previous group, the disqualification, amendment 129, if it's helpful to members of the committee, is directly consequential to amendment 125, which just passed. So, in order to make that amendment coherent, to be consistent, then that should pass too. So, that's just for information more than anything.
Okay. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, we will move to a vote then. Would all those in favour please show? And those against. Okay, there voted three in favour, three against, therefore I use my casting vote as Chair against, and amendment 94 is not agreed.
Amendment 127 is moved. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will therefore move to a vote. Would all those in favour please show? [Interruption.] Amendment 127. All those in favour. And those against. Okay, so there voted three in favour, three against, so again I use my casting vote as Chair against and amendment 127 is not agreed.
Amendment 128 is moved. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. And any abstentions. Okay, there voted one in favour, two against, three abstentions. Therefore, amendment 128 is not agreed.
Amendment 129 is moved. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will therefore move to a vote. Will all those in favour please show? And those against. There voted three in favour and three against, so again I use my casting vote against and amendment 129 is not agreed.
Okay. Well, that brings us to the end of our Stage 2 committee proceedings. May I thank the Counsel General and his officials for their attendance? You will be sent a transcript of the meeting to check for factual accuracy.
Stage 3 begins tomorrow. The relevant dates for Stage 3 proceedings will be published in due course. Standing Orders make provision for the Counsel General to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum, taking account of the amendments agreed today. The revised memorandum should be laid at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings.
That concludes the meeting. The next meeting of the committee will take place on 22 May. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you all very much.
There has been quite some coverage on the development of the concept of 'democratic health' in the context of the Senedd reform Bill—work that the Counsel General himself has commissioned and published from the Wales Centre for Public Policy, and also in the context of the work of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales.
In response to the first recommendation of the Independent Commission on the Constitutional Future of Wales, the Welsh Government listed some of the bodies that do play a part in nurturing the democratic health of the Welsh Government itself, the Senedd Commission, and the power that the Commission has under the Government of Wales Act 2006 in this direction, and the Electoral Commission, the broadcasting and communications advisory body, the media, the third sector, local government and, of course, the democracy commission itself. The education system and schools are also crucial in this in terms of the role of the curriculum—I know that that is a theme that is important to the Counsel General—in nurturing an understanding of and participation in democracy. I think we, again, have more work to do in that regard.
So, clearly, the responsibility on democratic health will continue to be shared across a number of different bodies and organisations, but you do have to have someone to lead and co-ordinate that work, and our conclusion is that this work should be happening, for obvious reasons, at arm's length from Government, and the commission provides the perfect vehicle for that.
It is a problem globally, and as I say, there is good practice starting to emerge globally as a result of that. The report of the taskforce that has been working in the Republic of Ireland looking at safe participation in political life is about to be published, but according to the reports, one of the main recommendations will be the creation of a monitoring unit of the kind that I am referring to. There is a monitoring unit in terms of social media output that already exists in the Scottish Parliament; it also exists in Westminster. It's important to note that this kind of behaviour can happen online and offline too—it can happen in a physical context too. So, it is important that the monitoring can assess all of these different contexts.
But what is different about what the Oireachtas in Ireland is set to propose, or to implement, I believe, is that this monitoring unit will also cover local government, not just the national Parliament. We have seen reports here in Wales of the way in which councillors—some of them—have had this terrible experience and have decided to leave politics as a result of that. And sometimes, in some ways, it can be more difficult for councillors, because perhaps they don't have that infrastructure of support available to them that we have, partially at least, in a national Parliament. They can be more isolated, depending on the context and so on. So, as in the case of Ireland, this amendment covers all levels of government, not just the national level, and I look forward to hearing the Counsel General's response and also contributions from fellow members of the committee to what we are proposing in these three amendments.
Amendment 121 would place a duty on the democracy and boundary commission to create a unit to monitor gender-based political harassment, abuse and intimidation of elected representatives, and to report annually on it. And while this amendment highlights a matter that is of concern to the Welsh Government, it goes beyond what the current intended remit of it is at this stage. There are already other mechanisms for reporting gender-based and other forms of political harassment, abuse, intimidation of elected representatives through the public services ombudsman, local standards committees, the Senedd standards committee and, of course, a range of regular surveys.
So, I'm not supporting these amendments, but, in not supporting them, it doesn't mean that there isn't ongoing work in terms of the direction within those particular areas, and how to achieve that, and, of course, it's an ongoing conversation that I'm more than happy to engage on as this legislation proceeds. Diolch, Chair.
Amendments 44 and 45, which are also in my name, are technical in nature, to ensure that the amendments relating to the commencement of registration without application come into force at the appropriate time, which will be following the successful completion of the pilots. This includes laying the evaluation report of those pilots before the Senedd, and the making of regulations bringing about the abolition of the edited register of local government electors in Wales. So, these amendments are in response to recommendation 4 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, and are designed to safeguard the effective roll-out of registration without application.
Amendment 99 from Peter Fox would change the notice period for those being registered without application from 45 to 60 days. I'm grateful for the discussions that we had a while back. We believe that 45 days is an adequate time frame for someone to respond to a notice of registration if they wish—six weeks. However, we will be piloting registration without application, so the 45-day period will be evaluated as part of that.
Turning to amendment 100, the Electoral Commission are required to produce an independent report evaluating the registration without application pilots. It would be an unnecessary complication to require the Welsh Ministers to then do the same, given the Electoral Commission’s report on the pilots will be published and shared with all Members.
Amendment 127, I think would create an unnecessary burden on electoral registration officers, as monitoring compliance would be difficult, particularly as we move to registration without application. It would also overlap and conflict with existing provisions around residency requirements when registering to vote, and could have unintended consequences with respect to people’s right to vote. It raises an issue; I think there are further aspects to it to be explored, but I think the issue in terms of the implications of how you would actually monitor, implement and go down that road, I think, are quite significant. They're an area for further exploration, but I don't think they're appropriate at this moment in time.
So, I ask Members to support amendments 16, 44, and 45 in my name, but not to support the amendments tabled by Adam Price and Peter Fox, for the reasons that I have given.
Amendment 103 requires that, before any pilot regulations under section 5 that relate to electoral registration without application, the Ministers must undertake consultation with such stakeholders as they consider appropriate, but in particular, with those they deem to represent vulnerable groups. I don't believe this amendment needs to be on the face of the Bill, and therefore don't support it. We are committed to consulting—not only consulting, but working closely with our stakeholders to develop the best possible pilot proposals. This includes working closely with those representing vulnerable voters, voters with additional needs and those in hard-to-reach groups. Setting this out in primary legislation is unnecessary.
Amendment 104 requires that pilot regulations, where appropriate, must ensure that they cover a geographical range of areas across Wales, which includes both rural and urban areas. The amendment is overly restrictive and therefore I do not support it. It might, for instance, prove necessary, as I've said, to conduct pilots looking at issues specific to different types of area, such as voting in rural areas.
I ask Members to support amendments 17, 18, 19 and 20, which are tabled in my name. Amendments 17 and 18 clarify the scope of the piloting powers in this Bill. They provide that pilot regulations made under section 5 of the Bill relating to registration without application may include provisions to test the new duty to register and provisions in electoral legislation connected to that duty.
Amendments 19 and 20 are in response to recommendations from the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. Amendment 19 is in response to recommendation 5 from the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee and provides that the Welsh Ministers, at the time of laying pilot regulations in the Senedd that are to be made without a principal council’s consent, must also lay a statement to explain the decision to proceed without that consent being obtained. This will ensure the effective implementation of the provisions and its associated safeguards and provide additional assurances to stakeholders.
Amendment 20 responds to recommendation 7 from the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. It removes in its entirety section 8 of the Bill so that the list of those areas where electoral pilots may be undertaken cannot be amended via secondary legislation. Primary legislation will therefore be required to make any future amendments.
Can I make just a couple of comments on some of the broader points that were made? It is clear that there is an ongoing debate and there are issues of considerable importance over the issues of civic duty. I've explained why I'm not supportive of that going into this Bill but how it might develop as an argument. Can I also mention, of course, that we did have pilots to show how we could hold elections over different days and in different places? I think they were successful. They were not about suddenly changing the culture of voting and enormous numbers of people voting as a consequence, but showing that it can be done, that the technology allows us to look at and to do things that are very different. And of course all these things are things that have to be done in consultation and engagement with people and carrying people with them, because the election process ultimately belongs to the people. They are the framework and guarantee of our democracy. Diolch, Chair.
So, while I support the principle behind the amendment, I do not support the amendment because, again, as I say, our preferred approach is to place duties on returning officers, via the rules contained in secondary legislation, to provide such equipment as is reasonable to help disabled people vote independently, according to the Electoral Commission guidance. Again, as I've mentioned, that's conduct Order and the local government rules, and, again, this will reflect the approach taken in the Elections Act 2022. Diolch, Chair.
If I can now speak to amendments 24, 32 and 43, which are tabled in my name. Amendment 24 is a technical amendment that corrects an error in the terminology used in the Welsh text of the Bill. I therefore ask Members to support that.
Amendment 32 relates to the co-operation agreement and is in response to recommendations 12 and 16 of the special purpose committee’s report on Senedd reform, relating to improving diversity of elected Members. The amendment inserts a new section into the Bill to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to publish guidance for political parties about collecting, collating and publishing diversity information about candidates standing in Senedd elections. We have already discussed the survey of candidates for local government elections. The amendment also places a duty on Welsh Ministers to publish guidance for political parties on how they might publish diversity and inclusion strategies for Welsh elections. The purpose here is to encourage political parties to use diversity information to develop and publish a strategy setting out the steps that they intend to take to improve the diversity of their parties, particularly in areas where such diversity is lacking. The amendment provides that Welsh Ministers must publish guidance in relation to both areas before 1 May 2025 and review the guidance on an ongoing basis.
Amendment 43 provides for the coming into force of the section inserted by amendment 32 two months after Royal Assent. I ask Members to support amendments 32 and 43. Diolch, Chair.
Twelve US states, and counting, have brought in this kind of legislation. So, we're not breaking new ground here. There are good examples of solid legislation that are already in this field, as I said, in the European Union, but also in the United States, at state level, and there are draft laws in Congress as well. I think that we need this in Wales.
The amendment does go on to have some remedies. If people don't provide the transparency that I've just described, then obviously there needs to be a remedy in relation to that. It allows a false statement in the material provided to be challenged, that's an additional dimension, and some Members may support that and some Members may not support that. But the key issue is that we do have the right to have this single repository that would allow us, at the very least—at the very least—to flag up, you know? We're not actually then preventing people from using these technologies, but we are saying, at the very least, 'If you use them—.' I mean, there is a case, I think, for the prohibition of deepfake videos in a political context. I would be supporting that as a more radical move. Some states have gone that far.
But what we're trying to do here, in a probing amendment, is to point out that we have the power to do it. It is within the scope of this Bill. I don't think we should wait. I'm hoping that, on this one—we've had very interesting discussions, and I think I've tried your patience, Counsel General, on more than one occasion—I would strongly say, 'Let's not wait; let's find a way of making this one work.' Because it's happening now, it's going to get worse and, actually, we can put in place the kind of best practice protections that are already in existence in some jurisdictions, so why not?
I would say there are issues around competence. It is not absolute. We have to be quite careful in terms of what we want to do and what we do tend—or what we might want to try and achieve, and it needs to really be explored in much more detail. That doesn't move away from the importance of all the points that Adam raises, but I don't think they could be achieved by so overloading this, at this stage, in a way that probably would make it ineffective and unworkable. That's, I think, the approach they've taken in terms of these steps. But it doesn't, again, to emphasise, take away anything of the importance of the issues that Adam is raising, but I'm not sure they can be achieved through what we're trying to do here. I hope that helps, Chair.
Given that, to all intents and purposes it's an anomaly that county councils, which usually employ returning officers and the staff that support them, are captured within standards agreed by the Senedd in the Welsh Language Standards (No. 1) Regulations 2015, there is no reason why returning officers couldn't be added to these regulations. It would save legislative capacity, and we hear the Government often complaining about the scarcity of that capacity. There's no reason, therefore, to develop a specific set of new standards regulations particularly for returning officers, nor to waste more time.
We who are Welsh speakers are only asking for something that is fundamental: the right to be treated equally in our own country when we participate in the democratic process. It's now a quarter of a century since the establishment of this Senedd as a national Parliament. And I am here, having to bring amendments forward in order to ask for that simple dignity and respect for me, as a Welsh speaker, to be treated equally with everyone else in my own country when I participate in the democratic process. It is disgraceful; it is an insult to our democracy and our nation that we even have to bring such amendments forward. It should have been done years ago, and we're not going to accept any delay. And I have to say that, although we agree with other elements of this Bill, if the Government doesn't cede on this, Plaid Cymru will have to consider voting against the Bill when it comes to Stage 4. This is a fundamental issue. This is an inexorable principle for us.
So, I would point out in addition that our amendments enable the Welsh Language Commissioner to issue a compliance notice to returning officers and to make them open to compliance with Welsh language standards regulations, which I referred to earlier, at some point in the future. The commissioner can only, according to the Measure, impose standards if that is proportionate and reasonable. So, there is already a strict test in place in law in terms of any concerns about disproportionality. The commissioner would have to consult with the returning officers on a draft compliance notice, and if the officers are of the view that the requirement to comply with standards or a standard is disproportionate or unreasonable, then they can appeal against the requirement to the Welsh Language Tribunal. So, if these amendments are agreed today, I would go so far as to say that it will be a long time before any requirements are placed on anyone.
So, I don't think that probably answers fully the points that the Member has raised, but what I am saying is that in opposing these, I think there's still some work to be done to explore what can actually be achieved on this. So, I put it within that particular context. So, I ask Members to vote against these, but there will be further discussions, I would hope, between now and Stage 3.
I think the Member raised some issues with regard to amendment 37, which I think is a drafting correction identified in the written evidence from the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales during Stage 1.
The review commissioned by the board didn't make any recommendations one way or another in terms of the structural issues recognising that it's a matter for the Senedd to make any changes to the remuneration Measure. So, it's up to us.
It is appropriate to note the encouraging work that the board is doing within the limitations of the current structure to respond to the effectiveness review and to support the preparatory work. And I don't want anything I say here today to be interpreted as a criticism of the professionalism of anyone involved with the board. We are discussing structures and frameworks and what we want to see for the future.
This is a probing amendment. In order to make it work as a set of amendments, a lot more work would need to be done because you would need to delete and amend some of the elements of the Measure that I've already referred to. But I do hope that this is a good opportunity for us to have that initial discussion on the question of the future of the existing framework in relation to the remuneration board, and the need for us now, first of all, to have that review that happened with the panel in the case of local government, which then led to its abolition and the transferring of its functions in that case. And I don't think we can expect the board to mark its own homework. That review, in my view, should be formal and independent. Now, that perhaps is a question to discuss whether the Senedd, through the Commission or the Government, as the Measure was a Government legislation—perhaps it's the Government that should be taking the lead in having a full review of the structure and functions of the remuneration board as we look forward to a reformed Senedd.
And why? Because, as we were discussing earlier, there has always been a problem with a small minority of unscrupulous politicians who are prepared to say anything, even though they know it's not true, to get elected or whatever their motivation is, but we are now getting into a context where that credibility gap is becoming an accountability chasm. We're staring into an abyss because of disinformation and AI and all the rest of it. So, we've got to do this and now is the time to do it and Wales could be a world leader in this regard.
There's no question of any charge that could be made if you simply got it wrong, you were inaccurate, you inadvertently got it wrong; that doesn't arise at all. Even what is sometimes called in other criminal offences 'a reckless disregard for the truth', which is that you didn't know it was wrong, but you should have, that doesn't apply here. It only applies to that very, very small number of cases where you say something that you are presenting as a statement of fact that you know, you absolutely know, and it can be proved that you know, that it was wrong, and not only that, you misled deliberately in order to mislead. You were doing it for a purpose in that way.
In terms of prosecutorial responsibility, this is a criminal offence, and, as under the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985, the Crown Prosecution Service would have the responsibility of bringing any criminal proceedings if it ever got that far, as with all criminal offences that are investigated by the police. In terms of the protection that, Peter, you quite rightly raised in terms of vexatious complaints et cetera, then making a false complaint is already covered by the offence of wasting police time under the Criminal Law Act 1967, so there's already some experience with that. Indeed, the Representation of the People Act offences that I referred to earlier are relevant here, aren't they, because I think we all know that complaints that are made under that provision, that's a very limited provision, isn't it? It only happens during an election period, and it's only about character. I could lie about how you voted and the police would be powerless, which is bizarre, I think, because that's about politics and political conduct. It's only personal conduct. But it does have those false statement provisions, which are quite similar in their very narrow context. The police are not inundated with complaints in relation to that; they happen to a very limited degree. But the fact that they are there in the context of elections I think is helpful in terms of our democratic culture. And I expect that the same kind of positive impact would be created by these amendments. And what an amazingly positive message it would send out to our citizens if Wales's was the first Parliament in the world to introduce a general prohibition on deliberate deception. This is incredibly popular with the public. I think it would send out a real message. The cross-party support that we're seeing for this—. I think it would be an incredibly positive moment for the next stage in our democracy.
'but we will work alongside people to try to make sure that is delivered, delivered properly and delivered in this Senedd to apply to the next Senedd. I want this in place before people go to the polls, so everyone understands the rules that are in place'.
So, I think that's very welcome support from the First Minister and from the Government. As I say, if we are going to have it delivered by next time, it's a punt to send it to the Senedd reform Bill. It's much more likely to be able to be brought in if it's dealt with in this Bill, and I think, as I say, with goodwill and effort all round, there's a sporting chance we can address the concerns that, Chair, I completely understand the Counsel General has in testing these arguments. And they should be tested, because this is important stuff.
To finish, Adam’s point about the symbolic value of this is important. In practice, there are lots of safeguards, and again, we need to test them to see if those are sufficient. I certainly think there’s a question we could discuss about the potential of this being a nuisance to the police and is there a way of dealing with that in a different way. Could there be some clearing house with the standards commissioner? I think these things are legitimate things to test, but just like in the law of libel, not many cases of libel are actually brought, but the fact it exists makes people think twice and check themselves before they get too carried away. I think this could have a similar discouraging effect, and I think that’s worth having. I also haven’t heard, and I cannot anticipate, a forceful answer to Adam Price’s parallel with the legal and medical professions. If it’s not okay for them to lie, why is it okay for us to lie? Diolch.
But it is a protection that is there and it can be dispensed with, but dispensing with it would certainly need very careful consideration by, I would have thought, all Members of the Senedd, and, indeed, many others, because it is something that is there not to enable people or to give them a get-out-of-jail card in terms of saying something that is false, but in order to give the protection to create the environment of protection in terms of being able to speak freely on those issues that are important to them. Whether the Senedd would choose to legislate to remove that is obviously a matter for the Senedd—it could do that—but what I say is that that is something that needs very, very careful consideration, and could be something that has very significant consequences if people consistently look over their shoulder as to whether or not they might be subject to an individual complaint.
It's important to recognise also that although this could only be prosecuted by the Crown Prosecution Service, anyone can make a complaint. Anyone out in the broader society is able to make a particular complaint or a number of complaints. Whether those complaints are meritorious or not would be a matter that would depend upon the police having to investigate and then present evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether there was a reasonable case that could be pursued, or whether it was meritorious or not. Now, the fact of the matter is that there is, in my view, a tremendous potential for abuse. Not only that, the amendments actually also apply to local government, and what we're actually doing is talking about imposing the potential of creation of a criminal offence, on an amendment that has been tabled barely a week ago, without any engagement or consultation with local government that potentially would put every single councillor in a position that, if a complaint was made against them, that they had said something that was false or deceptive, even if it was non-meritorious, it still has to be investigated. There are very serious consequences that would have implications, I think, in terms of the way the police would have to investigate, and the numbers of complaints that might be made. As we saw, reference was made to the situation in Scotland, where there has been an overwhelming number—in fact, an overwhelming of the police's capacity to do policing, because of this issue in terms of complaints coming forward. So, it's not just a case of whether there are plenty of safeguards; the fact of the matter is, they would nevertheless still have to be investigated, and every individual Senedd Member, every individual councillor, would have the implications of having to deal with this. Maybe they would be confident in the knowledge that there was no realistic prospect, but as is the case with standards of conduct complaints, they still have to be investigated and the individuals have to respond. I think that is something that warrants very, very serious consideration.
The Member also made the point in terms of the Standards of Conduct Committee and what they're doing—he said he didn't know, for example, they would necessarily recommend the creation of this offence. Well, if they didn't, I would seriously want to know why they didn't and what the basis was of why they didn't. And I think that confirms, actually, exactly what I'm saying: that this is an area that needs to be considered very, very carefully. It needs considerably more exploration of this and the implications, and how it would actually work.
Now, what I can say, of course—I have written to the Member about this. The Government's position—and the statement was made very, very clearly by the First Minister, particularly in respect of recall, but he also referred to the deception matter as well, and I think the two are very much interlinked—is that this is an appropriate matter for a committee that is set up, that is, in fact, the Standards of Conduct Committee—it has that portfolio of function, and has been given that function by the Senedd—and the idea, on the basis of an amendment that would basically undermine that work that has started already, I think is not actually appropriate. But I think that is the appropriate direction in terms of what is the appropriate body to bring forward either this legislation, or to work with Welsh Government to achieve legislation, and the commitment that was given by the First Minister.
Can I make some additional points, which are pertinent to this issue, and just expand that one point? The First Minister reiterated on Tuesday the Welsh Government's commitment to support the standards committee in the work it has started to bring forward—legislation in respect of the recall of Members and also in respect of this important issue of honesty in politics—and that we will work with the standards committee to achieve this for 2026. I'll just repeat that: we will work with the standards committee to achieve this for 2026. I've confirmed this also, in a letter to Adam Price, which he's had, and I'm happy for that to be made available to Members.
Members will be aware that I have serious concerns about the implications of this amendment, as it is currently drafted, and also the important constitutional issues it raises. I believe that these need very careful consideration, if they are to be translated into good law and, indeed, into effective law. And I'm giving evidence to the Standards of Conduct Committee on both these issues on 16 June. I think that is the appropriate way to go forward, and I would urge Members not to support the amendments. I think I've dealt with the amendment, obviously, that Joel James brought forward. Thanks, Chair.