Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Welcome to this morning's meeting of the Standards of Conduct Committee. The meeting is bilingual and interpretation is available. We don't have any apologies. At this point, can I ask Members if they've got any declarations of registrable interests they wish to declare? Great.

We'll move on to item 2, which is our next evidence session in our inquiry into dignity and respect. I'm pleased to welcome Jane Runeckles from the FDA this morning. Jane, I know that colleagues will have a range of questions they want to put to you this morning to help us with our inquiry, but perhaps I can start by asking you about the FDA's involvement with advocating for an independent body at Westminster and the process of establishing it. I think, as a starting point, we'd welcome your reflections on that journey to establishing it, but also perhaps how it functions now that it's in place as well. 

Of course. Bore da. I'm Jane Runeckles from FDA. We are a trade union who are recognised both in the Senedd Commission and in the Welsh Government. We represent civil servants from higher executive officer through to Permanent Secretaries. We do that, uniquely, in all four parts of the United Kingdom, and, as the Chair has just mentioned, have been heavily involved in the work with the independent complaints and grievance scheme in the UK Parliament. This was a campaign that we began after 2017 when the #MeToo movement was at its peak. We played an active part and fully endorsed the recommendations in 2018 of Dame Laura Cox's recommendations for an independent process in which Members of Parliament play no part.

The House of Commons Commission backed the FDA's calls for a parliamentary tribunal, which was established as the independent expert panel in July 2020, but we continued campaigning then to move for an inquiry into risk-based exclusion, which was agreed in May 2024 with a majority of one. The UK Parliament now has risk-based exclusion at the point of arrest, which gives the House authorities the power to exclude MPs accused of sexual or violent grievances.

In the work I've done preparing for the committee this morning, I think the important point for the purposes of your current inquiry is that the rules of the ICGS are in four documents—a bullying and harassment policy and a sexual misconduct policy, alongside two relevant procedures—and that the ICGS was set up for complaints solely on bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. So, while the Senedd has been on a journey with regard to the complexity, and its dignity and respect policy draws all of these aspects together, the FDA continues to make an argument for separate policies and procedures—not in relation to separate policies and procedures for the Senedd, but in relation to a separate independent process for dealing with complaints of this nature.

Thank you. That's a really helpful starting point. One of the things we're looking at too is the recommendations from the consultation that came before. The main thing was to investigate and to explore an independent body for dealing with complaints of the nature that you reference there. I'm aware that you weren't involved at the time, but, as an organisation, does FDA have any reflections, perhaps? If we were starting again now, are there things that should be changed and done differently?

Clearly, the answer to that question is 'yes' in relation to the independent process for bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct. In preparing for this committee, I did a bit of exploring on the Senedd website, searching for Senedd dignity and respect, or even making a complaint, and while they take you to quite a clear front page, from there it gets a little bit complicated.

I recognise, from the evidence you've already taken, the different routes that are necessarily in place for members of staff in the Senedd, members of support staff, complaints against Ministers, but there are some very simple things, such as the procedure for dealing with a complaint, which is a very legalistic document—it takes a while to get to the flowchart to explain what the processes are in relation specifically to bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct.

Tucked away in paragraph 4.2 are the issues around the time limit, which maybe we can come back to. But I think if you were the recipient of some kind of bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct behaviour, then understanding how that sits alongside all of the other aspects that are in the code for Senedd Members, and thinking that it’s appropriate for those to be dealt with in the same way as complaints about misuse of expenses or other aspects, is something that probably promotes a little bit of lack of confidence in the system.

This is my final starting question. The ICGS in place in Westminster, even with an enlarged Senedd, covers significantly more members of staff than a similar permanent system in place in the Senedd would. How would you envisage it working on that scale as a permanent body? Does the FDA have any view on whether potentially Ministers or other elected members should be covered by the same system to make it scalable?

I probably wouldn't say draw in Ministers. I think that the processes around the ministerial code are clear, but I do think that there is work in relation to the linkages with the ministerial code that should be further explored. I was going to offer to the committee—I have written a letter to the Welsh Government director of propriety and ethics in the last month about a policy that FDA adopted at its conference just under a month ago in relation to the First Minister needing to be the ultimate arbiter of a Minister's fate, but that there is a need in relation to the ministerial code for a process with minimum standards, including independence of decision making into complaints, including whether to investigate and the ultimate factual outcome, and transparency around that process. I think there are elements in relation to the linkages between the two.

In relation to your first point, about the scale, in the call for evidence at the end of 2023 for the previous look into this, there were some reflections about gender balance in relation to the investigation process, and resources available to the standards commissioner, but I do think that just because there have only been a few cases reported or investigated, it doesn't mean that the Senedd doesn't have a responsibility to have in place a properly resourced independent process that people can have confidence in. I wonder whether there are avenues for the Senedd to explore in terms of, across the United Kingdom, a system for there to be a group or expert panel who were available to draw on, which would mean that the resources wouldn't solely be at the Senedd's disposal, but would be resources that were available to use in the event of any situation arising. This probably doesn't arise to the initial contact point, and I think, Chair, that's probably something else that it's maybe worth talking about a little bit, in relation to the first independent point of contact for complainants.

I'll bring Peredur in at this point. I know you had some questions you wanted to ask. 

Hi Jane, and thank you very much for coming in this morning. With your experience of having previously worked in the Senedd, what's the FDA's view on what this actually looks like? So, if we were to implement an independent panel in the Senedd, if we were to go with the recommendations that the FDA has made, practically what would it look like? Could you maybe comment on how that interacts with the commissioner and with this committee? Have you given any thought to how it would actually work? 

In relation to the interaction with the committee, that is probably a point that you as members of the committee will need to reflect on. I think if you look at the UK Parliament system, there are a number of stages. And I would say I haven't actually worked in the Senedd building itself for over 20 years. As a Welsh Government employee, I was there more recently. But in relation to my experiences as support staff, they aren't numerous and they're very old.

From what I do know in relation to this, if you were a member of support staff, say—and obviously there are trade unions representing the support staff that I would encourage you to potentially talk to—the first point of contact is quite often the same person in relation to this as the person who would be dealing with any normal HR matters, or anything of that nature, and the person who's potentially also advising any Members of the Senedd if there are issues as members of staff. I think that providing a fully independent place to go as the first point of call is something that would encourage greater confidence in the system.

From there, there's a discussion about independent investigators or an expert panel of people to look at any complaints that have come forward. At the moment, as I understand it, the standards commissioner then takes a judgment as to whether or not they're in scope. I think this is the point at which the procedure becomes quite complicated for somebody who is a complainant to try and navigate their way around. The issues around gender balance in terms of people assessing those, or doing any of the investigating or interviews with complainants, I think are extraordinarily important.

From there, there are recommendations to the commissioner, and the point after the commissioner is the point that I think the standards committee—. The FDA would strongly argue that it isn't a matter for the standards committee to have a view on the recommendations of the commissioner, so it's not marking your own homework. 

So that would be adjudicated, basically, by an independent panel. Then our process is that this committee currently makes a recommendation to the Senedd and then the Senedd votes. Would that independent panel make a recommendation to the Senedd and the Senedd votes? What's the Senedd oversight in all of this?

I think that's a key question for you to consider. I think we would argue that the independent panel would make the recommendation to the Senedd, but I can see that you would be removing an enormous part of the work that you currently undertake. For people to have confidence in the system, is the recommendation of the independent person going through another body, which is essentially back to the peers of the individual you're potentially talking about making that judgment, the right call?

Thank you for that. I think it's something that we do need to grapple with and understand how it actually works in practice. Chair, unless Mick wants to come in on this point, I was going to move on to something else. That's fine. With the work of the MOD, you've been doing some work there, what changes have been introduced as a result of whistleblower concerns, and how have the lessons of the MOD reforms helped to shape what we're trying to do here? 

This is an interesting question for me. One of the UK Government departments that I represent is the Ministry of Defence, and when I first began there was work under way to respond to a leaked letter from 60 senior female civil servants about sexual harassment and worse in the Ministry of Defence, and a project had been set up. The trade unions have been actively involved with the MOD to reform the casework system, and they now have, in terms of individual civilian members of staff, a new casework procedure that involves a panel to take the decision, rather than an individual decision maker. I've also been put onto the external challenge panel as the trade union representative in the last couple of months, and this is a completely independent body that scrutinises the work of the MOD in relation to making culture change within the organisation. There is still a very long way to go.

What inferences can you get from that or from that work? Is there any learning that we should be mindful of within the Senedd setting?

The lack of confidence in the system is comparable, which you have seen from the small number of participants you've had, certainly from the support staff side, in the annual surveys, and I don't think the Ministry of Defence have got that right yet either. But I think that the changes to the way in which they do casework have potential, but that's not a matter for the standards committee; it's a matter for us to negotiate, as the recognised unions with the Commission in relation to the casework procedures. But the learning of the panels and the external body are two things that I think both the standards committee and the Senedd Commission more widely could take some learning from.

Thank you. That's particularly interesting. And then, finally from me, Chair, if I may, when it comes to—. You've talked about the system and, obviously, it comes across as complex, and that aspect, so how do we balance procedural, fairly complex cases with timeliness and being able to get a decision from the victims and from the perpetrators as well? How do we come up with a system that actually works in a timely fashion? So, any thoughts on anything that you've seen that we should be mindful of in our deliberations?

It's a very, very difficult question to answer. I think the experiences of the last year of working as a full-time official for a trade union have shown me, quite often, the complexity of these cases, primarily because complainants are, understandably, and sometimes, in a very difficult place and need a lot of support and guidance through the process—and I'm sure you'd say I would say this, wouldn't I, but it's why the trade union movement is so important to be there for members of staff, to help and guide them and support them through the process. I don't have the silver bullet to this—I really don't. It is, obviously, important for everybody, and the impact of the longer these things go on on all is very difficult. But the more that the system can have confidence that it's going to work, and the more support mechanisms that are in place, and the more expertise you can get into doing the investigations and the deliberations, the more likely you are, I think, to be able to start to try and crack that very difficult nut.

Thank you for that. Thanks, Chair.

Mick, you indicated you wanted to come in.

Yes, just a couple things. I think what you're highlighting is that any system has to have clarity, it has to have simplicity, and it has to be understandable. But it does sound to me as though even what's been established in Westminster is incredibly complex. So, I was going to ask you, really, how you think it has worked in Westminster and what the learning experience is at this stage.

I suppose the bit that's complicated, for me, is, of course, you have so many different elements to this. You've got Senedd Members, then you've got Senedd Members who are employers in their own right, some of those employees will be, hopefully, all members of trade unions as well, so you have a trade union input into that with a number of different employees. You then have civil servants and Senedd civil servants within them. You then have Ministers, and they are Ministers at one stage and not at another, over a period of time, et cetera. And, of course, there is specifically the role of trade unions within any processes, as well as the role of the standards commissioner. I suppose, really, what I'm saying is it sounds to me as though there's quite a lot of work that still needs to be done to actually create something that's clear and understandable. Is that your concern as well at this stage over the system, and what is your experience so far in terms of how things have worked, certainly at Westminster?

So, on the plus point, I think there are places on the Senedd website where it is clear what button to press: 'I'm not employed by the Senedd or a Member of the Senedd', 'I am a Member of the Senedd', 'I am a member of staff employed by a Member of the Senedd', 'I am a member of staff employed by the Senedd Commission'. I think those four routes—and I completely understand the description of the complexity—with those four routes, the point at which you go beyond those four routes is the point at which, as somebody trying to navigate it from the outside, those become slightly more complicated. But I think that the key in relation to the bullying, harassment and sexual misconduct is that people understand there is a process dedicated to that that has expertise behind it and has independence behind it, and that is the fundamental bit that is missing at the moment.

How does it interact—I'm just trying to get an understanding—with existing, I suppose, legislative processes? I mean, there will be contractual grievance processes, there will also be tribunal issues that can arise or be brought up, and, of course, there are time limits for tribunal actions as well, which is an interreaction, and, of course, once the tribunal process starts, I presume that acts as a damper or a suspender on other matters. What's your experience of that—I appreciate it's a learning curve for all of us on this—and, I suppose, just getting to grips with some of the potential complications as to how you actually create something that people have confidence in and has simplicity as well?

No, and you have far more understanding of the legislative framework, certainly in relation to employment tribunals, than I do, but I was conscious that I was reading in the Wales TUC toolkit that I think Shavanah had mentioned to you, around the UK Government commitment to producing guidance on extending the time limit for bringing workplace—sorry; I'm reading this—sexual harassment cases to the employment tribunal from three months to six months, and obviously that hasn't happened at the current time. But I did wonder—I have a question for you all—as to whether or not that was the rationale behind the 4.2(g) in the procedure, which is the time limit for a complaint, which must be made within six months unless the commissioner is satisfied there's a good cause for delay. Because I do think, irrespective of the complication around the employment tribunal processes for individuals, were that to be an avenue they wanted to follow, in the case of sexual harassment there will quite often be examples where people feel as though there is a threat to their employment or a reputational risk, and there are things that they aren't prepared to come forward with within those kinds of time limits, and whether or not that should preclude them from being able to do so, or whether six months—. Is six months an arbitrary figure? Does it relate to anything? I think we would argue for there to be some kind of better framework around circumstances outside that six-month period. I don't know whether I answered your question, I'm afraid.

No, that's fine. Thank you very much.

Thanks, Mick. Tom, did you have anything you'd like to come in on at this point?

Yes/ Thank you. You talked there about the time frame by which complaints can be issued, and the six-month cut-off, if you like. I'm curious about the system that you've proposed, that exists in the House of Commons, because one of the complaints we hear quite often from fellow Members is the length of time that complaints can take to be dealt with. Is there any evidence that the system that you mentioned cuts down on the length of time taken for complaints to be dealt with and streamlines that process, or are we looking at something similar in that regard as well?

I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question. I can absolutely find it out for you and come back to you. I think—. Sorry, Huw's putting things in the chat that are distracting me. I can absolutely find out the answer to that question. I think the important point about the ICGS system and the changes to it have been around confidence and the fact that there was a very real sense of threat to a number of members of staff in that setting, and that removing Parliament from any kind of oversight of that has definitely begun—and I would only say 'begun'—to change some of that culture.

That's fine, Chair.

Thanks, Tom. Just to pick up, Jane, on the FDA submission to the previous consultation of this committee, the FDA was clear—and you've emphasised this today—that only an independent process that is completely free from political interference can work. So, with that we take you mean a process that removes Members from it. But I'm aware there have been a number of reviews of the process that they do have in Westminster, and in the latest review, which was published almost a year ago now, by Paul Kernaghan, one of the key recommendations was that for individuals who submit a complaint to a political party whose allegations were within the scope of the ICGS, that complaint should be heard by the ICGS. One of the things we've been asking other witnesses on this inquiry is should we then reach a point when we have a strengthened independent process that people have confidence in within the Senedd, should any Senedd Member fall within that process, should any complaint go through that independent process of the Senedd, rather than the party's complaint process? Because I think one of the things we found previously from experience and from evidence is that—Tom touched on there—the amount of time it can take for a complaint to be heard, and then we know—and you'll know as a trade union official now—often in these cases around bullying and harassment that it's that power dynamic and, in a political setting, that's magnified, and then you have the party political side of it where, potentially, things could be used for political leverage. So, when the FDA talks about 'free from political interference', would you say, if we had a strengthened system in place that Members and individuals could have confidence in, that that should take priority over any other party political process—notwithstanding there's the process to suspend the whip and things like that, but in terms of actually an investigation and how that should be handled?

The clerks may need to remind me of all of the things I've offered to send you, but one of the other things I could provide you with is the FDA evidence to the Paul Kernaghan review. In it, the FDA and the other trade unions argued that there should be a continuation of strong guidance to parties on confidentiality of any investigations, while examining ways in which relevant information concerning risk might best be shared with appropriate individuals, and I think that that's probably the point I would make in relation to any party investigations.

In terms of precedents—should the Senedd system take precedent over the party system—in relation to conduct as a Member of the Senedd, I think my answer would be 'yes', but I also think that the point about relevant information sharing and ways in which those systems could be pulled together is also relevant in relation to the ministerial code.

I think that's really helpful and I'm sure officials will go back over the transcript and we'll be able to check any of the information you've kindly offered to share with us and follow it up following this session. I think one of the other key recommendations from the Kernaghan review was around providing health and well-being support for both the complainant and the respondent in every ICGS case. I think one of the other things we've touched on as a committee here is that pastoral support, and that health and well-being, because, often, in a political setting such as the Senedd and Westminster, some of that pastoral support automatically falls to the role of the Chief Whip in many cases, and the Chief Whip is also there to maintain discipline and support the leadership as well, and that could be a difficult balance to strike on occasion. Hopefully, there's something the FDA can share, or you can share today, on that in terms of how you strike that balance of providing that pastoral support too and how perhaps that could be done under a new system in the Senedd.

I don't have a huge amount of experience of the Senedd employee assistance programme, but I did note that there were reflections on it from the evidence you received from the chiefs of staff and whether or not it was fit for purpose. I have more experience of the Welsh Government system and the way in which independent support, outside the party political processes and the Chief Whip, is available to Ministers. We probably have—. We probably have—we do have—examples of support systems that I could probably share with you, but this probably ties into the point about training. I know that a lot of the previous evidence you've taken on training has talked about the mandatory nature of training, and at this point it's probably just useful for me to say that FDA fully supports mandatory training, certainly in the post-2026 scenario for Members who've already served previously, but also for new Members. I know there are some questions around whether or not that should be repeated on an annual basis, and I think one of the experiences I have had in the last 12 months is that annual mandatory training can often become the same—you know, nobody reviews the training often enough, and the examples aren't updated. So, I would urge that if there is any look to do mandatory annual training that there is a proper programme of work that is scheduled over the whole of a five-year Senedd term—four-year Senedd term, as it will be.

Thank you. Peredur, did you indicate then?

Yes, can I follow up on that? Just from a broader point, with FDA members in Wales compared to the rest of the UK, what are their views on the Senedd's systems as they are? Are there concerns with Senedd systems currently? Could you compare and contrast, maybe, Westminster with the Senedd in that sense, in the level of concern, just so that we get a view of your membership, and then maybe comment a little bit further then on what training is available in other places and what sort of data you collect as a union to be able to inform some of those—you know, to try and point towards where work is needed?

There are a number of things in there. In relation to your first point, I think the level of activity and concern from our members has been greater in a parliamentary sense than from my membership in the Senedd, but we're operating at very different scales and numbers, so I don't know that the two things are directly comparable.

There's obviously a very big difference, and the Chair alluded to it earlier, in relation to the parliamentary setting as opposed to the UK Government departments. Obviously, in the UK Government department context we're talking much more about ministerial codes, which is part of the reason for our work and the recent policy changes that I've described in relation to calls on ministerial codes and an independent process. 

We do work individually with our memberships on collecting data on this, so I've done work with our membership within the MOD. It's not something I’ve done work on specifically in the last 12 months with the membership in the Senedd, but I am very conscious that your response rates on the annual survey, certainly from support staff, who I know we don’t represent, have decreased this year compared to last. And I do think that there’s something that both the three recognised trade unions for the Senedd Commission staff but also the support staff trade unions could probably do to help increase the response rates for those. I missed the last part of your question, excuse me.

It was where does the training, where does that, take it towards—? It was looking back to what—. I was asking, really, about training and mandatory training and that aspect.

So, we have—. One of the big things about the FDA is that we have a very substantial FDA Learn programme for all our members, and because we represent predominantly managers within the civil service, we do have a number of individual trainers who we could work with the Senedd with and with the Senedd Commission. But we have a variety of packages that we offer, such as dealing with unacceptable behaviour at work; I know that there’s bystander training within the Senedd, but that’s something that has proved to be very successful in other places; sexual harassment in the workplace; and embedding values and standards in decision making. So, there are a number of different areas that the FDA stands ready to support the Senedd and the standards committee with in continuing to evolve the training programme that’s available.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Thanks, Pred. Unless any other Members have any outstanding questions, I think we've reached the end of the session for today. So, Jane, can I thank you again for your contribution and joining us today? And just to note that a copy of the transcript will be provided as soon as possible so that you can check that for factual accuracy. And obviously, we will follow up on the kind offers that you've made to share that further information with us as well. And should the committee have any further questions, we will be in touch, but thank you very much for your time this morning.

Diolch yn fawr.

I propose that the committee takes a short break to allow for this witness to leave and the next witnesses to arrive, so if we just take a five-minute break now and come back at 10:15.

Welcome back to this morning's session of the Standards of Conduct Committee. We're on item 3 on the agenda as part of our inquiry into dignity and respect. And I'm really pleased to welcome Hannah Stevens, who is the chief executive of Elect Her, to the session this morning. Hannah, I think there's an opportunity, first of all, before we ask any specific questions, perhaps for you to introduce yourself and the work of Elect Her, and perhaps any initial observations you might have on this work that the committee is conducting at the moment. Diolch. 

Thank you for the opportunity to join you today. My name is Hannah Stevens, and I'm the chief executive of Elect Her. And just to slightly frame our contribution and introduce our work, I just wanted to share that our work is really about women, and in our core work we motivate, we support and we equip women to stand for elected office in all spheres of government across Britain, right from the very beginning of their journey, getting politically active, through getting involved, standing for something and then, more recently, as we're supporting women once they are elected into local, national and devolved governments. But, really, there are so many barriers that are available to women through that democratic engagement, and we've been listening to the voices of women navigating that journey for the past eight years. And we hear their experience not only as those women start, as I said, from the very beginning but all the way through to getting elected, and that collective knowledge has really combined the voices of thousands of women, of individual experiences. So, we've accidentally become the experts in the lived experience of women engaging in our politics today, which has led us to a whole mapping exercise, where we've been mapping the barriers to women's political participation—we've identified 55 of them—and then the levers that we can all pull to help change that and increase their representation of our democratic spaces. Today, we're talking about the Senedd. So, we have a lot of perspective of different women's experiences and I hope I can share some of that today. I guess the key point that I really wanted to make is that we really do welcome this discussion, and we really do want to advocate for a standalone independent expertly advised process outside of what we have at the moment, but I'm happy to go into more details with your questions.

Great. Thanks and thanks for that overview of the work, the important work, that Elect Her does. You touched on, obviously, the barriers that perhaps you support women to overcome to stand and then support them once they are in elected positions. Do you have any specific feedback perhaps from the people, the women, that you work with on any barriers that perhaps may be specific to the institutions themselves, in terms of being worried about the culture? Obviously, we're specifically looking at the Senedd in this instance, but if there are any things we can learn from elsewhere we're keen to hear about those as well. 

Absolutely. There really is a huge amount of learnings that we can take institutionally within the Senedd, and I think it's fantastic you're starting this conversation at this point. It is the cultural challenges that women face within the environment, and I think I have to really emphasise that sometimes those cultural interactions are tiny, but when you are in engaging in them 40 or 50 times a day, it is exhausting. I think we really have found and heard that the codes of conduct and processes that are in place in written agreements around behaviour don't reflect and represent the intimacies of women's everyday experiences, and there's a lot more work that can be done in both the language of the codes of conduct, the reporting systems when people feel like they haven't been honoured, and I think that also reflects into training and inductions. There are different spaces along the professional experience that Members have where we can continue to embed and examine how the culture is upheld.

Now, we've got clear parameters within the responsibility of the Llywydd within the Senedd and engagement and discussion in that space, but outside of that space, when we're walking the corridors of the Senedd or engaging with Members, that's a different environment. I think there needs to be more done in examining the codes of conduct in everyday interactions, but really, really emphasising that with induction at the beginning, and then repeated induction and training throughout the life of a parliamentarian.

You touched on, Hannah, the importance of induction and training there, and we've heard previous evidence around the importance of mandatory training, as people are first elected or re-elected, then at certain periods throughout their parliamentary term, but I think most of that focus, minus some of the evidence we've had so far, is around training on expectations of behaviour from people and understanding the forms that inappropriate behaviour may take. I think you're offering a different angle on it, too, there, if I've understood you correctly, around actually supporting training for people to better understand the systems that are in place, and what that means for them.

Yes, absolutely. It is both about the process and the systems and ensuring that people have clear understanding of how those processes and systems work for them, but it is also, I think, around shared agreement and understanding of language and the nuance of language—what does the word 'respect' mean? We hear a lot from women that people utilise political debate, and define unacceptable behaviour as political debate, when, really, it shouldn't be cloaked as that, and a deeper understanding of what isn't acceptable. Just because we're working in politics, it doesn't mean that we can utilise stronger language that wouldn't be acceptable in any other workplace. So, it does feel like there's a lot more to be done, like, how do we determine respect? And how do we determine respect within a political environment, where, of course, you might have politically, ideologically different ideas, but you can still engage in conversation and utilise language that honours respect across that divide?

And a key detail that we heard about that induction and training is that for a lot of people who are newly elected, there's a huge amount of information that they receive at the very beginning of their role, and often, actually, to take on board, having been newly elected, and the excitement, the thrill and the wildness of the experience, to also take on all of the processes and procedures, all of the behaviours, all of the understanding about your legislative role even in a year would be quite a lot to ask. It's often a really, really condensed period of time at the beginning, and then it's left—induction complete, tick, let's move on. So, a lot of women are telling us that, actually, a continuous return to a deeper understanding once you've been able to settle into the role and understand things, to return to some of that training or that induction material. So, whether that's making that available in a different way, or continuing to offer professional development opportunities for Members throughout the life of the Parliament, so that they can continue to come back to that. Obviously, we've been listening to women specifically, because that's our interest, and that's our group, but, absolutely, it's not on the women or the other under-represented demographics to lead on that. We need everybody to be fully engaging in defining respect and how we behave.

Sorry, can I just check if everybody can hear me okay, because I had that unhelpful message when it comes across your screen that said my internet is unstable? I'm glad I'm still with you. But, Peredur, if I do disappear, if can I hand over the Chair to you at that point, just in case.

It's really helpful, Hannah. One of the things I can picture when you talk about that political environment in which we operate, by its very nature, this is a political institution, and politicians work within it, and then people work and support those politicians. We've taken a degree of evidence both in the sessions, but also in the previous consultation, where there was strong support for establishing an independent process for dealing with cases of this nature in terms of bullying or harassment. And I wonder whether that's something that you would agree with as an organisation, and any recommendation you might have for what form that might take.

And then the other question I'd like to ask while I have the opportunity is: should we manage to recommend, and then it is implemented, a strengthened system within the Senedd of support of this nature, and a process to go through, would you as an organisation—? I know you're non-partisan as an organisation; you support women across the political spectrum. One of the things we have been asking other witnesses is whether, if we have that system in place here, and if a complaint is then made about a Member of the Senedd, it should go through this system, and it should take primacy over, perhaps, a party political system, to create that clarity, and actually to perhaps take away concerns about whether things could have that kind of magnified effect of a political party setting as well.

Absolutely. We would really advocate for a stand-alone, independent, expertly advised process for poor behaviour, which is adequately resourced and provides confidence to victims that they will be supported. There is a lack of confidence in the standards commissioner to undertake any investigations, and so a real full review we would highly recommend of how sexual harassment or bullying can be tackled, carried out by an independent and external person.

We need to remove the political party element to this. That's always going to be a risk in any of the conversations that we're having around accountability. Any concerns that we have are that accountability processes can be taken advantage of for political party nature, and therefore by that very nature, they don't stand up. So, the full independence, needing to be separated from the political parties, is absolutely vital if we're to improve the processes and really have them working, and for people to feel confident in engaging with them.

Mick, you wanted to come in.

Yes, just a couple of things. Of course, one of the big changes in the whole cultural environment is social media, and that relates back to—. We'll be shortly going into an election in May, but of course people are the candidates, there are all the people that are involved in that, and of course the social media and the post process. And of course we've seen some pretty appalling examples recently, misogynistic stuff and threatening stuff on social media, particularly aimed at women candidates who, as far as I can see, and Members, are disproportionately targeted. Where do you see that within the framework as to—? Because it broadens it out into quite a broader area, doesn't it? I don't know what your thoughts are there, perhaps, Hannah.

Thanks for that question. Obviously, social media has played an enormous part in the shifting political landscape, and it's an enormous problem. In this particular conversation in regard to the behaviour of Senedd Members and Senedd staff, I think clear articulation, again, as to what is and isn't acceptable, is the fundamental level that we find. Again, when you get into the nuance of this conversation, it is that different people find different wording acceptable and not. And there has to be some guidance and clarity around what is and isn't acceptable for Members in terms of their social media conduct.

I know for a lot of people the social media conversation has taken a huge toll, I think, on the number of people being willing to step forward into political spaces, and that's hugely problematic. But I also think it's quite easy to just blame that and forget all of the in-life interactions. We just completed a piece of research with women Members of the Scottish Parliament. So, I've gone into deeper conversation with women there, and I can only guess that there would be some similarity, which is, increasingly, how to protect yourself online. We are getting better at that. The parties and the institutions are improving the reporting mechanisms, so that individuals don't feel so alone when they are, unfortunately, the victims of attack. But it has been an easy focus that that is the problem, and it has taken away any energy that there was in terms of really examining the everyday interactions that people have within the building, and where respect lies across the house and across the genders as well.

So, I think social media is a huge problem. There really does need to be guidance, but I don't think that's a huge challenge that we're seeing, which is Members on Members targeting each other online. The online situation is much more a bigger thing of just a huge amount of the public being able to have their say. I think what we're looking at here are more daily interactions with people in their workplace, so that they can feel safe coming to work and doing the really important job that you all do.

Thank you.

Thanks, Mick. Any other questions? I'll go to Peredur. 

Hi, Hannah. Thank you for coming in. Just to explore a little bit further what you're saying there about those daily interactions and language. Something you did mention earlier was defining unacceptable behaviour and political debate, and that aspect of hiding behind a political debate in order to use language that you wouldn't necessarily use in everyday life. Is that specifically in the Chamber or is that in political discourse? Because, obviously, the Chamber is under the Presiding Officer, not within the remit of this committee. That sort of aspect, could you talk around that a little bit? 

Of course. I think perhaps that might be a more general piece. We're working with women across local government as well, and that's so many chambers across Britain. So, I think there are some challenges with chairs not upholding that. I would not say that necessarily about the Llywydd and their responsibility within the Senedd specifically, but we just have to understand that it's still an incredibly male-dominated environment. Every conversation is—. Simply because there are more men at the table, men are dominating the conversation. Of course, many of you are incredibly respectful. I'm not saying that the disrespect comes with that dominance, but the dominant culture within spaces has a huge impact, and I think there's a lot of the intersectional challenges that are faced that people might not understand are disrespectful in everyday daily interactions. So, I guess it's that.

It's quite hard for me to be really specific with specific wording, but it's definitely what we're hearing from people, that women have to come in and put a thick coat on to protect themselves from all of the small pieces that come at them each day. So, we focus often, in process and system, around large acts of abuse. I guess what I'm trying to bring into the conversation is that a lot of the focus is on bullying or sexual harassment of these kind of quite substantive natures, but there is a lot more of the quieter discomfort that comes from under-represented groups engaging in these spaces, where there is a subtle perpetual discomfort with women taking senior leadership roles. Ethnic minority men would fall into that as well. 

So, it's just the toxic culture that the working environment presents and a need to examine how we can challenge that, and how we can determine what respect and positive culture really looks at without just focusing on one or two documentations that we want to get the language right. Actually, how do you embed that across the whole institution and in all of the daily interactions that the staff and the Members are engaging in?

And does bystander training then have an aspect within that to help some of that work, where it's beholden on us then, if we hear it or see it, that we don't allow it to happen and call it out?

Absolutely that, and I think that's a key part of the induction that I mentioned and a key part of the ongoing professional development work. I think there are lots of different—. The training and how to do your job is one particular thing, but how to engage, how to be leaders of Wales and act in accordance with our commitments to equality for all is a really important part of that. For some people, that needs a bit more training. So, I think you're right to identify bystander training, allyship, actually how we can all step up to ensure that the daily interactions we're having and what we're witnessing, and what is unacceptable and dressed up as political dialogue, I think some deeper understanding around that could be enormously beneficial.

And finally from me, Chair, if I can, with the work that you've done with the Scottish Government and Scottish Parliament, will you be producing a report on that? What's the outcome of that going to be and in what sort of timescale will we be able to see some of that, because it might help us to understand? Are you able to talk a little bit more about that, knowing a little bit about the Senedd and our systems, some of the things that we should be looking at now rather than waiting for any report?

I wanted to ask because I looked into it, but I wanted to make sure I was correct. The Senedd hasn't completed a full gender-sensitive audit, has it, over all of the operations and processes across the estate?

Not to my knowledge. No, I don't think so.

So, I think that would be—you know, it sits slightly separately, in some sense, to this conversation, but I don't think it does and that's the problem. We would highly recommend a full gender-sensitive audit across the Senedd. The Scottish Parliament did one two years ago, and I think it really put a lot of language to some of these—. Again, these more subtle references that I'm making here, an audit really pulls that out. They got into the level of detail about how much speaking time different genders got presented themselves in committee and in the Chamber, as well as going into further detail around training and codes of conduct. So, that would be a huge recommendation that we would have; I think it's a really beneficial process to go through. The Scottish Parliament have also recently published advice on how to do a gender-sensitive audit. So, that's a big piece that we would really, really advocate for within the Senedd. The research that we've done is published; I'm happy to share it with the committee today, or, if it is available to download on our website, I can even pop in a link. Is that allowed? Shall I pop in a link, or just send it on to someone?

If you send it to Meriel, to the clerks, then that'd be great, I think. Sorry, Chair.

So, I think you would find it helpful. It's quite specific about that environment, but I think lots of the issues that I'm mentioning here around where the opportunities for institutions to utilise their power to disrupt older cultural environments—. I think there's a lot in there I'd love to share with the Senedd as part of this conversation.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thanks. And just to point out, Hannah, one of our Commissioners, Joyce Watson, who's also chair of the women's caucus, I'm led to believe is undertaking a gender-sensitive audit. So, we can follow that up too for you, if you wish, after this too. Tom, did you have anything you want to touch on?

You mentioned a lot, I think, in your evidence, about training and raising awareness about how Members, and other staff, I guess, that work in the Senedd, can be more conscious and aware of some of the things that you talk about. I suppose one of the things we have seen more recently is something like training itself being used in a political way—the refusal to go on to training where perhaps you perceive it may have a different world view to your own. And I think that the only way that this form of training will succeed, almost, is that it is depoliticised, in a sense. So, how do you marry those two things by saying, 'Actually, no, this is really important', but also, 'It's not necessarily—'?  I'm trying to be diplomatic in the means of my question, but that it is an apolitical thing that everybody needs to buy into.

Yes, tricky. And I'm not sure whether I'm a total expert in being able to respond to that. But this is a place of work. You all go to work as Members, but this very strange dynamic where you have very strange employment rights, and not the same as the rest of the population, for anybody in elected office—. And, increasingly, as time goes on, that's presenting more and more challenges to how we can ensure that you're all safe and thriving at work, as we are seeking for any employee in the country. So, I think there is a framing around ensuring that you are getting the correct professional development and that the Senedd is taking a responsibility in terms of how to upskill people once they are elected. I'm very much for diversity, equity and inclusion, if it's not obvious, and it's a shame that we're getting to a point where that could be considered political, because, really, it's about numbers and it's about representation and it's about who people are. But I guess you can review how you contextualise some of these things that I'm talking about within that training, but I don't think it's impossible at all. I think we shouldn't be scared to really affirm that ensuring that you have a safe place of work isn't a political thing and isn't to be hijacked as some sort of political ideology. It's called ensuring your work team is safe at work. So, yes, I'm not a pro in that area, but I just don't think that training and induction could and should be considered to be political, and I don't think the fear of that should stop the Senedd making developments in how it upskills its staff—or not staff, Members, once you're elected.

Thank you.

Thanks, Tom. So, obviously, the work of this committee that we're doing at the moment is very much to look at those structures and the processes that are in place and how we could potentially strengthen them and the recommendations around it, but we talked about training and things, and they could be recommendations for the Commission itself, for the Senedd, to do, or for the individual political parties as well as part of that. Is there anything, perhaps, this morning that you think you haven't had an opportunity to share yet and we haven't touched on that could further improve the confidence of candidates to come forward to stand for the Senedd, but also to support them like you do once they are elected and are in that institution?

I think there's a real opportunity now. With next year's elections coming up, and potentially a new cohort of Members joining in just under a year's time, there's a real opportunity now to review how you welcome all of those new Members. I think, in some sense, the candidates are already in train; we're not going to encourage somebody today who hasn't been politically active to become a candidate for next year. We all know that that's not quite how it works. So, at this stage, I don't think we can influence the candidates, but more widely we are starting to see that the discomfort and the challenges that all Members face—I will say 'all Members', but we understand that women are facing and people of colour are facing increasing challenges—all of that is putting people off getting involved in politics.

I am an eternal optimist. Our organisation is founded in joy and positivity and community, so it's uncomfortable for me to sit here and talk about all of the negative things; I don't want to dwell on that, I want to focus on the solutions and the fantastic strength of our democracy when we're all able to come together, but I'm concerned that right now we're at peak women in all the different spheres of government in Britain. I think this is it. I think we're going to see fewer women elected in next year's Senedd election; I'm concerned it's going to be the same in the Scottish Parliament and in the council elections that we've got coming up over the next few years. And that is because the discourse around our politics and the disrespect that women face is getting louder and it's getting harder and it is starting to put people off.

Now, it's incredibly difficult to really, really document that and get the clear evidence that proves that that's the case. All I can say is, from continuing to listen to hundreds and hundreds of women over the past few years, that that is the message that we're starting to receive. So, I really want people to understand how important this is. These aren't just nice to haves; we have to strengthen our political spaces so that people have more faith in them and that we are getting fantastic people stepping forward to take on the role. At the moment, those fantastic people are going, 'No, thanks. I cannot be bothered. I'll get on with making great change in my community by running my business and volunteering at the school once a week', rather than choosing to step into these roles. So, I think this is a really big, big challenge.

And as I briefly mentioned at the beginning, we have mapped out all of the different reasons why we don't have enough women in political office, and they are divided by—. There's a whole suite of changes that the political parties can make; there's a whole suite of changes that we need in wider society: gender pay gap, caring et cetera. But, within the political institutions, there's a lot that can be done there and it's primarily focused around the kind of lack of HR processes and what processes you can put in place to replace them, given the fact that Members aren't employees.

But the piece I really wanted to emphasise is that our work is non-partisan. So, we're working across the House. When we're doing training, it's with women of all different political parties, and Members that have worked with us before they've been elected have really said that they felt better prepared for that cross-party working when they entered, because they'd had practice with speaking to someone that they didn't ideologically agree with, whereas if you bear in mind that most of you are in political parties and that is your world, you are in the political ecosystem of your own political party, whereas the strength and importance of coming together across the House—. So, I would like to advocate for cross-party training rather than just within the political parties. When you leave party politics at the door, you are better able to connect as human beings, and we see that daily with our work. The women's caucus, I think, is a really great example of that, which I've been in. I haven't been in any other cross-party settings, but I think committee work is really demonstrative as well of everybody working together across the House to strengthen things. So, I would advocate that training doesn't sit within political parties, and induction doesn't, and actually it's something that everybody comes together and does whilst leaving your political colours behind.

Thanks, Hannah. That's really interesting. Some of the evidence we had from representatives, the chiefs of the staff of the political parties, probably took an opposite view about some aspects of training, so that's really interesting to hear your view on it, and if there's anything you can share with the committee around the work you've done, and the rationale behind that, I think it would be really helpful for the work we're doing, because, as you said, at face value, this inquiry might look quite dry—we're looking at processes—but, as you say, those processes are fundamental to enhancing confidence, not just in politics, but in politicians themselves. And I just want to touch on—. I don't know if other Members have got any final questions, but, before I do check, you made the point too about the kind of—I was going to say 'odd', but the unusual—situation that a Member finds themselves in, because we're elected, we're not employed, so therefore it operates in a different environment. We also have our own teams, small teams of support staff, who, technically, we are the employers of, but then a lot of that work is overseen by Members' business support. So, there has been further evidence we've had from different people about actually how that could be enhanced. But, like you say, fundamentally, we're a workplace as well, so taking on board that the work you do is focused fundamentally on encouraging and supporting more women to stand, and then supporting them once they have taken that step—. So, we also change the culture by having a more diverse range of people literally in the room or within the institution. So, the work we're doing is about the code of conduct that applies as it applies to Members, but we want to create that environment and that culture in the Senedd where people want to come and work there for those Members, or for the Commission, the civil service as well. So, is there anything you've done in terms of perhaps—or anything on that reflection, notwithstanding your work is focused on getting women to stand for elected office, about what we can be doing or recommendations we can be making that more broadly gives women that confidence to want to work in a political environment, whether they're elected or whether they are employed within that environment?

We haven't done much with employees, but I am conscious of the burden of being an employer, which is another element of it. Stepping even further away from this, it seems to me that the role of Members is enormous, and I would question whether a normal human being can do it, whilst you're running your team, doing your legislative work and representing your constituency, and doing all the committee work. There's a huge amount that Members have to take on, and the reality of that, they're articulating the reality of that and reflecting on the role of the Members, and I understand all of the different changes that are going on in the Senedd, and the increase of Members. I hope that that will see a release of the huge amount of work that is on Members' plates, but I think improving institutions and improving the cultural environment there—so many people do step up, having been staffers, so that really is a pipeline that we know exists, that people work for Members and then get increasingly engaged and put themselves forward. So, definitely, people are seeing whether that is a real cultural improvement that's happening within the workplace. So, I think I don't have anything else to add other than what I've already discussed, really, in terms of there's a lot more to be done to ensure that the wider culture is as inclusive as the Senedd really wants it to be, and additional support for the employment element of Members being employers for their staffers, I think that's another level of work that could be taken away a little bit more, with increased support from Members' services.

[Inaudible.]—how would you envisage that additional support? What would that look like?

Well, the recruitment, I don't know enough about inside the Senedd and about how it operates currently, but we were having conversations in the House of Commons about the improvement required over there, so I don't want to say anything that is untrue about the Senedd, but, certainly, the burden of recruitment and then training and holding your staff to a certain account, again is a whole other layer of work that you have to do that might not necessarily be what you would imagine when you're stepping forward into the role. Actually, you're there to make change and to legislate for your country and to represent your constituents, but actually managing a small business and the challenges that come with that is often another level that takes away time. So, I don't know enough about the systems already in place in order to suggest how to change them.

Thank you. Do any other Members have any final questions or anything they want to follow up on? Okay, great. Well, thanks, Hannah, for joining us this morning. Your contribution has been really helpful to our work on this, and a copy of the transcript will be provided as soon as possible so you can check it for factual accuracy. But, on those points you're raising, some of the information you can share, if you are able to do that, and then I'm sure the team will follow that up with you as well. But thank you very much for your contribution today. Diolch.

Thanks for having me. Diolch yn fawr.

I'll now propose in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(ii) and (vi) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content to agree the motion? Great. In which case, we will now continue in private.