Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good morning, and can I welcome Members and the public to this morning's meeting of the Member Accountability Bill Committee? Just to start, can I remind Members, please turn your mobile phones and other equipment off or silent, so that they do not interfere with this morning's meeting? We have no apologies received, although we are aware that one of our Members, Lesley Griffiths, is delayed and will be here shortly because of train travel.

The meeting is being broadcast live, and if you require simultaneous translation from Welsh to English in the committee room, then obviously that's going to be on channel 1. Amplification will be on channel 0 or 2, and translation is available for those joining us online. There is no scheduled fire alarm this morning, so if one does occur, please take the directions of the ushers to a safe location. Do any Members wish to declare an interest at this point? I see there are none.

In that case, we will move on to our substantive element today, and that is an evidence session with representatives from organisations involved in electoral operations. Can I welcome our four witnesses this morning? We have Tom Hawthorn, who is head of policy at the Electoral Commission in the UK; Clare Sim, who is head of member support at the Association of Electoral Administrators; Eifion Evans, deputy chair of the electoral management board; and Mark Pascoe, who is from the electoral management board. Welcome, all four of you.

We'll move straight into questions if that's okay with you. We have limited time, so I want to get on with the work quickly, and I'll start with the first simple question. From the explanatory memorandum, it's evident that the Welsh Government had discussions with some of you. I'm not sure, Clare, whether they had discussions with the electoral administrators as well, but I suppose, following those discussions, and looking at the Bill, do you feel—? And I'll go through in the way I see the screen, okay? So, I see the screen as Tom, Mark, Eifion and Clare, okay? On that basis, just a quick one from each of you as to whether you think the Bill actually respects or delivers on some of the discussions you had with the Welsh Government. So, I'll start with Tom.

Thank you, Chair. I think the simple answer, straightforward answer, is ‘yes’. We've had some really helpful conversations with officials, and we've been careful to try and translate what we have learned from the experience of recall petitions that have taken place for the UK Parliament, so that we can share that experience and learn from those experiences, recognising that, of course, the electoral system for Senedd elections is very different to the system for UK Parliament elections, and there are lots of differences that therefore need to be reflected in the proposals that are being put forward.

There are some broad provisions in the Bill. A lot of detail will be left to secondary legislation, and that's not uncommon for Senedd elections. Thinking about the conduct Order for next year's elections, a lot of the detail is set out in secondary legislation, so we'll obviously be careful to look at the secondary legislation when that comes forward as well.

Before I ask Mark, on that point on secondary legislation, do you anticipate further discussions with the Welsh Government on the development of any secondary legislation? 

Absolutely. We would be very happy to continue talking with Welsh Government, and we do have various requirements in Senedd law about the Electoral Commission being consulted before secondary legislation is laid for approval by the Senedd, and we would obviously give our views and any advice to Members of the Senedd when you are considering that secondary legislation as well.

Okay. Just out of curiosity, I’m always wary when I hear the word ‘consultation’ compared to ‘negotiation’, because consultation is where you can talk to somebody, but you don't always get what you want. So, I think it's interesting to keep an eye on outcomes, in that sense. Mark.

Thank you, Chair. Just first things first, I act as the secretary to the electoral management board, just for the avoidance of any doubt. We have had updates from Welsh Government colleagues on the progress of the policy as it's developed, but we've not had any particular conversations around the policy itself. What we have talked about with Welsh Government officials is the funding. As part of my role, I chair the EMB's elections planning group, which involves a number of electoral administrators, and we were asked some questions around likely costs of a recall poll, which we responded to. But in terms of the actual policy itself, we've been kept up to date by Welsh Government officials, but haven't had any real input into the policy itself.  

Okay. Eifion, do you want to add anything to that on behalf of the electoral management board? 

No, I think what Mark has described there covers it perfectly, so there's no need to add anything to that then.

Okay, thank you. We've got some questions coming back to some aspects of the Bill in relation to the EMB later, anyway. Clare.

As you said, Chair, we haven't had any explicit conversations regarding the development of the policy. We were involved, obviously, in the consultation and provided evidence previously. The AEA's view has always been to question the need, possibly, for a recall mechanism and maybe moving to automatic disqualification in certain instances. However, from the discussions that came out of that initial evidence session, you can see that what has been presented in the Bill reflects those discussions in terms of that and, as Tom has said, reflects some of the learning from UK parliamentary recall petition processes and how that's been reflected to address the needs of the Senedd and things as well.

In terms of the content of the Bill, a lot of the stuff to do with the administration of elections—as Tom also said, which is the joy of going last and people going before you—will be reflected in the secondary legislation. There are some things in the Bill in relation to early terminations and the appeal process that we've got some questions about, but I'm sure we can come on to that during the course of this evidence session.

I'm sure we will come on to those issues, but, of course, it's important for us to understand your perspectives because you're the people who will be delivering, implementing and monitoring, in a sense, the whole process. So, if we go on then. Sioned. 

Again, I'll start with Mark, then I'll go to Eifion and then I'll go to Clare. Sorry, I meant Tom, not Mark. Sorry, Mark. So, we'll start with Tom and then we'll come back to you.  

Thank you, Chair. So, thinking about voters, thinking about campaigners and thinking, of course, about Clare and colleagues who will be running the recall poll, there are a couple of things that we've learned from the petitions that have taken place in the UK Parliament. The first thing is that there's a very different context and set-up. Those petitions run for six weeks and it's a very long petition process. It's based on voters going to a handful of signing places to sign a petition. The recall poll proposals that are being put forward in this Bill are very different, and much more similar to a by-election, for example. So, in terms of ensuring that voters have an opportunity to participate in a recall poll, I think we're fairly comfortable that that would be very similar to an election, and there wouldn't be any particular challenges.

One of the challenges that we've seen for recall petitions is that the smaller number of signing places means that, for some voters, it might be harder to get to those places to sign in person, but the longer period obviously allows for greater participation. What we have seen with those petitions is that the vast majority of people have signed those petitions within the first two weeks, so actually a six-week period is very long.

All of those lessons are not really directly relevant for the recall poll, but it's very important that voters have a good opportunity to participate. Part of that will be making sure that they understand very clearly what the recall poll process looks like and how they can participate. I think the Bill gives requirements for constituency returning officers to send information to voters. But, from the Electoral Commission's perspective, we also provide information about polls through our website and through our social and digital media channels, and we would expect to be able to do the same for any recall polls that took place.

One significant point for voters, I think, will be making sure that they understand the question that's being asked of them on the recall poll ballot paper. It's not the same as a regular election ballot paper, so it's very important to make sure that the question wording is clear and intelligible.

And then, a couple of points for campaigners. We understand that the detail of the campaign regulation will be set out in secondary legislation. One lesson that we've learned from the UK Parliament petitions process is that the regulation of campaigners tends to be based on the rules for candidate elections for the UK Parliament. That means that there's more of a role for returning officers, or recall petition officers for those petitions, including registering potential petition campaigners, and that's quite a different role that returning officers don't normally have. So, it's very important to get clarity about that process, both for people who want to campaign in that recall poll process, but also for constituency returning officers, if they are being expected to run that regulation process.

And then the final point, particularly for returning officers, would be to just make sure that they have enough time to deliver these recall poll proposals. I think the Bill would require the recall poll to take place within about three months, I think, of the notification from the Presiding Officer, and that is not an uncommon time for returning officers to run by-elections, for example. I think the Caerphilly by-election earlier this year was run to a similar timescale. But the sooner returning officers can have detail about the process, and clarity about what they'll be expected to do, the easier it'll be for them to plan for those polls. 

In that case, I'll move on to Clare, because, clearly, she has very important representation there.

Yes. As Tom said, from what's been suggested in terms of the process for Senedd elections, or the Senedd's recall process, a lot of the challenges in relation to the UK parliamentary process have been addressed. One of our biggest concerns is the six-week signing period, and evidence has shown from Brecon and Radnorshire, from Peterborough, from Rutherglen's recall petitions, that the signing limit was reached within two weeks. So, the fact it's moving to a one-day poll obviously takes away some of that burden. The burden that is on returning officers to secure polling places for those six-week periods has been a large difficulty in the past as well.

That being said, it's equally difficult sometimes, as Tom's just referenced, with the Caerphilly by-election, to be able to get all the polling stations—particularly with the new boundary changes, with the size of Senedd constituencies—to get polling stations booked for a one-day poll at short notice. The three-month period, which is articulated in the Bill, is sufficient in the sense that's what a Senedd by-election currently runs to, but I think there should be strong emphasis that it should always be at the end of that three-month period, to allow sufficient time for people to secure polling stations, secure staffing to run that poll.

One of the major lessons learned, possibly, that's been reflected in the Bill—. There have been concerns in the past, with the recall petition nature of the UK Government process, where people, if they're going to sign the petition, then it's known to the public what they're trying to do. I think there have been concerns in the past, in terms of campaigners outside polling stations knowing that person's there, what the intention is, where moving to a more referendum-type poll takes away some of those burdens, with electors feeling free to cast their vote in that nature as well. But, like I said, there are pros and cons to both processes, but some of the biggest challenges that are faced at a UK parliamentary level have definitely been removed as a result of what's been suggested in the Senedd Bill.

Okay. I'll go to Mark and Eifion, because they clearly know, in the sense of what's—. The experience of the EMB is probably limited, because the EMB has been formed as a consequence of the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Act 2024, but, Mark, any views on it? 

Just to add, really, there have been no conversations at board level around recall polls that I can recall. I'm sure Eifion will correct me if I'm wrong on that one. Since the Bill was published, we have been discussing, as a secretariat at least—. Tom mentioned the communications, and as you may be aware, Chair, the EMB has been tasked with establishing a Welsh elections information platform, which is intended to be a one-stop shop for voters to be able to find out anything that they need to know to participate in elections in Wales. There's no reference to that in the Bill, so we just wondered if there was a likelihood that that would come, perhaps, later, and whether the EMB would have a role in publicising any recall polls in the future. But I think that was probably all from us. 

I think the triggers are very similar in terms of what triggers a recall petition in both places, with obviously a prison sentence of less than a year, because otherwise it would be an automatic disqualification, and the equivalent with the standards committee recommending that that is the recommendation.

I think what we've previously said, and what's stated in our blueprint for our electoral landscape as well, is our concerns are more over the fact that—. From what we've learnt from what has happened at UK Parliament level in Great Britain, every recall petition has led to a by-election for that person's seat, which has generally then led to a new person being elected. We appreciate, obviously, that there's no by-election element that results from it at a Senedd level, but our concerns are that because of the nature of it, which generally leads to that, whether there would be benefits that if somebody has an offence to that point where generally the public have voted for that person then to lose their seat, whether, in terms of the administrative burden but also the huge burden on the public purse that each election or recall petition would place on people, whether that becomes an automatic disqualification, which would bypass the need for a recall process, potentially.

Just looking at the UK Parliament figures for 2019 in Wales, the election cost over £5 million. If we're then looking at a Senedd constituency based on the new boundaries, to do a rough approximation—I appreciate the boundaries have changed—we're looking at about £320,000 for a recall poll in terms of that nature. And if it's got the formality from the UK Parliament system that means that it generally results in somebody losing their seat, we would just question whether there is any benefit to considering automatic disqualification in relation to the nature of these offences, just based on what we've seen at UK Parliament level.

Does anyone else want to add anything?

Chair, if I might just add, one thing that we were able to do with one of the recall petitions for the UK Parliament in Peterborough was carry out some research with the public about their understanding and perceptions of the petition process and the recall process in general, and we found some encouraging evidence that voters understood that a recall petition was going to take place, so the awareness work that had been done by the returning officer but also the fact that the petition was very well publicised in the media meant that about 91 per cent of people understood that a recall petition was going to take place. Awareness of, and understanding of, what the petition was about was less high, so around two-thirds said that they knew a great deal, or a fair deal, about the petition, and why it was happening. And maybe a little bit more concerning, about half of people mistakenly thought that it was actually about an online petition to recall a Member of Parliament, rather than a more formal process. So, I just wanted to share that information and evidence to suggest that there really is a need for making sure that there’s good information available to voters about the process, and about the background to the petition as well.

That follows on nicely to the next set of questions. Sam. 

Thanks, Chair. Good morning, all. Thanks for being with us this morning, it's appreciated. Just to follow up on that, I think there were comments made earlier about the way in which the Bill has been laid out, and perhaps having a level of simplicity to it. Do you think, though, that there's a risk that—? You just described a Westminster recall process, which is effectively a two-stage process, isn't it, because you've got the recall taking place, and then the by-election, potentially, as a result of that recall. This would not be a two-stage process, would it, because of the proportional representation system we have. Do you think there's a risk of the public having a misunderstanding around that, and then perhaps being surprised that—? Let's pretend—God forbid—it's a Conservative who gets recalled. The next person representing that patch, because of the PR system, will, of course, be a Conservative again. Do you think there's a risk that the public may misunderstand that part of the process?

I think there is that risk. I don't think we'd be able to quantify that, unfortunately. I think I would go back to a point that I flagged up earlier on in the session. One of the things that would be very different about a recall poll in Wales, compared with a recall petition, but also compared with an election, is the question that voters are being asked to decide on. It is, as Clare said, closer to a referendum, with a yes/no response to a question.

I think one of the things that we have found with referendum questions—the Electoral Commission has been involved in looking at the intelligibility of referendum questions for a number of UK and Welsh referendums over the last 20 years—is that it's really important to make sure that the question is clear, voters understand what they're being asked to consider in the moment, but also what the consequences of their decision will be.

One of the things that we have recommended throughout our experience of looking at questions such as these is that there should be some form of public testing with members of the public, with voters, who will experience that question in real life, so that we can understand how they respond and react to that, and not just assume that we will be able to make an assessment of that without that view and evidence from the public. So, that's one of the key things for us. 

Eifion, do you have a view on that?

I think the key message is all around communication. What we've done as an EMB group is we've set up a communication group, in partnership with the Welsh Government. It's about the changes that are coming down for the track for the public to understand. It's ensuring that there's clarity around the steps, simplification of message, and making sure we get those messages out early doors, so that the public do have that greater clarity. 

The recall poll itself gives the correct democratic voice, I think, that the public can decide for themselves what their opinions are. But the key message here is what happens as a consequence of the recall poll. I think that's the trick, and the message that we have to get out to the public early doors, so that if we are in a position where a recall poll is required, it's the proportional representation afterwards that we have to ensure everybody understands.

With that communication group that EMB have got, in partnership with the Welsh Government, I know they're working at the moment on specific messaging to go out this side of Christmas, hopefully, so that the public will have a drip-feed of information to educate them about what the process will all be about, way before the need for a recall poll. 

Can I just expand on this? Sam highlighted the fact that this is different from a Westminster recall poll. People now expect a recall followed by a by-election if it's successful, and some people may be therefore looking for different representation as a consequence of that. This is not going to do that. Is there a possibility that this could be confusing to people, because of the outcomes of the two different ones?

Yes, that's what we're worried about. That's exactly what we're worried about. And those are the messages we need to get out, early doors. And that's why the communications group has been set up to run now.

I think that's one of the biggest challenges—the limitations, almost. You've got the two different systems, where, particularly maybe in Powys, where they've actually had a recall petition previously, there is some familiarity with the process of a six-week signing period that then results in a by-election. I think one of the biggest communication challenges from a Welsh context is the fact of what the end result is, because obviously at UK parliamentary level, you get to the point where you recall that Member, you then have a by-election, and the public have got an ability to change who represents them, whereas Sam outlined the fact that if—. I think it's that communication message of getting across that if you've got, say, an independent who has been recalled, then you're effectively voting for retaining that Member or losing a level of representation, and I think there are very big communication challenges that we need to get over, and I would imagine there would be some discomfort, maybe, within the public as to what they're voting for. In the same way as well, obviously, as you said, if it's a party list candidate, and you're just replacing them with someone from the same party, maybe there are issues around that context. So, I think it's one of those things. It's about how you communicate that. It's how you clarify those differences between the polls, but also that there are limitations to a degree, that there is not a direct vote then that follows on that allows you to change the outcome. I think that's got to be bedded into any communication policy that's taken forward with that, so that the public are fully aware as to what the consequences are of voting in those circumstances.

Perhaps just a final point from me on this. I think you've said that the way the questions are laid out in the Bill at the moment are fairly clear, quite simple, to be fair. If I read the English, there are two answers to a possible question. The first is to remove the Member as a Member of Senedd Cymru or retain the Member as a Member of Senedd Cymru. Perhaps just two points of this. I guess the question is are you confirming that the wording that has been outlined in the Bill is appropriate. And then secondly, just on the back of the discussion we just had, would there be any merit in, do you think, either on the ballot paper or alongside the ballot paper, showing the consequences of those decisions that the electorate may make, as in to explain that this will not result in, in most instances, a change in party representation, that it's merely a change in the person in that area? Or is that overcomplicating that? Does that muddy the waters?

I'll start with Clare, because obviously your members will be managing this.

I think there's the potential that it would muddy the water, potentially, and I don't know whether it would be seen as leading on the ballot paper to say the consequences of this. I think putting additional information on the ballot paper is not—. The less information the better, so it's clear and concise as to what people need to do in that respect. I think it's looking at more what communication would go before that, potentially using notices beforehand to make clear those things, as well as general communications around the polls, to make sure that people are aware of what they're voting for and what it would result in or not result in, in that context.

In terms of the questions that are laid out in the Bill, they seem sensible and clear. But I think, as Tom said, utilising the Electoral Commission's expertise and experience of dealing with referendum-style questions and the sort of testing that goes behind that would definitely be welcome, to make sure they're as clear and robust as they can possibly be as well.

Tom, do you want to add anything?

Just to say, Chair, that we have had some useful conversations and shared our previous experience of looking at referendum questions, but I think that wouldn't be a substitute, necessarily, for testing that question. I completely agree with Clare that the ballot paper itself is probably not the place for including more information about the potential outcome. But it would be really critical that, through the constituency returning officer, through the EMB and through the Electoral Commission, we were providing consistent, clear information about those outcomes, so that people have a really good access to that awareness.

Okay. Sioned.

Eifion.

Clare, do you want to add anything?

I think the provisions, obviously, will be in secondary legislation, but allowing for the same access that people have to vote at the moment in terms of post voting, proxy voting, to help address some of the challenges that come with a one-day poll.

As Eifion said, obviously, there's accessibility. I'd assume that everything that's now being brought forward from the Elections Act 2022 at UK level has now been introduced for Senedd and local government elections in Wales, in terms of utilising the Electoral Commission's guidance as to what should be available in polling stations, and that would be reflected in the rules that would be in secondary legislation in relation to a recall process, again, to make sure that every venue that is utilised is accessible. And I think one of the advantages with this is we'd be likely using the polling stations that are utilised, where there have been polling district reviews carried out on those every five years, where accessibility is a key part of that. That would help to make sure that we've got accessible venues, because that's what we use as polling stations, as well as giving that familiarity for electors. I think that's been one of the challenges at UK level—that where you've got a maximum of 10 signing stations, they may not be familiar to the electorate. But because we're utilising the same model that we use for Senedd and local government elections, then those polling stations are familiar, and the arrangements that are in place would be familiar for people to know what they need to do on the recall day itself as well.

In relation to tactile voting devices, there are options that various suppliers that manufacture tactile voting devices—. When we've had referendums previously for Brexit, or for the alternative vote referendum, or for greater powers to the Senedd, there were alternative tactile voting device templates that could have been utilised for that purpose, so that would obviously be an option there. There's also alternative technology that can now be utilised as well, since we've had referendums, which again I'm sure can be adapted to accommodate and make it completely accessible for all electors.

Tom.

Thank you. Yes, I think it's probably helpful to clarify that the main way that we would provide information for voters about the recall poll process would be through our website and digital channels. We provide a postcode look-up service, so if you're not sure about what sorts of polls are taking place where you live, you can put your postcode into our website and find out information about all the polls that are scheduled to take place, and that would include a recall poll, so we'd be able to provide information in a range of formats digitally. We would also be able to provide information through our press service to make sure that the media understood exactly what was happening with the recall poll.

I think it is probably not something where we would expect to carry out more widespread proactive publicity, as we will be doing ahead of the Senedd general election next year, where we have a scheduled poll. It's not something that we have tended to do for recall petitions either—that more proactive publicity.

We try to work with partners to provide information in a range of formats to meet those accessibility needs so that voters can access information in whatever format they find most convenient.

Buffy.

Thank you, Chair. I have some questions on the role in the holding of recall polls. What are your views on how the running of the recall poll, as proposed in the Bill, will be managed by electoral administrators and any challenges you see around that?

Clare, that's a clear one for you.

Yes.

Thank you. I think the only concern we've got at the moment in relation to what's in the Bill is the language around early termination, where it seems to be suggesting that the recall petition would be held within three months of that sentence being handed down, but before their appeals process has been heard, which is not in line with what the UK parliamentary system does, whereby their legislation is slightly different in that it stipulates that the sentence needs to be passed, but the appeals process needs to have been followed through on as well before you can actually then proceed with the recall petition. It doesn't seem to be allowing that within the Bill at the moment, it just seems to be saying that you'd then have early termination of poll as a result of the appeal process then resulting in that person's sentence being changed or the conviction being changed in that respect.

What we'd question with that is using examples—in Leicester East at UK parliamentary level, Claudia Webbe, who was the MP there, was originally sentenced to, I think, a suspended prison sentence. That was passed down in October 2021, but the appeals process wasn't heard until May 2022, at which point, then, the actual prison sentence element was removed, so a recall petition wasn't needed. So, it's just to highlight our concerns there as to what would happen if you do not allow that appeals process to be heard before you then trigger that recall petition, the burden that places on administrators of starting a poll that could then have to be cancelled halfway through, where, obviously, all the cost elements and everything are still a cost element because everything has to be done so far in advance to make sure that everything's ready for that poll. I think that would just be one of our concerns at the moment in relation to that, but, equally, what would happen if you held the recall poll, the appeals process followed massively after that and then something was changed as to the legality of whether that person needs to be removed. So, that is our major concern at the moment.

In relation to the rest of the Bill, obviously, a lot of the detail in terms of the running of that poll for administrators will come out in the secondary legislation. But I think one of the things we just wanted to flag is while, generally speaking, this is the same as any other election process, the fact that you haven't got candidates standing and you haven't then got election agents is just that clarification as to how—. What system do you want to put in place? So, if you've got a referendum, you have campaign groups that have to register with the Electoral Commission, which then gives them access to the postal vote opening sessions, access to the count. How do you want to administer that? I think that's the bit at the moment—. I'm sure that you want people to be able to have transparency and to attend the count, but what process needs to be put in place in relation to that? Does it need to reflect what we currently have at referendums, because you've got that absence of candidates that need to be considered at that point as well?

Okay. Thank you for that answer. I think my next question is aimed at Tom: are you likely to publish guidance on recall polls in Wales, as you do for recall petitions for the House of Commons?

I think the straightforward answer is, yes, we would expect to do that. It's important that recall petition officers and constituency returning officers for a recall poll understand what they need to do and can access that quickly, and we won't be able to predict or know when a recall poll is going to take place. So, we would look at the legislation and look at how we can provide that information, working with Clare and also the EMB to make sure that everybody has the right information that they need.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay. Lesley.

Thank you, Chair. My question, specifically, is to Eifion. I wonder if you think the Bill should be amended to specifically bring recall polls under the statutory functions of the Electoral Management Board.

To be honest, I think it would be important that we have that conversation—. Before I pass a personal view on it, I think I would need to have that conversation with the board itself. As Mark said at the beginning, we haven't yet had a robust conversation amongst the board due to the early—[Inaudible.]—of the board yet; it's still in its infancy as far as that's concerned. And I think those are the kinds of deliberations we need to discuss: what exactly the EMB's role and function is and should it be something that is a supportive role for CROs, or should it be something far greater than that? I think that having that dialogue will certainly be a question that we need to have in the coming weeks and months to define exactly what our role will be and what our desires would be as a group, to be honest.

Do you want to share your personal view? 

My personal view would be 'no'.

Can I ask the question, then—when will you be having those discussions? We have to report back by 23 December, so will you be having such a meeting and discussion before then, so that we can have some feedback before we finalise our report?

I think we'll have to do that for you as a committee. Karen apologises for her inability to be here today, and I'm deputising for Karen, but what we will do, as soon as Karen returns—I'll have a conversation with her and we'll have a response for you before your final deliberations.

Thank you. Lesley.

Thanks, Chair, that would be really good. Obviously, the important thing if this becomes an Act is the implementation, so my question is to all of you, or any of you, around what your roles will be once that Act is in place, and how it will be implemented, whether you will be consulted—particularly this is to Tom—on subordinate legislation. So, I'd just be grateful for your views on that, please.

Let's go for Tom.

Thank you. Yes, we would expect to be consulted on subordinate legislation. We would provide advice to Welsh Government about any issues, concerns or suggestions for improving that legislation, and then we would provide our views for the Senedd when it comes to consider that secondary legislation.

More broadly, as I think I've covered, our roles would be to work with the EMB and the AEA to make sure that constituency returning officers have access to guidance, if they need that, to deliver the polls, and we would also provide any guidance to potential campaigners at a recall poll, so that they know what the controls around spending and donations are, and they can comply with that. And then finally, as was mentioned, we would provide information through our normal channels for voters to access about how to take part in the process.

I don't know if you want Mark to respond to that one. Mark.

Thank you. So, the elections and elected bodies Act provides that the general function of the EMB is to co-ordinate elections and referendums, so I think if these are one-off instances, there would not necessarily be much for the board to co-ordinate. I think the board also offers a space for returning officers to come together and discuss issues, risks and best practice. So, I think, as a forum for returning officers to discuss the delivery of recall polls, that's something that the board could provide, and again, through the new elections information platform, provide information on recall polls directly to voters and information on how they can engage in the polls. That's how I would see the main role of the board in this.

And Clare.

Generally speaking, with secondary legislation, we ask for drafts beforehand, just to be able to check the workability of it from an administrative perspective. We work very closely, as always, with the Electoral Commission on any issues or concerns we'd have at that point. We would, if required, provide training for anybody going through that process, but, because of the nature of a recall poll, which generally affects very few people, what we tend to do is utilise Electoral Commission guidance that will be available to people, but try to link up our members with people who've got experience of recall petitions, to help them understand—I appreciate that the system is slightly different—the unique challenges that they bring, the media context of them and things such as that. That is what we do when there's a Senedd by-election—the team in Caerphilly, we worked really closely with them. Due to nature of it, we'd just be on hand to be able to assist them and support them at every step of the way, any questions, and to give them a bit more capacity to liaise wherever possible with relevant stakeholders and other members that can assist them in that role as well.

Thank you. Can I just go back to a couple of points? Clare highlighted the question of appeals, which I think we have discussed as a committee. I suppose, Eifion or Tom, are there any considerations that you can think of on the appeals issue in relation to this? Clare highlighted the concern that an appeal process could take longer than the period of time to actually establish the recall petition. Eifion, do you have any views on the appeal process?

Yes. Clare articulated that concern very, very well, to be honest. It's a concern we all share, because if you start a process and have to stop it halfway through, there are unnecessary cost implications to that. More worryingly, if the recall poll has completed before the appeals process, and the appeals process is successful, what do we do then? That's the bit of the legislation that does concern me, as well. I share Clare's grave concerns that, inadvertently, through not being methodical and systematic and working it in a chronological order, there's a danger that we'll trip ourselves up at some point. I would support what Clare was saying. We need to hold back and wait for the appeals process to finish first.

Tom.

Just to add, I think what will be important for us is clarity for voters, so that they can have confidence that the process is robust and that they understand the outcomes, and also fairness for the Member in question, to make sure that they feel that the process has been fair and has taken account of all of the legal processes that might sit around that.

Okay. Thank you. Another point from me: we've discussed Parts 1 and 2 of the Bill, effectively, but we haven't discussed Part 3. I think I want to put this to Clare, in one sense, because Part 3 focuses upon the concept of misleading or incorrect—I will use the word 'incorrect'—information being presented during the election period. Of course, electoral administrators will have to look very carefully at this. Practicality wise, are there any issues you identify in Part 3 of the Bill that could be challenging for the administrators?

In relation to misinformation or anything in terms of that, the job of the constituency returning officer and their electoral services teams is to run the election. Much like any criminal matter at the moment, obviously, while they can refer things to their single point of contact in the police, I think they would be trying to make sure that they're not being distracted from the potential of things that could occur with candidates and things in relation to that—having a clear procedure for escalating those matters to the appropriate person, either within the Senedd or within the police, for dealing with those matters, for it not to become a returning officer responsibility when their focus should be purely on running a safe and secure election in terms of that. So, I think that anything that occurs during that period needs to have a proper mechanism for escalation to either the appropriate person within the Senedd or within the police, for escalating those matters to be dealt with, and then, obviously, the consequence being whatever needs to happen as a result of anything that occurs during that part of the election.

So, very much in the sense of guidance and mechanisms that will be put into place, and, basically, the statutory legislation that might be put in place, as to how that would operate.

Yes.

Eifion.

I share the same view as Clare on that one as well. The onus and responsibility, first and foremost, sits with the individual who presents the information, but, after that, if there's any challenge, as CROs, we tend to use the SPOC quite a lot in this instance to check the accuracy, because if it leads to an offence, then we need to utilise those powers available to us. So, from an administrative perspective, I don't see much of a challenge with this that is any different to any other election that we run.

Okay. Thank you. We've lost Tom for a moment, so I can't ask him. Do any Members have anything—?

Chair, I apologise. I am here—

You are still there, Tom.

Something happened to my camera, and I can't quite make it work, so I apologise for that.

Any views from the Electoral Commission on Part 3 of the Bill?

Yes, a couple of things I'd want to flag. One would be just to make sure that there's real clarity in the legislation about what sorts of statements are to be covered, to make sure there's clarity about the distinction between acceptable and unacceptable statements, to make sure that there's a mechanism that would allow complaints to be resolved quickly, so that voters and campaigners have certainty and confidence while the election is taking place and before the conclusion of the election, and also to make sure that whichever body is responsible for enforcing that prohibition has the confidence and impartiality to be able to deliver that process. So, I think it's about making sure that the provisions will support confidence and will be workable in practice.

Okay. Thank you for that. Do any Members have any other further questions? I see that my colleagues are shaking their heads, so I therefore say that we've come to the end of the session. You will all receive a copy of the transcript, as you may be aware, and if there are any factual inaccuracies in that transcript, please let the clerking teams know as soon as possible so we can get them corrected. Can I, therefore, thank you for your time this morning and for the evidence you've given? It does help us. I appreciate the pressurised space we've got, but we have to work within that. So, thank you very much for your time. Eifion, we look forward to perhaps some feedback from EMB in relation to their views on that as well, on whether it should be included in your responsibilities. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

We move on, therefore, to item 4, which is the motion under Standing Orders 17.42(vi) and (ix) to exclude the public from the remainder of today's meeting. Are Members content to do so? I see you are, so we'll now move into private session for the remainder of this morning.