Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Good morning, and can I welcome Members and the public to this morning's meeting of the Member Accountability Bill Committee? And this morning we will be undertaking Stage 2 proceedings of the Senedd Cymru (Member Accountability and Elections) Bill.

Before we go into our main business, just a few housekeeping points. We have received apologies this morning from Lesley Griffiths, and can I welcome Joyce Watson who is substituting for Lesley? The meeting is also being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and a transcript will be published in the usual way. As Members know, we are a bilingual institution and headsets are provided for simultaneous translation from Welsh to English, if required, on channel 1. If you require sound amplification, that's available on channel 2. There are no scheduled fire alarms this morning, so please ensure that if one goes off, you follow the directions of the ushers to a safe location. And can you also ensure that your mobile phones are either silent or off, so that they do not interfere with our business today? Does any Member at this point wish to make a declaration of interest? No.

Okay, then we move on to item 2 on our agenda, which are some papers to note. Let's do the papers that I've got. The first one is correspondence with the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery in relation to our Member accountability and elections Bill. And it was requested that the financial resolution be moved, which did take place on Tuesday just past, which was 10 February.  And we have a response from the Counsel General to that letter. Letter 3 is a letter from the Standards of Conduct Committee, commenting on our recommendations regarding section 18 of the Bill. The fourth is a letter from the Counsel General, again relating to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee regarding Crown consent for section 4 of the Bill regarding recommendations 8 and 9 of that committee's report, and we were copied in on that. And letter 5 was a letter from the Standards of Conduct Committee, which arrived yesterday, and it's been given to you in a supplementary pack for this meeting—and I'm sure that the amendments that are referred to will be considered during our business today—and it's relating to the lay member sub-committees and a deadline for appointing lay members. Are Members content to note those? Thank you.

Then we move on to our substantial business today, which is the Stage 2 proceedings. And can I welcome Adam Price, who has joined the committee today, who has submitted amendments? And I've invited Adam to come along to speak to those amendments. Hannah Blythyn, who has also submitted amendments, is unable to attend, but Joyce Watson will be speaking to those amendments on her behalf. Can I also welcome Julie James, the Counsel General and Member in charge of the Bill? You have your officials with you. Do you want to introduce them? 

I'll ask them to introduce themselves, Chair.

I'm Will Whiteley, deputy director for Senedd reform within Welsh Government.

Samuel Carr, Welsh Government legal services.

Ryan Price, head of standards reform policy, Welsh Government.

Thank you for that. And before we start, I hope everyone's got a copy of the Bill available, the marshalled list of amendments, the grouping of the amendments, so that everyone is aware of the order in which we will proceed today. You will note that the amendments have been grouped to facilitate our debate, but the order in which they are called and moved for decision is dictated by the marshalled list, so you'll have to keep an eye on the lists as we go through.

Members are also aware that in the debate in each group, the Member whose amendment is the lead will have the opportunity to speak at the start of that group and to close the contributions in that group. And if you're not on my list to speak and you wish to speak in that group, you need to indicate to let me know, okay? And again, for the record, just to remind you that this committee was established with the remit that the Chair, myself, would only use the casting vote and I will therefore not be voting during the consideration of amendments, as in other committees, when the Chair does vote. We were set up where I only use the casting vote. So, for the public's recognition, that is slightly different from others.

Again, following convention, I will be moving the Counsel General's amendments because she is not a member of the committee, and I will also be moving the amendments laid by Adam and Hannah, if they wish me to do so. Members of the committee who have submitted amendments will be moving their own amendments. But, in the case of Lesley, it will be Joyce who will be moving those amendments. And Joyce and Adam, I will highlight, because you're speaking on behalf of—. Well, Adam, you're speaking for yourself, and Joyce for Hannah, if you don't wish to move an amendment, just let me know and I will not move it. 

I think that's it, other than the traditional business that, if people need a comfort break, please let me know and we'll take a short break for that purpose. 

Now, let's go on to the amendments that we need to go through. Group 1 amendments are in relation to trigger event A and the courts' notification of the Presiding Officer. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 16. I call on Sam Rowlands to move amendment 16 and to speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in the group that he wishes to speak on. Sam.

Thank you, Chair. I move amendment 16. I just want to set out in my opening remarks our broader support for the aims of the Bill as the Government have laid it, and specifically begin today by making it clear that we support the introduction of the recall mechanism, which is something we've called for previously. Giving constituents the power to remove a Member from office in cases of conviction or serious misconduct is a significant and welcome step. We must remember that the basis of our election to office is one of trust, and the electorate should be able to hold the Members who represent them to account when that trust is broken.

However, whilst we may agree with the principle of what the Bill seeks to achieve, the Bill as laid, we believe, has a number of serious flaws and that's largely due to the pace at which it has been brought into the Senedd, which left minimal time to give it the due scrutiny that it deserves. And it's a credit to this committee's work, the amount of work that has been undertaken in the time that was allocated, but I think there’s general consensus that it wasn't ideal timing for the introduction of this Bill. So, a number of the amendments that I've submitted today are in light of this.

In terms of group 1, my amendments 16 and 17 seek to remove section 4 of Part 1 of the Bill relating to the trigger event of courts notifying the Presiding Officer when a Member of the Senedd is convicted of an offence in England or Wales and sentenced to imprisonment or detainment. As currently drafted, section 4 sets out the process by which a court must notify the Presiding Officer when a Member of the Senedd has been convicted of a serious offence and sentenced to imprisonment or detention. That notification is what allows trigger event A, the conviction-based recall trigger, to operate in practice. In this committee’s Stage 1 report, there was a clear recommendation that section 4 should be removed from the Bill, and it's in light of the evidence that we received. And I'll quote from the report, where we say that,

'While we understand the competence issues, without the duty applying to all courts in the United Kingdom, we do not consider this notification mechanism to be satisfactory or necessary.'

The committee concluded that this provision does not align well with the broad objectives of the recall system and could create unnecessary legal complexity or uncertainty. As a committee, we were clear that consistency between the consequences of a criminal conviction in courts across Britain is of greater importance than creating notification requirements on specific courts.

So, section 4 as it stands is not necessary to achieve the democratic accountability outcomes we all seek and its retention could undermine the clarity and effectiveness of the recall framework. Thank you, Chair.

I call on the Counsel General. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm really grateful to Sam for bringing forward these amendments to enable the debate to take place. I do recognise that they are in response to the committee's recommendation. I said in response to the committee that I noted the recommendation and that I would give further consideration to the issue. Having given it further consideration, I remain of the view that a notification system for the courts in England and Wales is appropriate in relation to recall trigger event A. While the duty is not essential—Sam is quite right—to the operation of the recall system, I believe that it assists in its smooth operation.

The committee concluded that consistency between the consequences of a criminal conviction in the courts of England and Wales, and the courts of Scotland and Northern Ireland, is of greater importance than creating notification requirements on courts where it is within the competence of the Senedd. I have to say, Chair, that I disagree with that.

If the duty is placed on the courts of England and Wales, reflecting the limitations of the Senedd’s competence, it remains open to the Welsh Government to seek a solution to the inconsistency. This could be an administrative solution within the courts of Scotland and Northern Ireland, or a legislative solution with the UK Government. I can make no guarantees about the outcome in seeking such solutions, obviously, but I don't think that should prevent us from putting in place sensible arrangements for the operation of the recall system where that does lie within the competence of the Senedd.

And, in the meantime, the Bill provides for the ongoing operation of the system, whether notification duties or arrangements are in place or not, by tying the duty on the Llywydd to fix the date for a recall poll to them 'becoming aware' that a trigger event has occurred. I think it's highly unlikely that a Member of the Senedd could be convicted and imprisoned in Scotland or Northern Ireland and the Llywydd not become aware of that matter. But ensuring that the respective parts of the recall system work together on such matters where we are able to do so should be the objective, in my view. Diolch.       

Sam to reply.

Thank you, Chair. I've heard the Counsel General's remarks. I remain to be convinced to support those, so I'll continue to move the amendments. 

Thank you. The question, therefore, is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I have an objection. Therefore, we will now proceed to a vote on amendment 16. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise your hands. The vote is tied. And, therefore, I will use my casting vote. And, just to put it on the record, so that Members are aware, my casting vote is in the negative, and usually is in the negative. Therefore, I will vote against the amendment, and, as such, amendment 16 is not agreed. 

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 17?

Yes, I move, Chair. 

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I have an objection. Therefore, we will now proceed to a vote on amendment 17. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise your hands. Thank you. Again, the vote is tied and I will use my casting vote against the amendment, and, therefore, the amendment is not agreed. 

Group 2 is next and it's in relation to trigger event B and recall guidance. Amendment 40 is the lead amendment in this group, and it was submitted in the name of Lesley Griffiths. And, in this case, I'll be asking Joyce Watson to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in the group that she wishes to speak to. Joyce. 

Thank you, Chair. Amendments 40 to 45, collectively, would give effect to the recommendations that this committee has made previously that it should be an obligation on the Standards of Conduct Committee to issue recall guidance, and that such guidance should be approved by the Senedd by way of a simple majority. 

Amendment 40 would remove the subsection of the Bill that provides that the Standards of Conduct Committee may issue guidance in respect of transgressions of Members that should lead to a recall sanction being recommended. 

Amendment 41 clarifies that the Standards of Conduct Committee cannot recommend recall as a sanction, unless guidance has been issued in accordance with the provision of section 5 as amended. 

Amendment 42 revises the terminology within the Bill, replacing 'its' guidance with 'the' guidance, reflecting that the guidance is owned by the Senedd as a whole, rather than just the Standards of Conduct Committee. 

Amendment 43 inserts the substantive revisions that the suite of amendments is designed to give effect to, as the first subsection of this amendment would establish an obligation on the Standards of Conduct Committee to prepare draft recall guidance for the first time. As in the version of the Bill as introduced, the committee would remain under a duty to undertake public consultation. The final subsection of this amendment would establish a requirement for the guidance to be approved by resolution of the Senedd by a simple majority.

Amendment 44 would clarify that the requirement to bring consultations on draft guidance to the attention of all Members of the Senedd and the commissioner for standards includes consultations on replacement guidance.

And amendment 45 would remove subsections 6 to 8 of the Bill as introduced, as these would no longer be required, due to the provision inserted by amendment 43. I ask Members to support the amendments tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

I call on Sam Rowlands to speak to his amendments in the group.

Thank you, Chair. I think, broadly, the amendments laid by colleagues and myself are seeking to achieve the same outcomes. But I will speak specifically to the amendments I've laid as they are. Amendment 18 makes it mandatory for Welsh Ministers to issue guidance regarding matters to be taken into account by the committee when considering whether to recommend submission of a Member to a recall poll by changing 'may' to 'must'. I think having this power without guidance, if it's a 'may', could create some inconsistencies. I think 'must' firms that up, and I think colleagues recognise that issue with their other amendments also.

Amendment 19 would require the Standards of Conduct Committee to lay draft recall guidance before the Senedd following consultation, which I think is absolutely appropriate.

Amendment 20 requires recall guidance to be approved by the Senedd before being issued. This would strengthen procedures to ensure consistency and fairness and agreement of the Senedd within the recall process.

In terms of the amendments submitted by Lesley Griffiths, as I said a moment ago, they're seeking, it seems, to achieve the same outcomes that my amendments are seeking to achieve, and I'll be happy to support those amendments. I will, however, be looking to further amend amendment 43 at Stage 3, if it is passed today, because there's one element of that that I do not agree with, even though I agree with the overall principles behind amendment 43, and that is the part of the amendment that is seeking for the guidance to be approved by resolution of the Senedd by a simple majority. I do not agree with changing this part of the Bill, as I believe it should be subject to a two-thirds majority vote of the Senedd, as this aligns with current Standing Orders in the Senedd.

As for amendment 3, I'm also happy to support that, Chair. Diolch.

I call on Sioned Williams to speak to her amendment.

I call on the Counsel General.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Thank you for inviting me to speak. As the committee has heard, amendment 3, tabled by Sioned Williams MS, would require the guidance issued to include examples of conduct that would lead to a recall sanction. It's my expectation that such guidance would need to include such examples as a matter of course in order to support the committee when considering the conduct of a Member and to provide Members with the necessary and appropriate clarity as to how the guidance will be applied. On that basis, I don't feel that amendment 3, as drafted, is necessary, and I don't support it. And it also doesn't work alongside amendments 40 to 45, which alter the structure of section 5 of the Bill, which the Member wouldn't have known when she drafted the amendment. So, I'm happy to work with the Member on a suitable amendment for Stage 3 that would—. Because I have no problem with the policy intent of the Member's amendment, so I'm very happy to work with the Member to bring something forward for Stage 3 that accomplishes the same thing in the new framework of the Bill, assuming that Lesley's amendments pass.

I note that amendments 18, 19 and 20 seek to deliver substantially the same outcomes as amendments 40 to 45, as Sam has already acknowledged. Both seek to ensure that the Standards of Conduct Committee would be under an obligation to produce recall guidance. As I set out in my response to the Stage 1 report, I'm content to accept the committee's recommendation that it should be a requirement for the Standards of Conduct Committee to produce such guidance. I'm concerned that the effect of amendment 18, however, could create a situation in which the Standards Committee could not comply with its obligation. The amendment would mean that the committee must issue guidance, but guidance cannot be issued until approved by the Senedd, something that is outside of the committee's control. So, again, we need to work to make sure that we've got a system that is coherent end to end.

I'm also conscious that amendments 18, 19 and 20 do not revise the threshold for the Senedd to approve the guidance—I understand now that Sam Rowlands doesn't support that. The threshold is set out in the Bill as a two-thirds majority, but it was a recommendation of the Stage 1 committee report that it be moved to a simple majority. And therefore amendments 40 to 45 address both of those issues. The amendments refer specifically to an obligation to lay draft recall guidance before the Senedd, which is entirely within the committee's control. The amendments also include the removal of the two-thirds majority to approve the guidance and therefore deliver more effectively the recommendations of the committee. Therefore, I would ask the committee to oppose amendments 3, 18, 19 and 20 and instead support amendments 40 to 45. Diolch.

I now ask Joyce to respond, please.

Diolch, Chair. I'm really pleased that Members have engaged in the debate. I'm really pleased to hear that the Counsel General has said that she will work particularly with Sioned Williams at Stage 3. I ask the committee to support my amendments 40 to 45.

Okay. We'll move on to consider the amendments next. Just to remind Members, if amendment 40 is agreed, amendment 18 falls. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, amendment 40 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34(i).

As such, amendment 18 falls. 

We move on to the next amendment to be considered, in that case. That's amendment 3. Sioned, do you wish to move amendment 3?

No. I'll withdraw that amendment. Thank you.

Okay. Does any other Member wish to move amendment 3? No.

Then amendment 41. Joyce, do you wish to move amendment 41?

I move.

The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Therefore, amendment 41 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34(i).

Joyce, amendment 42. Do you wish to move it?

Move.

Does any Member object to amendment 42 being agreed? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 42 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34(i).

Joyce, amendment 43. Do you wish to move it?

Move.

The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 43 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Joyce, amendment 44. Do you wish to move it?

Move.

The question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 44 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

Joyce, do you wish to move amendment 45?

Move.

I'll just remind Members, if amendment 45 is agreed, amendments 19 and 20 fall. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 45 is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 17.34.

But I remind you that amendments 19 and 20 now fall.

So, we'll now move on to group 3, regulations about recall polls. Amendments in this group relate to regulations about recall polls. The lead amendment is amendment 21, and I call on Sam Rowlands to speak and move the lead amendment and speak to the other amendment in the group.

Thank you, Chair. Group 3, regulations about recall polls, refers to section 11 of the Bill as laid, and section 11 provides Welsh Ministers with the power to make regulations governing how recall polls will operate in practice. These, of course, are not just minor or technical matters; they go to the heart of how a recall process will be delivered, how voters will participate, and how confidence, very importantly, in the system will be maintained.

So, my amendment 21 replaces the word 'may' with 'must', thereby requiring the Welsh Ministers to make regulations relating to recall polls, rather than leaving this to discretion. This is an important change because, without regulations, the recall mechanism set out in the Bill cannot operate in a clear or consistent way. Making this duty mandatory provides certainty that the framework approved by the Senedd will be capable of being implemented in practice, rather than remaining incomplete or reliant on future political decisions.

My amendment 22 strengthens the consultation requirements attached to those regulations. As drafted, consultation is limited to the Electoral Commission. This amendment would allow the commission to be consulted alongside any other persons that Welsh Ministers consider appropriate. That broader approach, in my view, is sensible and proportionate. Recall polls raise practical, legal and administrative issues that extend beyond the Electoral Commission alone. Local authorities, returning officers, accessibility groups and those with experience of running elections in Wales all have valuable expertise to offer. Ensuring that Ministers can consult a wider range of stakeholders will help produce regulations that are workable, inclusive and robust.

Taken together, these amendments promote certainty, transparency and good governance. They ensure that recall polls are not only provided for in principle, but properly regulated in practice, and that those regulations are informed by the widest and most appropriate expertise. Thank you, Chair.

Does any other Member wish to speak? [Interruption.] I'll call you now, don't worry. I therefore call the Counsel General.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I cannot support amendment 21, which would revise section 11 of the Bill to make it a requirement on Welsh Ministers to make regulations under that section. As I set out in my response to the Stage 1 report, while I recognise the importance of the regulations to be made under section 11, I consider that 'may' in the current drafting is not a true discretion. If no regulations are made, a recall system can never be implemented. Such an outcome would amount to a frustration of the will of the Senedd. Furthermore, as the regulations are subject to the Senedd approval procedure, placing the Welsh Ministers under a duty to 'make' the regulations may create a tension between the need for Ministers to comply with the duty and the discretion of the Senedd to approve, or not, the draft regulations laid before it. Therefore, I don't consider it necessary, or, indeed, appropriate to amend the existing power to a duty.

Then, in terms of amendment 22, that seeks to add 'and such other persons as they consider appropriate' to the list of statutory consultees prior to making regulations under section 11. The Electoral Commission, as Sam pointed out, is the sole specific consultee set out in the Bill as introduced. This reflects the particular role that the commission plays in the regulation of electoral events. The consultation requirement as currently drafted also seeks to replicate that which is present in the making of the conduct Order in respect of Senedd general elections. That no other statutory consultees are currently set out in section 11 of the Bill does not mean that the Welsh Ministers do not have to consult more broadly. There is a legitimate public expectation that the Welsh Government will consult with the public on regulations such as these. The Welsh Government has a long-standing commitment in respect of consultation, as shown recently when we consulted on the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025. Therefore, I do not consider it to be necessary to amend the Bill in this way, and I don't support amendment 22.

I now ask Sam if he wishes to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Chair. I note the Counsel General's comments on amendment 21, and I can understand the reasons given. I still think it strengthens the Bill if there's a 'must' there. Because whilst I understand that the practical outcomes would be the same, I think it gives that assurance to Members, and, more importantly, the electorate, that these provisions would be put in place with absolute certainty.

In terms of amendment 22, I'm a little surprised that the Counsel General will not be seeking to support this amendment. Again, I hear that it has been convention and it has happened many times in the past, but, I think, by making this explicit within the legislation, there is no harm in doing so—that the broader range of consultees should be engaged with. So, I don't see any harm in amendment 22. I absolutely accept that, in the past, this is just what has happened, but by having it in the legislation, it creates that certainty for future Parliaments.

The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I have an objection. Therefore, we will now proceed to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 21, please raise your hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise your hands. Thank you. There is a tie. I use my casting vote against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 21 is not agreed.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 22?

Yes. I move, Chair.

The question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, we move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 22, please raise your hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise your hands. Thank you. Therefore, it's a tied vote. Again, I use my casting vote against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 22 is not agreed.

We move on to group 4. The fourth group of amendments relates to disqualification following the removal of a Member of the Senedd after a recall poll. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 4. I call on Sioned Williams to move and speak to the lead amendment.

I call on the Counsel General.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I don't support this amendment as I don't believe that a Member who has been recalled by their constituents should be disqualified for a period of four years, which would, as Sioned has just said, in effect, prevent them from standing at the next election.

A recall system is designed to fill the gap in the system that currently exists between behaviour that is so serious that it's right that a person is automatically disqualified, and behaviour that it is appropriate to deal with by way of suspension or censure. I don't believe it's helpful to conflate the two systems of disqualification and recall in this way. In any event, the core purpose of a recall system is to place the decision in the hands of the voters to return that Member in the first place. It's right that such decision making then continues at the next election.

If a party chooses to select a candidate who has previously been recalled and the electorate choose to vote for that slate of candidates in full knowledge of that, then that is a legitimate decision for the electorate to make. Where there is behaviour that is so serious that we believe it is right that a person should be disqualified from being a Member or a candidate, then it is incumbent upon us to add such behaviour into the disqualification criteria.

While I appreciate the reasoning behind the amendment, of course, in seeking to address the potential for a party to choose a previously recalled Member as a candidate for a future election, it is for parties to decide who they select as their candidates. And I would expect all candidates will come under scrutiny from both the public and other parties standing in the election. Diolch.

The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, we will now proceed to a vote. Can those in favour of amendment 4 please raise their hands? Thank you. Can those against please raise their hands? Thank you. Therefore, the result is one in favour, three against. And therefore it is not agreed.

That moves us on to group 5, and the fifth group relates to the remit of the electoral management board. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 23, and I call on Sam Rowlands to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in the group. Sam.

Thank you, Chair. I will move amendment 23. In group 5, on the remit of the electoral management board, the two amendments that are in there—mine and that led by Lesley Griffiths—I think probably are trying to seek to achieve the same outcome. We're probably just approaching it from slightly different angles. Nonetheless, I will continue to seek to move my amendment and explain why I think there may be merit in them complementing each other. I'm sure the Counsel General will have a slightly different view.

My lead amendment 23 amends the 2013 Act so that recall polls held under Part 1 of the Senedd Cymru (Member Accountability and Elections) Bill are explicitly included within the commission's electoral administration functions. Recall polls are a new and significant electoral process here in Wales. They involve, as we're aware, returning officers, strict statutory timetables, regulated campaigning and the direct participation of voters.

Placing recall polls within the remit of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru ensures that they are co-ordinated alongside other elections and referenda, using the existing expertise and structures the commission already provides. Without this responsibility for co-ordination, it could become unclear, creating risks for the practical delivery of recall polls and confidence in the process. So, that's the logic behind me laying amendment 23.

I am, though, comfortable to support amendment 55 tabled by Lesley Griffiths, which I believe complements amendment 23 by bringing recall polls within the remits of the EMB, the electoral management board. This amendment does three key things, in my view. It places recall polls within the board's electoral administration functions; it gives the board powers to direct returning officers and electoral registration officers regarding recall polls; and it provides a statutory definition of a recall poll.

Together, these amendments create a coherent and robust framework for administering recall polls. My amendment ensures national co-ordination and oversight through the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, while Lesley Griffiths's amendment ensures that operational leadership and direction are clearly provided through the EMB. This combination avoids ambiguity, strengthens accountability and ensures that recall polls will be administered consistently, professionally and in line with the standards that voters expect for elections here in Wales. Diolch.

Can I call on Joyce, now, to speak to amendment 55?

Thank you, Chair. I move amendment 55 in the name of Lesley Griffiths, which seeks to give effect to the recommendations of the Stage 1 committees that recall polls should be brought within the remit of the electoral management board. The amendment would revise the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru etc Act 2013. This would mean that the administration of recall polls would be co-ordinated by the electoral management board in much the same way as other devolved electoral events in Wales. Agreement to this approach was also set out in a letter from the electoral management board to this committee. The amendment specifically adds recall polls to the electoral management board's electoral administration functions, and it enables the EMB to give direction to returning officers and electoral registration officers in respect of recall polls, providing consistency and the retention of knowledge amongst election officials.

I call on the Counsel General.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. As I set out in my response to the Stage 1 report, I'm content to accept the committee's recommendation that recall polls should be brought within the remit of the EMB. I note that both amendments in this group seek to achieve substantially the same outcome, albeit in different Parts of the Bill. I do believe that the approach taken in amendment 55, tabled by Lesley Griffiths, which brings specific oversight and direction functions within the remit of the EMB, is a more appropriate approach. I understood what Sam was saying, but actually, we don't think that the amendments are, in fact, compatible. I'm happy to have a conversation with you outside of this, Sam, to that effect. So, I'm asking the committee to oppose amendment 23 and instead support amendment 55.

Sam, to reply.

Yes, thank you, Chair. I certainly wouldn't disagree with the comments by Joyce Watson and I'm also open to the comments by the Counsel General. So, I'm just thinking, procedurally, Chair, because my amendment is the lead amendment, there's no—

You can withdraw it. You can ask to withdraw the amendment. 

But would that allow amendment 55 to continue? 

Yes.

Okay. Well, I'll wait for the question.

Right. The Member has asked to withdraw amendment 23. Does any Member object to that? I see there are no objections, therefore we will withdraw amendment 23. We will be discussing amendment 55, for consideration, a little bit later down the line.

Thank you.

Group 6—the sixth group of amendments relates to the review and interpretation of Part 1. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 24 and I call on Sam Rowlands to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in the group.

Thank you, Chair. Group 6 is the review and interpretation of Part 1, and my amendment 24, I believe, ensures transparency and accountability in the operation of the recall mechanism. It requires Ministers to report on the operation and effect of the recall process during the relevant period to provide an assessment of the associated costs and to do so following consultation with the Senedd and any other persons they consider appropriate. The report must then be published as soon as practicable after being laid.

Introducing this reporting requirement complements the other amendments I have spoken about today—those relating to the co-ordination by the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru and my support for the Lesley Griffiths's amendment on the operational remit of the EMB and the mandatory regulations under section 11. While those amendments ensure that recall polls are delivered consistently and effectively and with clear administrative responsibility, this reporting amendment, amendment 24, ensures that the Senedd can review and scrutinise the system once it's been used in practice. I guess, Chair, I'm just very aware that this is a new remit for expectation of the Senedd, so I think the principle of having a reporting mechanism is very important. In essence, it completes the accountability loop. It would put in place a robust framework for administering recall polls and would also commit to reviewing how the system actually works, its costs and any lessons that can be learnt. This will help inform any future improvements and gives the Senedd confidence that the recall mechanism is operating fairly, effectively and transparently.

I'll also be supporting amendment 1, tabled by Julie James, replacing the current reference in section 16 to the Llywydd being 'appointed' with 'elected'. This is in response, of course, to the correspondence submitted to this committee by the Llywydd referencing the terminology used within the Government of Wales Act 2006. I'd ask Members to support my amendment 25. Diolch.

Does any other Member wish to speak? I see not. I call on the Counsel General.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. As the committee has heard, amendment 24 would place a requirement on Welsh Ministers to undertake a post-legislative review of Part 1 of the Bill. As I set out in my response to the Finance Committee report, I agree that a review of a new system should be undertaken once it has been utilised. The recall system is, at its heart, a policy owned by the Senedd. Therefore, I believe it's most appropriate for the Senedd to undertake any such post-legislative review and, as such, I'm unable to support the amendment. This is in line with the approach taken with regard to the Senedd reform programme as a whole and set out in the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Act 2024. 

However, the timing of a recall poll is uncertain, and it is unclear whether the first experience of a recall poll will provide a sufficient basis for review. These are matters the Senedd can take into account at the time to determine when it would be most appropriate to undertake such a review. Members will be aware that the Bill already requires the Electoral Commission to prepare and publish a report on the administration of any recall poll, and so any review undertaken by the Senedd should be mindful of that work.

Turning to amendment 1 tabled in my name, the amendment seeks to revise the reference currently in the Bill to the Llywydd being 'appointed' to being 'elected'. This reflects the terminology set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006 and gives effect to the recommendation of the Legislation, Constitution and Justice Committee following the correspondence it received from the Llywydd. I am very grateful to the Llywydd for bringing this to the committee's attention and I urge Members to support that amendment.

Sam, do you wish to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Chair. I think it's just a general principle again about strengthening the legislation. I hear the Counsel General's comments that the Senedd should be mindful of a report produced elsewhere. What I'm trying to do is ensure that a report is properly considered in a statutory way by my amendment 24. So, I'd continue to ask Members to support that amendment as laid.

The question, therefore, is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I have an objection. Therefore, we will now proceed to a vote. Can those in favour of amendment 24 please raise your hands? Thank you. Those against, please raise your hands. Thank you. The vote is tied. Therefore, I use my casting vote against the amendment in accordance with Standard Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 24 is not agreed.

Counsel General, do you wish for me to move amendment 1?

Yes, please.

I move amendment 1 in the name of the Counsel General. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed. Does any Member object? I see no objections. Therefore, amendment 1 is agreed.

The seventh group relates to the Standards of Conduct Committee. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 25. I call on Sam Rowlands to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in the group he wishes to speak to.

Thank you, Chair. I lead a number of these groups today, I just want to make sure I get my notes in order.

It's okay. You're doing well. You've got plenty of time.

Thank you. Chair, as you mentioned, group 7 refers to the Standards of Conduct Committee within this legislation. My lead amendment 25 strengthens the independence and transparency of the committee. It ensures that certain office holders, including the First Minister, Welsh Ministers, Counsel General and the Presiding Officers, cannot serve on a committee or on any sub-committee considering the conduct of Members. This safeguard protects the integrity of the committee's work and avoids conflicts of interest.

Importantly, the amendment introduces the role of lay members appointed on merit through that fair and open competition, subject to clear disqualification and removal provisions. This adds an additional layer of impartiality, ensuring that the committee is not only composed of elected Members, but also of independent individuals who can provide objective oversight of Members' conduct. Lay members are accountable to the Senedd and may only be removed by a two-thirds majority, further protecting their independence.

My amendment 26 goes alongside amendment 25 as it removes the section related to the Standards of Conduct Committee on the face of the Bill as it stands.

My amendment 29 would ensure that Schedule 1B relating to disqualification of persons from being lay members applies to not only the Standards of Conduct Committee and its sub-committees, but also any other committee that may be established to consider the conduct of Members of the Senedd. My amendment 30 removes the two-year period that would have to elapse before someone who previously held a disqualified office would be permitted to become a lay member, meaning that membership of these offices at any stage would forever be a disqualification.

I think this does provide assurances that people who recently or in the recent past have been Members of this place or other offices would not have an undue influence over the decisions on conduct in this place. To provide assurances of this impartiality, I've included an amendment to disqualify previously elected members of any provision from being a lay member at any time. This ensures there is no risk of political interference by lay members, both perceived and real. I think it's an important point, Chair, and it's the perception of the role of lay members in this decision-making committee.

Turning to amendments tabled by Lesley Griffiths, I will be supporting amendments 46, 47, 48, 50, 51 and 54. However, I will be voting against amendment 49 and I just want to make it clear as to why I'm doing that. It's because it appears to tighten eligibility by listing specific offices, but it still leaves the door open for previous political positions to become lay members, and particularly it includes, it seems, the inclusion of councillors.

By allowing individuals who hold or have held local council positions to remain eligible, it risks enabling the governing party potentially to appoint their own political allies into the post, rather than ensuring genuine independence and impartiality. The breadth of offices listed, combined with the retrospective inclusion of those who've previously held them, weaken safeguards against politicisation and could undermine public confidence in the neutrality of the role. At a time when trust in public appointments is crucial, the amendment does not go far enough to prevent perceived or actual conflicts of interest, and in my view, therefore, should not be supported. I'd be interested to hear from the Member who laid the amendment as to why they feel it's appropriate for councillors to be excluded from that list of disqualified individuals. We know councillors hold a significant political position here in Wales and their level of political influence should not be underestimated.

I'll also be voting against amendments 5 and 8 tabled by Sioned Williams. Amendment 5 would allow sub-committees made up entirely of lay members to determine cases involving alleged dishonesty by Members of the Senedd. While lay involvement is important, removing elected Members entirely from such serious and sensitive proceedings risks undermining democratic accountability and balance. Allegations of dishonesty are significant and it's extremely difficult to define what should be deemed as dishonest. I believe that Members of the Senedd should be involved at stages that are in relation to conduct of Members of the Senedd.

As for Adam's amendment 32, I'm not yet certain about this amendment and I’d be interested to hear his comments on it, because although it removes the broader provision for lay-only sub-committees and replaces it with a more clearly defined Senedd standards panel focused specifically on appeals and reviews, it still proposes a body made up entirely of lay members. Excluding elected Members entirely from the appeals stage raises questions about democratic accountability and the overall balance of the system. This risks creating a disconnect between the Senedd and the standards process that governs its Members. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I call on Joyce to speak to the amendments tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to speak to amendments 46 and 47 that provide for the mandating of the appointment of lay Members and that they must be appointed to the committee by at least May 2027. This will work alongside the provision in the Bill that provides that the committee will be a statutory committee of the Senedd. On the appointment of lay members, however, in order to make the system of appointments effective, amendment 48 includes provision that will retain some high-level detail relating to the appointment. This provides a sensible direction for how this detail should be provided for in Standing Orders and includes the length of appointment and that this should be renewable once, as suggested by the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee.

Amendment 49 will ensure the independence, including political independence, of lay members by providing for disqualification of the following: current and former elected embers of all parliaments and legislatures of the UK, current members of the House of Lords, current elected members of community and county borough councils in Wales, current and former police and crime commissioners for police areas in Wales and England, and current holders of any of the disqualifying offices in Schedule 1A of the Government of Wales Act 2006, with the exception of the judicial offices.

I am now going to speak to amendment 50, which ensures the effectiveness of the other amendments related to the appointment of lay members. They ensure that for the first year of the new Senedd, a Standards of Conduct Committee that does not have lay members due to recruitment timescales is still validly constituted. Amendments 51 and 54 remove Schedule 1 of the Bill, given that the amendments above insert the disqualification criteria into the main section of the Bill. Schedule 1 is therefore no longer required. I ask Members to support the amendments tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

I call on Sioned Williams to speak to her amendments.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I will speak to amendment 5 tabled in my name. The purpose of this amendment is to include, within the Standing Orders of the standards committee, a provision to enable the establishment of a sub-committee of lay members to consider instances where a Member of the Senedd is alleged to have been dishonest. The best disinfectant to deceit and dishonesty and deception—which, as I mentioned previously, has so badly corroded our political landscape in recent years—is transparency, and what better way of securing the credibility of this legislation in the eyes of the public than to give them a formal, legally defined role in scrutinising instances of deceptive behaviour in the Senedd?

We cannot allow the processes set out by this Bill to be perceived as a way for Senedd Members to mark their own homework. So, we believe this amendment, as well as other similar amendments in this group, which we will support, goes some way towards addressing this risk. Though since amendment 26 would disapply both amendments 5 and 32 in this group, we will be opposing that amendment.

The intention of amendment 8 was to extend the exclusion period for individuals who have held offices that disqualify them from sitting as lay members from two to four years, because we were not convinced that the current period of two years provides sufficient separation of the committee in question from party political influence. I am, however, aware that amendment 54 in this group would permanently disqualify individuals who have held the aforementioned positions from being eligible to sit as lay members. That is an argument I am sympathetic to and, as such, I would be prepared to support this amendment at the expense of my amendment. Diolch.

I call on Adam Price to speak to his amendment.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendment 32 seeks to build upon the principles behind the provision already in the Bill in relation to the creation of lay members, which, as Sam Rowlands has already referred to, is intended to provide the public with a greater guarantee of objectivity so that we're not, as with the phrase that is often used, marking our own homework. And so that that's a means, therefore, of improving trust and the credibility of the system. What it seeks to do, essentially, Chair, is to take that further and provide the facility for a lay-only sub-committee, which would deal with reviews and appeals referred to it, and places that on a statutory footing. The benefit of that is that it gives greater clarity, it gives permanence and also I think it gives public status to the idea of a lay panel, which the amendment calls the Senedd's standards panel. It also provides for that panel to have a legally qualified chair.

It's not a unique proposal. It's analogous, really, to structures that other parliaments have put in place for exactly the same reasons. There are certain categories of cases that are not appropriate, in order to maintain public trust, for example, in order to ensure that the interests of all concerned with the case are properly addressed; sensitive cases involving inter-personal conduct, misconduct; where there is clearly—. As the standards committee in its own work has already identified—and I think the letter does confirm—the standards committee supports the idea in principle of a lay-only panel under certain circumstances. And there are other cases. Veracity, for example, is one where it is contradictory, I think, or problematic to ask one set of politicians to sit in judgment on another politician's truthfulness, because it's hard for the public to take outside of that decision-making context whether cases are being weaponised, et cetera.

The House of Commons, through the independent expert panel, provides this independent route precisely for the reasons that I've outlined, for sensitive conduct cases, and I believe that it is chaired by a senior judicial figure, along similar lines as those that this amendment suggests. And in Ireland, the Standards in Public Office Commission is structured somewhat differently, but, again, is chaired by a judge or retired judge, reflecting the same logic of independence and legal robustness.

And I think implicit in having a legally qualified chair is that one would expect that that chair, in discussion with the standards committee, et cetera, would want to put in place procedural rules and guidelines, as other similar bodies have done, to make sure that they are robust legally because the consequences, of course, can be very serious. So, article 6 of the European convention in terms of the right to a fair trial does arise. And having a statutory panel—. If the standards committee does want to refer it to an independent panel, then it's important that it's legally robust, and one of the ways of doing that is to put it on a statutory footing, as we suggest here, and also to provide for it being chaired by a legally qualified person.

The letter from the standards committee Chair does raise two matters, which I want to briefly deal with if I may, Chair. The issue about a single-person panel, I think that could be dealt with either at the further stage or by Standing Orders. Panels of this nature that are chaired by a legally qualified person often sit in other contexts with a single person, where they're dealing with highly technical matters. But I fully accept that a multi-person panel would be most appropriate in most circumstances. But I think that that could be dealt with by the means that I've just described.

And in terms of the relationship between amendments 5 and 32, they raise different issues. One is whether all questions regarding dishonesty should be reverted to an independent panel. Amendment 32 is about the creation of an independent panel for whatever cases the standards committee feels appropriate. It's possible to agree with both amendments—we do. It's possible to agree with one and not the other; that's why they have been presented as different amendments. To the extent that they are in conflict, or there needs to be some tidying up, I think that could be dealt with at Stage 3, and I don't want to try your patience any further, Chair. 

I call on the Counsel General.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I have considered the views of this committee and the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee on the provisions of section 18 of the Bill as introduced. I understand that the committee in recommendation 8 and conclusion 9 of its report sought to give effect to the Llywydd’s view, expressed in her consultation response to the committee, that the Senedd should have maximum control in determining the detail of its own arrangements. While I understand the Llywydd’s position, I believe that the Senedd can, where appropriate, place requirements and parameters on itself. A future Senedd can of course legislate to remove those requirements and parameters, in the same way that it can choose to amend its Standing Orders.

Following further reflection and discussion with Members since the Stage 1 debate, I believe the Bill currently strikes the right balance between what is prescribed in legislation and what is left to be determined in Standing Orders. I also agree with Members who feel we should ensure that the Standards of Conduct Committee is able to benefit from the appointment of lay members, and I therefore support amendments 46 to 48, tabled by Lesley Griffiths, that would make it mandatory for there to be lay members appointed to the Standards of Conduct Committee.

I am also supportive of the transitional provision in amendment 50 that would allow the Standards of Conduct Committee to operate effectively in the first year of a new Senedd pending the appointment of lay members.

In support of amendments 49, 51 and 54, tabled by Lesley Griffiths, I note that the disqualification criteria for lay Members largely provide for what the committee requested. There is a minor difference, as Members have pointed out, in approach for former members of the House of Lords, former members of a council of a county, county borough or community, and those who have previously held, but do not currently hold, offices listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1A to the Government of Wales Act 2006.

Amendment 49 does not make any provision about the eligibility of those former office holders. It will be open to the Senedd, through their recruitment process, to decide whether such former office holders may be eligible or not. I do hear what Sam said about this, and I understand the issue around the potential politicisation of the system. But I am really concerned that the Senedd is not unduly constrained in attracting the widest pool of people possible with requisite knowledge and experience. Not all councillors are political; some of them are just public-spirited people, particularly at the community council level. So, I think it is about trying to strike the right balance, although I very much hear what Sam said about some of the concerns. 

I said during Stage 1 scrutiny that it can be very difficult to attract applicants for some of these posts, and I'm concerned that the Senedd has a system that operates. The approach taken through the amendments seeks to ensure that those who have previously put themselves forward for civic positions, and therefore those who wish to contribute to public life in Wales, can be utilised, whilst ensuring that any wider potential conflicts of interests can be considered appropriately and robustly through the appointments process.

I don't support amendment 8, but Sioned herself understands why, I think, because we've taken it slightly further than the amendment. And I note that amendments 29 and 30, tabled by Sam Rowlands, seek to revise the title of Schedule 1 and to remove the two-year period for disqualification also. So, as I set out, I believe the amendments tabled by Lesley Griffiths will comprehensively set out the disqualification provisions, and, therefore, I don't support amendments 29 and 30. 

With regard to Sioned William’s amendment 5 that would allow the sub-committee of the Standards of Conduct Committee to hear cases where a Member has been dishonest, I don't think this is necessary. The purpose of the sub-committee, which can be composed of entirely lay Members, as provided for by section 18 of the Bill, is for the purpose of providing an appeal or review mechanism for the standards process. I don't think the case has been sufficiently made that there should be a different approach to adjudicating on misconduct in the form of dishonesty by a Member compared with any other kind of misconduct.

The Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee and the commissioner for standards have both said previously that the committee does not wish to see a hierarchy of misconduct, and therefore the process should be same regardless of the nature of the allegations made regarding a Member’s conduct. I also note that, with the provisions in section 18 of the Bill and the amendments moved today that provide for the mandating of lay members, the committee will be able to make use of the independence and expertise of those appointed, including in cases where a Member has been dishonest.

Turning to Adam Price’s amendment 32, which would explicitly enable Standing Orders to rename a sub-committee as a 'Senedd Standards Panel', and require that such a panel be chaired by a legally qualified person, it is my view that there is nothing in this legislation that, if passed, would prevent the Senedd from amending the Standing Orders to do just that. On that basis, I don't think the amendment is necessary to achieve the objective set out, and, actually, removes some desirable flexibility. But I fully understand what Adam is trying to achieve, and I'm very happy to discuss with him ways of achieving it that are compatible with some of the new amended drafting prior to Stage 3. And that's the end of my remarks. Thank you, Chair.

I call on Sam to reply.

Thank you, Chair. I'm grateful to all Members who have engaged in the amendments and discussed those here this morning. There is clearly a broad consensus about what's trying to be achieved with the amendments that have been laid by Members from across the parties, which, as we would want, just tighten up and strengthen some of the provisions, in particular around the role of lay members of any future standards consideration.

I heard the comments from Joyce Watson in relation to Lesley Griffiths, and also those of the Counsel General, specifically in relation to amendment 49. I do accept them, to a certain extent, but I think the premise remains, if the intention is to remove political interference or perceived politicisation of the role of lay members. I think that has been accepted as a principle, and that principle is laid out in amendment 49, because Lesley Griffiths acknowledges that certain elected positions, even former elected positions, should not be lay members. But I do find it strange that an exception is made for former Members of the House of Lords, which I accept aren't always political, but invariably are. And former councillors, again not always political, but I think the public would perceive them to be very political. It's quite difficult to argue, for argument's sake in this room, that a former Liberal Democrat leader of a council does not have a political bone in their body and therefore should be fine to be a lay member. I find that exception quite difficult to accept. I understand the concerns about the availability of lay members to all sorts of boards and bodies here in Wales, but I'm not sure if, in particular this body here in the Senedd, which is the ultimate political arena in Wales, that is a good enough argument to ensure that the intent of removal of political interference is being met.

We heard the arguments in favour of their amendments from both Sioned Williams and Adam Price. I personally remain unconvinced of the merits of these, but it was nonetheless very useful to hear their arguments, Chair, but I'm happy to leave things there.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we will move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 25, please raise your hands. Thank you. Those against, please raise your hands. Thank you. Again, the vote is tied. I use my casting vote against the amendment in accordance with Standing Order 6.20, so the amendment is not agreed.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 26?

Yes, move, Chair.

If amendment 26 is agreed, amendments 46, 47, 32, 5, 48, 49, 50 and 51 all fall. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, therefore we'll now proceed to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 26, please raise your hands. Thank you. Those against amendment 26, please raise your hands. Thank you. In favour, one. Against, three. Therefore amendment 26 is not agreed.

Joyce, do you wish to move amendment 46? 

Move.

The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections, therefore amendment 46 is agreed.

Joyce, amendment 47, do you wish to move it?

Move.

The question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections, therefore amendment 47 is agreed.

Adam, do you wish to move amendment 32?

No, I'd like to withdraw.

Amendment 32 is not moved. 

Therefore, we will move on to amendment 5. Sioned, do you wish to move amendment 5? 

Yes.

The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore we will now proceed to a vote on amendment 5. Those in favour please raise your hand. In favour one, against three. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.

Joyce, do you wish to move amendment 48?

Move.

The question is that amendment 48 is agreed. Does any Member object? There is no objection. Therefore, amendment 48 is agreed.

Joyce, amendment 49. Do you wish to move it?

Move.

The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, we now move to a vote on amendment 49. Those in favour please raise your hand. Thank you. Those against please raise your hand. Thank you. Those in favour three, one against. Therefore, amendment 49 is agreed.

Joyce, do you wish to move amendment 50?

Move.

The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 50 is agreed.

Joyce, do you wish to move amendment 51?

Move.

The question is that amendment 51 is agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 51 is agreed.

That takes us to group 8. The eighth group of amendments relates to the Senedd commissioner for standards and eligibility. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 27, and I call on Sam Rowlands to move and speak to the amendments in the group.

Thank you again, Chair. As you say, group 8 relates to the Senedd Commissioner for Standards, and particularly the eligibility of persons in that role. My amendment 27 is linked to amendment 30 in the previous group. This amendment would alter the National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards Measure 2009 to permanently disqualify former Members of the Senedd from becoming the commissioner for standards.

Amendment 28 alters the National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards Measure 2009 to include the listed offices in the list of persons not eligible to be appointed commissioner for standards. This again aligns with the desire to ensure this role is impartial from political interference.

As for the other amendments in this group, I will be voting against amendment 52, because, whilst I understand the argument that someone who currently holds elected office should not be eligible to serve, and I agree with that principle, I cannot support this amendment because it removes important safeguards and, again, leaves the door open for individuals with recent political ties to be appointed. Similar arguments to what I was making a few moments ago—that risks creating a perception that the role could be filled by political allies rather than through a genuinely independent and impartial process. Whether intentional or not, it could weaken confidence in the independence of the commissioner for standards, and public trust in office must be beyond question.

I'll be supporting amendment 53, as it means that a person serving as commissioner for standards would be terminated from the role in the event that they became a member of the listed bodies. Diolch, Chair.

I call on Joyce to speak to the amendments tabled in the name of Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm going to speak to amendment 2, which provides for the disqualification of anyone who is currently or has ever been an MP, a Member of the Scottish Parliament, a Member of the Northern Ireland Assembly, a Member of the House of Lords or a police and crime commissioner in England or Wales. It also provides for a disqualification of anyone who is currently a community or county councillor in Wales, and, finally, it provides for a disqualification for a period of two years prior to the date of appointment of a former community or county councillor. The committee will note that the list of offices in amendment 52 does not include a Member of the Senedd. That is because disqualification is already provided for by way of section 1(3)(a) of the National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards Measure 2009. However, the amendment does remove the current two-year disqualification period for a former Member to be able to be appointed as the commissioner, and replaces it with a permanent disqualification.

Amendment 53 complements amendment 52 by disqualifying anyone from being the commissioner who gets elected to any of the offices listed in the amendment or is appointed to the House of Lords. Amendment 53 does not include reference to election as a Senedd Member as, again, it's already covered by Schedule 1A of the Government of Wales Act, which disqualifies a person from being a candidate to or a Member of the Senedd if they hold the position of commissioner. And I ask for support for the amendments in this group, 52 and 53.

Does any other Member wish to speak before I call the Counsel General? No. Okay. Counsel General.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Sam Rowlands's amendments 27 and 28 seek to give effect to the committee's recommendations regarding the eligibility of who can be commissioner. However, I believe that amendments 52 and 53, tabled by Lesley Griffiths, take the right approach, by replicating as far as possible the disqualification criteria for lay members. In particular, I support the permanent disqualification of anyone who has, at any point, been a Member of the Senedd. This addresses the concerns that I know have been raised in the Standards of Conduct Committee and by this committee.

I also support some of the other changes in amendment 52, but I'm actually very struck by some of the arguments, Sam, that you've been making about the disqualification period being—and Sioned's earlier discussion about the two-year period being—too short. I think we need to discuss further for Stage 3 whether there is some way of differentiating, for example, executive members of a council from other members, whilst not diminishing the pool. So, whilst I—. Some of things in amendment 52, I want to hold to; some of the others, I think, need further discussions. So, I may ask, Chair, for you not to move amendment 52, and then we can come back and discuss at Stage 3—. Well, in between now and Stage 3, we can discuss whether there's an amendment, Chair, that the committee might support unanimously in terms of what the disqualification criteria more widely might look like. Because I think we want to make sure we have as wide a pool as possible of civic-minded individuals across Wales who might put themselves forward, whilst making sure that we don't have any political—or the perception of political—motivation for people coming forward. So, I think we're prepared to have another look at the disqualification criteria and, in particular, the period of disqualification for that one.

Just to correct you—I won't be moving 52; Joyce will be moving 52.

Sorry. Excuse me, Joyce. I might ask you not to put it to the vote—you've already moved it—because I think it requires a further discussion. I think we all probably agree that there are merits in everything that somebody has said today in the committee, Chair, but I don't think any of the amendments quite encapsulate what we're trying to do. So, we'll work with Members to bring forward something for Stage 3 that I think reflects the entirety of the conversation.  

There are some other things to say, though. In respect of the role of Counsel General, if a person holds this office who is not a Member of the Senedd, the 2009 Measure already provides for a disqualification of two years having to elapse before a person who has been Counsel General could be appointed as commissioner. Again, I think that's worthy of a discussion. We've had several political Counsel Generals—I am myself one such person—but there have been Counsel Generals who are judicial and who are politically more neutral than an elected politician. I think it's worthy of a discussion as to whether every one of those should automatically be disqualified. 

The Measure also contains provisions for the same two-year period of disqualification for individuals who have held other roles; for example, a member of staff of the Welsh Government. And that's why the two-year period is in the 2009 Measure. So, I think this needs to be looked at a bit further. I think the committee's general view is that two years is too short, and so I'm prepared to work with the committee to bring forward amendments at Stage 3 that address that. And I'd welcome a discussion between now and Stage 3 with the committee. No doubt, the committee will take a view itself, Chair, as to what that might look like. On that basis, I think that I will ask Joyce not to put amendment 52 to the vote.

Fifty-three.

Fifty-two.

Fifty-two.

Fifty-two. Sorry, my hearing's—.

Fifty-two.

Sam Rowlands to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Chair. I'm grateful to the comments from both Joyce Watson and from the Counsel General to the group of amendments. In particular, Counsel General, your reflection on amendment 52, I think, is fair. I think there is genuinely a conversation to be had on the difference between someone who, at some point, was a community councillor versus somebody who was in a much more politically influential position. If some of that nuance could be outlined in an appropriate amendment, I think there would be more consensus. So, I'm grateful for your reflections on that.

In terms of the other amendments, there's no further comment from me, Chair. Diolch.

Before I move to the vote, just for clarification, in the remit was established for this committee, it will dissolve after Stage 2. So, the Counsel General will need to have discussions with members in their Member of the Senedd role, rather than the committee per se.

Forgive me, Cadeirydd; I had forgotten. I'd forgotten that that's the committee's remit.

Just for clarity.

I'm offering to have a discussion with all of the current members of the committee, and, indeed, other Members who've shown an interest throughout, about how we might reach a consensus for Stage 3 on this disqualification point.

The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Does any Member object. [Objection.] I have an objection. Therefore, we will move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 27 please raise your hands. Those against amendment 27 please your hands. There is a tied vote, and therefore I use my casting vote in the negative, against the amendment, according to Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 27 is not agreed.

Joyce, do you wish to move amendment 52?

No.

Amendment 52 is therefore withdrawn.

Sam, do you wish to move amendment 28?

Yes. Move, Chair.

The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, we will move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 28 please raise your hands.

Sorry. I've got slightly lost, Chair.

It's your amendment.

My amendment, 28. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. I was looking at the wrong page.

Thank you. Those against amendment 28 please raise your hands. The vote is tied. Therefore, I will use my casting vote against the amendment in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Amendment 28 is not agreed.

Joyce, do you wish to move amendment 53?

Move.

The question is that amendment 53 be agreed. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 53 is agreed.

We now dispose of amendments 54, 29, 30 and 8, which were debated as part of group 7. So, Joyce, do you wish to move amendment 54?

Move.

If amendment 54 is agreed, amendments 29, 30 and 8 fall. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 54 is agreed.

And, as it was agreed, amendments 29, 30 and 8 fall.

So, we now move to amendment 55. Joyce, do you wish to move amendment 55?

Move.

The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 55 is agreed.

That takes us on to group 9, the Senedd Commissioner for Standards, amendments to the National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards Measure 2009. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 11. 

I will move amendment 11 in the name of Hannah Blythyn, and I ask Joyce Watson to speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in the group.

Okay. Just a second. Thank you, Chair. I don't have anything to add to this amendment apart from what is drafted. It will provide the ability for the commissioner to take evidence from a person either in person or via video link. It requests that a person answer questions put to them by the commissioner in writing within such time as the commissioner requires. The amendment also includes a definition of what is meant by a 'live video link'. 

Does any Member wish to speak to these amendments? I call the Counsel General.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Can I thank the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee for bringing forward these amendments and taking the time to discuss these issues with me? Strengthening the standards system is a key ambition behind this Bill, and I welcome the intent behind all of these amendments. Whilst I agree entirely with the principle underpinning most of these amendments, in some cases, I have concerns about how the amendments operate within the structure of the existing legislation that they would amend. In these cases, while I don't support the amendments today, I look forward to continuing to work with the committee collaboratively to bring forward amendments at Stage 3 that will be supported. On others, my concerns go beyond the detail of the wording, and I’ll explain why we don't feel we're able to support them today.

Turning to the substantive amendments, amendment 11 would enable the commissioner to take evidence via video link rather than in person. I'm supportive of the principle of enabling evidence to be given via live video link and for the commissioner to be able to request written responses. But I believe further consideration is needed as to how these new powers are given effect within the existing structure of the 2009 Measure.

Similarly with amendment 12, I agree that, in this digital age, the commissioner should be able to carry out his role by engaging with witnesses, including requesting documents, electronically, but I think the amendment would benefit from some further consideration to ensure it can operate effectively within the existing legislative system. I welcome the opportunity to discuss this with the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee. Therefore, on that basis, for these first two amendments, I suggest to the Chair that we hold discussions, including with officials, and look to bring back a revised set of amendments at Stage 3. I've spoken to the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, who I know is very happy to work with me for appropriate amendments to come forward at Stage 3.

In relation to amendment 13, I recognise the objective of having a translator take an oath when providing a service to the commissioner in the process of collecting witness evidence. I do think this could be achieved without a legislative change and through an amendment to the rules and complaints procedure under which the commissioner carries out his role. I'm happy to consider the matter further with the Chair of the committee, with a view to reaching a mutually agreeable position involving an amendment at Stage 3.

Amendment 14 would create a new offence of obstructing the commissioner in performing their role, and makes reference to attempting to prevent or dissuade someone from giving evidence to the commissioner. It is clearly unacceptable that anyone would do this, and it's behaviour such as this that undermines our standards process. With this Bill, we are seeking to strengthen that. Having said that, this amendment will create a new criminal offence, and can potentially result in serious consequences for the person convicted of it, including, if in line with the other offences set out in the 2000 Measure, a period of imprisonment. I feel that to create such an offence would require a full justice system impact assessment, with appropriate engagement with the Ministry of Justice. Chair, I'm sorry to say I just don't think there's sufficient time to carry out such an assessment within the Bill's timetable to provide sufficient assurance to the proposed offence. I think further work should be undertaken on this, and I'm sure the Government would wish to assist in any undertaking to take on such engagement with the UK Government.

Finally, turning to amendment 15, relating to the ability of the commissioner to disclose information about a complaint, I don't feel able to support this amendment for the following reasons: I'm of the view that the current provisions in section 16 of the 2009 Measure remain an appropriate safeguard for all parties to investigations. Secondly, the effect of the amendment would be to allow Standing Orders to set up the detail of when and in what circumstances the commissioner would be able to disclose details of a complaint or investigation. I believe having this detail in Standing Orders instead of the provisions in section 16 would undermine the independence of the commissioner. This amendment would mean the Standing Orders, which are agreed by Members, would be instructing the commissioner in how he should operate. This would create a tension with the statutory requirement in section 5 of the Measure that the commissioner is not subject to the direction or control of the Senedd in the exercise of his functions. This does not seem appropriate, given, I think Members would agree, the commissioner role being independent is an important element of our standards process.

I'm prepared to work with the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee on this suite of amendments to bring forward ones that everyone can support at Stage 3. Diolch.

I call on Joyce to reply to the debate.

I have nothing further to add, except that I wish to withdraw amendment 11 at this stage, and also amendments 12, 13, 14 and 15.

Are Members content to accept the withdrawal of amendment 11? I see they are. Therefore, amendment 11 is withdrawn.

Joyce, you have indicated that you will not be moving amendments 12, 13, 14 and 15. Is that correct?

That's correct.

Therefore, we will not be voting on or asking for those amendments and will allow the Counsel General to have that discussion with the Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee for Stage 3 proceedings.

That brings us to group 10. At this point, we'll take a short break. It's almost 10:50. Shall we stop until 11 o'clock? We'll reconvene at 11 o'clock.

Welcome back to this morning's session of the Member Accountability Bill Committee. We are undertaking Stage 2 proceedings. 

We will now move on to group 10 of amendments, relating to the Senedd Commissioner for Standards and provision relating to the Welsh language. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 9. I call on Sioned Williams to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments within the group.

Does any Member wish to speak to these before I call on the Counsel General? Counsel General. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm not supporting amendment 9 tabled by Sioned Williams today, which would require that when any future commissioner for standards is recruited, candidates are assessed for their knowledge and proficiency of Welsh and confirmation must be provided that the person appointed has sufficient knowledge of and proficiency in the language. I entirely appreciate the intent behind the amendment, but I do not see the need to make this a legislative requirement. No other criteria for the role are set out in the 2009 Measure, although I do acknowledge that it does include the disqualification criteria we've debated today.

I will turn shortly to an amendment that would seek to bring the Senedd Commissioner for Standards within the Welsh language standards as overseen by the Welsh Language Commissioner. It is the application of the Welsh language standards specifically that would ensure that the Welsh language is treated no less favourably than the English language, not the individual who holds the office. I do believe these provisions collectively provide the right balance between ensuring that qualified candidates are not prevented from applying for the role of standards commissioner whilst ensuring that all Members and witnesses are able to effectively conduct any business with the commissioner in the Welsh language. I do believe it is their right to be able to do so, and that we should facilitate their ability. So, I do take the point you were making, Sioned. 

In terms of my substantive amendment, amendment 2 facilitates making the commissioner for standards subject to the Welsh language standards, as recommended by the committee. The amendment will add the commissioner to the list of public bodies in Schedule 6 to the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011, which includes the categories of standards. I know Members have looked carefully at amendment 10 tabled in the name of Sioned Williams, which would make the Welsh Language Standards (No. 2) Regulations 2016 specifically applicable to the commissioner immediately if the Bill receives Royal Assent, but even with the addition of what that amendment could do, the commissioner would not be subject to compliance with the standards until the Welsh Language Commissioner has issued a compliance notice and that notice is in force. This can only be issued after consultation has taken place between the commissioners on the content of the notice, and therefore this amendment couldn't have immediate impact. I appreciate what the amendment is seeking to achieve, but I'm still of the view that the approach of my amendment is appropriate. This will allow for consultation to take place on both the subsequent regulations and consultation between the Welsh Language Commissioner and the standards commissioner on which standards should apply to such a specialist role as performed by the commissioner.

I do want to say, Sioned, that I've had the opportunity of an extremely brief informal conversation with the Welsh Language Commissioner on this, but I will seek to have a formal conversation with her between now and Stage 3. She, I understand, has a preference for the alternative set out in amendment 10, so I do acknowledge that, but the approach of our amendment is not without precedent. It's how we've done recent legislation, which created the new public bodies, which, indeed, you referenced. So, the approach taken with my amendment of adding the commissioner to Schedule 6 to the Measure provides for the opportunity of a full assessment as to which standards from which set of regulations could be made specifically applicable to the commissioner before the commissioner is added to that set of regulations. I think that allows dedicated attention to be given to the issue properly, rather than rolling it up into this Bill. But I'm more than happy—. I will seek to have a formal meeting with the Welsh Language Commissioner—as I said, I've only had the chance of an informal conversation with her on this so far—before I bring forward any Stage 3 amendments.

Chair, I wonder if I could just say that I don't want the committee to have a misleading impression from what I said. Just to be really clear, my officials have engaged formally with the standards commissioner. I was merely pointing out that I personally had only had the chance for an informal meeting, and I will seek a formal meeting with her between now and Stage 3. So, just to be really clear that that's the situation.

Thank you for the clarification, and that is now recorded as well.

Can I come back? 

You can come back, because you should have been finishing off anyway.

My understanding is that the commissioner has—sorry, it echoes when you do that. My understanding is the commissioner has expressed a preference for the amendment 10 route, and that's why I want to have a discussion with her before Stage 3. So, I'm not ruling that out, but I personally have not had that discussion with her, Sioned. So, I will make sure that that happens. But as I said in my contribution, the commissioner has said that, and I set out the reasons why I didn't, at this point in time, support that.

And that's the end of the discussion. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, we will move to a vote on amendment 9. All those in favour of amendment 9 please raise your hands. Thank you. All those against amendment 9 please raise your hands. There is a tied vote. Therefore, in accordance with Standard Order 6.20, I will use my casting vote against the amendment. Therefore, amendment 9 is not agreed.

Counsel General, do you wish me to move amendment 2?

Yes, please.

Therefore, I move amendment 2 in the name of the Counsel General. Is there an objection to amendment 2? There is no objection. Therefore, amendment 2 is agreed.

Sioned, do you wish to move amendment 10?

I do.

The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. Therefore, we will move to a vote. Can all those in favour of amendment 10 please raise your hands? Thank you. Can all those against amendment 10 please raise your hands? Thank you. Again, there is a tied vote. Therefore, I use my casting vote against amendment 10, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20. Therefore, amendment 10 is not agreed.

We now move on to the final group of amendments, group 11. These relate to the conduct of Senedd Cymru elections. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 33.

I will move amendment 33 in the name of Adam Price, and I call on Adam to speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. All the amendments in this group relate to section 22 of the Bill currently, which places a duty on Welsh Ministers to make regulations dealing with false or misleading statements of fact made for the purpose of affecting the return of a candidate at a Senedd election.

During Stage 1 scrutiny, the two Senedd committees raised concerns with this approach of creating a criminal offence through secondary legislation. My amendments largely seek to provide two alternative solutions to that issue. I'll go through them in order. Amendment 33, the first solution, really, is to place the offence on the face of the Bill, and that's what amendment 33 does. It inserts a new section, and amendment 34 is consequential for this purpose. It's a new offence, narrowly focused only on Members of the Senedd as candidates dishonestly making a representation that's untrue or misleading or the person knows it is or might be, and they intend, by making it, to affect the return of a candidate. It also includes reference to what's known colloquially as deepfake video and audio, and a further amendment in this group by Sioned Williams also addresses that issue.

There are in-built safeguards here that are designed in order to clearly focus the offence on the intended harm that is related to deliberate deception. There's a defence in terms of—. If it's a statement of opinion, belief or future intention, that's not covered. There's a defence for retraction. Also there's a bar on independent private prosecutions. In terms of what we've used in drawing up this draft offence, it draws largely on the language of section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006, and this was reflected in the evidence given by the Criminal Bar Association Wales to this committee, I believe. Also, we've drawn upon some of the language of the Stage 2 section that was passed in the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Act 2024.

Amendment 31, then, connected to this, provides for disqualification following conviction as an additional sanction. Amendment 38 allows for the court to order publication on conviction of a summary of the judgement, with directions as to wording. We're trying to address deliberate deception, so it may be useful for the court to be able to direct a convicted person also to issue the retraction that they have previously failed to issue.

So, that's one way of addressing some of the issues that were raised at Stage 1. The other way is to retain, essentially, section 22, but to put some additional detail on the face of the Bill. So, amendment 35 places a definition of falsity on the face of the primary legislation. So, even though the main offence will still be produced through secondary legislation, there would be, then, if amendment 35 is passed, a definition that, again, mirrors the Fraud Act language, and that, really, ensures that the regulations cannot drift, for example, into criminalising honest error, or honest belief or opinion. So, it provides that guardrail to make sure that there is not mission creep, if I can put it in those terms.

Amendment 36 is drafted more as a probing amendment. It’s asking, ‘What is the status, potentially, of statements made outside of Wales?’ It’s trying to reflect the realities of digital campaigning. So, if the harm that we’re trying to prevent is, I don’t know, the bot farms et cetera flooding the zone, which I think is the term that’s sometimes used, with falsehoods deliberately to unfairly impact an election, the essential aim of this offence is to prevent that happening. Well, what if the source of those digital interventions is outside of Wales? Really, I’d be interested in hearing the Counsel General's remarks in regard to that. Is an amendment necessary or is this already covered in some other way?

Amendment 37 seeks to provide some additional safeguards for a process of creating a criminal offence through secondary legislation by creating a very long runway, if you like, in terms of consultation, in terms of the provision of a draft offence, and then as extensive a process of scrutiny as our procedures allow within the Senedd. So, that’s what amendment 37 does, in order to provide enough space for scrutiny both inside and outside the Senedd.

Amendment 39 applies to both solutions, if you like, either putting it on the face of the Bill, the full offence, or leaving it to secondary legislation, but providing for post-legislative review. I’ve tried to cover the ground there. I think I’ll leave it there, and, obviously, if there are any specific comments or queries, I can respond to them in my closing remarks.

I call on Sioned Williams to speak to her amendments.

Diolch. Amendment 6 in this group would place an obligation on Welsh Ministers to make provisions on prohibiting deliberate deception within a period of two years after the upcoming Senedd election. It’s regrettable that the Government's original pledge to legislate on deliberate deception before the end of this Senedd term wasn't given perhaps the space it was needed and the time that was needed to do that. But what we have in this Bill are basic foundations, some of the practical detail yet to be fleshed out, and while we completely acknowledge the complexity of legislating in this area, we have to be alive to the present and urgent threat posed to our democracy from the agents of misinformation. Time is really of the essence to reinforce the defences of our democracy against this onslaught of deception, of deliberate misinformation, and to reassure, obviously, the Welsh people that the principles of truth and honesty and transparency are considered with the utmost seriousness.

So, amendment 7, then, would provide on the face of the Bill a clarification that political material defined as deliberate deception would include deepfake imagery. We know, of course, that the sophistication of this technology is evolving at a hugely rapid pace, but we're already at a stage where reality and fakery are becoming almost indistinguishable to the naked eye. We also, of course, know that certain political actors, especially, have shown no hesitation in utilising this technology to nefarious ends. So, by placing this clarification specifically on the face of the Bill, we can ensure that this legislative framework doesn't lag behind the speed with which instruments to undermine trust in politics are being developed.

Does any other Member wish to speak before I call the Counsel General? Counsel General. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. In my response to the Stage 1 report of this committee, I set out that I would consider the feasibility and implications of undertaking work to insert an offence into the Bill as a Stage 2 amendment. Having done so, I'm afraid I remain of the view that such an approach—appropriately supported by extensive engagement with the criminal justice system and comprehensive assessment of the human rights implications of the specifics of any such offence—is simply not practicable in those timescales.

Amendments 33 and 34, which would place an offence on the face of the Bill, are not supported by either engagement or consultation. I take very seriously the recommendations set out by this committee that any offence needs to be carefully drafted, with significant consideration given to every policy choice and implication contained therein. On that basis, while I fully understand what the Members are trying to achieve, I don't support the amendments. I have real concerns that doing so would place an exceptionally new and novel offence on the statute book without a full understanding of the consequences of doing so.

In addition, as I have made clear many times during the development and passage of this Bill, utmost care needs to be taken to ensure provisions that interfere with free speech are drafted in a way that is compatible with the European convention on human rights—one of the five competence tests for provisions in a Senedd Act. And whilst I am satisfied that the duty the Bill currently imposes on Welsh Ministers can be absolutely discharged in a way that is compatible, without a full and formal assessment of the offence created by this amendment, I can in no way be confident that these provisions would be so compatible, and, as a consequence, whether they are within the legislative competence of the Senedd.

I would remind Members that any referral of this Bill to the Supreme Court under section 112 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 could be fatal to the legislation as a whole. There is not the time available in this Senedd term for any referral to the Supreme Court to be concluded. At best, the effect of a referral would mean a delay in being able to implement the Bill, but, at worst, the whole Bill could be lost; Senedd Bills cannot carry over between terms. I'm not really willing to risk delivery of the significant enhancements to Member accountability that this Bill provides through the establishment of a recall system and the strengthening of the standards of conduct system, so I will not be supporting those amendments.

I will also not be supporting amendment 6, which would place a deadline on Welsh Ministers to comply with the duty to make provision prohibiting the making or publishing of false or misleading statements within two years of the Bill receiving Royal Assent. I do not believe it's appropriate to set an arbitrary timescale for the exercise of this duty. As I have set out, it is essential that careful and detailed consideration is given to the development of any offence to ensure that it specifically addresses the statements we are looking to prohibit. Barring an extraordinary general election, the nature of any offence means that it would not be required until the next Senedd general election in 2030.

So, in light of that, I don't think it's appropriate to artificially constrain the time available to develop, assess and consult on the development of a new and novel offence. I would reiterate, however, that the lack of a specific deadline does not mean that Welsh Ministers could simply not bring forward regulations to satisfy the duty. The duty will come into force from two months after Royal Assent, and the Welsh Ministers will be required to take steps to discharge the duty in a timely way in preparation for the subsequent Senedd election. The duty does not mean that provision of the kind required by section 13(2A) must be included in all future amending Orders made under section 13, but the duty will need to have been satisfied by the time of the next election after 2026, and provision of the kind required will have to be a feature of the legislation in force. I would expect Welsh Ministers to comply with the Gould convention, which sets out that electoral legislation must be made at least six months in advance of an election.

Then, turning to amendment 7, tabled by Sioned Williams, she seeks to clarify that, for the purposes of section 22, the term 'statement'

'includes images, videos or audio depicting a person that have been edited or entirely created using digital technology (including artificial intelligence), generating a realistic but false depiction of the person.'

Whilst I'm hugely sympathetic to what Sioned is trying to achieve, I don't think the amendment is necessary. The normal meaning of 'statement', 'make' and 'publish' already include generating a realistic but false depiction of the person. And given the possibility of the rapid development of new technologies, maintaining the existing terms of that specific definition enables a broad interpretation, which may better futureproof the legislation. There is case law on these terms, and that demonstrates that the courts will interpret the meaning of the words in the context of existing technology.

And I fear that there is a risk that, in seeking to capture one particular type of statement, such as deepfakes, by creating a specific definition, there are unintended consequences for the interpretation of those words where they are already clearly used in legislation, including in the conduct Order. So, to interpret that away from lawyer speak, when the courts have put a definition of particular things in a legal sense, if you seek to define them further, you can sometimes inadvertently narrow the entire group, because the court might think that the definition means that you're narrowing the previous, wide definition. I'm happy to discuss this with you further between now and Stage 3, but I think we must be sure not to inadvertently narrow the definition. So, I understand what, Sioned, you're trying to do with the amendment, but I think we're probably better off with the widest possible definition of that kind of statement.

And then I do not support amendment 35, which seeks to define on the face of the Bill what constitutes a false statement. I've said repeatedly that the precise nature of any offence of deception is novel and complex and therefore requires careful consideration. And I don't believe that attempting to define a single element of the things listed in subsection 2B for the purposes of the provision that must be made under subsection 2A would be appropriate. This element of the offence can't be considered in isolation from all the other elements that will need to be developed to create a coherent offence that achieves its purposes and is within scope of the power.

Then, turning to amendment 36, I think Adam said it was a probing amendment. I don't support it anyway. It requires that Welsh Ministers consider the effectiveness of any prohibition in addressing statements made outside Wales that are intended to affect the return of any candidate at an election. An Order under the present section 13 is not limited to capturing people present in England and Wales when the statement is made or published, in common with the law that applies to UK parliamentary elections and local government elections under the Representation of the People Act 1983.

The conduct Order that applies to Senedd elections makes limited provision on how acts committed outside the United Kingdom apply to the offences created by the legislation. Article 128 of the Senedd Cymru (Representation of the People) Order 2025, known as the conduct Order, provides that proceedings in respect of an offence under the Order

'that are alleged to have been committed outside the United Kingdom by a Commonwealth citizen or a citizen of the Republic of Ireland or a relevant citizen of the Union may be taken, and the offence may for all incidental purposes be treated as having been committed in any place in the United Kingdom.'

And that provision would apply to any new offence added to the Order in discharge of the new duty in the Bill. And for persons not caught by that article 128, the ordinary common law rules would determine whether there can be a prosecution of electoral offences committed partly or wholly outside the United Kingdom.

So, in essence, there is jurisdiction to prosecute where a substantial measure of the activities constituting the crime take place within the jurisdiction, even if other parts occur abroad; it's not necessary for the final act to occur in the jurisdiction. So, I hope that answers the question. There are, of course, evidential issues that arise with things like bot farms and so on. So, whether the alleged effects can be successfully prosecuted in practice, and then whether there are extradition arrangements in place and so on, also have a bearing. That needs to be the subject of meaningful consultation as well, I would argue, in the development of it.

And then amendment 31—nearly finished, Chair—seeks to disqualify from candidacy and membership of the Senedd a person who's been convicted of an offence. I agree with the underlying rationale, but I don't believe it's necessary to create a bespoke disqualification criteria for somebody who is convicted of such an offence. Numerous electoral offences that are already set out in the conduct Order are established as either 'corrupt practices' or 'illegal practices'. The incapacities that flow from being convicted of either include a bar on being elected to the Senedd or a local authority in Wales. If already elected, the Member must vacate their seat. It's a five-year disqualification for corrupt practices, and three years for illegal practices. Whilst any specific categorisation would need to be considered, current article 75, which prohibits the making of false statements as to a candidate's conduct or character, is an illegal practice, so that would have a three-year disqualification. So, on that basis, I don't support that proposed amendment.

And then amendment 37 introduces a number of changes that direct Welsh Ministers in steps they must take when discharging the duty under Part 3 of the Bill. I think that the level of constraint that the provision places upon the Welsh Ministers is significant. I would expect the next Welsh Government to undertake comprehensive public engagement and put in place the appropriate processes within the Senedd to ensure that any future regulations benefit from the necessary scrutiny. I do not believe that legislative provision is needed in this space, and I don't support amendment 37 as a result.

Similarly, with amendment 38, that would provide a court with the power to order a person convicted of the offence to be inserted by amendment 33 to publish a summary of the judgment against them. Even if amendment 33, on which it depends, is carried, I don't think that that provision is necessary. It's impossible to imagine a situation where a candidate is tried and convicted of a new deception offence where there's no media coverage of any proceedings or outcome. It's likely to be very high profile, and much more high profile than any summary that a person would be required to publish. The amendment is based on section 12 of the Defamation Act 2013. The drafting approach is appropriate to defamation cases, but I don't think it's the correct approach in connection with criminal offences to enforce electoral law.

And finally, I don't support accepting amendment 39, which would require that Welsh Ministers lay before the Senedd a report on the operation and effect of this Part during the relevant period as defined in the amendment. The provisions in the Bill, as we've discussed at length, do not create a substantive offence, and I don't support amendment 33, which would insert such an offence. Therefore, as the Bill stands, a review of the operation and effect of this Part would not include a review of the offence itself. I think that's likely to be inserted into the conduct Order. That Order is reviewed every electoral cycle, and would therefore form part of the wider, regular review cycle. I think the current section 22 provides the right foundations for taking the work forward to develop an offence related to deliberate deception.

I very much welcome, Chair, the debate today based on the amendments brought forward by Members, and I regret I'm not in a position to support them. I would urge Members to oppose the amendments and allow section 22 to proceed unamended.

And as—you'll be all delighted to hear—this is the last time I'll speak in this committee, I also wanted to thank the committee and its Chair for all the work you've done on this Bill. It has been rapid, but I think it's been very rewarding, and we will pass, I hope, into law a Bill that really does put the Senedd on the map. Diolch.

I call on Adam Price to reply.

Thank you, and thank you, Counsel General, for dealing in detail with the amendments in this group. I think it's fair to say that, sadly, we haven't been able to find consensus on these particular amendments. There are areas of legitimate disagreement between us, and I think what we've tried to do honestly and to the best of our capacity is really to try and address some of the concerns that had been addressed at Stage 1 through the two different routes that I outlined, and it's obvious that there remains some difference of opinion between us.

I would like to press to move the majority of them, but with some exceptions. I think that, in relation to the foreign jurisdictional matters, you've clarified that. I accept the argument that you make in terms of amendment 38 and the correction order; I think that, in other contexts, we can continue that discussion. But, on the point of principle of placing either the full offence on the legislation or at least the substantive elements, and, for us, the definition of falsity is a clearly core element—. So, notwithstanding what the Counsel General has said, we believe there are strong arguments for the Senedd availing itself of the opportunity to place these matters on the face of the primary legislation. But I don't—. We reserve our option of returning to these matters at Stage 3. That's something that we, obviously, take into consideration.

Nevertheless, before I conclude, though we haven't reached agreement on the detailed matters that are referred to here, I think we are as one on the importance of addressing or finding new solutions to the challenge that we're facing in terms of disinformation and the existential threat that it represents to democracy worldwide and in Wales. You've heard me quote Thomas Jefferson—and I think you've quoted me back at myself—half a loaf is often better than none, and we shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and on that basis we still support this Bill and section 22, notwithstanding that we would like to press some of these amendments to a vote at this stage.

Amendment 33 has been moved. If it is not agreed, amendments 31 and 38 will fall. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I have an objection, therefore, we will move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 33, please raise your hands. All those against please raise your hands. There are 1 member in favour, 3 against. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed and amendments 31 and 38 fall.

Adam, do you wish amendment 34 to be moved?

No. 

Amendment 34 therefore is not moved.

Sioned, do you wish to move amendment 6?

Yes.

The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I have an objection, therefore, amendment 6 will go to the vote. Those in favour of amendment 6, please raise your hands. Those against, please raise your hands. One in favour, and 3 against. Therefore, amendment 6 is not agreed.

Sioned, amendment 7, do you wish to move it?

Yes.

Yes. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I have an objection, therefore, we will move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 7, please raise your hands. Those against amendment 7, please raise your hands. In favour 1, 3 against. Therefore, amendment 7 is not agreed.

Adam, amendment 35, do you wish it to be moved?

Yes.

I move amendment 35 in name of Adam Price. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I have an objection. Therefore, we will move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 35, please raise your hands. Those against amendment 35, please raise your hands. In favour 1, 3 against. Therefore, amendment 35 is not agreed.

Adam, amendment 36, do you wish it to be moved?

No.

Therefore, amendment 36 is not moved.

Amendment 31 has already fallen. Adam, do you wish to move amendment 37?

Yes.

I therefore move amendment 37 in the name of Adam Price, and the question is that amendment 37 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I have an objection, therefore, we will move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 37, please raise your hands. Those against amendment 37, please raise your hands. In favour 1, 3 against. Therefore, amendment 37 is not agreed.

Amendment 38 has fallen.

And we've got the final amendment on the list. Adam, do you wish for amendment 39 to be moved?

Yes.

Therefore, I move amendment 39 in the name of Adam Price. And the question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, therefore, we will move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 39, please raise your hands. Those against amendment 39, please raise your hands. In favour 1, 3 against. Therefore, amendment 39 is not agreed.

And that completes the Stage 2 proceedings of the Bill. Can I thank the Counsel General and her officials for their attendance today? And as you know, you'll be sent a transcript of the meeting for checking. Standing Orders also make provision for the Counsel General to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum to take into account the amendments agreed today, and it should be laid at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings. Stage 3 proceedings begin tomorrow, therefore, the relevant dates for Stage 3 proceedings will be published in due course, as will an amended version of the Bill.

As a reminder for members of the public, in accordance with the motion that established this committee, this committee is now dissolved but the committee's clerks and teams will continue working and supporting the Bill through its progression in the Senedd. And can I put on record my thanks, first of all, to the committee team for all the work they have done on the Bill, and that they will continue to do? Because whilst we may not be sitting as a committee, you will be still working on the Bill. Thank you very much. Can I thank all Members who contributed today for your contributions? We will look forward to Stage 3, which I think at the moment is scheduled for 17 March, to be debated in the Chamber. With that in mind—

Stage 4 is on the last Government Plenary day of the term.

The Stage 4 is? Yes. So, can I thank everyone? And I wish you all well, and the meeting is closed.