Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Croeso, bawb. Welcome to this morning’s meeting of the Standards of Conduct Committee. Just to clarify, the meeting is bilingual and interpretation is available for those in the meeting room; headphones can be used for simultaneous translation from Welsh to English on channel 1, or for amplification on channel 0. We’ve got no apologies received, and I just have to ask Members if they’ve got any declarations of registerable interests they wish to declare. Great.  

So, we’ll move on to item 2, which is the next evidence session—session 15—in our inquiry into individual Member accountability. And I’d like to welcome our witnesses to the session this morning. And what I will do is ask you just to briefly introduce yourselves to the committee. Colin, I'll go to you first, because I know you.

Good morning, Chair. It’s nice to see you; I hope you’re well. Good morning, bore da, Members. I’m Colin Everett, chair of the Wales Electoral Co-ordination Board, the WECB.

And Michela.

Good morning, Chair. Good morning, everybody. Thank you for having me. I’m Michela Palese, head of policy at the Electoral Commission.  

And Clare. 

Good morning, everybody. My name is Clare Sim, and I’m head of Member support at the Association of Electoral Administrators.

Thank you, all, for joining us this morning. I’m going to start by just asking you what role, if any, does your organisation play in the operation of the recall petition process in respect of the House of Commons? And, if so, would you envisage playing a similar role should we introduce a system for the Senedd? I'll go to Colin first. 

Thank you, Chair. Well, one of the main roles of the WECB, which will be standing down in January when the new statutory EMB—electoral management board—comes into being, is to support administrators and returning officers and petitioning officers by giving advice and help, and ensuring consistency and high standards of practice. So, for example, when we had the only recall in Wales in 2019, in Brecon and Radnorshire, the board, and the community of returning officers supported the then returning officer to perform that function, given it was a new experience for her and for us. But we don’t have any statutory role per se; it’s more of a support and advice role.

Okay, I’ll go to—. Michela or Clare, do either of you wish to come in on that point? Michela.

Yes, happy to. Thank you, Chair. So, the Electoral Commission has some statutory duties in relation to recall petitions. As Colin said, we do also have a role in terms of providing advice and guidance to support electoral administrators in running recall petitions in the Westminster context. We also have a statutory duty to report on recall petitions and include in that report, for example, information on the steps taken by returning officers to, for example, comply with new duties under the Elections Act 2022, in terms of providing accessibility.

Last year, when there was a recall petition in Rutherglen and Hamilton West, that was the first time that voter ID was used in Scotland, so, in our report on that election, we also included, for example, information on the implementation of voter ID. And I think, just to say, in the context of Wales, devolved elections and this inquiry, I think, from our perspective, we would be looking to support the implementation of any measures that are chosen, just to make sure that those are workable in practice.

Thanks.

In terms of our role, we have over 2,000 members across the UK, and it's quite an elite club, I think, if you've ended up with a recall petition, given the small number of them, but we've provided support to each one of those local authorities. We've made sure they've had connections with the previous people who've run recall petitions so that they can learn from their experiences—so, good practice as to how to implement those—and that's what we would continue to do if it was to be implemented at Senedd elections as well, just to make sure that that connection is there, that the support is there from their colleagues who've had prior experience of that, to how they would run a recall petition.

Thank you. And from the experience you have, or your organisations have had, we're in the process now of obviously considering introducing recall for the Senedd elections and then we'll be looking at designing what that system looks like, are there any—? I take what you said, Clare, saying that it's an elite club that have been involved in recall petitions, but are there any learning points that you could take at this point in the process that we could consider as part of our inquiry?

I think what we've learnt from recall petitions, which was in our written evidence as well, is that, while we're very much for parity, most of the time, between UK parliamentary and Senedd things, it would be wrong to introduce a system in Wales that has got flaws currently in the UK parliamentary system that the Electoral Commission's reports have flagged. One of the biggest challenges with recall petitions to date has been the length of time that the petition period lasts for. A six-week period is excessive. It's a massive administrative burden and cost to the public purse. I think evidence has shown, from Brecon and Radnorshire, from Peterborough, from Rutherglen and Hamilton West, that most of the thresholds have been met within the first two weeks of that period and that should be taken into account in terms of the time frame of any recall petition in that sense as well. So, I think there are lots of lessons to be learned in terms of the administrative burdens that they put on there. I think there's also a point to be made about the fact that while having accountability and being able to have a say as to whether a recall petition takes place, given that in Great Britain every single one has then led to a by-election, it's questionable whether—. It needs to be looked at whether they should be just disqualifications, particularly in the Senedd context, where it can't trigger a by-election, it can only lead to the next person on the list. It's just trying to learn from those things as to what the evidence suggests as to what could be implemented for Senedd elections.

Thanks.

Can I just—?

Yes, Sam.

Thank you. Just on that point around the length and the two weeks that you alluded to, in your judgment, then, would two weeks be a sufficient length for a recall petition?

I don't think you can put a time on it. I think what we've said in our written evidence is, as soon as the threshold is met, the petition should automatically end, because that would be as much—you'd have, then, that threshold met. You're not limiting the time that it takes. There might be a set amount of time, which might be up to three weeks, something like that, but I think as soon as that threshold is met that's when the petition should automatically end, rather than accumulating cost and administrative burden when the result is already known.

On the flip side of that, though, then, if it's somewhat open ended, as in it shuts when the threshold has been met, doesn't that lead that there's only one inevitable outcome from that, being that the recall is triggered or the petition is triggered? Isn't there a sort of—? Where's the natural justice in that, if it remains open for enough time that that threshold is met?

I appreciate that point in that respect, but I think it's just, if you speak—. From an administrative perspective, if you speak to the administrators who have run those recall petitions, to have to carry on for another month when the result is already a foregone conclusion in those particular situations—. It's using that evidence base that there's probably merit in the fact that there needs to be a point that is reasonable at which a petition would stop.

Just a—. Sorry.

If I may—. Sorry, Member. If I may add, I think just to reinforce Clare's point, six weeks is a long period compared to other election processes, and I think the point that's being made is that it could be a shorter deadline, but should the threshold be met before the deadline and a by-election is triggered, then it is then a fait accompli.

That's helpful.

Mick.

Yes. Can I just, for clarity—? Obviously, the clarity and the simplicity of any process is quite fundamental in terms of being able to do something quickly, but also doing it in a way in which people understand it. The way it has been considered up to now is almost like a two-way process, you have a petition then you have a by-election, and, of course, our new voting system actually removes the by-election process. So, I'm just wondering whether an option might well be that we have the internal process, the Standards Committee meets, the recommendations are made, then if there is a recommendation, say, for example, that reaches the trigger—say, for example, it is a two-week suspension; say that is the trigger for a recall petition—well, there's no purpose to a petition beyond that. Isn't the purpose then to have, effectively, a 'yes' or 'no' ballot of people: do you want the person to remain, or do you want the person not to? And if the vote is not to, and it hits the threshold, then the next person on the list comes on. Now, it seems to me that's a much simpler process, because, if the committee makes a recommendation and it's approved by the Senedd, there will of course have been appeals processes and so on that could have been gone through—we know that's what happens already—but that would be a much more straightforward process. Now, that it seems to me would be simpler to administer, but also a lot clearer and avoid the what seems to me totally pointless process of having a two-stage process to do exactly the same thing. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are as administrators, I suppose, on a system like that.

It's a very feasible alternative, Chair. I'm sure Michela and Clare would agree that if we can reduce the administrative burden on our network then we'd be very interested in pursuing that option. I think the principle at stake here is there is accountability and that the elector has a voice in some way. Yes, at the moment, it is a double process, although, noting the previous comment, the threshold has to be met for the voter to have a say in a by-election, but if that was an alternative way of doing it then the elector voice principle would be protected. And I think, Michela, this is one thing we always have to remember, all of the administrators in the electoral community: the first priority is to protect the interests, the rights and the accessibility of the elector to participate.

Just to add to that, from our perspective: we do not take a view on how a system of recall should function and what leads to it or what the triggers are. But, as Colin pointed out, there are, I guess, different trade-offs to be borne in mind in terms of both the individual Member accountability, but also administrative burden, and also the role of the elector and the impact on them as well.

Thanks. Peredur.

My question is going to be similar to Mick's, but if we extrapolate from what Mick explained there that it would be a 'yes/no' potential question to the elector, from an administrative point of view, what would that look like? So, would it be six weeks' notice, followed by one day of a vote, similar to a by-election process, but it would be a 'does this person have the confidence of people to remain: yes or no?' and what—? How would that look like from an administrative point?

I think one of the challenges of having a one-day recall petition process in that respect is the time frame that's linked to it. I think if you speak to Powys and their experiences in Brecon and Radnorshire, if you'd had to utilise all your polling stations, in effect, in that constituency to be able to run that election, it's the sort of time frame that is associated with it—they could potentially have had to have been notified on a Friday and have had to start that process on the Monday, in effect, sort of thing. I think that needs to be factored into it, if that was going to be considered as a one-day process, whereas if it was over an extended period where you've got polling places—a maximum of 10 is in the UK parliamentary system—then that is slightly easier in that respect. But I think it's just putting into place, if there's a stricter timetable as to how long you've got before the recall petition is triggered as to when it takes place, to give people the opportunity to do that, and it could then become a one-day poll, but there does need to be sufficient time before that to allow that to happen, if that was the case.

So, if that wasn't a recall petition but it was actually more like the by-election process at the end of that—. That's what I think Mick was driving at, that that petition bit would have been done because it had hit a trigger within the Senedd, but that the decision then of whether somebody loses their seat or not would be put to the electors. So, that would run in a quasi by-election way, because it would be the next person, probably, on the list that would become the next Member for that area. So, it would be more akin to a by-election. I just wanted your thoughts as to what sort of timescale—. Would that run like a normal six-week purdah-type of system with a notice of election, all those processes that you go through? And then, I suppose, hand in hand with that, would proxy votes be allowed, would postals? Your thoughts on the administrative burden on your members and on your colleagues, what would that look like?

There are, probably, Chair, two angles here. One, there's what's required administratively, and then, secondly, what's required for the convenience of the elector. One of the things that we would want is consistency and simplicity for the elector, so they're participating in a way that they're accustomed to. So, electors would expect the right to be able to vote in person on a designated day or days, and, of course, have the right to have a postal vote too, because they're still casting a vote in the normal way, although it's a very different scenario that we are talking about. I think, Clare and Michela, we would always argue, wouldn't we, that the election period is very tight to deliver any election, and we would need something similar for a 'yes/no' vote for a candidate or a politician to remain in office. People would expect the same opportunities to participate through postal or proxy, as well. We do have to go back to that fundamental principle: we are protecting the rights of the elector.

Thank you for that—

I think a minimum of a 25-day timetable, as is standard for most polls, would be required from the point that it was—. If it was more like a form of by-election, that would be a minimum requirement in terms of having sufficient time to have polling stations, to have staff for those polling stations—that's the biggest challenge—and to print postal votes. It would need to be thought out fully in terms of what was required, the practicalities of that, but that would be a minimum requirement from an administrative perspective.

I would agree. The administrative requirements are the same as running an election, it's the same logistics that we're organising, and the electorate would expect to have a similar time frame to take part themselves.

And that, as in a normal Senedd election, all the polling stations that you'd normally see in that paired constituency, as it will be, would be utilised for that in the same way as in a normal election. I suppose the reality would be that, for anybody looking to do the administration, they would know that there would potentially be a vote in the Senedd as to whether or not it would go to a vote out there, so it wouldn't just come out of the blue, like a Prime Minister going onto the street of Downing Street and saying, in the rain, that there's going to be an election in six weeks. There would be some trailing of—. You'd know that something was coming, so you could do some planning, but that then would trigger a 25-day minimum in your opinion.

Yes.

Okay.

Yes, Chair, I think it's a very good point. The fact the Senedd process was under way would give people notice to plan as a contingency, but then still due notice to run the vote in the way that Clare has described.

Thank you. Diolch.

Diolch, Peredur. Noting the administrative requirements that Clare has set out, do you have a view whether—? If we do introduce a recall system in the Senedd, should we allow voting by post and proxy as part of that, because, obviously, it doesn't currently exist elsewhere?

Yes, we think voting by post or proxy, just in terms of accessibility, and I know there are concerns with some recall petitions over the current signing, because it's obvious why you're attending a polling place to sign a petition to remove that person. It would address some of those issues as well, in terms of the secrecy of the ballot, and postal and proxy provisions are standard in nearly any other type of poll, so it would be expected at recall petitions as well.

Absolutely, Chair. To repeat the point: what would the elector expect? What would the elector need for it to be a fully accessible vote? It would be the same rules and requirements that should apply to any other election. Why would it be different in this case, if it's a material matter for voters to make a decision on?

Thank you.

And just to add to that, I think the evidence from the Rutherglen and Hamilton West recall petition, for example, shows that most people who wanted to vote used postal voting in that recall petition. So, it's important to bear that in mind.

And given that postal voting is a sizeable minority now of registered electors and we know that postal vote participation is very high—those who are registered actually casting their vote—we should protect that principle for electors.

Thank you. Mick.

Well, it's just one point. Of course, in the future, we will have an electoral franchise that is based on automatic registration, so the fullness and clarity in terms of the franchise will be there. The issues around registration, and so on, may be a lot simpler. I suppose also, what it does mean is that there are potentially other options in the future in terms of voting, along the lines of some of the pilots that have been tried out not so long ago.

But leaving that to one side, I suppose the only other issue that would emerge—and I don't know if you have a view on it, of course—is that where there is no-one else on the list, or there is only a single candidate, I suppose a decision needs to be taken either that a seat remains vacant in those circumstances or, alternatively, there is some form of by-election, whether it be STV or whether it be any other system. So, that's an option, I suppose, that has to be considered and ruled in or out one way or another. Did you have any particular view on that?

I suppose, Chair—. Thank you. The obvious thing to say is that with the Act, it's only very recently been passed and there is no provision for by-elections. Why would we seek to introduce something when the ink, as it were, on that Act is barely dry? Of course, we don't know what the public interest will be, because this isn't a by-election in a normal sense, people would be—. Public accountability is very important. People would be voting whether the MS in this case would remain in office or not, but they're not actually casting a vote for an individual replacement, other than knowing how the closed list system will work. So, I would imagine that public interest would be quite different in this case from what it would be in a proper by-election in the full sense.

I think that's one of our concerns, as well. Because the motivation is completely different from what it would be for UK parliamentary elections, particularly if you had an independent candidate or a party that's exhausted their list, whether somebody would rather have some form of representation or no representation is one of the biggest challenges in that respect. And as Colin has said, given that that Act's recently been passed and there is no provision for by-elections, we'd assume that that would remain the case because then you get into the complexity over how Senedd Members are elected and how that interacts with that as well.

One thing—going slightly off the point—that I would add as well, in terms of the administrative burden, is just having awareness as to the new Senedd constituencies. Whereas at a parliamentary election, there can be cross-boundary working, I think it's just understanding the scale of running that election, which is not as straightforward as it would currently be in a Senedd context. We're talking about, potentially, three or four authorities being involved in running that process, and it's far more complex than any other process anywhere else in the UK.

And, of course, regardless of the voters' preference or political views, they know they have the comfort, under the new system, of having multiple representations. So, democratic representation wouldn't be hugely compromised by the loss of one Member should we not be able to fill that position due to, for example, an exhausted list, other than people having a preference for which MS they would go to for their constituency issues. But Clare is absolutely right that the administration of this will be so much bigger and different, because of the proposed pairing of the constituencies for Senedd election purposes.

Thank you. Peredur.

Something you mentioned there is—. Do you have a view on whether or not—? Because we'll know that they are closed list systems, we'll know who the next person on that list is. If you follow the Act, it would be the next person that would come along.

Have you got a view on whether or not the ballot paper, in that scenario, would have two names on it? So, the name of the person and the second on the list; so, effectively, two people from the same party. Or would it be a question more akin to a sort of referendum question, that says, 'Do you wish this person to continue—yes or no?' I don't know if that's something that you would have a view on, bearing in mind what you are saying about, 'Would we rather have somebody or nobody?' Maybe it's the interplay between that.

Just to jump in on this one, it isn't something that we have a view on. Unfortunately, there are no comparative or international examples that can guide us in terms of best practice. However, I would flag just the importance of making sure that that ballot paper is intelligible and understandable and does not cause confusion to the voters. So, one option and possible consideration around that is conducting perhaps some user research with voters to understand whether or not that ballot paper and the options that are presented are intelligible to them. So, that could be one option to guide which way we go.

I think that that's a very good point, Chair, given that this is new territory for us: doing some testing on design and simplicity and clarity for voters. But I suppose that the—. What is the fundamental point here? We are putting to the electorate an MS for accountability purposes. So, the fundamental question is whether they should remain in office or not.

Sam.

Just quickly then, and developing the point from Peredur around a possible by-election-style recall, where every polling station is used within a constituency area and the regional constituencies—whatever the name for the future ones will be called—there's a cost that comes with that, of manning all the polling stations, of all the intricate parts of administering that. There's a cost.

We are going down to a four-year term in the next Senedd, so there could be a possibility of someone being recalled through this by-election and then there being a Senedd election very shortly after. So, what's the current timetable between the by-election or a—? It was easier under the UK Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, obviously, when we knew that was the case, when an election would be called, and local authorities were pretty well aware. What's the last point in time when the decision is made as to, 'Actually, we are going to amalgamate this by-election into the forthcoming election'? What's the time frame at the moment?

So, I believe that for the Westminster system, that is six months before the UK parliamentary general election. So, the recall petition wouldn't then take place within that time frame.

[Inaudible.]—local authorities in Wales?

Local authorities in Wales is six months. The UK Parliament I am not sure about because, obviously, the Blackpool South petition was taking place in March, and now that the Fixed-term Parliaments Act isn't there, there's no knowledge of when that parliamentary election would be taking place. But in terms of police and crime commissioner elections, local government elections in Wales, there are slight variations, but it's approximately six months before the scheduled poll is due to take place that there would not be any provision to hold a by-election in that period.

There are caveats in terms of, if there was less than a third of representation on that particular council, there would still be a by-election, and there are different things between different elections in that it's the point at which the vacancy occurs in those respects, as to when that six-month period kicks in. But six months is generally the point at which no election would be required before the scheduled May poll.

Okay. So, would you agree that six months would work in the new system, potentially, of Senedd recall, as it's a sort of de facto time limit now? I know that you can't confirm which way your preference would be, but from an administrative viewpoint, would six months work, as it aligns itself with other elections?

From an administrative perspective, obviously, that is there to stop you from having to run two elections in close proximity. I think that there are just questions over the nature of it, whether a vacancy occurs because somebody has passed away or has resigned, or whether there are any issues in the fact that you have got somebody who is in breach of the three triggers that trigger a recall petition, as to whether it's appropriate for that person to remain in post for six months continuously. I think that that would be a decision for the Welsh Government to make in that respect, but I think that it's a slightly different context as to where those other vacancies arise.

It's very different, isn't it? 'Are they fit for office?' is the decision the electorate's making, which is very different to somebody resigning or passing away. It was mentioned earlier about innovation with taking an election, such as early pilots, and slightly going back on a point that was made earlier, if we were looking to reduce the administration and the cost, we could look at an alternative way of running the election, provided it was still accessible to the electorate—for example, we could have a smaller number of polling stations over such a vast paired constituency, but over several days. So, we could look at innovation, provided that it was understandable and accessible to the public, who didn't see an election that was run differently from what they're normally used to.

[Inaudible.]—recalling someone who has fallen foul of the rules, there is a slight difference to someone who's triggered a by-election by an untimely death or standing down for personal reasons, et cetera. So, would that six months, then, not be required for someone who's recalled, and so there's the possibility—in a really simplistic way of looking at it—of there potentially being a recall by-election on 30 April, and then, the following week, a Senedd election as well, or would there be some sort of margin to be able to amalgamate, given the cost and the size of the new constituencies?

In terms of parliamentary elections, if you have a by-election that was currently running and the parliamentary election is called, that by-election would automatically come to an end, and then it would be amalgamating that vacancy filled there. So, I think a similar thing could happen with Senedd elections.

Okay. That's helpful clarification. Thank you, Chair.

I think it's a really important question for public confidence, if we were to still apply the six-month rule, knowing that we have fixed dates for Senedd elections, unlike the parliamentary. What would that say about public confidence in the system, if the credibility, integrity, of an MS was being questioned? Should they have a right to exercise that accountability in that six-month window? I think that's a really important question for the committee to reflect on.

Can I ask if you have a view on what the threshold should be for a Senedd recall petition to be successful? Obviously, it's 10 per cent for Westminster, but we've got the closed list system in Wales and the larger constituencies. Do you think the threshold should be the same, or do you think it should be different?

I think, Chair, this is one of those ones where, as administrators, we've been appealing, haven't we, for some time, where possible, can we avoid difference and divergence between UK and Welsh arrangements for reserved and non-reserved elections. Because that's the system for the parliamentary elections, which has been tested on a number of occasions, why would we have a different threshold in Wales? Would the public not expect consistency?

Peredur.

Following on from that, because we'd have paired constituencies—they'd be the new Welsh constituencies—what about having—? Would you have a view as to whether or not it should be 10 per cent across both, 10 per cent in both, to get away—? You might be fantastic in one part and people really like you in one part, but people absolutely loathe you in another part, and whether or not you need that consistency across. How would that look, or any views on that?

I would say, Chair, a constituency is a constituency. So, the fact we might have paired two parliamentary constituencies, they now become one constituency for the purposes of voting. So, if it's 10 per cent, it's 10 per cent in that whole area. I don't see how we can start to drill down. That makes it complicated and questions why that constituency was combined in the first place.

I think it would be very difficult to administer that, because in terms of how that is set up, it wouldn't be set up as two separate constituencies at a Senedd level; they're one constituency. So, I don't even think you'd have the means to do that, as to the way the elections are set up on election management systems for administrators.

You touched quite a bit on the importance of things being accessible and intelligible to the voter. Obviously, there's a number of places where recall petitions have taken place. People here wouldn't have had direct experience of that. So, I was just wondering, for you as administrators, do voters in those areas actually get information direct to tell them that there is a recall petition taking place, or do they have to rely on what's perhaps in the local media or in the national media?

With recall petitions, there is a slight trickly balance between raising awareness that a recall petition is happening—and I'm sure that Clare and Colin will have views from administrators—especially as it can be quite difficult for the local authority to raise that awareness while also not doing so in a way that inadvertently might come across as campaigning for or against a specific outcome in that recall petition. That is one of the tensions that we've picked up in speaking to administrators in those areas that have run recall petitions—how to ensure that they're publicising it, ensuring that voters have as much information as possible as to the fact that a recall petition is taking place, where they can sign, what days, what time frames for that signing period, while also not crossing over into inadvertently campaigning for or against a specific outcome. One of the learnings that we do flag in our election reports following the recall petitions that have taken place is whether we should consider whether voters should have the option of, for example, signing an alternative signing sheet to indicate that they oppose the petition. That could have some benefits, but one of them would be to enable further awareness and information to be given around the recall petition process given that there isn't just one outcome, which is, if you're going to sign, you're signing for that person to be recalled.

I think it's a really important point Michela makes, that making information available very openly about how, when and where to do so, if somebody wants to access the petition, is our duty, but to what point might we be over-enthusiastic in doing that, and it encourages people, which isn't our intention, to actually take part, unlike in any normal election. I know the Electoral Commission have raised this point, but, personally, I would question the value of having, if you like, something counter to sign, a counter-petition, because it's almost becoming a quasi-election in its own right but without an outcome. The point of the petition is to reach a threshold to then hold somebody to account through a form of election. I'm not sure what the value would be in having a counter-document to the petition, but I recognise and respect the fact that that has been an Electoral Commission recommendation, at least for it to be considered.

And just to add to Michela's point as well, one of the biggest challenges is, obviously, that you can't promote necessarily the petition in the way that you would promote an election, because of the potential for there to be questions as to the local authority’s impartiality in that respect. But, as part of the requirements, there is a notice of petition that is sent to every—. Not a notice of petition, sorry; an official petition notice is sent to electors that informs them, with all that information. So, that is their involvement—they do have direct correspondence in that respect. 

Taking what you said around that balance between informing eligible voters but not necessarily looking like you're nudging them in a certain direction, and we touched previously on the possibility, because these are going to be such sizeable constituencies, of having perhaps fewer polling stations but opening for longer, I think the where and when are going to be more important in that respect, because you wouldn’t want a situation where people would just perhaps assume they could go to the polling station where they ordinarily vote in a council or a Westminster or a Senedd election only to find it somewhere slightly further away, or it's not there because there are fewer allocated polling stations.

Yes, I just raised it, Chair, as an option to consider to reduce administrative burden and cost. We've got to get the balance right between logistics and costs and public accessibility, as with all elections. But given, of course, that some of the early voting pilots we experimented with several years ago did have go-to substantial polling stations for people to visit, outside of the norm, there has been some testing around the accessibility of that. So, that is an option we could consider to make it easier to run.

And just to add to what Colin was just saying about finding that right balance, again the experience from the recall petitions that have happened did find that where extended opening hours, for example, were made available to voters, voters did make good use of those. So, that is one of our most consistent recommendations, to just make sure that those extended opening hours are provided. All of that being said, there are significant issues in terms of finding those venues that will be available for the current six-week petition period, so there is a balance to be struck there, as Colin was saying.

Okay. Peredur. 

Following on from what you're saying, the bit that makes it tricky is promoting a petition, as opposed to campaigning for people to vote in a petition to have a recall. On the process we were talking about earlier, where those triggers are hit from the Senedd and you just have the one ballot that says 'yes' or 'no', depending on the wording, does that take away an administrative headache for you, in that you're only running one election, effectively, or one ballot, in the same way as people understand from a normal by-election or a normal way an election runs, rather than getting people to turn up to vote for something that then turns into something else, and then you have a second vote? I don't know if I'm making myself that clear, but whether or not that would help with the administrative burden and also the simplicity for the public to understand what they're voting for.

If you were to do that way, Chair—it was a decision within the constitutional machinery of the Senedd—clearly, it would take a considerable burden and cost away from councils who administer elections, if then, depending on that outcome, we were going straight to the public vote, as we've taken away stage 1—the petitioning. What, though, we'd have to come back to again is if we believe there should be a similarity in arrangements for UK parliamentary governance and for the Senedd. There's a parity of esteem between the two Parliaments, and we would then be introducing a very different system in Wales—which is your right—but, then, the electorate would see one system for the parliamentary election, where they could petition and then vote, and a different one for Wales. So, I'm not speaking for or against it, but just saying we normally say, 'Could we have, please, consistency and similarity between reserved and non-reserved elections?'. But it is an alternative that you could put forward.

And I think that there are already differences in the outcomes. You couldn't have that at a UK parliamentary election because you'd need to elect a representative—

Of course.

—and you're not having a list system. So, therefore—and I haven't got an opinion either way—there's probably a balance of it being a simpler system that electors understand, in that they vote 'yes' or 'no', or whatever the actual outcome would be, because there is never going to be a subsequent election in that respect. But, as Colin said, we generally ask for consistency, but there's already inconsistency due to the nature of the electoral systems that are in operation for both.

It's a very fair point, isn't it, Clare, because a petition would not be triggering under the new Act now a by-election in the proper sense; it will be holding to account a current Member. And then, if the vote worked against them, we would be moving to the next name on the list. It's a very, very different electoral process. So, you could argue, 'Let's just do it differently in Wales and abandon the petitioning process', and create something in your constitutional provision for Members to make that decision themselves.

Thank you.

Thanks. Sam.

It's quite interesting: if the proposal is a by-election-style recall, where, 'Do you agree that this Member should continue? "Yes" or "no"?', that Member could, quite rightly, proactively go out campaigning to keep their job. Despite what they've done, they could be targeting their voters, they could be going out to try and flip it, so that more people are attending the polling station to vote, 'Yes, we want this person to continue', than those who are rallied to say 'no'. That can't happen in the current Westminster model, can it, because it's just a signature to say, 'Yes, we want this person to go to a by-election'. Is that correct?

Yes, that's correct.

So, that, for me, just throws a really interesting political dynamic into it, then, because, if we're then looking to elect whomever it is next on the list of the same political party, you're causing a little bit, potentially, of an in-fighting proposal, where the third on the list, looking to get elected because of someone's misdemeanour, is going up against No. 2 on the list, who's caused the misdemeanour—I use that term flippantly, obviously. But that causes another political dimension to this that isn't seen in other recalls at the moment, which the former journalist in me would love to report on, because it's just an interesting dynamic within our political sphere that's just not realised yet, I don't think.

Absolutely, Chair. It's a dynamic we haven't seen before. I can only begin to imagine what it might be like for that political party involved, whoever it was, and the candidates. This is completely unknown territory for us—it would be without precedent.

It's not quite unprecedented, because you could have somebody who did represent a party that went independent coming up against another person from the party. It's not quite the same, but there is some form of precedent there. But, yes, I take your point—it could be interesting.

Okay. Sorry.

So, just picking up on that interesting discussion there, do you think there are any alternatives that the committee should consider, to strengthen the accountability of Senedd Members?

I do not think they'd take a view from that.

I think, Chair, it goes back to that principle, doesn't it, about elector voice and accountability of an elected person, albeit through a closed list system, to the electorate who voted in the first place. So, I think, really, you've explored them, haven't you? There's either the petitioning process or there's some internal governance process that would then trigger that election. There are the two options, aren't there, that you've explored and that we've given you some advice on today.

Unless colleagues have got any further questions, I think that's a good note to end the session on. Can I thank you very much for your written contribution and also for your time this morning? It's been really helpful for our work on this area. Diolch yn fawr.

Thanks, Chair. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

And just to confirm that the transcript will be sent to you, where you can check for factual accuracy.

Okay. Thank you very much, Members.

Thank you. Just to propose that the committee takes a short break now before our next set of witnesses join us.

Welcome back to the Standards of Conduct Committee for evidence session 16 in our inquiry into individual Member accountability. I'm really pleased to be joined by Jessica Blair, who's director of the Electoral Reform Society, and Dr Nia Thomas, research officer for the Electoral Reform Society. I'm just going to start by saying, obviously, thank you for coming in this morning and for your contributions to date to this work. I'll start with a very open question in terms of: in your view, should there be a recall mechanism for Members of the Senedd? And what do you think would be the main benefits, but also the challenges of us introducing such a system here now?

So, firstly, thank you for having us. I think it's a really important conversation that the Senedd's having. Accountability is vital in politics, and I think that this conversation, obviously, feeds into that. In terms of a recall process, I think it's fair to say we're openly supportive. I think there's an important part for it to play in terms of having accountability mechanisms that are very clear and transparent to the public, so that voters can understand the mechanisms, if there is bad behaviour, what happens then, and that there are consequences. But I think what we would say is that recall shouldn't be a replacement for any kind of further disqualification. It should be a real balance in terms of the extent of misconduct, in terms of what kind of appropriate mechanism is used.

What circumstances, do you think, should trigger a petition? In Westminster, it's a prison sentence of less than 12 months, and suspension of least 10 sitting days if convicted for an expenses offence. Do you think it should be mirrored here, or is there—? I was going to use the word 'opportunity', but this really shouldn't be about an opportunity. But if we are starting from scratch, are there different things that we should do in Wales as part of that?

I don’t think we've got particularly developed policy on this, the Electoral Reform Society, but what we would say is that the recall mechanism seems to work reasonably well in Westminster, and it seems a good starting point to consider what's used there. But there's no reason why there shouldn't be a discussion on a mechanism that properly works for the Senedd and reflects circumstances here.

We're broadly in agreement with 10 sitting days and the stuff that's in the Westminster Act around the things that could trigger recall, but going further than that, looking at other things as well, could well be a possibility.

Other things such as?

Well, that's for the conduct committee to look at. I think we shouldn't be just drawn to replicating exactly what's in Westminster. So, I think it's worth while exploring other avenues and thinking about that.

Mick, did you just indicate?

Well, I did want to come in, but, I suppose, whether it's premature or not—. Of course, we have a different system, and we will have a very different system by the time of the next Senedd elections. So, although the Westminster model is an interesting guideline, of course it applies to a system where they have first-past-the-post voting. This is really just to explore your views on this, in terms of the sort of cogency of the approach we take. We have a Senedd standards process. The issue will be, it seems to me, that if some conduct breach or whatever occurs, the question is: what is the trigger for suspension, and what length of suspension or whatever would then trigger the issue of recall or removal? There’s a bit of a complication with the terminology we use, because we’re tending to use the Westminster terminology of 'recall petition', when, in actual fact, what we’re talking about is something that’s actually a removal process, isn’t it?

So, if the Senedd has approved a report that results in, say, a two-week suspension, then that will trigger the recall process, and, of course, by then, all legal processes will have been gone through, and there may well have been appeals or whatever—and, of course, there are issues there to consider in terms of process—but there is no need for a recall petition per se. Effectively, you move straight to a vote where people will choose whether they do or don’t want that person to continue. If the majority is that that person shouldn’t continue, then the next person on the list takes that place. That seems to me to be a much simpler option, and a sort of Welsh bespoke option for clarity and simplicity, and also, I suppose, speed, which is so important in these matters. Would that cause you any difficulties as a process?

I think the idea of simplicity and clarity is certainly something to be welcomed. This process should be as simple as possible, and transparent, and voters should understand the mechanism as much as they can, ideally.

I think one of the issues that we have with the process that’s been outlined—option 1 and option 2 in the consultation—is that we aren’t sure either of them are ideal, because, essentially, especially option 1, this idea of replacing someone with the next person on the list, could be a situation where, from a voter’s perspective, it’s seen as a party being rewarded for bad behaviour. So, I think that there are other mechanisms that could be looked at. In Westminster, you’d obviously have a by-election. That’s not ideal, because you’d have to use the first-past-the-post system to replicate that model exactly. But is there a kind of proportional system that would work in a one-Member election that would allow voters to have a broader say in this, and have some kind of accountability from the voter in terms of who actually replaces that person?

Is there a problem with that, that the whole point of the removal process is that an individual has been held accountable for their conduct, and it is that which is actually being put to the electors, rather than the broader politics of the Senedd or the previous Welsh general election? And isn’t the danger of what you’re suggesting there, that what it does, then, is actually move away from that, that this is about the personal accountability of an individual Senedd Member, the individual who signed up to a certain standard?

I think, under the closed list system, you’re obviously losing that element of personal accountability. And we’ve seen in Westminster, when a recall has been triggered—. I think, of the four by-elections from the 2019 to 2024 term, with three of those seats, a different party won than previously had held that. So, we’ve seen, from a Westminster perspective particularly, that parties can be punished for an individual’s bad behaviour, or it could be a reflection of changing political support post-election, and there doesn’t seem to be a real case for retaining that party seat, especially three years after an election, for example.

Why not?

Because—

Surely there is case, and the case is: there’s been a general election, an individual has failed in their personal standard, and that person was removed. It doesn’t change the broader dynamic, though, does it? And, maybe, nor should it.

I guess it depends whether you want to consider the opinion of the electorate at that time. Because if you look again at the small number of recalls that have happened at the Westminster level, we know that different parties have replaced, and in a large proportion of those instances, although there's a smaller number, it’s also a different candidate standing for the party. So, it’s not just a replacement of the individual who has done the misconduct; it’s a replacement of the party standing a different individual. So, there is that change of opinion over time as well.

Isn’t the problem, though, with that approach, that what you’re doing is actually trying to draw and apply one approach that is appropriate for a first-past-the-post system, as opposed to one that is a proportional system?

I think the other side of this as well is that at the moment we have no mechanism for replacing independent candidates, and also we do need to—

Yes, I'll come on to that. That's a separate issue at the moment.

But we could use the same mechanism that would then cover everyone. And also under a closed list system there is a better chance of us seeing smaller parties winning, and whether they will have exhausted lists—. These issues might come to the fore a little bit more than what we've seen in the Senedd previously. And so if we had one mechanism that would suit every situation, rather than treating independent candidates different from exhausted lists, different from parties that have remaining lists, then it might be clearer to the electorate how a recall process works.

I think it's also fair to say that there doesn't seem to be a perfect solution here. We're suggesting something on the basis that it's slightly better than replacing someone with the next person on the list. We would obviously advocate for a supplementary vote or an alternate vote, which again is a different system. So, we're not necessarily saying there is a perfect scenario here. It's just kind of thinking about, from a voter's perspective, is there a way to have some accountability here.

Sam and then Peredur.

Thank you. I was just looking to explore some of the circumstances that would potentially trigger a petition. Should crossing the floor trigger that petition?

We know that in the fifth Senedd there was a lot of changing parties, and that is a big issue. It was all done on the regional list, so it's where people have voted for a party, not an individual. So, there is something that we need to think about, about how we deal with that situation going forward, where effectively everyone is under the closed list. However, the other side of that is that we wouldn't want any Members to feel too beholden to their party if they no longer agree with what they stand for and they want to make a stand on that, for example. How would these things be triggered? Could withdrawing the whip from someone then trigger a recall? So, it's how we balance that power of the party over the Members and the fact that when the electorate are voting, this time they're voting for a party not an individual, so crossing the floor can be seen as more of a serious breach of what the electorate have asked for.

That's an interesting one, withdrawing the whip, because it just comes down to who can get their statement on Twitter first as to what is the reality of whether someone has resigned the whip and said, 'I no longer agree with my party' and therefore not falling foul of this, or the whip being able to tweet it quickly and say, 'Actually, I've withdrawn the whip' for whatever reason it is. So, that's a slightly interesting area to be in.

And then lack of attendance. Obviously, on a local authority level, lack of attendance does lead to potential recall. Should that be brought in at the Senedd level? I can see you both nodding along.

Yes, absolutely. We've long made the case that the Senedd should increase in size. It's vital that there are enough Senedd Members to essentially do the job, and I think increasing to 96 does do that. But there's a risk. If you have a few Members not doing their job effectively, not turning up to committee, not taking part in debates, not representing the people in their area, that is a massive risk. In any other job, you wouldn't be allowed to do that. If I didn't turn up to work for a few weeks, people would be like, 'What's happening here?' So, I think there has to be a land in the sign—. A line in the sand, sorry—it's early this morning. And I think that a recall mechanism is probably appropriate in this instance.

Because that would obviously go against what is happening in Westminster with those parties in Northern Ireland who refuse to take up their seats. So, would there be a criteria? If you are elected on a pledge not to take up your seat in opposition to something specific, then should that party be allowed to have that within their manifesto? Because if what you explained there now was replicated on a Westminster level, then Sinn Féin MPs would be subject to recall every time they refused to take up their seat, and there would be a never-ending conveyor belt of by-elections in Northern Ireland.

I think that's an interesting point, but we haven't had that kind of example here in Wales. I think it is something that we should probably prepare for. But I think this instance we're particularly talking about is a Member without good reason not turning up, and this not being put to the public. I think that's where I'd be coming at with this, rather than this being a manifesto commitment to not take a seat.

Thank you.

Turning back to a line of questioning by Mick around having a by-election with first-past-the-post, or whatever that mechanism might look like, at the beginning of a Senedd term, you would know what the proportions of the parties are. Then, if somebody is subject to a recall petition, does having a by-election, as opposed to the next person on the list, adversely give larger parties an advantage against smaller parties, because they could mobilise their membership more to turn out for a by-election, where turnout could be 20 per cent, if you're lucky? And therefore it would then disproportionately affect the balance of what the electorate voted for at the beginning of the term. So, it's just your thoughts around that and how could you, if you could, mitigate that using either the D'Hondt method—. You've got six Members elected, one is up for recall; do you then go to the point at which they were elected and use the proportions at that point? I don't know if there's a mathematical formula to do it. It gets extremely complicated, and that's why, possibly, a 'next person on the list' system works better. But I'd like your thoughts on that. 

I think there is always a risk with a by-election that larger parties can mobilise more effectively. We've seen that, I think, at a Westminster level. But, ultimately, the principle that we're really advocating for here is that voters have some kind of say, that there is voter accountability. I would say that that probably offsets an element of concern around this. This shouldn't be necessarily about parties keeping control, it should be about voters having their say. In terms of whether the proportionality of the Senedd would change in a by-election circumstance, it would, I do take that. However, I think that that probably would reflect changing attitudes from voters over the period of a Senedd term. So, again, it's an emphasis on the voter, rather than parties. 

But in the way that Mick explained, having a vote of the public to say, 'Do you wish this person to continue, yes or no?', and possibly even on the ballot paper saying that the person who would replace them would be X, they would have that accountability. It would keep the proportionality levels the same, but it would allow somebody—. As Mick was saying, it is the person who has transgressed, potentially, not the party. So, it's that problem, in effect.

It could be the person who has transgressed, but that could also reflect the party or the way that the party has handled it, so I don't think it's necessarily as clear cut as, 'This is one person's actions, whereas the party's totally fine.' I think there are blurred lines slightly within that, and I think that there should be a mechanism to account for that and account for voters' perspectives on that. 

Doesn't that, though, then undermine the integrity of the Welsh general election, where you have a proportional system? The difficulty I have is that what you appear to be doing is applying the cultural understanding, the political understanding of how a first-past-the-post system works, whereas in actual fact, with a proportional system, the general election becomes a much more important basis. In Westminster, with first-past-the-post, you can win many seats on a minority of votes; here it is completely proportional. And anything that undermines the general election is certainly a factor that needs to be taken account of, isn't it?

It certainly would have to be taken account of. I think it would be quite interesting to potentially model the impact of this, but again, I do think that there is some balance to be sought here between maintaining proportionality and having some accountability. Again, I don't think there's a perfect answer to this; genuinely, I think this is a really difficult one to grapple with. But trying to use some proportional system to run a by-election would probably be trying to get to a mid point between these. 

Would one potential way be taking whomever was seventh at the Welsh general election, the Senedd election, and using them as the next potential candidate, or the next potential MS? If there's a transgression by one of the six in that constituency area, whomever was seventh, taking the legitimacy of a previous Senedd election—. Sorry, that's a complete curveball.

That is definitely punishing the party for an individual's actions, because yes, that party could have picked up a seventh, but they might well not, so I think that wouldn't necessarily be ideal either.

And you can run into issues then where the seventh person has moved away, doesn't necessarily want to take up their seat—

You could end up going quite far down. 

You can do at the moment as well.

Yes, which is a risk at the moment. And then also, with any kind of by-election mechanism, the party that previously held that seat could campaign to win that seat, whereas in theory, if the seventh person was not from that party, you are definitely punishing the party, or rewarding the party if they are seventh, and you lose—. I think it's a really interesting one, isn't it?

It's a long-winded way of just saying there's no perfect answer.

Yes, there's no perfect answer. I think on Peredur's point about somehow—we haven't looked into it—doing some research into that D'Hondt mechanism within a by-election, and taking into account the number of seats that parties have within the area already, around that small parties kind of issue, it could be quite interesting to explore, and would then help keep the proportionality a bit more; not necessarily replicating the general election results exactly, but at that point in time, it would keep the proportionality of the result based on who's sitting in the Senedd.

You'd need somebody who's pretty good at maths to work it out. 

It wouldn't be too complicated. You could just apply the five seats of D'Hondt to the vote and then you would know exactly what the threshold was.

But it would be dependent on where you are in the list.

I think you would just do it with everyone who's sitting, so you'd have five Members left—

So, it's whoever picks the sixth seat up, basically. So, everybody would move up one.

Yes. That would be the simplest way to do it and it would take into account what the make-up of the Senedd at that point in time is in that constituency without having to do a lot of extra layers.

I have another point around, if I may, people leaving the party as a matter of conscience or being thrown out of the party, or whatever that might be. Would a potential way of dealing with that—rather than it going through a potential recall, or effectively a vote to whether they stay, or the next person on that party's list when they were first elected coming through—be to say that they couldn't necessarily join another party, that they would sit as an independent? They could affiliate, but they couldn't join a party group until after the next Senedd election. Would that be a compromise position?

It's certainly something we've considered.

I think the Act already provides for this, though, doesn't it? It provides you sit as an independent, and if, for any reason that person goes off, goes away, it reverts back to the original list on which they were elected.

That would mean that it doesn't trigger a recall, potentially.

Do you think that any recall petition, if we had one in Wales, should have a threshold, and if so, do you think it should be the same as Westminster—10 per cent—or should it be something different?

I think the fact that the Westminster threshold is based on turnout at the last election is concerning. We know that turnout isn't equal across the whole of Wales, across the whole of any country, and therefore, if we were using 10 per cent of turnout, like in Westminster, then you're actually creating different barriers in different areas. I did write down some numbers. Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney had the lowest turnout last time, at just over a third. So, if the same number of people turn out to a recall petition, or less, if the engagement is based on the turnout level, then that 10 per cent is a third of everyone that turned out, whereas if you're looking at somewhere with a much higher turnout—Cardiff North had over 58 per cent—then that's almost a sixth of their electorate. So, it wouldn't be ideal to base it on the electorate in the area, because the turnout between the areas is different, and therefore, you're creating different hurdles in different new constituencies. Therefore basing it on the turnout is a better way to do it, so you're looking at the percentage of the people who actually went to vote, and keeping that consistent, so it would be different numbers across different areas, but it's consistent with the rate of the last engagement with the electoral process, and that might be a way to sort of smooth it out if you were going to use thresholds.

I think the other issue that might come into play here is if the automatic voter registration system is in place. Your electorate is going to be much larger—there are 400,000, we estimate, missing from the register in Wales. Turnout could, potentially, actually be lower because you've got a larger register. The measurements will change, effectively, of what we consider turnout. So, that 10 per cent threshold does seem rather high in that instance. It's one of those where, again, there's no perfect answer, because you would, essentially, be having variable thresholds across Wales, which is really complicated. But is there a way to put a mechanism in place that relates to the number of people who actually turned out at the previous election? That's kind of, I think, where we're edging towards on this.

Mick.

But isn't, really, the issue of turnout largely irrelevant? Surely you can only tie it to what your franchise is, per se. So, if there were a choice to say, 'Well, this should be a threshold', presumably, the only logical way of doing it would be a percentage of the electorate, and, of course, the point you make there is, with automatic registration, we will actually have a full franchise.

It's the variation in engagement across geographic areas that causes the concern, then, because on paper it's an equal threshold of 10 per cent of the electorate, but in reality, depending on the level of engagement within those areas, the effective threshold may be higher than that, because if people aren't engaged in the voting process, they may well also not be engaged in the recall process.

Yes, but surely the only mechanism you could take is to say, 'If you have a percentage, it's got to be a percentage of those who are capable of voting.' Any attempt to manipulate around that really does run the risk of potential gerrymandering, doesn't it?

I think what we're suggesting is that either you'd have a lower threshold of the electorate than we see in Westminster, or you have a figure that relates to the number of people that turned out at the previous election, and it's a particular percentage of those. I don't think it would come into gerrymandering, it would just reflect—

But, of course, Westminster only has the threshold in respect of their petition. If we're doing—[Inaudible.]—of course, when the by-election takes place, there is no threshold in place, it is whoever turns out. So, those are, obviously, I suppose, distinctions in terms of that system as opposed to what we might consider recommending.

Yes, this would be a threshold for a recall petition, absolutely not for any by-election.

Do you have an opinion on whether a petition should be able to be signed by a person by post or by proxy?

Yes, I think that we can't see a reason why barriers should be put in place for people being able to sign a petition. There's no reason why this should be any different from any other election. We would really advocate for accessibility to be considered as much as possible here. There doesn't seem to be any reason why not, and I think that there are concerns as well about voting in person on a recall petition, especially if there's only a 'to recall that person' option on the ballot paper. You lose a bit of anonymity. So, I think that it's also worth considering postal voting and proxy voting in terms of anonymity too.

And having enough locations, especially as the size of our constituencies is growing. We can't expect people to travel a very long way to sign a recall petition. It has to be local places, places that people go—

So, make it as accessible as possible. The Electoral Commission suggested that the six-week period allowed for Westminster be shortened. Do you agree with that or do you think that that is adequate?

I don't think we take a particular view on the exact length of time. However, again, I think having as many opportunities for people to actually cast their vote as possible—. The underlying principle should be accessibility and that people are actually able to take part in this if they want to, and all of that should come into it.

So, are there any other barriers you can think of that we should be addressing as part of this work as well?

I think anything that comes up normally in a Senedd election and local elections, so how people who are partially sighted might engage, how people who have disabilities might engage—any of the barriers that we usually see. The other thing, I guess, especially around people's engagement with the process, is how are we going to make sure it's really clear that this is happening and that people know that it's happening in places where they get their information from.

Yes, because this is one of the questions we asked in an earlier session with electoral administrators, because they had to look at the practicalities, the accessibility and things like that about how people know that this is happening, because they said they have the balance of being the ones to notify people, but not to look like they're encouraging people, then, to vote if it is just a simple recall petition. So, do you have any suggestions of how that could best be done in terms of making sure that people are aware that it is happening, but in a way that maintains that balance?

It's a really funny one, because, again, I think the whole principle of recall is one of balance, isn't it, by doing something that does have an accountability mechanism but also isn't cumbersome or doesn't then bring any unintended consequences. There's definitely a balance, in this instance, between properly making people aware that this is happening, and this could be done through all the usual mechanisms that we expect, so it could be something reported on in the media, it could be some information in local services that you might use, it could be flyers, but I think we would err on the side of caution about overly advertising this. I don't know necessarily if we'd write to every member of the electorate, or advocate writing to every member of the electorate in the area. I think there would be a balance to be sought.

So, taking the point about the accessibility of polling stations and being able to contribute by proxy or by post, one of the alternatives that has been suggested to us is that a recall petition could be held on a single day across a greater number of signing stations for a greater number of hours. Do you—?

It's interesting, isn't it, because I think the pilots that took place at the local government elections a few years ago were kind of exploring whether voting on multiple days was an option that could increase turnout. And, certainly, we know that the Thursday vote that we typically have for an election is often not seen as ideal. For example, for the Senedd elections, there were a lot of young people newly enfranchised for the first time who had exams that day. So, I think there's always a risk with just one day that you run into problems like this, and it's just not particularly accessible. However, I do appreciate that, if you have just one day, it's more of a signposting mechanism to actually get people to turn out. So, again, I think there's a balance involved in this. And you could certainly go for a shorter period than six weeks, but it would be possible that one day isn't enough for people.

Yes. So, we could, perhaps, have, like you say, somewhere in between, so a shorter period than six weeks, but making sure, perhaps, to look at the hours that the location was open for people to sign the petition. 

Yes. And I do 100 per cent agree with the idea of more places being open. I think that is a really key factor. It's probably a balance between the length of time that people are able to vote and the number of polling stations that can be open, and there's probably an ideal time—kind of halfway between them when you can have more polling stations open and you have it on a wider variety of days than just one day, which doesn't necessarily go to six weeks.

Unless Members have got any more questions, I think—

Just on that, what are the practicalities of signing a petition as opposed to a by-election? So, with the petition aspect, if you hit the percentage in the first two weeks, do you stop?

You certainly could do.

I think if there was a threshold, you could do that, because if all that matters is the threshold, then it doesn't make a difference if 30 per cent of people have signed it or 10 per cent of people have signed it.

It doesn't disenfranchise people because they can't express their view.

Well, if the only view you can express is, 'I want to have a recall', then your view is happening already, so I don't think it would matter.

Whereas if you had 'I want to keep this Member' and 'I want to recall this Member' and then you closed it early, I think that would be an issue, yes.

Okay.

I think in terms of the—. With the potential changes that will happen with Senedd elections going forward, and innovations, it's probably also important that the recall mechanisms keep track of that as well, so we don't end up having a lot more flexibility when we vote at a general election and then having a very tight mechanism at recall processes.

Well, thank you very much for your contributions in writing and this morning; we appreciate your time. Just to say that a copy of the transcript will be sent as soon as possible so that you can check it for factual accuracy, but diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Diolch. Thanks.

Diolch.

So, we now move to item 4, and I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi), to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content to agree the motion? In which case, we'll continue in private. Diolch.