Local Government and Housing Committee

Okay, welcome back, everyone, to committee this morning. We've reached item 3 in our evidence taking sessions with regards to the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill. At this point, I'd just like to add the apologies of Jane Bryant to the apology from Luke Fletcher for non-attendance today.

So, we are now taking evidence from Malcolm Burr of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland. Malcolm, thanks very much for joining committee today. Perhaps I might begin with an initial question before we turn to other committee members. In your written evidence, you state that the electoral management board in Scotland operates

'through a progression of consensus where possible, guidance where helpful and direction if necessary.'

Could you just expand a little on that approach taken to electoral co-ordination in Scotland, please?

Yes, I'm happy to do so, Chair, and thank you very much for the invitation to speak to you on this subject. What you've just read there, which is our modus operandi, I think, reflects what we consider to be a very close and supportive community of returning officers and electoral registration officers in, perhaps, like Wales, a relatively small country, and there's a balance between what the board does centrally and the independence and the personal accountability of returning officers and electoral registration officers. We're not there to take over; we're there to support and promote best practice. But, yes, there is the power of direction, and we use that where—I hesitate to say 'uniformity'—consistency of practice is helpful. The directions are overwhelmingly consensual. The only time I have felt it necessary to say, 'Look, this is a direction', was in the COVID environment, where we set a direction of maximum number of electors per polling station. And, even there, there was a procedure for exemptions to be granted where turnout was traditionally very low, for example. But, generally, the power of direction is there to assist and to clarify rather than to be directive.

Okay. Thank you very much for that, Malcolm. You've also said that the board in Scotland would only make directions following consultation, and you've mentioned the exceptional circumstances, really, of COVID. Would there be any other examples that you could give committee as to when that direction-making power has been used? And, when it is used, are there any common issues that tend to arise?

There's no dissent. I've never had dissent from directions and, generally, that's because we will consult about them far enough in advance. For instance, directions about the official mark about the date of dispatch of poll cards, postal ballot packs, information in the count centre, all these things can readily be agreed and they're helpful to everybody. And they're helpful, of course, to suppliers as well. It also means—and this has been an issue in Scotland in the past; I don't know if it has with you—the EMB co-ordinates the arrangements with Royal Mail for the polling day sweep of sorting offices. There had been instances of late delivery of ballot papers, so we co-ordinate that for returning officers.

But, no, we haven't met with any dissent. We even agreed a script for declaration of results last time, because there was a feeling that there was quite a bit of variation and that it would be helpful to have an agreed script. So, even that, which people might see as personal to the returning officer, was readily agreed. As always, it depends how well you consult and what the relationships are with the electoral community, I think.

[Inaudible.]—community where, obviously, people know each other, and I guess some people have been in position for a number of years and relationships are well established.

Yes, although turnover is high now among chief executives, who are generally returning officers—not all returning officers are chief executives, but that's usually the case—and the turnover in Scottish local government at the moment is quite high.

Is that quite a recent development, Malcolm, that that turnover is higher than it's been in the past?

Yes, I would say so. I think it just reflects the funding position, amongst other things, for local government and general what I might call 'unsettledness' in the political sphere.

So, does that have any particular implications, then, for the operation of the electoral management board and the way that things work, in the way that you've described them?

Yes, it does. I think our role of assisting and promoting best practice is moving more to very practical assistance, inevitably, as numbers employed in local government fall, with the turnover at a senior level. Experience goes and numbers are small anyway in the election teams, and we are asked more and more to help out, and we have, on a couple of occasions, arranged, for example, for retired deputy returning officers to come back to assist a council whose team is a bit threadbare. I anticipate that growing, and that is certainly an area on which, I'm advised, the Scottish Parliament is going to be a key focus for the board. Now that we're through the COVID period, we're likely to have a UK parliamentary election next year, of course. After that, there should be a fallow year, and I intend to use that year for consolidation of the assistance we provide.

I see. Okay. Could you just tell us, as well, if a returning officer was to disagree with a direction from the board, what action could the board take? Is there a particular procedure for dealing with that potential eventuality?

I would certainly use all means possible to persuade the returning officer to comply with the direction. But failure to comply with a direction, I think, would be a matter that the Electoral Commission would, in time, have to take a view on, as the regulator on electoral practice.

Yes, I see. Finally from me, before we move on to other committee members, Malcolm, I wonder if you could set out your views on the importance of the independence of the Electoral Management Board for Scotland, and the steps you take to ensure that that independence is maintained.

That is an absolutely critical part—it's absolutely fundamental that there is no, obviously, political control, or perceived political control of those who are charged with administering elections. Hence we are, as a board, accountable to the Parliament at Holyrood. That is, I have to say, fairly light touch. We submit an annual report, and that's generally received without comment, but we are asked to speak to the parliamentary committees, as you can imagine, from time to time, and they will often pick up matters in our annual report, even if that's not the direct subject of the inquiry. So, our relationship with the Parliament is close. We are, of course, funded through Scottish Government, we're accountable to the Parliament for how spend that money, and that's pretty critical.

I have to say there has been great respect from all political parties and from Government about the independence of the board, and we have never been the subject of any undue pressure to opine one way or the other. That's absolutely critical, and it's essential, of course, that we demonstrate that independence, as well as exercising it.

Okay. Just one quick supplementary: could you explain how the resource and budget allocation works for the management board in Scotland?

Yes, we receive—. The board, at the moment, although this will change, I think, is not a legal entity in the sense of contracting. It's a statutory body, but it's not a legal entity. So, I am an employee of another council, of course, and chief executive in Western Isles. The secretary, who is a returning officer, is employed by the City of Edinburgh Council. So, the money that Government provides is really to allow for his secondment to the work of the board and such other minor expenses as we have. We're a very best value service, I would submit. The budget is only about £200,000, and that includes, of course, the production of materials, advice, running our annual conference jointly with the Electoral Commission, all of these things. It comes to us through the elections team at Scottish Government, but, as I've said, we're accountable to the Parliament as to how we spend that money.

Okay, thank you very much, Malcolm. We'll move on, then, to another committee member, Sam Rowlands. Sam.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, John. Good morning, Malcolm, thank you for joining us here today. It's appreciated. The Bill that we're scrutinising places a duty on the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, which is a Welsh Government-sponsored body, and it's the duty on them to establish the EMB here in Wales. I'm just wondering what your views are on the commission creating that body and on the EMB sitting within the commission itself.

I have to be circumspect here, of course, because that is a policy matter for yourselves. I'm interested in the link within the boundary commission, or the democracy and boundary commission. The boundary commission, or Boundaries Scotland as it is now, is an adviser to the EMB. We're not part of that structure. Objectively, I wouldn't see any particular reason why an electoral management board should be linked with the boundary commission in particular, although they do perform politically neutral functions on a basis of accountability to the Parliament, so there are parallels. I don't objectively see why those should be linked, but that is a policy matter for yourselves.

What is critical is the independence. What is critical is that those who are charged with assisting with the delivery of elections, supporting the electoral community and, of course, for issuing directions are seen to be absolutely independent of the political process. That is the standard, I think, that should be used in assessing the proposal.

Thanks for that. I absolutely accept that, ultimately, it is a decision for Parliament what happens here. I guess I'm trying to just pick away at your experience and observations in Scotland as to how these things could work, and I agree with you in terms of the independence, and one of the concerns that other witnesses have raised through our proceedings has been the risk of that independence not being there with the democracy and boundary commission being funded by Welsh Government—similar to yourselves, though, I suppose. So, I just wonder if you could expand on that a little further, about how you’re able to demonstrate that independence that you have, and how perhaps the EMB when it’s established here in Wales could learn from what practices you’ve undertaken to make clear that independence.

Yes. It's an important question. The independence is demonstrated, I think, by action. I mean, you have to be functioning to demonstrate anything, that's clear, and it will be for the new board to demonstrate its independence, very clearly. But, structurally, that is done, I think, by making sure that the board is inclusive in the advice it takes, by which I mean it should choose its advisers carefully: there will be Welsh Government no doubt, there will be UK Government, there will be the boundaries commission itself, there will be the ERO bodies, there will be the Association of Electoral Administrators; I dare say there will be the equivalents of the various bodies we have in Scotland too that support the electoral process. So, part of that is not just the board itself, but those from whom it takes advice, how it deals with that advice, how it demonstrates its independence. But critically for us is the accountability to the Parliament and to cross-party committees not unlike your own. We are accountable to the Parliament, and that's a very important safeguard, as it were, for me. I think that is the primary demonstration of independence.

Thank you. And on that point, can I just understand that a little bit further? So, that accountability to the Parliament, could you help me understand what that looks like? So, is that an annual sitting in front of a committee? I know you mentioned the report that you submit; perhaps there's an opportunity for parliamentarians to respond to that.

And then, perhaps further to that, I wonder whether you think, whilst that accountability exists, to improve things there should be any changes in those accountability arrangements that you think would make things even better from your perspective.

I'm keen personally that the EMB have a legal status. I think that is important, and that shows a maturing of the position of the EMB within the electoral structure in Scotland, but those comments may apply only to Scotland, I suppose.

The relationship with the Parliament is very important to me, because we are primarily advisers; we support, we advise, we try to ensure that the voter is placed at the centre of events, and who better can support that process than the Parliament itself?

Our work is around consistency, accessibility, integrity. We have a strapline of

'to deliver a result that will be trusted as accurate'.

I think, these days, you have to say it's to deliver a result that will be trusted by all reasonable people as accurate. [Laughter.]

But, to focus on your question, how does that accountability work in practice? Through the written evidence we give. We are called on, I would say, about half a dozen times in the year—depending on the business—to give views, to give evidence. That will usually be followed up with a request to appear at the committee in person and either I or the secretary to the EMB will do that.

The annual report is generally received in respectful silence, but, as I think I said earlier, it comes back—we're not called in to talk about the annual report, but it does filter into the evidence sessions quite strongly. And, of course, there is an electoral reform Bill coming before the Scottish Parliament next year. We'll be heavily involved in the Parliament's consideration of that. So, it's largely through that written and oral evidence, but it's fair to say that Parliament takes an interest in what the EMB does and what the EMB says, and that's very important.

A particular example—sorry to go on so long—was in the emergency Bill we did for the running of elections during the COVID period, and that was a very active involvement with the Parliament as well as with the Minister and all political parties in Scotland. Sorry for the long answer.

No, no, that's fine—trying to get the details is really, really helpful, so, thank you for that. So, if I was to get this right then: so, there's an annual report and there is opportunity for regular, written evidence as and when it's presented to you and then those opportunities also are in person, as and when it's required. I'm sure we could just find this out, but, perhaps, whilst you're here, in terms of which committee you would usually appear in front of, is there a specific committee usually, or does it vary, depending on the type of evidence required?

It depends on the subject matter. There is a standards and related matters committee—it's got a very unexciting title, but it deals with what you might call the minutiae of electoral administration. But there is also the local government committee, and sometimes the Finance and Public Administration Committee will want a view as well. So, it can be—. We don't have a home base as it were, except for the annual report.

Yes, thank you. Can I just ask a further question, Chair—is that okay?

Yes.

Thanks. So, just a slightly different point now, which is in relation to electoral pilots: the Bill that we're scrutinising would give the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, hosting the electoral management board, duties in the evaluation of electoral pilots. Do you in Scotland have a similar role in that? And then, perhaps a supplementary to that: what are your views on the EMB having this power?

I'm very keen on that power and, indeed, I have asked Scottish Ministers to add that to our own forthcoming electoral reform Bill. I think it's a very valuable power. Again, it should be exercised consensually and with the electoral community. But I think, given the opportunity—. And I've looked at other provisions in your Bill about registration, about increasing turnout and increasing registration, at looking at different methods of voting, and, of course, looking at protecting the voting process as well in these days of cyber incidents all over the place. I'm very keen that we look at pilots. And Scotland has, probably like Wales, such a variety of areas—some remote, rural, urban, semi-urban—for trialling different methods of voting, and indeed counting. So, I'm very keen on that power, not just for the EMB, of course, but I think the EMB is a promoter of good practice and, as a voter-focused body, should also have that power to promote pilots.

Thanks. Thanks, Chair.

Okay, Sam. Carolyn Thomas.

Thanks, Chair. You got through the questions quicker than I expected there. So, how does the EMBS interact with the Electoral Commission?

Very well—closely, and we bear in mind the different roles, of course. The cliché would be the three-legged stool: the Parliament legislates, the EC regulates and the EMB promotes the good administration of elections. We always have a debate with the Electoral Commission—a very friendly debate—about the production of guidance: is guidance for the administrators to do or is that for the regulator to do? It doesn't really matter in Scotland at the moment, because the guidance that the Electoral Commission produces—and it has quite significant resources to do that—is often developed and applied following discussion with the EMB. So, it's a pretty consensual relationship. We work very well with the head of office in Scotland, and I know he, of course, consults with the head of office in Wales and the north of Ireland and elsewhere. So, there's a lot of experience that comes from working closely with the Electoral Commission, and it's a good, productive relationship. But there are different roles, and that always has to be borne in mind.

Thank you. How does the EMBS—what role does it have in the co-ordination of UK parliamentary elections, and how does it differ from the role in devolved elections in Scotland?

Significantly in law and increasingly less significantly in practice, the EMB in Scotland has no jurisdiction with UK elections at all, but our colleagues have always almost presumed that we do. So, while I don't issue any directions in relation to UK Parliament elections, we have, again by wish and consensus, issued recommendations—and they're no more than that. And the recommendations can look very like the directions that would be issued for a Scottish Parliament or Scottish local government election. And, again, there's a wish for that clarity and consistency, where we believe that's efficient for administrators and is in the interests of the voter. So, you wouldn't perhaps notice much of a difference but we don't have any responsibility in relation to UK elections, but our role in supporting the electoral community, of course, applies to UK Parliament elections and, in the old days, to European Parliament elections as well.

What challenges have you faced over the last year, and what lessons could a newly formed electoral management board in Wales take on board from you?

Well, that's a—. I don't want to praise the electoral management board here because I'm the convenor of it, but I think the feedback from the electoral community in Scotland over the years has consistently been to the effect that electoral management without the EMB would be very, very difficult indeed. And it was set up for a purpose. It was set up to co-ordinate and support, and its esteem, if I can put it that way, has grown across the political spectrum and within the communities it serves. What advice would I give? Be inclusive, work with everybody, remember that the voter is the focus of all this. The EMB is not a voter-facing organisation, you won't see our logo or anything like that in a polling station, but we are a voter-focused organisation, and that is what matters at the end of the day, that the focus is the voter and that they have confidence in the process.

We support returning officers and electoral registration officers, but we don't replace them. It's for them to deliver on the ground. So, it's that mutual respect within the electoral community that's important. But there's a reason for having an electoral management board, in Wales I'm sure as well as in Scotland, and it's a model I commend, because it brings the right people together at the right time. The curse of elections in the old days was that things were rushed. We ran an election and then we all stopped and we didn't analyse sufficiently—I'm going a way back here—until the next election came along. And I'm not saying it's because of the EMB by any means, but the administration of elections in Scotland since its formation has been externally assessed as being good, and I genuinely think the EMB is a big part of that.

You said earlier that resources can sometimes be an issue. You're seconded into the role, aren't you, so your still a chief exec?

Well, I think we will address this in the electoral reform Bill. My position is entirely unpaid and voluntary. I sometimes joke that if my council knew how much time I spent on the work of the EMB—. I'm very fortunate to have a tolerant council. And personally, I don't think that can continue, because that, at times, is a lot of work, even as convener, and we need a couple of permanent staff. I always say to Ministers here, I'm not looking for a brass plaque in the New Town of Edinburgh, nor am I looking for an army of staff, but we need to be adequately resourced. Scottish Government, though, I must say, has always given us—. If we've said we need a certain resource for production of materials—we're doing a lot of work on accessibility at the moment for voters with particular issues—you know, they have always been forthcoming. So, it is the structure that needs to be—and the place of the EMB as a legal entity—that needs to be looked at, rather than any—. I can't complain about the resource that we've been allocated, but, yes, we need to know what that is on more than a one-year basis.

Okay?

Yes, thank you.

Okay. Malcolm, thank you very much for giving evidence—[Interruption.] Sorry, Joel. Joel.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks ever so much, Malcolm, for coming in online, as they say. I just want to ask a quick question—

Yes, I'm sorry I can't be with you in person.

No worries, no worries at all. I just wanted to ask a quick question based on your responses to Carolyn there, then. You mentioned then that, sort of, electoral life in Scotland would be a bit difficult if the EMB didn't exist there, and I just wanted to get some ideas there, because, you know, the EMB came about because of one of the recommendations in the Gould report, and that followed the Scottish elections in 2007, where there were about 146,000 discounted votes; so, that's a phenomenal amount of spoilt ballots there. We don't necessarily have that issue in Wales at the moment, though it's a concern of mine with this reform that we could see things like that. Is there a need for an EMB, if that makes sense? You know, because other countries don't have one, Scotland existed perfectly fine before it, until 2007, if that makes sense, and I just want to get your views on that, if I could.

Well, I would say there is, and I would give a particular example, perhaps about the complexity of elections. Now, we run local government elections through the single transferable vote method; that requires e-counting, it requires—. That's a significant project in determining the specification for the contract, the tendering process, the awarding of the contract, the monitoring of the contractor, taking into account that there are 32 centres for this—of course, the contractors would want there to be one big warehouse in the middle of Scotland where everybody's votes were sent, but that's not local democracy. So, there's a lot of work in that, and I think 32 returning officers and 32 councils would find it difficult to do that procurement on as best value a basis as a national board; so, there's a practical example there. But, of course, you can count single transferable votes manually, it just takes a long time—it would probably take about two to three days—but that's perhaps one practical example.

The other one is the guidance that's produced, and I would venture to say that experience of elections and longevity of service in local government now is not what it was, and experience has gone out the door, electoral teams are reducing and the financial position for the public sector in Scotland is not terribly good, and it is exactly, of course, the old administration, legal services, corporate services that provide electoral support that, of course, have been reduced, but, I would say, to protect the provision of more personal front-line services. So, the support that we provide, the reassurance we provide, as well as the guidance, just would not be there. And I think that it's not the case of going to your neighbour returning officer and saying, 'Help me out.' That person may well have no capacity or may well not have an any more experienced team, so I would suggest one could do without an EMB, no doubt, but I do think it adds significant value to the electoral community.

Perfect, thanks for that. Also, we heard in previous evidence sessions, and you touched upon it there, about that loss of experience. Obviously, prior to you coming in online there, we had, basically, the boundary commission in person, talking about their expanded role. They've also highlighted that one of the reasons why they want EMB within their fold is because they lack the expertise, and there's also a concern there that it will take some time for it to be bedded in, or whatever. Is there a concern, then, that maybe the Welsh Government might be rushing into this, because this is all tied in with other legislation that the Welsh Government are doing, and could we see issues like you had then in 2007 happen here, with all this legislation coming in and the changing of the voting, because we're debating how we elect ourselves as well? I just wanted to have your views on that, then.

What I would say is that careful planning and realistic timescales are absolutely essential. One of the main things Ron Gould said after our 2007 experience was that rules should be there at least six months before an electoral event. That, in my view, is a minimum, if these are substantial changes to rules. That's where the EMB can help. The EMB has the capacity, or should have the capacity, to look ahead, to identify issues from, in our case, 32 council areas across Scotland, record these issues, do the co-ordination with the commission, with the two Governments, with anyone else, as to dealing with issues and how matters can be improved for the next election. That's a key role, and I know you're looking at quite significant changes. My strong advice would be to begin that work even before there's an EMB. You will note from my written evidence that there was a pre EMB in Scotland from about 2009 until it was established in 2011, and that was because it was recognised that 2007 was not the finest hour, and we were doing that because it was the obvious thing, as good administrators, for us to do. So, don't delay, because changes, particularly at a time of reduced resources—that's when things can go wrong if everybody isn't clear, if there isn't time, if there isn't a bit of training, if there isn't a bit of familiarity before the electoral event happens. Again, sorry for the long answer. I talk too much, as you can see.

No, no, no worries at all. It's been absolutely fascinating. That's it from me, Chair.

Okay, thanks, Joel. Not at all, Malcolm. Thank you very much for your evidence to committee today. It's much appreciated. Thank you for joining us. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr.

That's fine. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Mòran taing.

Item 4 on our agenda today is our eighth evidence-taking session with regard to the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to welcome, joining us virtually, Professor Alistair Clark, professor of political science at Newcastle University. Welcome, Alistair. Thank you for joining the committee today.

Good morning.

Morning. Bore da. Perhaps I might begin with a couple of general questions. Firstly, very generally, what are your general reflections on the Bill?

The first thing to say is thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence. I think this is a very important Bill because it deals with issues of electoral infrastructure, which are often seen as back-office-type things. To my mind, it represents an important set of proposals to reform election administration and aspects of the electoral process in Wales, to modernise, for example, processes around automatic voter registration while also introducing new responsibilities, new structures around the running of elections with the electoral management board. I think Wales has very much been at the forefront of developments in this field in Britain, and I think, implemented effectively, this could provide a good example of how something such as automatic voter registration would operate more widely across the state. For Stage 1 scrutiny, my view is that the Bill's main principles, aims and measures are largely to be welcomed and supported.

Thank you very much for that, Alistair. We also, of course, have a Bill in the offing to change the way that the Senedd is elected, and increasing membership of the Senedd, the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill. I wonder if you might offer a view, Alistair, on the interrelationship and the crossover between this Bill that we're scrutinising today in this session and that Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill. What do you think the committee should be particularly aware of in terms of those interrelationships?

I think it's difficult when you have such complex Bills before different committees. I understand why these two Bills have been separated out in the way that they have been. You can argue that the other Bill that's before the Reform Bill Committee about the size of the Senedd is arguably a more constitutional and first-order-nature Bill, to do with the size, obviously, of the institution, the electoral system and the like, whereas this one, I think, is the stuff that goes on in the back office: electoral administration and these sorts of things. In other words, things not immediately obvious to the public. So, I understand why they've been separated in the way that they have; that makes sense to me. The thing that struck me most when looking at both of the Bills is that there's a lot of content in both around the democracy and boundary commission, and my worry there is that there's a lot of complexity in both Bills around that particular body. I think that's something that's worth considering as a committee, and in conjunction with the Reform Bill Committee.

My wider concern, and I think this is maybe one for the committee to think about after the passage of these Bills, is actually the complexity of electoral law in Wales now. It's not just the Senedd Bill and the Bill that we're talking about today; there's a gender quotas Bill to come, and there have already been measures around resident voting and things of that sort in recent years as well. So, this has been quite a busy field for Wales. As I say, this is great, because, in many ways, there's innovation happening that I think is very welcome. But I think one of the big problems that we have—and this is at UK level, and not just at the Welsh level—is that electoral law is very complex, and I think there's maybe a need, after these Bills have been passed, to stand back and just think, 'Right. Is there a way of consolidating all of this into one electoral Act for Wales?' So, I think the democracy and boundary commission issue with the two Bills is what we're looking at in particular, but I think there's a need for a wider angle reflection after the passage of these two Bills as well.

Thanks very much. That's helpful. We'll move on to another committee member, Sam Rowlands.

Thanks, Chair, and good morning, Professor Clark. I appreciate your time with us today. Just a few questions on the electoral management board proposals within the Bill. As I'm sure you noticed, the Bill does establish the EMB as part of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru. We're clearly aware that it's a Welsh Government sponsored body. I was just wondering what your views are on that arrangement.

My view on that is reasonably clear. I think it's less than ideal, to be honest. I would prefer de jure independence, actual independence, not to be a delegated body of some other body, which itself is a Government sponsored body. I think this is problematical, and it's fairly clear to me, I think, from the explanatory notes, that independence wasn't really considered seriously as an option in this regard. That worries me, because there's a tendency to suspect government of trying to influence electoral matters. Whether this is right, wrong or whatever, there's a perception there that government tries to influence these things. What we've found from the international research literature is that electoral management bodies that have that independence from government, from other bodies, do actually go on to provide elections with more electoral integrity, they're more trusted by citizens. In essence, perceptions of how they actually operate and how they run elections tend to be more trustworthy and accepted. So, I would prefer an independent body rather than the delegated model that is currently in the Bill.

It's also unclear to me under these circumstances what would happen were there a conflict of interest between the two bodies, for example. I don't know what that conflict of interest might be; it might be over setting deadlines for something, the dispatch of postal votes, or who knows—it could be for various things. Quite how that would be looked at were there an issue of a conflict between the two bodies is, I think, problematic. So, again, independence resolves that issue. I think, again, the explanatory notes are interesting in this regard, because the text—I think they have this on page 81 or 82, something of that sort—says that the democracy and boundary commission will nominate one of its commissioners as chair of the EMB, and also a further commissioner to serve as a member of the EMB. That doesn't really equal an independent body. This, I think, is concerning—that the chair of the EMB wouldn't be coming from another particular body. So, my fairly strong view is that I would very much prefer independence. I think we've seen from Scotland how such an independent model can work and has worked well under some fairly trying circumstances in things such as the Scottish independence referendum of 2014. So I think there's a model there to be followed, and I think it works quite well.

Thank you for that. Your view is very clear, so thank you for giving that. In the Scottish model, of course, they are funded by the Scottish Government themselves, aren't they, to the tune of around £200,000 a year, and they argue their independence is then sought through being accountable to Parliament. Would you consider that to be a useful step for this body?

Yes. I think that is my preferred model for these sorts of organisations—to be responsible to Parliament, to be accountable to Parliament. Obviously, they're going to draw on Government funding and Government resources for equipment, procurement and those sorts of things, but to be independent and responsible to Parliament, I think, is the ideal model, to be honest.

Thank you. Just moving away from that a little bit, but continuing to think about the electoral management board, the Bill looks to provide direction-making powers for the EMB. Do you have a view on that?

I don't have that much to say on this. I think it's good that those direction-making powers are in the Bill from the very start. They developed fairly gradually in Scotland due to how the legislation developed in many ways. To my mind, it's important that this has been recognised as an issue to begin with. I think it's important to be clear about what the Bill's powers of direction will be used for. To my mind, consistency of service to the elector is the fundamental issue that direction should be used for—so, councils have the same dispatch dates for postal votes, same deadlines, and those kinds of things. But to my mind, the power of direction is a very good idea, and it's welcome to see that in the Bill to begin with.

Thank you. On this point on the EMB still, there is a proposed level of resource in the Bill. Do you think it's sufficient to deliver the functions provided to it?

It's difficult to say, because I think the notes are a bit opaque in how the form of the electoral management board will work. The basis for those cost estimates, if I've understood that correctly, is what the Scottish EMB have budgeted for, and for their functions and for how they operate. On the one hand, you might argue that the Welsh EMB might actually, because it's dealing with a smaller electorate, need a little bit less resource. But on the other hand, it's going to have increased responsibilities—we have new electoral laws coming in, as we've already discussed, a new electoral system to help manage, and so on, the implementation of automatic voter registration, the voter information website, and, arguably, even managing the inevitable fallout from UK Government legislation and the Elections Act 2022, things of that sort. So, there are a lot of pressures pointing in the opposite direction, I think, in terms of needing more resource.

I think I would say three things. I think they've budgeted around about £130,000 a year, plus £10,000 in pre-election years. So, given that we're almost always in a pre-election year nowadays, that's roughly £140,000. That might seem a lot, but it's important to bear in mind that, first of all, that's helping guarantee the consistency of voting rights for all Welsh citizens and residents. So, in that context, it doesn't seem that much. Having said that, the Scottish EMB have always, in their reports every two or three years, highlighted issues about resource constraints and things of that sort. So, they would clearly like a bit more.

But it's also worth thinking about this—. I always find, when we're thinking about electoral budgeting, that it's necessary not just to think about the whole raw figure, the total figure—that's important, of course it is—but also to think about this in terms of how much that implies per elector. Now, if you assume a Welsh electorate of—this is a figure from the Office for National Statistics—around 2.3 million or thereabouts, the cost of the EMB is only going to be something like 6p being spent per elector. If you add to that the voter information system that's coming in and will likely be the responsibility of the EMB, that's another 7p. So, we're talking about 13p per elector being spent. That doesn't seem that much to me. I think it's probably reasonably good value for money.

Okay. Thank you. That's an interesting way of breaking it down. It's probably slightly less good value for money than the Scottish model, though, if you did it per elector, I suppose. But, yes, that's one way to look at it. Thank you.

Just if I may, Chair, move on to another topic—.

Yes, please do, Sam.

Just on electoral registration without application, clearly it's quite a significant part of the Bill in here. I just wondered what challenges you think the Welsh Government might face when piloting electoral registration without application, as provided for in the Bill.

I think this is a really significant change. As I've already said, potentially it can show the way to the rest of the UK on these things. I think it broadly simplifies things. We've found in research that we've done that the biggest problem in polling stations is voters being turned away as they're not registered or there's been a problem with their registration. So, this should, hopefully, help deal with that.

The difficulties I think that are going to be faced are things such as—. Well, the Electoral Commission talks about this in terms of completeness and accuracy. I think completeness the introduction of the new system very much helps with; I think accuracy is something that's always going to need to be kept on top of. So, I think there's the potential for duplicate entries, say if someone has moved or has two properties or addresses or something of that sort. So, there's going to be a need to keep that up to date, to keep cleaning the register to make sure that those kinds of issues are up to date.

I think there are more back-office things as well that might be worth thinking about. For example, it's often not appreciated that there are often private contractors delivering IT systems to electoral services departments for electoral registration, and the ability of those contractors, those electoral management system contractors, to deliver on time and the costs that are involved in delivering this system seem to me to be largely unquantified in the explanatory note, and we don't really know much about how these operators work to begin with. So, I think that's something that is going to need a bit of careful disentangling. Of course, there'll be contracts to be negotiated and so on.

What else? There's going to need to be a process of what's known as data mining in order to try and keep the register up to date. In other words, trying to exploit other Government databases—and these may be Welsh Government databases, they may be UK Government databases as well. And the ability of the relevant departments, whether these are councils or there's going to be a Welsh Government department doing this, to do that data mining, I think is—. It's quite technical to do, so there is going to need to be resource capacity there to make sure that that can be done. Related to that, I think, is making sure that there is access to the relevant databases. The Department for Work and Pensions database is one that often comes up in this regard. So, I think making sure that all the data-sharing agreements and things of that sort that are likely to be necessary are in place, I think, will probably be important.

I wondered also if there's a kind of economy of scale vis-à-vis UK level electoral registration practices here; in other words, what's happening in Wales actually shows the way to the UK Government practice. It seems to me that there's a relationship between the two, and, actually, UK-level registration in Wales—parliamentary registration in Wales for the UK Parliament—might actually benefit from the automatic voter registration initiative. So, I do wonder if there's a benefit in there. There are challenges, certainly, but there's also a benefit to electoral registration processes more widely, for other institutions as well, from this.

Okay. Thank you. There's plenty there to chew over. Just going back to that accuracy point: how do you think the Welsh Government can ensure that electoral registers are accurately maintained under the electoral registration without application system?

It requires fairly constant monitoring of the applicable databases. I've already mentioned the Department for Work and Pensions as one potential source—they have all the national insurance data and things of that sort—but it also encompasses things such as council tax registers from local authorities, and various others. These are likely to be held by different government departments, so it's going to be important that the relevant processes for co-operation, for data sharing, for data mining are very clearly in place.

There's also a question about how often this process is conducted, whether this is a process that's just ongoing, that it's one of these things that might actually be conducted weekly, monthly, or maybe on a different frequency. I think that needs to be thought through a little bit as well, and it's not entirely clear to me how that process would be conducted. Now, it may well be that there are discussions around this already, but I think those issues around frequency are certainly important ones. I think the fundamental difficulty here is we don't have a population register or anything of that sort, which is what necessitates all this data mining, and which countries that do have automatic registration can rely on to begin with. We don't have that, so it's necessarily a more complex process because of that.

Thanks. And you haven't perhaps touched on—. And perhaps it's the way I've framed the questions, but witnesses on this issue have talked about the potential for confusion for the electors themselves—those elections that are Welsh responsibility versus elections that are UK responsibility. I was just wondering if you have a view on the risk of that, with two different potential systems in place for registration.

Yes, I understand that issue. It's not just an issue in Wales; it's also an issue in Scotland as well. And in part, this is kind of what I'm alluding to when I suggest that, actually, the UK system might actually benefit from what's happening with the implementation of automatic voter registration in Wales. The potential for confusion, I think, is quite simply that they then assume, voters then assume, that, 'Well, we're registered in Wales, therefore we are registered for UK Parliament elections', without realising that they actually have to go and apply for that to begin with. Now, I think this is a potential complication, but, again, I think it can be relatively easily resolved by reminders. There is an annual canvass system under UK-level registration legislation, which continues, I believe, even despite the implementation of automatic registration in Wales. So, that would continue.

I think this is also, usefully, the kind of thing that the voter information website could contain information on as well. I don't really see any reason why communications from the Welsh Government couldn't—or the UK Government, for that matter—mention this in things as well. I think this is an underused source of knowledge about electoral rights—when Government writes to you, mentioning, 'By the way, have you registered for UK Parliament elections?' or whatever.

Okay. Thank you. And just a final point from me on the registration without application: the Bill suggests a 45-day window to request anonymous registration. I just wonder what you think the risk may be of electors missing that window, those 45 days, and how the Welsh Government may be able to help mitigate this risk, and particularly thinking about any vulnerable electors and how they may be best protected as part of this process.

Sure. This is a kind of angle, vulnerable electors, that—. I'm really not an expert in the sorts of challenges that they might face. My view is that there is a risk, for the simple reason that there's always a risk with deadlines in the electoral process that people will miss it, because people tend not to pay attention until very close to the election. So, if there are deadlines, then there's always the potential that they're missed. My general view, in thinking about this, is that the vulnerability probably means that it's harder for them to fit within specifically and fairly narrowly defined election windows. My sense would be to err on the side of permissiveness here, and to flexibility towards deadlines. And while electoral administrators, I'm sure, might complain about an extra workload from this—I'm fairly sure they would—I would think that the numbers are insufficient to cause major difficulties. So, I'd probably err on the side of flexibility here. But I'd just reiterate that I'm not an expert in the challenges that vulnerable groups might face, so I'd maybe take advice from relevant volunteer charities that deal with these groups as well.

Great. Thanks, Chair. Thank you.

Okay, Sam. Thank you. Carolyn Thomas.

Good morning. Just some questions on the online voter information platform, your views on that. So, it's not currently clear in the Bill who will be responsible for managing and maintaining the voter information platform. So, what do you think, or who do you think should be tasked with this, what sort of organisation? And how important is it that the organisation is independent from Welsh Government?

I think it's incredibly important that it's independent from the Welsh Government, for largely the same reasons that I've alluded to with EMB independence. There is always a fear out there nowadays, unfortunately, that Governments try to manipulate electoral processes—rightly or wrongly, that fear is out there and can take hold quite easily. So, independence of this site I think is important. There is an implication—. I agree the Bill's not clear on this, but there is an implication in the explanatory notes that this would be located with the EMB. I've no real problem with it being located with the EMB and the EMB running such a site, but with the qualifications I've already mentioned when we began speaking about EMB independence I think being really important here as well.

I think it's also important to recognise, if it was with the EMB, that it adds a second side of the coin to their responsibilities, which, up until then—. Although they'd be voter focused, they're not actually really dealing with voters, whereas, with a voter information website, they would be dealing directly with voters and they would really need to think of that in what was published on the website. So, I can see a logic if it ended up being located with the EMB; I would have no real problem with that, if that was an independent body. If it's not, I would prefer some independent body to be involved in the running of this site. But I think it's an important development, something we've argued for very much in the past, and it's exciting to see this as part of the Bill.

So, you think it's a good idea to have?

Oh, definitely. Definitely. We've argued in a number of reports for both a voter information website like this and also for the implementation of automatic voter registration. So, I think both things in this Bill are very welcome to see.

Okay. So, what sort of information do you think the platform should include? What are your views on including candidate statements?

I think that I'd take a step back before we get to that, and just think about the fact that it needs to be engaging and easy to use for people. I think there's always a problem with websites that—. Yes, they can be difficult to use. And with this, I think what it needs to be is accessible to draw people in so that they can fairly easily find information. What it should include—really, a few different things. The first, I think, is key practical information on electoral administration that voters need to know. What are the deadlines for applying for, I don't know, postal votes, proxies or whatever other processes there are? How they might find their polling station, for instance. Is there a way of using information from councils about polling stations to help them with a polling station finder? It needs also, I think, to have a bit of information on how the electoral system works, whichever system that may be—if it's going to be the list or proportional representation that the Bill before the Reform Bill Committee is considering, for instance.

Now, I think on top of that, to come back to the specific thing you asked about candidate information, I think, where possible, that would be useful, yes. I think that would be very, very useful, and ideally the other thing I would add to that is to also have a place where post-election results can be aggregated both by constituency, however those are going to be defined, and also Wales-wide. Now, there's a possible tension here—. There are a couple of possible tensions here, I think. Firstly in reporting election results—how it's done at the moment and what returning officers do at the moment, which is basically only what's statutorily necessary. And I think this would need to go beyond that and make people interested in politics have an easier time in finding election results.

In terms of candidate statements, I think the tension here is with the type of electoral system that's going to be used. If the party list system—the proportional closed list system that's being considered in the other Bill—goes ahead, then it's less clear to me what those individual candidates may actually be saying in such a statement, because their ranking would be quite simply down to party nomination processes, party candidate selection processes. Voters would actually have very little role in which candidates get elected. Voters' choice in that regard would revolve around which party they preferred, and that would effectively be it. However, if there was a different electoral system, there may be more to that, and you could have far more candidate information if it was the single transferrable vote, which I know has been considered by the expert panel that contributed to these discussions and so on. So, there's a tension there. This is one of those tensions. There's not necessarily an overlap between the two Bills, but there's a tension between what's proposed in them.

That's what I was going to ask on next—how can we ensure the trustworthiness of the information, and who might contribute to such a regime of ensuring that trustworthiness?

Sure. I mean, I think again this has been going through my mind with some other stuff as well, and I know we're all a user or steering group. A user group I think is definitely something that would be useful, to advise on this. I reiterate that this really needs to be voter focused. Voters don't follow politics. They don't know the ins and outs of the political system. They need fairly straightforward, clear, simple information. Who could contribute to such a group? Obviously, some people technically oriented—web designers and so on. There'll be a need for careful awarding of contracts here, I think. But primarily, I think, voters for content testing, and particularly voters from normally under-represented groups—youth groups, retired persons groups, both of which have different challenges using online systems, for instance. Disability groups, academics to advise on the overall content of what it says about the political system, for instance. I think the media are also possibly important partners in this as well, because they will use this as a resource to find information. So, some sort of input from them as well. And there will be pressure, I would assume, from political parties to be part of any such steering group as well, which I think is fine, but I'd be very cautious about them having a dominant role in this. To reiterate, this must be voter focused. It's voters that it's there to serve, and I think we'd probably all agree that the main purpose of such a site is to get more voters engaged and to get them participating in elections to begin with. This would be an important way of doing so.

There has been concern from previous evidence sessions with the Welsh Local Government Association and EMB about them managing it, being it charged, and maybe monitoring it as well. I think there are real concerns about the monitoring of information and the trustworthiness of it, really, so—.

This is why I took time to highlight the issue of responsiveness and so on, and the type of information that's up there. Because it doesn't necessarily need to be all bells and whistles, completely interactive and so on, but it does need to be accessible, it does need to be clear, and it does need to draw voters in. Now, if EMBs or others are saying that this is going to be something that's difficult to do, then I think a lot of pressure then goes on to the awarding of whatever contract there is in this regard, and potentially the EMB or whichever body runs it having to add additional expertise to do so. But to repeat, I think the worst possible thing would be something that doesn't get updated, that's not accessible and that voters ultimately don't use. I think if that were the case, that would be very much a missed opportunity, and I think this is why some sort of user group that particularly emphasises voters, and particularly under-represented groups who may have issues with the electoral system and online systems and so on to begin with, is absolutely crucial.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Joel James.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks ever so much for coming in—well, coming in online—this morning. Sorry, I keep saying that. I just wanted to ask a few questions about electoral piloting powers. In your written evidence you mention about the constant need for the introduction of potential electoral reforms. Why? If that makes sense, why is there a constant need?

Because processes evolve. Because what might be acceptable evolves. It may be that electoral administration is, in many ways, beginning to be outdated. I mean, the roots of electoral law in the United Kingdom go back to the Victorian period, unfortunately, and various representation of the people Acts throughout the many years—indeed, I think it's about four decades or so since major work on that has been done, which is, kind of, why I highlighted that complexity issue earlier on.

But I think there's a need always to be thinking about, 'Can we do things better?', and I think the issue around pilots is, actually, if they're going to be implemented, to be clear about why they're being implemented to begin with. And this is not just having a pilot for pilot's sake about whatever it happens to be, but to be clear about what the problem that's trying to be solved is. So, again, I would assume that most people would like turnout to be higher and for there to be more engagement in electoral politics. Now, that kind of thing, maybe, and, indeed, I know this has been trialled in Wales to some degree by various means of advance voting or different voting techniques, for instance—. It may be that the pilots are behind the scenes type of things rather than necessarily voter-focused things, so to do with processes around electoral administration or those kinds of things; things to do with, maybe, candidate nomination processes, for example. I mean, could they be done in a more useful way online? Are there any ways of easing those, particularly in light of the process that we went through a couple of years ago for the pandemic and the changes around that for the 2021 elections?

So, you know, those are the reasons why I think there's a constant need to be thinking about these things. But it's important to be clear that you need to know what the objective is to begin with. It's not just a case of having a pilot for pilot's sake.

Perfect. Thanks ever so much for that clarification, and I'm quite grateful you said that about not having a pilot for pilot's sake, because that's the concern that I have with this. And we've seen a couple of pilots recently that the Welsh Government launched to try and increase voter engagement and voter turnout, and they've just not hit the mark, as they say. You know, we had the flexible pilots leading up to the 2022 local elections and, honestly, I'm reminded of Edmund Burke here in the sense of 'to innovate is not to reform'.

If we look at the UK general election, it consistently has higher turnouts and it's just a simple method of voting—first-past-the-post and everything. And, obviously, there are criticisms with that process, but people understand that. And the issue here, then, is when we're piloting different voting mechanisms and that, it would just lead to more voter confusion, more detachment from the process, I suppose.

But you mentioned there, briefly, about the pilots that could happen behind the scenes. I just wondered if you could go a bit more into detail about that, if you could, so what would be your Christmas list, if that makes sense, of the pilots? What do you think we should be looking at?

If only. I mean, a couple of things on that list are actually in this Bill that I've already mentioned—the voter information site and automatic voter registration. I mean, for instance, one thing that might well ease processes in polling stations is an electronic electoral register, something that's more easily searched than the printed electoral register that poll workers get to use in polling stations at the moment. So, that might be something that might well be usefully piloted, that is a backroom thing that voters won't necessarily be aware of, but which might well simplify process and the service that they actually receive in polling stations. I mean, I think that would be one. I think also, as I've already mentioned, it's thinking about candidate nomination processes. And I think turnout is certainly one thing that it would be good if it would be higher. I'm not sure about the electoral system necessarily being part of that, but if you don't try something like advance voting, you don't know whether it will work or not, and I think it's right that that's been tried in Wales.

In terms of trust, as well, I think another thing that would be useful would actually be quick results publication. I've already mentioned that councils publish their election results—really, what they're required to produce statutorily—and that's about it. If you're interested in elections, you can find these on election departments' websites, but they're all in different places and so on. It may well be that a pilot of aggregating those results and publishing them to voters in a more easily accessible way would be a good thing that helps with trust and understanding of the process as well.

There is a whole range of things, and I think this is a continually evolving landscape. We have to really bear in mind the pressures that are on local government funds as well in this regard, which impact, then, on electoral services teams as well. So, if we can find ways, through pilots and back-room processes, to speed things up and to make things more efficient, then to my mind that's a good use of these sorts of powers.

Perfect, thanks for that. Chair, I've just got two questions, if that's okay. The first question is: obviously, you'll know that this Bill allows the Welsh Government to compel local authorities to do these pilots; do you see that as a good or bad thing? A lot of the feedback we're getting is that that could be quite bad. Normally, it's done with consensus, and if you're forcing councils to do it, they might not be prepared or they'll be ill-equipped for it.

I agree entirely with that. I can understand why that's in the Bill, but my general view is that any form of compulsion of that sort should be really used sparingly and really as a clear last resort, and, importantly—again, back to a point I've made already—with a clear rationale about what's to be achieved by that pilot, whether it's turnout or whether it's something else. I think I would prefer, as you've just mentioned, really to proceed through consensus in this regard.

It's important that—again, as I've mentioned—the electoral reforms are seen as being free from government bias. It's right that governments have policies and it's right that Parliament enacts them, but compelling pilots on unwilling local authorities, I think, is really something that should not be used that often, even if the power does go through, because it risks that perception of bias in what's trying to be achieved. So, 'Clarity, but proceed by consensus' would also be my view as well.

One final question. In your written evidence, you make reference to the possible need—again, a Christmas wish list, I suppose—for independent academic evaluation of the outcomes of the pilots and everything. What are the benefits of that? Is that something that should be included in this as a formal thing?

I think so. I think there's a danger of governments marking their own homework on pilots of this sort. If you implement a pilot and it's the Government that does the evaluation, and they tell you that it has all gone well, but other evidence is suggesting otherwise, I think there's at least a problem and it contributes to cynicism, scepticism and so on. It's not that academics are necessarily the ones that need to conduct these particular assessments, but I think we can and often do contribute to evaluations around electoral processes. I think it's important that evaluations are conducted and that those evaluations are independent of government.

On whether that should be in the Bill or not, my particular preference would be for that, somehow or another, to be in the Bill—that there'd be an independent evaluation of whichever electoral pilot it happens to be. It may be felt that that's too much to be in a Bill and that can be dealt with otherwise. But I think, regardless of that, it's important that this becomes a principle that gets followed through upon, that there's an independent and reliable evaluation of whichever pilot it is. As I say, the risk is, if there's not, the Government ends up marking its own homework and the problems that potentially flow from that.

I'd also consider just how any pilots are done to begin with. I think independents—whether it's academics or research specialists—can feed into this as well. I think it's still important to pilot things at a relatively low level to begin with, but sometimes, depending on what's trying to be achieved, not only once, because the first time you do something, you may get an erroneous answer. It should be done repeatedly and, where possible, as widely as possible. Council by-elections, for instance, may well be one place to pilot some new processes. Again, there's kind of an overlap here, I think, with what might be achieved with this and the closed list PR system that's being proposed in the Senedd electoral systems Bill that the Reform Bill Committee are looking at, because the fact that there would be closed list PR means that there won't be by-elections. So, your opportunities for actually conducting pilots on a fairly small scale are fewer, because of the choice of electoral system in that regard.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joel. Thank you very much, Professor Clark. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

My pleasure. Thank you to everyone.

Item 5 on our agenda today is our ninth evidence session with regard to the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill. I'm very pleased to welcome Dr Jessica Laimann, policy and public affairs manager for the Women’s Equality Network Wales. Thank you very much, Dr Laimann, for joining us today. Perhaps I might begin with just a general question. Could you share your general reflections on this proposed legislation, please?

Thank you very much for inviting me to give evidence on this important piece of legislation this morning. We fully welcome the principle of this Bill to make elections and elected office more accessible to people from different backgrounds. The Bill does that partly at the local government level, which is crucial, because we need robust data on equal and diverse representation, but also, and quite importantly, at the level of the Senedd, where it sits alongside legislation on Senedd reform, and in that context has the potential to perform quite a crucial function, we think, when it comes to ensuring that those reform proposals actually successfully deliver the better scrutiny and policy outcomes for the people of Wales.

There are certain aspects—I think three main aspects—that currently do not feature very strongly in this Bill and that we think would really strengthen the legislation if they did, especially from a gender equality perspective. These are issues around caring responsibilities, harassment and abuse, and also intersectionality.

Thank you very much, Dr Laimann. We will be coming on to the wider issues, beyond general reflections, in due course. Thank you very much. I'll turn now to Joel James, another member of the committee, for some further questions.

Thank you, Chair. Thanks ever so much for attending today's evidence session. I just want to ask you a couple of questions on the local government survey. As you'll know, and as you highlighted in your submitted written evidence, the Bill removes the requirement to set out the wording of the local government candidate survey. I've inferred from your evidence that you're quite supportive of this. Am I right there? And can I ask why? Because the concern that I have is—. Obviously, that flexibility is a good thing on the one hand, but if you remove that uniformity, it's more difficult to extrapolate the data, then, Wales-wide, if every local authority is asking different questions.

I think I would agree with that. It's really about striking that balance. We certainly welcome the flexibility from removing the precise wording from primary legislation, because we know that language around equality characteristics is evolving and so are the information requirements, the type of data that we really need to make improvements. And the explanatory memorandum states that future changes will be informed by a stakeholder group that includes representatives of equality organisations, which, again, is something that we really welcome, because we think that that expertise will be quite important. But we recognise that that needs to be balanced with the need for robust data, and we would absolutely expect future reviews to be informed by experts on quantitative research and data to ensure that any reviews of the service strike that balance right. But, overall, I think that can be achieved with careful consideration and it's something that we are in favour of.

Perfect. Thank you. Also in your written evidence, you make reference to, and you almost express your disappointment at, how questions on candidates' experience of abuse and harassment weren't included, even though the White Paper made reference to this and it looked like it might happen. Why do you think they've not included it, and if they did, what would the practicalities of it be? How would you see that actioned?

We made the recommendation in our written evidence that it should be included. As you mentioned, there was wide support for this in the White Paper consultation as well—around 70 per cent of respondents were in favour. So, we were a bit surprised that it hasn't been progressed. There might be some reasons why the candidate survey might not be the most obvious place to start, but I think it is a very pragmatic place to start, and I think the underlying motivation is that we need better data—we really need data to fully understand the nature and magnitude of this issue, the impact that it has on candidates and also how we can best support people who experience that.

The candidate survey is probably quite an early stage in someone's political career to be asking these questions, but the recommendation doesn't preclude further surveys to take place at other stages. I think a reason that really speaks in favour of the candidate survey is that it's a survey that is already widely established. We know that response rates can be a challenge, as they can be with any survey, but there are discussions under way on how that can be improved. And then, the obvious key advantage is that it already collects data on candidate diversity and it collects data on whether people have stood for election before, and both of those are really important to meaningfully interpret the results around experience of harassment and abuse.

In terms of how that might look in practice, I think respondents could sensibly be asked slightly different questions depending on whether they have stood before for election or not. If they have, the survey could ask about their past experiences, any incidents that they have reported and if these have been resolved to their satisfaction, if they have been able to find support, and if they haven't, what support they would have liked to have had. If candidates are standing for the first time, I think some of the questions should be framed slightly differently. They could ask, for instance, if concerns about candidate abuse and harassment have featured in their deliberations about whether to stand for election or not, and also if they know what support is available if they would experience it. Just to add, I think, ideally, these questions really also need to be asked when people are leaving or at the end of term, because what we really need to know is to what extent harassment and abuse are driving people out of politics.

In terms of potential impacts, I think there are precautions that can be taken, so, obviously, the information needs to be safeguarded, it's quite sensitive. Full anonymity needs to be ensured. There might be some sensitivities around asking people these questions, but I think, as harassment and abuse are such a clear and present issue, we don't really envisage that it would necessarily deter first-time candidates to ask them, because we would expect that they are already very present in their minds. To the contrary, it might even provide some comfort that the issue was being recognised and taken seriously. Still, as a precaution, it would be possible to potentially include a content note at the start of the survey, so that people know they will be asked these questions, and also, possibly, a flagging of relevant support services for anyone, in case they bring up issues that people wish to talk about, so that there's a contact number on there that they can contact.

Brilliant, thank you.

Okay, Joel? Okay. Carolyn.

Morning, Jessica. I'm going to ask you some questions on accessibility and diversity. Section 28 of the Bill states that

'The Welsh Ministers must make arrangements for the provision of services to promote diversity in the protected characteristics and socio-economic circumstances of persons seeking to be elected as members of Senedd Cymru'.

Could you share your views on these provisions?

Thank you. I think these provisions have the potential to play an absolutely essential role in the context of Senedd reform. Just to locate that, we all know that the central proposal of Senedd reform, or one of the central proposals, is to increase the size of the Senedd, and that is in order to facilitate better scrutiny and, effectively, better policy outcomes for communities in Wales. But pretty much from the outset of these proposals being developed, it was made very clear by the expert panels and relevant committees that better scrutiny is not just a matter of additional capacity, it's also a matter of having a more diverse legislature, with Members from a range of different backgrounds who can really bring the voices and perspectives of different communities around the decision-making table.

Of course, there's the forthcoming legislation on gender quotas that will be one key element to achieving that, but we have always been clear that quotas are not a silver bullet. They're the single most effective tool, but they will not solve all problems. A range of measures are needed to achieve that, because there are so many barriers operating at different levels.

So, in that spirit, we really welcome the provisions in this Bill around the duty to provide services, because the things that are listed there, providing information, training, mentoring, are all things that we feel can really make a difference. We are fully supportive of the fact that the services do not just look at gender, of course, but a range of protected characteristics, as well as socioeconomic circumstances, because it's important to increase that wider diversity in the Senedd, and because that is also, we think, the only way we can start to remove barriers for women who are facing intersecting discrimination, rather than just pave the way for more women who are already relatively privileged.

Thank you, Jessica. You've also argued that as well as a duty to provide financial assistance for people with disabilities—that's under section 29—the Bill should also include a duty to provide care-related financial assistance for candidates. So, could you explain what a care-related financial assistance scheme might look like in practice, and what benefits it could bring to those with caring responsibilities?

Yes, absolutely. So, I think out of the things that we feel should have been included in this Bill, but weren't, this was the one that we were really most surprised about, because, by all accounts, providing financial assistance for care-related expenses appears to be a really obvious next step and something that we felt also came out quite clearly of the evidence provided by Welsh Government, which we have reviewed in the written response.

We know that lack of support for caring responsibilities is quite clearly a major barrier to elected office, especially for women. We know that the vast majority of care work is still being done by women, and we know that it is one of the biggest barriers to equality in employment. There's also specific evidence around it being a barrier to elected office. We felt partly that the reason that the case is so strong is because there are really obvious parallels between providing assistance for care-related expenses and those that are already in place for disabled candidates. So, like the support that is available for disabled people, financial support for care-related expenses would relate to costs that really contribute in a direct and tangible way to levelling the playing field between different groups of candidates. I mean, the way that would look in practice is that candidates could get financial assistance for paying for things like a childminder or a personal assistant. It's also evident from the fact that both types of costs—the expenses related to care and those related to impairment or health-related barriers—are both already covered to some extent for elected Members, and that is both at the Senedd and local government level.

Okay.

And in terms of how this would look in practice, I think the gold standard for the scheme should be to really enable people with caring responsibilities to stand for elected office on the same terms as people who don't have them. In order to achieve that, the level of financial assistance needs to enable people to access support with caring responsibilities when and where they're needed to run a successful campaign. And that would have to take into consideration that individual circumstances can be very different; for instance, if care is required for a disabled child, that might be more expensive, or if care is required outside the standard working day, there might be additional expenses around that.

So, it's quite ambitious and we appreciate that we might not get this straight away, but I think a very basic starting point are the policies that are already currently in place for elected members. The determination of the remuneration bodies set out what expenses are covered and they give a maximum allowance, which currently for councillors is set at £403 per month. I think there are a lot of questions around whether that is sufficient, given that the average childcare cost in Wales last year was £147 a week, and most parents are paying in the range of £500 to £1,000 per month and more than that.

I think with a political candidacy, the amount of support that is required can also greatly vary, depending on where candidates are in their campaign, so, again, that flexibility is really important. So, the details need to be worked out. We don't think any of this is insurmountable and now's the time to start doing it. It's mainly a question of gathering the relevant data to make sure that parameters really work for people with caring responsibilities, and we will be more than happy to work with the Welsh Government to develop this. We think the time is right to work towards a pilot in the run-up to the 2026 Senedd and the 2027 local government elections, as has been done with the fund for disabled people.

Okay, thank you, Jessica. And section 28(5) provides a list of services that may be provided, including information, advice and work experience. Do you think this list is sufficient, and if not, what further services would you like to see added?

If you don't mind, before I come to that question, I think I would quickly like to just really emphasise that we need clear commitments, and most of all clear timescales around when this will be provided. The reason for that is that many of these measures will really take time to make a difference, but we do need them to make a difference before the next election. If we do not get this right, in time before the Senedd is expanded, when those additional seats are coming up for the first time, it might be a lot harder to correct it in the future.

Okay, thank you.

And then, just coming to your point on what we think of the list and if we think it's sufficient, we think that every single item that is on there is useful and has the potential to really make a difference, but we are quite concerned that two of the main barriers that particularly women are facing are noticeably absent from this—and not just from this section, but from the entire Bill in fact—and those are dealing with harassment and abuse and a lack of support with caring responsibilities.

Now, we've already covered caring responsibilities. I think with regard to harassment and abuse, some sensible actions could be taken under categories that are already there, you know, in terms of training, candidates could have training on how to keep themselves safe, social media training, active bystander training, but there's nothing on the face of the Bill or the accompanying documents that assures us that this will happen. And given that harassment and abuse is one of the single biggest barriers, we think it deserves to be explicitly included on that. This would also send a powerful message that the Welsh Government recognises it and is committed to doing something about it.

Thank you. Jessica, there's a note here: even if care-related support was added to the list in section 28(5), there is still no duty on Welsh Ministers to provide for a financial assistance scheme. What are your views on this? You have communicated them quite strongly—the importance of having the scheme—but are there any other points on that?

Yes, I think there are different options for including financial assessment for care-related expenses. If it were to be added to section 28, it could be amended to add a power to provide that assistance, which I think would be a positive step. But given the parallels that I've just set out between care-related expenses and the support that is already there for impairment-related expenses, I think our preferred option would be for that to go under section 29, because that would provide a clear pathway towards having a duty and not just a power.

Right. Thank you, Jessica.

Okay, Carolyn, thank you very much. Sam.

Yes, thank you, Chair, and good morning, Jessica, I appreciate your time with us here today. I just want to move on to the provision in the Bill on electoral registration without application. Of course the Bill provides for electors in Wales to be automatically placed on the electoral register for the devolved elections following a period of 45 days where the elector can request to be registered anonymously. Do you think that 45-day window to be able to be registered anonymously—? I was wondering what you think the risks may be with that, and in particular whether there are any risks to vulnerable electors in missing that window.

Yes, absolutely. I think, in principle, we welcome automatic registration, because it removes a barrier to democratic participation. But as you rightly pointed out, there are significant risks around this, for instance, for survivors of domestic abuse, stalking or harassment, and these need to be managed very, very carefully.

I think, first of all, it's important to understand that they are real risks, even with the closed register. So, even when the open register is removed and we only have the closed register, there are still risks, even though that register can only be shared with a limited number of people in organisations. Given issues like police-perpetrated abuse, being on a closed register can pose a significant danger to survivors, if their personal information ends up in the wrong hands.

So, it's really crucial that people are able to register anonymously and there are provisions for this in the legislation, but we are concerned around the process. Partly, there's a concern that the 45 days are not long enough and this is because registering anonymously is not just a matter of self-disclosing, but survivors need to be able to provide evidence around this, and that can take a long time. They could be facing barriers to reporting; there could be delays to court proceedings, and all of this could delay their anonymous registration. And there would be additional challenges for survivors who are especially vulnerable, or for survivors whose first language isn't English or Welsh, who might struggle to understand and navigate that process.

And then there's also a problem, of course, of survivors having to go through all of this again at the next iteration. Some of these issues, we think, could be mitigated by extending the time frame beyond 45 days, by providing clear guidance and accessible formats in different languages, and by working very closely with specialist services who can support people in filing that request. But, I think, ideally, a really important thing to take action on would be on simplifying the process for registering anonymously, for instance, by allowing survivors to self-disclose and to change it so that once they're registered as anonymous, it will remain so until they actively opt out of anonymous registration. I think those are steps that could be taken to make the process safer. Uncertainty around people's personal data can always create a lot of anxiety and fear, and it might be helpful for people to have a straightforward way to check if they are registered anonymously.

There's an additional risk, of course, for people getting confused between devolved and non-devolved elections, so they might be unaware that they still need to opt out of the open register for non-devolved elections. So, that needs to be made very clear, otherwise people could inadvertently end up with having their personal data publicly accessible.

Thank you. I think that final point is really important. Whereas the numbers at risk may be very low, the impact is absolutely huge, isn't it? And understanding that, I think, is really, really important.

Just going back to the point you made earlier about the open register being removed for the elections, that power is not on the face of the Bill. Does that give you enough reassurance that this will take place as you'd want it to?

I think it's been clear that we welcome that commitment. The principle, I think, should be that there must not be the slightest chance of automatic registration being introduced without the removal of the open register. We do not have a set view on whether this can best be accomplished by including the removal of the open register on the face of the Bill. It might well provide additional assurances if it is included on there, but we do not have a set view on this.

Thanks. I think that point is clear enough. I guess that I would argue that you probably would have further assurances if it was on the face of the Bill. Is that fair?

I think that seems sensible, yes.

Thanks. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much. Thanks, everyone. Thank you very much, Dr Laimann, Jessica, for coming in to give evidence to the committee today. You will be sent a transcript to check for factual accuracy. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you very much.

Our next item on the agenda today is item 6, papers to note.

Paper 5 is a letter from the Minister for Finance and Local Government in relation to the inter-institutional relations agreement and a forthcoming meeting, which will include some housing and building safety issues, and we will be provided with an update following that meeting.

Paper 6 is a letter from the chair of the Petitions Committee in relation to a petition on inadequate funding for schools and the need for a review. That letter has also been sent to the Children, Young People and Education Committee.

Paper 7 is a letter from the public services—

We'll be discussing that budget soon, won't we?

Yes, I'm sure that, in terms of the local education authority aspect of local government, that's something that we can address at that point.

This committee—sorry, I get confused—we can look at the budgets generally, but not the detail of each service area. Is that correct? That's why it has to go to that area to look at it. So, education would have to look at education. Okay. And we look at the general budget.

Yes. Thank you, Carolyn.

Paper 7 is a letter from the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales in relation to homelessness, and that's an update on some of the work they've been doing.

Paper 8 is a letter from the Minister for Climate Change in relation to building safety, which also included a Welsh Government flyer providing information for leaseholders, which Members are welcome to help distribute if they wish.

Paper 9 is a letter from the First Minister to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee in relation to the inter-institutional relations agreement and a forthcoming meeting that will, amongst other matters, cover poverty, and, again, in respect of which we will be provided with an update in due course.

Are Members content to note those papers? Thank you very much.

Item 7 is a motion under Standing Order 17.42 to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of this meeting, and also from item 1 of the 7 December meeting. Is committee content to do so? Yes. We will then move into private session.