Business Committee

I'll just ask Richard to outline some of the key factors to focus on, especially those that have come from the written responses to us, and whether you just want to remind us quickly of some of those factors before we start our own discussion on the issue.

Yes. Bore da. Diolch, Llywydd. So, the committee will recall that the Business Committee looked at this in private and had a policy session around some of the issues relating to the size of the Government. There was a discussion about the primary purpose of Senedd reform being about holding the Government to account. A range of views have been expressed in the consultation. So, the Welsh Government considers that there should be a legal limit on the number of Ministers, but that should be increased to a specific number between 16 and 19. The Labour group proposed a limit of 16, but that was nuanced and they would accept a higher limit. The Plaid Cymru group proposed a limit of 19. In all instances, that excludes the First Minister and the Counsel General. So, the decisions that the committee is being asked to make are two: the first is whether the current limit of 12 should be retained, or repealed, or changed in some way, and then if the committee wanted to recommend a change to the number, then how that would be done—whether that should be a new, specific limit, a range, or whether it should be done through Standing Orders or through a different mechanism.

Okay. I think it's also important to remind ourselves that there were submissions in the consultation that said that there was no case to be made for increasing the size of the Government, and that was an important piece of evidence from both Laura McAllister and Paul Silk, who reminded us of what had been said during the course of the McAllister report on the need to rebalance the Senedd in favour of scrutiny and backbench scrutiny, against ministerial or Government and other officers.

The other point to make as well is that there was reference—I think it was in the Plaid Cymru response—that if there was to be an increase from 12 to 19, there should be a vote of the Senedd every time that that would happen, so that it would be confirmed by the Senedd via Standing Orders that that would be the case, that a Government would come forward with 14 or 16 or 19 Ministers, so that there would always be a vote for anything that was proposed above the current 12. I'm right in how I'm saying that you suggested that, am I?

Just on the numbers involved then, 16, of course, is a 30 per cent increase on the current size of the Welsh Government, and 19 is a 60 per cent increase, which mirrors exactly the 60 per cent increase in the number of Members that's proposed, and that's why 19 is proposed by some in this context. I don't know whether anybody wants to suggest anything that is a compromise amongst all of this, given that you've all started with your written submissions, but, obviously, not every written submission is perfectly aligned, so we're not going to get anywhere, really, with everybody sticking to their written positions at this point.

Shall I begin?

Yes, if you'd like to. Yes, Siân.

Thank you very much. I think that our group was firmly of the view that we shouldn't go beyond 19. That was because part of the purpose of Senedd reform is to improve scrutiny and, therefore, one wouldn't want to see the Government getting larger as a percentage in terms of those available for scrutiny, and what the current scenario is in terms of how that pans out in numbers. But, I think we would be open to a range, but that the highest figure should be 19, and perhaps we could start that range at 14 or maybe 16. There's a discussion to be had as to what the nature of that range would be. But, I think that might lead to some situation where we could agree on this.

Okay. Do we think that we can agree on a maximum of 19? Or do we belive that that is too much? Yes, Darren.

So, the Senedd—I'll say 'the Senedd', because, as you know, my party has different views on these matters—but the Senedd set out on this journey of Senedd reform to improve the scrutiny of the Senedd to assist it in holding the Government to account. So, we definitely can't have any sort of increase that is disproportionate. In fact, if anything, we ought to go for something that is less proportionate as an increase in the size of the Government. So, personally, I'm drawn to the 16 figure. I think that there's a good rational for not exceeding 16 and for putting that onto the face of the Bill as the maximum number.

I take into account what Laura McAllister and Paul Silk have said in their evidence about the fact that there's been no significant work done in this area in terms of looking at the capacity of Government Ministers, but we do know, in this Senedd, that we have some enormous portfolios. If you look at Julie James's portfolio, for example, it's just, frankly, ridiculous for one Minister to be able to be on top of a brief of that size, and indeed for Members of the Senedd to effectively hold a single Minister to account when they've got such a wide brief.

So, my own personal view is: yes, there ought to be an increase, but it should not be directly proportionate with the increase in the size of the Senedd, because we're supposed to emphasise this increasing scrutiny function of the Senedd, rather than proportionately more Ministers to hold people to account to, if that helps.

Yes. Lesley.

Thanks very much. So, I think the range of 16 to 19 would probably be the most appropriate. I hear what Darren's saying; I think it's about futureproofing as well, because, clearly, there could be devolution of further powers and we discussed that previously. So, I think I would be—. You'll be aware of the Labour group's view, and, obviously, you've seen the Welsh Government's view, so I would go with the 16 to 19 range.

Yes, I think by—. The one thing I'd like to kind of tease out there is on automatically agreeing that there is a minimum of 16 and putting that in legislation, because that, obviously, is an increase of four irrespective of what happens: the next Government in 2026 would have to be 16. And it strikes me as a bit of a jump to go straight to that rather than keep it within the ability—just to remind ourselves of what Darren said—of the Senedd to decide. And that's why the concept of the Senedd always deciding on this by a vote of the Senedd on the range of the number of Ministers, say above the current of 12 to, say, 19 or 16, would always be in the spirit of the Senedd having the ultimate decision-making role there as to what the number and the size of the Government should be.

And I'm not totally off-piste here in terms of—. Is it Scotland where there is a confirmation vote on the size of the Government?

There's no limit in Scotland.

There's no limit, but they have a vote, do they? Or am I wrong there?

I'm not—. I would have to double-check that.

Oh, right, okay. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I was looking for some—

Llywydd, I don't think we should be setting a minimum number, but I think we should set a maximum in the legislation.

I can see we've got a leak in the building by the way.

Yes, we know.

Hope it doesn't get any worse.

Yes, it's not meant to hit you, but if it does, we'll bring umbrellas. [Laughter.]

No, it's over there.

Oh, it's on me. [Laughter.]

It's like a waterfall between us.

So, I do think that we definitely shouldn't be setting a minimum. We shouldn't say a minimum of 16, but we should set a maximum. My own view is that 16 is appropriate. The Welsh Government says that it can manage with 16. I appreciate what—

Yes, you're right. The Welsh Government did say that as well.

I appreciate what Lesley Griffiths has said about the need to futureproof things, but, of course, if there were further powers devolved, there would be an opportunity to look again then at the size, if and when we cross that bridge. But, at the moment, we're not, so we have to base it on the current suite of powers, and, I think, if the Welsh Government is saying that it can manage with 16, then that's fine.

In terms of a confirmatory vote, Llywydd, the issue with that is that, obviously, if a Government is being formed, then it's going to have more than half the Members in any case, isn't it, so it's a bit futile having a vote. If the threshold were a supermajority, a two-thirds majority, that might change things potentially, but I don't think a simple majority would be appropriate.

You never know, with independent-thinking Government backbenchers, what that vote might bring up.

We haven't seen enough of those independent-thinking Government backbenchers in my view over the years. [Laughter.]

Oh, we've seen quite a few. [Laughter.] Yes, Jane.

Diolch. I can see the 16 to 19 range—that would be something that we would accept. I understand that Scottish Ministers are subject to approval by the Scottish Parliament. So, there's two things. There's the process, and then there's the sort of range that the process would be subject to. So, I just wanted to make the Liberal Democrat case.

Thank you for telling me that I was right in referring to Scotland and that there is some kind of voting process, or that the Government is voted in by the Parliament—yes?

The First Minister's appointments are approved by the Parliament.

Yes, which isn't the case in our current setup. That would be a means of confirming the number, then, as well as the names that would be given at that point, I'm guessing.

I'm hearing that there is some support for a minimum of 16, but not by you, Darren. I have my own reservations. I'm not sure whether Chairs are—. Well, I always express a view, other than when I'm in the Plenary. Having a minimum automatically increases without a Government having the ability, come next election or any election after, to suggest that they can do with 14 or 12.

Llywydd, I'm not suggesting there should be a minimum. I'm saying there should be a maximum.

You're the one who said there shouldn't be a minimum, and I'm agreeing with you, Darren. I know that's unusual territory, but not unusual in the Business Committee, maybe. We don't have a minimum currently, remember, so we only currently have a maximum of 12. Introducing a minimum, which then ties a Government and also the Senedd in legislation to a minimum would be quite a different approach, unless the minimum was the 12 of currently.

I think setting a range is something that three of the parties agree on. Setting the maximum at 19 is something that we are all agree on. Perhaps there is scope for discussion as to exactly what the nature of the range should be, whether we do put it in legislation and what the figure would be on the face of the Bill. That's a discussion to be had, I would suggest.

We'll conclude on this this morning with the fact that setting a maximum number in legislation is something that we should aim to, similar to the legislation that we currently have, and that that maximum should be possibly 19, which is a proportionate reflection. Not everyone has agreed on that. Darren has already told us that he doesn't agree on that number, but he agrees with the principle of having a maximum. Then perhaps we need a further debate before our next meeting as to where we set that minimum, if at all, and do we want to set that minimum number at a range that is higher than the current number of Ministers. I think the Government's proposal is to set that at 16. You could have a range from 12 to 19, perhaps. And then we will consider whether we can confirm that in the Senedd through Standing Orders, rather than in legislation. So, I'll ask officials just to look at that and to share some ideas with you as to how that could happen. But we will leave the numbers for the time being for future discussion, because there is—

Just to be clear, we do need a range and we need that minimum figure too, and we shouldn't leave it open with just 19. We need a range on the face of the Bill, I believe, or you're at risk of having a scenario where—I don't know—you wouldn't have enough Ministers to complete the work that needs to be done. But if you provide that range you do ensure that there is a sufficient number of Ministers available whilst also protecting the Senedd scrutiny role. But that figure of 19 protects that role because you're not going beyond proportionality as it currently exists. So, I think 19 maintains the status quo. Having a range but putting a minimum figure—. That's what we need to discuss, I believe, not the need for a range. I think we're agreed that we need that range, but it's about what's the minimum figure—is it 12, 14 or 16.

All I would say about setting a minimum is that you could see a Government formed following a manifesto that said, 'We want to shrink the size of Government in Wales and we want fewer Ministers in order to improve the situation'. Then placing a high minimum—and I would describe 16 as a high minimum figure—limits the ability of any party that wants to form a Government and create a political dynamic around reducing the size of Government, because it sets it out in legislation. So—

But 16 would be smaller on average in relation to the size of Government in the status quo, in terms of proportionality.

Yes, in terms of proportionality—

It's still a smaller figure. That figure of 19—. Some could argue that that should be higher, but keeping it at 19 but then ensuring that things don't slip below where they are at present—. Surely we wouldn't want to see it go down.

I would remind Members again of the main purpose of doing all of this. All of the external evidence, the Laura McAllister report, focused on the need to improve scrutiny and not necessarily increase the size of Government.

But we're not increasing it.

Well, we are—

Not with 19. It's the status quo.

Yes, but it doesn't increase the ratio of scrutiny versus Government, does it? It maintains the ratio.

Yes, I accept that. The ratio is the same.

It increases the absolute numbers, but it doesn't increase the percentage, does it? Darren.

The additional point I would want to make is that there have been times when First Ministers have chosen not to appoint the full complement of Ministers in the years that I've been here. Sometimes there are sensible reasons to do that—negotiation reasons, discussions with other political parties if there are coalitions to be formed, incentives for backbenchers, perhaps, to behave, for carrots to be dangled in front of them. So, I would caution the Business Committee against agreeing any sort of minimum number at all. I think maximum, yes, there has to be a ceiling on the number of Ministers, and I think it should be disproportionately smaller than the increase in the size of the Senedd, simply because the ambition, the underlying principle of the whole of this reform is to improve scrutiny, and if you're increasing the size of the Government proportionately, then there's no proportionate increase in the ability to scrutinise.

Lesley.

Thank you. I'm very happy to go with the 16 to 19 range, however, as you said yourself, at the moment there is no minimum limit. The maximum is 12 plus the First Minister and Counsel General. The thing I would say, from the inside looking out, is that the role of a Minister has increased considerably in the years I've been in Government, particularly since we left the European Union and with the inter-governmental relations, et cetera. I think the range of 16 to 19 is fine, it's proportionate. I hear what everybody's saying around the reason why we're doing this. Again, I would reiterate my support for the 16 to 19 range.

Okay. Fine. I think we've rehearsed all the issues. I think there's an agreement that there should be an upper limit in the legislation. There is some disagreement as to whether there should be a minimum and what that minimum should be, so we need to further explore that.

No, not quite. There should be a range, but we need to explore the minimum figure. So, there should be a stipulation—. Whatever it is, whatever the minimum is, we need to discuss that.

Can I just be clear, then, why there should be a minimum? I'm not quite understanding the concept of why a minimum is necessary.

Well, in order to guarantee that we can function, that the Senedd can function with a Government of a particular size, and scrutiny of a particular size. The powers that we have as a Senedd have increased considerably, and as Lesley was saying, there's the European legislation, the inter-governmental relationships. It shouldn't be more than the proportion that we have now, but there should be, surely—. Otherwise, you could have a Government with just two people in it.

We can have a Government with two people in it now, Llywydd, but we don't, because people are responsible, and the Welsh Government appoints Ministers on the basis of the best way that it judges to manage its work. I don't understand; are there any examples of other Parliaments anywhere in the world that set a minimum number in law of Ministers that must be appointed? I'm not aware of any.

I'm putting officials on the spot there, but it's certainly something we can look at in terms of a minimum number.

We could check that. I would hesitate to try and find an example now.

I mean, we have effectively have a minimum of two, don't we, at the moment.

The other option that could be available to us is to have a maximum that is somewhere towards the middle of this, of 16, say, which is the Labour group proposal in the written form, but with a possibility of a two-thirds vote, a supermajority vote, up to 19, which would be the 60 per cent increase. That gets around some of the issue that Darren raised in terms of a Government would vote for it anyway. So, the ceiling and the barrier to overcome for any potential Government is higher at that point.

Can I just make a further point, if I may, Llywydd? I appreciate we're going to go away and look at whether there are any examples. If we effectively currently have a minimum of two—a First Minister and a Counsel General—and we're going to increase that minimum to a range, starting with potentially 12 or even 16, then it's an enormous hike in the minimum that we currently have, as required by legislation, to appoint, isn't it?

Yes. I can see that there's a logic to 12 being a minimum, because it is the current Government, but I don't know why we would want to introduce a minimum that is higher than 12 in the legislation. A Government could bring forward a Government that is between 12 and, say, 19 at any point, but why would the legislation need to insist that they do bring a Government of 16 with exactly the same powers in 2026 as we have today? I'm struggling with that concept, given that the overall thing we're trying to achieve here is better scrutiny of Government. That's why we started on this; that's why we're all justifying it in this way to the public.

I'm going to kind of draw a line under that. The only thing I think we've managed to agree there is that there should be a maximum, and that we may want to explore as well the issue of a confirmatory vote of some kind in the Standing Orders. So, we'll bring that back to a further discussion, if that's okay.

We'll come on to the number of Deputy Presiding Officers in a larger Senedd. Do you want to just remind me, more than anybody, of what the issues are here, Richard?

At the moment, the current statutory provisions require the Senedd to appoint one and only one Deputy Presiding Officer. The choice before the committee is whether those provisions should be retained, or whether that limit should be removed or require a different limit altogether. You and the DPO have proposed that the Act should allow at least one DPO to provide flexibility for the Senedd to determine an appropriate number, perhaps within Standing Orders. The Labour group does not object to an increase, the Plaid Cymru group believes that one DPO would still continue to be sufficient in a reformed Senedd, and Laura McAllister and Paul Silk do not believe that additional DPOs are required.

The other thing to mention is that in your evidence, Llywydd, you talked about it being the case that the Llywydd and the Deputy should not be from the same political group, and that should be considered as well. You also gave evidence about the name of the Presiding Officer and the Deputy Presiding Officer, and whether those could be changed to 'Llywydd', 'Dirprwy Lywydd', or perhaps 'Speaker' and 'Deputy Speaker'.

Okay, let's do the numbers first then. Darren, do you have a view on this?

Again, for some of the same reasons that we had in the previous discussion, I think we ought to set a maximum number and not a minimum, if you see what I mean. Otherwise, you could have a cast of thousands, potentially—or 96 Deputy Presiding Officers or 95, which would seem ridiculous [Laughter.] So, I think there should be a maximum set in the legislation. My own view is that that maximum should be two Deputy Presiding Officers, in addition to the Llywydd. I think we've seen the strain in recent times here in the Senedd. We've just appointed an acting Presiding Officer for the very reason that we struggle sometimes with capacity in the chair. I think that demonstrates that we've got a need already. We're doing more international engagement as a Senedd and have been now for some time, and that's never been reflected in changes in the Presiding Officer's chair.

In terms of the name, I think everybody's familiar with the term 'Speaker' and what a speaker does in the English-speaking world, and I personally prefer it. The number of times that I show members of the public around the Senedd, and I say, 'That's where the Presiding Officer sits' and they say, 'What's the Presiding Officer?'—'It's the Speaker.' 'Oh, right, okay, I understand.' So, I think that changing the English term to 'Speaker' is appropriate, and I think we should have, in legislation, the Welsh terms 'Llywydd' and 'Dirprwy Lywydd' also. That's my view.

Okay. That's good. Anything else? What's proposed there is slightly different to what was said by Labour, and probably Plaid Cymru, but possibly achieves the same thing, which is you set a maximum of two deputy speakers. The politics of the time, possibly more than anything else, will dictate whether it is one or two, given the nature of the dynamic of what we have in terms of voting and non-voting. The issue of the numbers will be part of that political set-up at the time. Putting a maximum on it would be one way of achieving—a maximum of two—that flexibility if it was needed at that time. Sorry, Jane, I cut across you.

Thank you very much. I understand that Westminster has two deputies for more than 600 Members, so I think having two as a maximum is a sensible approach. I don't agree at all with the change in title; I think we should leave it as 'Y Llywydd'. That differentiates us from Westminster, we're very different—that's my point. Thank you.

Do we think that we're getting to a consensus with a maximum of two? But then, obviously, it will be for the next Senedd to decide on that. And, this is always, of course, subject to a vote. The Standing Orders would reflect the need to vote two Deputy Presiding Officers in, rather than one, and that would be a matter of a vote at that point. Yes, Lesley.

We really think that this should be a matter for the Business Committee to bring forward. So, Welsh Government is happy to support the approach that you've brought forward.

Okay. So, a maximum of two. And then, just on the name, I end up, obviously, calling myself Llywydd, and that's the term I use. But, for people from outside of Wales primarily, that's unfamiliar to them, so I call myself a Presiding Officer. And then, all of a sudden, I have to explain what a Presiding Officer is, and say 'Speaker'. So, it's not the 'Llywydd' issue, the term 'Llywydd' is well used now, but it's whether there is a term in English and whether that term, if it's used in English, is 'Speaker' or 'Presiding Officer'. My view and David's view here, just from a very practical point of view, is that, when we describe ourselves, we usually end up having to describe ourselves as 'Speaker' for anybody who's unfamiliar with Wales or the Senedd, and it would make a bit of sense to reflect how other parliaments around the world call their chair for that purpose.

On this issue, as you might imagine, my view is that we should use the terms 'Llywydd' and 'Diprwy Lywydd', and those titles alone, just as the term 'Senedd' is now accepted across the board, including the London media—they refer to the 'Senedd' when they mention this place. So, I think it is sensible to go down that route and that we use the Welsh terms and put the Welsh terms on the face of the Bill: 'Llywydd' and 'Dirprwy Lywydd'. It has become part of our cultural fabric in Wales for us to use Welsh language terms and Welsh language terms alone for many things, and that happens in other nations, such as the Dáil and the Taoiseach. It's a way of enhancing the cultural diversity of these nations, and to promote the million Welsh speakers through that process. So, I would argue that we don't need to change the title to 'Speaker' on the face of the Bill, and that we should continue to do as we do at present.

I'm sure that there would have to be a change to a Welsh version, because 'Presiding Officer' is the term in legislation at the moment, so there would need to be some change—whether that is changing 'Presiding Officer' to 'Llywydd' in English and in Welsh, or whether it's a change to 'Llywydd' and 'Speaker' in the English. I think that's where we are in terms of our debate this morning. Perhaps for the purposes of this morning, if we could just park that issue as there is agreement that if an English term is used, then it should be 'Speaker', and then we will see, as we take this debate further, whether there is an appetite in the Senedd to look at a monolingual term and use the term 'Llywydd'.

Yes? Is that okay?

I believe so. The only thing I'd say is that GOWA, the Government of Wales Act 2006, is set out in English—Matthew will correct me—so it's not that there's a Welsh version of GOWA.

Yes. But there will be a Welsh version of this legislation.

Yes. So, at the moment, the Government of Wales Act just refers to a 'Presiding Officer' and a 'Deputy Presiding Officer'; it does at the moment say that Standing Orders could use different titles, but the Senedd doesn't actually do that in Standing Orders at the moment.

So, what that means is that we would create this bit of the legislation by reference to 'Llywydd' and 'Dirprwy Lywydd', or two 'Dirprwy Lywydds', but we would also need to replicate that with a term in English.

Well, if you think, Llywydd, about the name of the institution, we say that it is Senedd Cymru, or the Welsh Parliament. We don't actually say, in the Government of Wales Act, that there's an English title and a Welsh title; we simply say that there are two titles, which would probably be the way to do it.

Okay. Fine.

There was great discussion on that point at the time, and that was the compromised reached. I think that we may have made progress since those days when we had that debate, and perhaps today, the word 'Senedd' would have been used—'Senedd Cymru' would have been used. We're going back to past times here. Things have progressed, and the surge in interest in the Welsh language and the support for a million Welsh speakers and the Government's target has changed the dynamic, I think. And therefore, we don't have to follow the pattern followed in the past, and we could think in terms of having a 'Llywydd' and 'Dirprwy Lywydd' set out in the Bill. That's my view.

Okay. If we could just, for the time being, say that we agree that we should ask officials to change the name to 'Speaker', 'Deputy Speaker', 'Llywydd', 'Dirprwy Lywydd', but that we also consider the possibility of using a monolingual Welsh term. There is no agreement at all on that in the Business Committee at the moment, but we will just consider that, but that we, as a minimum, do agree on the change to the English term to 'Speaker', if that is adopted, if that English term is used.

I have no particular view on that, but I do understand Jane's point on the use of 'Speaker'; it does take us back to a different culture in Westminster and so on.

David.

That's the point, things have moved on from that discussion. I was part of that debate and argued for having a monolingual Welsh name. Ultimately, there was no appetite in the Senedd for that. I would suspect that the situation may have changed and that circumstances are different. But the fact that we did one thing in previous legislation doesn't mean that we necessarily have to follow the same principle this time, because things have changed.

Yes. Okay. Lesley.

I just think that we need to check that we're able to do that within GOWA.

I think we'll bring all of this back. This is just a new twist on it, which is not the wrong thing to do, but it's just—. So, we'll explore these options and we'll bring some proposals back to you. Just the one other issue that remains, then, is that we, via legislation or Standing Orders, ensure that not all Presiding Officers, Llywydd's, are from the same block, then, whether that's executive or non-executive. That was in the Llywydd's evidence to this session. So, how would you propose that we do that? How's it currently looked at in legislation, or possibly not at all, is it?

At the moment, that's set out in legislation. So, it could be set out in legislation, or it could be a matter for Standing Orders.

Right. And what was my proposal on that?

I'm not sure that you set out the mechanism.

Other than to say that there should be a mechanism, either in legislation or in Standing Orders, that ensures that not all of those elected are from an executive, which could be a large coalition, remember, compared to a non-executive. Okay. I think we'll find a way of bringing a proposal as to how that would best work. Fine. Senedd Commissioners.

Sorry, Chair. Can I just—

Sorry, yes, Darren.

—make a comment on that issue? I do think that, where possible, if we've got three, it should be politically balanced, say—I don't know—in some way. I agree with you that you shouldn't have both the PO and the DPO from the same political group. I think that's bad form. Do you see what I mean about political balance? If it's three or—.

I think there's something in current legislation on that, is there?

I think if we can put in in the Bill, it would be better.

We'll bring a proposal back on that to reflect, I think, where we all are on that, that there needs to be a kind of control mechanism on any executive or group being large enough to dominate those roles.

The number of Senedd Commissioners, then. I think, with the exception of the Senedd Commission itself, of which I am the Chair, then all the evidence has said—all the positions are—that there doesn't need to be an increase in the number of commissioners. I'm sure, at this point, I'm meant to point out that flexibility to five would be possibly preferable, but I'm not going to.

No increase.

Okay. Fine. Let's go for a 'no increase', and I'll report that back to the Commission. I don't think there were particularly strong views. I shouldn't be saying that, I'm sure, but I think that we're fine with the number that we have for what we are doing.

And then—. Right, we come to a very different issue, then, and that's the issue of Members changing parties in a closed list proportional system. Now, in our technical briefing a few weeks ago and also in the evidence that we've got before us today, I think that there's—. There are arguments, of course, on different ways around this, but it seems that most people are coming to the point that restricting in legislation a Member's ability to either leave or be forced out of their political party is not a way of taking this forward—in the legislation itself—that there may be ways, through Standing Orders, that such a move could be disincentivised in their becoming a member of another group, but, in terms of the legislation itself, putting into legislation a restriction on a Member to leave a political party without then leaving the Senedd itself, or having to leave the Senedd itself, that is territory that nobody thinks that we should go down. Would that be a reflection of where we all have come to? Even though we may have wished to look into this in a more creative way, in doing so, in looking at some of the international experience on all of this as well, as we did in the technical briefing, then this is very difficult territory to navigate, especially on the human rights aspects to this. Does anybody want to add anything? Yes, Jane.

Yes. We stand out here, very clearly, saying that if somebody does leave—

A political party or group.

—a political party then you should go down the list to the next person. And the view—I'll just say it, but I know I'm massively outvoted—the view is that the proposal is for a closed list, that is, the name of the political party is all that the voters will see, admittedly at the point of election, and therefore what you're doing is you're saying you want both: you're saying we will change, we'll have a political party system that says 'no names', and then, when it comes to a named person leaving a political party and possibly joining another one, you're changing that system. With the proposal for six people per paired constituency, I think there are lots of issues to work out about the relationship between the voter and the Member. I don't think that's as strong as it is now in the constituency vote, and I think that's weakened. So, I'll just put that—. You can see all of the arguments in our paper, but I can see that we're significantly outvoted. This is not about the human rights of the Senedd Member; it should never be about that. We're here in a very privileged position. It should be about the rights of the voter who vote for a Liberal Democrat or a Plaid Cymru Member or a Conservative Member and that being retained.

Yes, okay. Diolch, Jane. Darren.

So, Llywydd, we do have a list system currently for regional Members on which names are on the ballot paper as well as the political party. So, there is an element of personal mandate too, I would suggest to you. I think there was some—. Am I correct in saying that? I am, aren't I?

Yes, you are. Yes, I was just checking whether there was any reason why the preferred option here of a closed list—the preferred option of the Welsh Government proposal—would prohibit names being on the electoral ballot, and no decision has been made on that yet.

No decision has been made yet, no. And I think, even if names aren't on there, everybody will know who is standing, because they will make themselves known to the electorate. So, again, even, there's an element of personal mandate. So, this is a tricky one. I read the arguments for and against; I saw some of the legal arguments as well in terms of potential difficulties.

Can I just take up this issue? The Welsh Government, in their paper, refer to them saying that people should be able to become independent but shouldn't be allowed to join another political group. Of course, that's because that's what we've seen in recent years, isn't it, which has benefited the Welsh Government and enabled them to have a majority in the Senedd and to be able to form a Government. So, I can understand why they're making that argument. But it's also a bit ridiculous, isn't it, that argument, because someone who is independent can still take a whip from a political group if they want to, they can still join another political party, because that's outside the Senedd's control. They may not be able to join a Senedd group, a Senedd political group, but they can still join another political party. So, for all intents and purposes, they are a Member representing that political party in the Senedd. So, I think it's actually very difficult to do anything, really, full stop. I can see that there may be a disincentive to cross the floor if it means that there's no extra time allocated to that political group because the person is sitting, for Senedd business purposes, as an independent, or if resources didn't flow to that political group. I can see those potentially being disincentives. But I really don't think it's a very practical way to deal with the matter, because they're not really independent. They effectively cross the floor.

No, I understand that. And we've seen all kinds of—

Creative ways.

—ways where groups and Members have already exercised their ways of working in different ways once they've left a political party to which they were elected, and we've got all kinds of different examples of what they've done after that, whether that's voting with another group or joining another group. But I think, for the purposes of the legislation, those issues don't need to be looked at now. They can be looked at in terms of any Standing Orders on groups and membership of groups that we currently have that we may want to reflect on for the seventh Senedd on how any of that will change in the context of the new voting system. But, for the purposes of today, with one clear exception, then we agree that there shouldn't be anything in legislation that prohibits a Member from changing a group without losing their seat—with the one notable exception to that.

Just one more point.

Just in relation to the point about having the names on the ballot paper, the parties make the decision about the order of those names, not the voter. So, the voter has no choice about the name of the person on that ballot; they cannot choose No. 3, for example—

No, no.

—the party's internal mechanism—. So, I think, just for us, it makes it just really clear that we don't agree with the proposed Government model, but we don't agree either with people being able to switch parties.

No, that's clear and understood. Diolch, Jane. Because a closed list system is that the party puts forward their chosen list and the voter has no ability to choose from within that list. The point of discussion, really, is whether the list will be on the ballot paper or not and we don't know that at this point—whether the list will be on the ballot paper of names or not—and it will come at some point as part of a legislative or subordinate legislation process.

Llywydd, I think David wants to—

David.

Thanks, Chair. One thing we haven't spoken about here is that we don't know very much about the individual choosing to move party themselves, but we also have to reflect the fact—. What about a party deciding to remove the individual from the whip, for example? Now, as a Senedd, some of us will remember that we changed the rules on electing Chairs of committees, because we took away the power from parties to either put people into the position of Chairs or to threaten to take them away as well. So, there is also a situation where we want to make sure that parties don't have powers to hold people in fear, basically, of staying as a Member as well. So, we need to reflect upon that aspect as well.

Yes, that's a very good point, David, and, for us to remind ourselves, even though I'm in the company here of party whips, primarily—of business managers—who are all about, in their DNA, party control—it's important to remember that Members leaving groups is not just an individual choice by the Member, but it can be that the Member is no longer flavour of the month with the party group itself, so we have to have an element of protecting those Members as well.

Okay. I think we're coming to a place where we've agreed, with one exception, on not having anything in the legislation on this matter to prohibit a change of political group or leaving a political group, or being excluded from a political group automatically leads to creating a vacancy and moving to the next place on the list.

Can I just say that I do sympathise with the views expressed here, but I feel that Standing Orders are the place for that discussion, and it shouldn't be on the face of the Bill, because the whole situation is so complex, and that it's better to leave some things for Standing Orders? I do think there's a case to be made for having the names on the ballot paper, when it comes to having that discussion, but that's a debate for another day, in a way, but—

Indeed. Yes, and that wouldn't be for Standing Orders, that would be for legislation, but that isn't an issue for the Business Committee at this point, but it is a debate to be had as to what constitutes a closed list, Jane, and I think we're both quite close in our thinking on that. But that's not a debate for this morning.

Okay. Right. I think that concludes our discussion. I will ask officials to reflect all this in a further paper to us, with some specific proposals on these issues. Some things have been agreed this morning; there are others that we'll need to return to in terms of the detail. Then, we'll return to this issue in a future meeting. So, thank you for your attendance this morning and that concludes the meeting.