Standards of Conduct Committee

Yes, fine. So, I think that this came out of an understanding that this moment of Senedd reform is a real moment of opportunity that we felt, the IWA, would be a missed opportunity were we to not include recall mechanisms of a similar nature to the Westminster Parliament, and the fact that, if this is a moment to reinvigorate our democratic systems and the Parliament, then that should be built on making sure that we aren't falling behind other Parliaments across the UK, as a first port of call. So, we think that there should be more robust and transparent mechanisms for ensuring that the upholding of high standards of integrity from Senedd Members, and that this moment right now feels like a moment of opportunity to formalise those mechanisms. It's that kind of formalisation that, I think, is really important and speaks to, potentially, some of the instances during this Senedd where it's been shown that they could do with beefing up specifically. So, that's where we sit and where it's come from in terms of—. It's come from this inquiry around Senedd reform. But also, because the Senedd is growing, I think it's an important moment to futureproof systems so they're not only working now, but they're working for an enlarged Senedd of 96, a Senedd that has more responsibilities, more executive functions, and therefore the public have a right to expect high standards from elected officials that are having an increasing impact on everyday life in Wales, and also so that people can see, in the mechanisms of the Senedd, that they really match what people experience in workplaces across Wales as well—I think that's quite important—whilst also making sure that it works for the intricacies of what is, in our view at least, a slightly imperfect electoral system that we're moving to. But, parking that to one side, there are definitely ways in which it could be worked where, by balancing the risk and opportunity of the mechanism, you're recognising that you as Senedd Members are representatives, and it's not an opportunity for more direct democracy, but also that you are held to the highest possible standards that people recognise in their everyday lives.

So, that's where we come from as a broad statement. We're really glad that you, as the committee for standards, are the ones taking it forward, because, as we see it, you'd have a key role to play in terms of adjudicating on when a petition might happen, or when there might be instances that need to be explored. We think there's a really key role for this standards committee to play, as well as potentially beefing up this as a committee with the expansion of Members as well. So, that's an opening gambit, I guess.

Thanks very much, Joe. If I could turn to that issue of a recall petition that you mentioned there, there aren't many examples around the world for us to look at, but, obviously, our nearest neighbour is the UK Parliament, and looking at the way that recall petitions are triggered there, there are three factors, aren't there: less than a 12-month prison sentence, suspension of at least 10 sitting days, or if a Member is convicted of an expense offence. Would you be happy with the same sorts of circumstances to trigger a petition here in Wales, or have you got any different ideas there?

I think it's a good starting point in terms of it having been embedded over the last few years, and it has not led to a huge increase in the number of petitions, which I think was a bit of a concern ahead of it being implemented. But I think, looking at those three aspects, especially the third, it speaks to the political moment at which that recall Bill went through Parliament in terms of the expenses scandal being the lens through which this piece of legislation came forward. Therefore, that third element that you spoke to, which I think is a fair point in terms of use of parliamentary allowances and parliamentary funds, that is a real key linchpin for that piece of legislation and potentially what you would look at. But that third bit, that third element, speaks to some of the behaviours that the Parliament is looking to get rid of, to make sure that it's looked at specifically. So, I think the lens through which we should seek to look at this in Wales is, 'What are the things, the types of behaviour, that we are trying to stop?' It might well be the use of expenses, or it might well be other behaviours that we think are inappropriate from Senedd Members. So, I think that is an interesting moment, to look at what has been done in Westminster, but also I think that that is a good place to start, as we would see it—'Okay, well, here's a good basis that's working in a Westminster context'. It has not led to a huge influx of petitions, which I think is really relevant. We don't want to completely undermine Senedd Members' ability to act as representatives and therefore have undue pressure on you as Senedd Members from all sorts of different interests, but also that you can build on what Westminster have done. I think that's where some of the legislation that has come forward in Wales—. We're looking to make our democracy better than what's going on in Westminster, therefore that's a kind of baseline.

So, yes, that lens, I think, is really important for you to consider what else you might think. What kind of behaviours are you trying to stop? Therefore, what mechanisms can you try and put in place to stop that behaviour? In that case, it was expenses. In this case, it might be something completely different, but you have to think quite carefully around that kind of custodial sentence, prison sentence part of things, because I definitely would agree with the idea of having a definitive backstop of a 12-month prison sentence. That doesn't need a petition for everyone to recognise that that is inappropriate behaviour from a Senedd Member. So, it's that balancing of those two, really. But it's a good basis, I would say, and one that I guess you wouldn't look to go too far from, especially as this is a moment of huge democratic reform in Wales. There could be throwing the baby out with the bath water and going too far in the other direction of making sure that recalls are really a very prominent piece of public life, if you're a Senedd Member. I don't think anyone wants to go in that particular direction; it's to root out specific behaviours that we don't think are appropriate for Senedd Members.

Thank you. If I could just pick you up on that issue there around a prison sentence of 12 months or longer, currently that's a matter for disqualification. Do you think that the matters that disqualify Members need to be changed, or can those sit alongside any recall process?

Well, I think that 12 months is a good backstop, to just say, 'We don't need to look into this'. And there's a bit of murky water in regard to criminality, and you, as a committee, or whoever you deign to preside over the independent process of triggering a recall petition, don't want to get into the murky waters of what is criminal and what isn't. You want to make sure that you're putting in place, on paper, 'These are the behavious that we think, as an independent group of Senedd Members'—and it's really important the fact that it's an independent group of Senedd Members, so that it doesn't become politicised—'are behaviours that are inappropriate and here's a list of them'. The more you write them down, the better for independent adjudication ultimately. So, I think that that backstop of criminality is an important one, but that doesn't mean that you can't build in place a longer list than what Westminster have in regard to those specific instances when a recall petition can start. So, I think it's that balance, again, of making sure you're not doing too long a list and that you can be very explicit about what is and what isn't behaviour that would denote a recall petition, because you don't want this becoming politicised and you really want to make sure that it's an independent process, and that you can look your party colleagues in the eye and say, 'That behaviour was wrong, and I can see that was wrong, because we've all joined together and made this set of principles as to what we think are beyond or need reproach and what don't', and similar to the Nolan principles, I guess, would be a decent peg as well.

Thank you. If I could just ask you about one area that all parliaments would have an issue with, where Members, during a parliamentary term, might leave the party for which they've been elected. Now, in the Senedd, that has created extra difficulties because of the level of proportional representation within our current election system and, of course, after Senedd reform, post 2026, those issues will become even more stark. Do you have a view about whether a recall petition should be triggered if a Member leaves a political party that they were elected to represent, because this has certainly been an issue where voters have been quite vexed in the past? If they voted for a particular political party and a Member has then left that party, they feel as though they're lacking the representation that they voted for on the ballot paper. What's your view on that?

Yes, I think this is where real thought and consideration—. This is where I see a real difficulty in how you square that circle of moving away from voting for a particular representative and then moving to vote for a party, and then changing seats. As we've seen in recent Senedds, it has been more likely for those who have been elected to the regional seats to change party than those who've been directly voted for. I can see that being a considerable problem. You may well take two different approaches. I guess one approach could be, 'Okay, the votes are sacrosanct of people who vote for parties, therefore that person, if they choose to leave, can no longer represent that party—that's the end of that'. Or the other point could be, 'This is the Senedd at the start of the Senedd and these are the Senedd Members'. It's almost that you kind of kick off into a secondary phase where you say, 'Yes, these were the people who were elected, they were highly on that list'. And it's the way that you look at the voting system, really, I guess, in that the names of the representatives will be on the ballot, so you could say there is some validity to the idea that, because that person is high on a list—and you would probably have to be fairly high on a list—that person has a personal mandate, but, really, that is not what the electoral system is for.

So, I think this is one of the real problems that I think really needs quite a bit of thought from you as the committee. I'm not sure on which side of those two I would particularly fall, because there's a necessary ability for you, as Senedd Members, to act how you see fit. If you feel like another party or the party you belong to has failed you and the people who voted for you and your party, then you should have the freedom to be able to move to a different party without then being kicked out of the Senedd. But, equally, the electors voted for the party and not you specifically. But I think that the lists will be part of the ballot, so that you can see the individual Members, might—. You might well say that gives enough validity to the individual that then means, once they're elected in the Senedd, they have that freedom to move, but it is a reach, I would say, and it's a difficult one to overcome. I would see that as one of the key difficulties, really, within this new system, which I can speak to a bit more if you have any other questions on that.

Okay, thanks, Joe. I'll bring Mark Drakeford in now. Mark.

There is a series of different considerations around this point, isn't there? If you have a system in which once you leave a political party your political career is over, what that means is that people won't leave a political party and they will continue to sit as a cuckoo in that nest, being difficult, disruptive and creating a great deal more difficulty than any political party would wish to have to manage. So, a system that traps people inside a political party, whether they want to be there or not, doesn't seem to me to have very much merit. But, Joe, I wonder what you thought of the middle way suggestion, that what people would do would be they would be allowed to leave a political group, but, for the rest of that Senedd term, they would only be able to sit as an independent. In other words, they would not be able to just sort of hawk themselves around to different political groups. They would be able to leave a party if, as you say, they feel that that party has ceased to represent their views, or, in their view, the interests of their constituents. But, in a finely balanced, proportional system, they wouldn't be able to overturn the global result, the whole-Wales result, by moving from one party and putting themselves in another. Myself, I think there is merit in the idea that you don't trigger further disruption in terms of people leaving and joining the Senedd, but you do put a limit around the extent to which any individual is able to move from one political party and join another one for which they were not elected.

Yes, and I guess that is the middle option. I think, with each of these, it's an imperfect fix, isn't it, in that it's trying to balance two different mandates, really—your mandate as a party and your mandate as an individual because your name is on a list—and the degree to which people have a personal name as a politician in some regions will be minimal, won't it? That's the nature of it. I guess that is one of the options. I would be in favour, definitely under this list system—which I can kind of expand on, I guess—that you don't want to get into the business of by-elections, because that is not how—. To then go to a by-election—run by what voting system, first-past-the-post; I don't know—is an even more imperfect fix. So, I would say that sitting as an independent would seem to me to make some of the balances that you'd look to make. However, then, even if you're an independent, it's not that difficult to then, without becoming a member of a different party, just affiliate yourself quite publicly with what other parties are calling for. It could be seen as not really that clear a fix either—I could see that—and therefore could potentially erode people's ability to distinguish what different Members represent, as who they're standing for, which is a challenge. Like you say, it's trying to fit a square peg in a round hole, but that strikes me as one of the better options of squaring that circle, yes.

Great. Thanks, Joe. I'm conscious of time, so if I can just ask two quick-fire questions around this section before I move on to the questions that Pred has for you. Firstly, do you think that there should be an opportunity for a Member to appeal any decision to move to a recall petition?

Yes. I think this is part of what I think are—which I guess we'll come on to—some of the mechanisms that—. You know, the process through which you would get to a recall petition would probably be, as is the case in Westminster, that this committee would have an opportunity to look into the intricacies of any particular matter and then therefore make a suspension of, say, 10 days, which therefore triggers a process that then triggers a process in a region where you would then have a vote on whether you wanted to recall that person. And I guess that is the stage where you would have that deliberation. You'd have a deliberation between—. And there are two different ways you could do it: you could have a deliberation amongst your peers or you could have an independent adjudicator to have that opportunity to thoroughly investigate. I don't think anyone wants to have particularly rash judgments on people's behaviour. You want to make sure that that person has had the opportunity to put their perspective on things, and it should be an independent process. That's where, I think, at that point, you as Senedd Members need to have trust in an independent process on which to make your decision as a committee. And I think there's an opportunity also for you to scrutinise them as a committee. I think a beefed-up committee in order to undertake these functions is quite an important thing. And it's also—. A number of these matters will be quite delicate in nature, they have been in the last and the current Senedd, and therefore there's a degree of making sure that you're not going out and prosecuting someone before they've had their chance to have their moment heard, and that's quite a difficult balance when a committee might be looking at an individual Member.

But there's also that balance of making sure that you're spending time to have a process that is very thorough but also you're not sitting on these issues for over a year, and then people think, 'Why is this Member still sat in the Senedd?' when there has been impropriety that other Senedd Members see as well. So, I think there are two sides of that, but, again, a beefed-up committee would be key in all of this, because if you end up making a recommendation and seemingly nothing happens at the end of it, then it's a bit of a waste of time. So, you need to make sure that there's some degree of independent oversight that means that the Member in question has the opportunity to appeal during that process. And then you've got the more 'independent', but also politically derived, because of all of your individual mandates, process whereby you come to a decision as a committee. So, there's a balance between how much you want to outsource it to an independent person or body versus that it should be your peers, basically, making that decision on a cross-party basis. That semi answers the question, I think. Sorry.

Right. Thanks. I'll bring Natasha in now, then.

Thank you, Chair. Joe, thank you so much for everything that you're answering so far. I do have one question. Obviously, politics changes on a daily basis. We sit as a standards committee; we also have a standards commissioner. Each and every single one of us, I think, can honestly say that we want to instil integrity within, obviously, our colleagues, and we want to make sure that the public trusts us, as you said earlier. You mentioned on a couple of occasions an independent body, an independent person, an independent adjudicator. Who in your view holds that authority to have that sort of position within the public, that they have that respect to be able to be trusted with a Member's future, potentially?

Well, I guess the commissioner, or you would look to establish a role that spoke to Senedd standards as well, which you could do. Importantly, it needs to be a depoliticised process, I would say, whereby you've not got what could be a political appointee, because I think that is really damaging to people's sense of fairness and justice, basically.

So, in Westminster, they have the equivalent of Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. Is that an organisation or group that you would say or consider to be trusted or trustworthy enough to be able to be implemented here, or would you consider just an individual who was hired independently to be able to do this role?

Well, I think, in this specific regard to Members, an individual could do it if they were tasked with the right resources. IPSA has a lot of problems, I would say, as someone who has previously worked in Westminster, but there is a call, especially given the nature of some of the issues and cultural issues around the Senedd as an institution, to say actually—which is a far broader set of reforms and means a lot more money and investment, but, to make sure that you’re raising standards of behaviour throughout the Senedd, not just in individual Members—how do you manage your staff, how are staff valued, have they got the opportunity to unionise to collectively bargain for better standards, better pay, all of those different issues. So, I think that’s a kind of separate point that I think is worthy of attention, but will require resource to do properly, because if they’re under-resourced, then you don't—. You know, you put junk in, you get junk out in regard to those processes. And I think there is, especially at this moment, where you’re drastically increasing the size of the Senedd, there is a moment to say, ‘Well, yes, this is a moment when we should be looking at how offices work, how the Senedd as an institution, beyond just the elected Members, works for members of staff and therefore the Member and then the public themselves in terms of better outcomes.’

Thank you, Joe. Chair, just one final sub-question, and I know you’re short of time. So, Joe, just a hypothetical. An ex-Member—i.e. a retired Member, a Member that’s left, a Member that’s stepped away from the Senedd—would not be a good choice for this position in your opinion, yes or no?

Well, it depends on how highly—. I would like it that there was cross-party support on who that individual would be, essentially, is the way that I see it. That could be a previous Member if Members of different parties are supportive of that individual as—. And I think there’s a value to saying someone who is an ex-Member would have a good handle on what it means to be a Senedd Member, therefore they understand the intricacies of things like how an office works or what your role as a Senedd Member is. So, in a word, 'yes', I think, in answer to the question. Yes.

Thank you so much. Thanks, Chair.

Thanks, Natasha. One final question on this particular topic area, Joe: do you feel that there is a role for the whole Senedd within this process at all? For example, should triggering a petition be subject to a vote in the Senedd and, if so, would a simple majority suffice or should it be that supermajority, a two-thirds majority?

If it were to go to a vote, I would be in favour of a simple majority. However, I think it’s not necessary that it goes to a whole-of-Senedd vote, because then I think you do get into that politicisation of—. You know, you’ll be voting in party blocks based on someone’s behaviour and you don’t really want that. You want it to be a cross-party process, of which the committee is, and also, as a committee, you will have had the time to look into the details of the particular case and therefore come to a consensus position, hopefully, whereby that might not be the case for a backbench Member who might not have a particular insight into either individual, which isn’t really relevant in a lot of cases, or what their party group thinks of. So, if it was a simple majority—. Not necessarily so, as I would see it.

Okay, thanks very much. I'll bring Pred in now, who I know has got a series of questions for you around running a petition.

Yes. Thank you, Joe. It’s been interesting to listen to your comments and thoughts this morning. Just before we go into some of the mechanics of a petition, is a petition the best way forward in your opinion, given the way that we’re going to be electing people to the Senedd in 2026 and beyond?

Well, I guess this is a difficult one. I guess a petition is good way of saying, ‘Yes, we want this person to be removed; we no longer want them to be the Member for our semi-region or constituency, paired constituency.’ But the way that works is going to be quite different in that it’s presumably not going to trigger a by-election. What it will trigger is, essentially, going down the party list to the next person, who may or may not want to—. It could be four years—three, four years—into a Senedd, and they might not want to stand, but, under this system, there’s still ability to go even further down until you reach someone who is on that party’s list. So, it’s a slightly different mechanism, but I still think a petition works in terms of saying, ‘Yes, this is a way for us to lodge our discontent with a Senedd Member.’ I think there are difficulties with any other way of doing it, really, whilst making sure that the petition is fully legitimate as well. You want to make sure that everyone who is signing that petition is from that particular Senedd seat, as well, so there's definitely a need to make sure that process is ironclad, so you don't end up getting entrants essentially flooding a constituency and making it more likely that someone is to be recalled than they would if it was just members of their constituency. So, I see a petition as the best way, really, of running that, but there are different ways of doing a petition.

You've touched there on some of the potential issues. Ten per cent is the current Westminster petition limit. Does that make sense in this situation, or does it need to vary? Is there a different mechanism that says, potentially, that it has to be higher than the average? Any thoughts that you might have on that sort of mechanism.

I guess 10 per cent is ultimately an arbitrary figure, isn't it, but I think there's some validity to saying 10 per cent. But also, with the Senedd side of things, you've got what is a gap in turnout, and we have yet to see what that would look like under the next Senedd elections. But you've got a gap in turnout in terms of the electorate to get you there is smaller than what would be the case for an MP, currently, if those historical trends are to continue. So, you could aim to tie it on the amount of votes cast as a basis, but, even then, I don't particularly like that as a solution. I think 10 per cent seems a fair basis, but it's all based on sticking your finger in the wind, ultimately, to come to a 10 per cent figure. But, also, having said that, I don't think it's a bad figure. There is validity to tying to what Westminster are doing in this particular area. I don't think there's any need to necessarily go higher. I certainly wouldn't go lower for that specific figure just for the sake of it. I think 10 per cent is a—

Ten per cent for an MP triggers a by-election. So, somebody could in theory win their seat with 40 per cent of the vote, and get removed with 10 per cent of the vote, potentially.

There is that, but 10 per cent of the constituency is still a meaningful amount. And then, if you were to say that, then you would say, 'Okay, well, we need to rerun the whole thing' to get to that number of people turning out. I think that's not necessarily a fair comparison. That is further down the line when a whole process has been in place under that specific Member, and you're not going to get turnout for a recall petition anywhere near the amount who were turning out for the actual elections. So, I can see why you would think that is a big divergence, but 10 per cent of a constituency is still a significant amount of people using their democratic voice directly to say, 'We don't think this person should stand any more.'

If we move on to just how that potentially could be run to get as many people to participate as possible, would you be in favour of opening it up to postal, to proxy, to all the ways that you could vote in the Senedd election? And maybe your thoughts on an online element.

I don't see why not. It's resource permitting. My only reservation with online—. In an ideal world, the electoral register would be online and everyone would be able to vote online or from multiple different places rather than going to a particular polling station, but that's a separate point. I think the risk with online is you need to be 100 per cent sure of the traceability of where that person is from. You need to make sure that it is someone who is an elector from that region or constituency. I would veer away from online as much as possible unless you can make those safeguards. You could do that simply by providing—. But, again, you don't want to also raise the bar of what people are willing to do. If you said you've got to have an ID or you've got to have a proof that you're from a certain place, and provide that online, I don't think that would be particularly attractive to a lot of people. So, it's a balance, but also, it's really important that it's only people who are from that person's constituency or region who have a say in it; it's not to do with—

And from what you're saying there, it would be open to everybody on the voter roll for that constituency, or paired constituency, at that time.

I would say so. Obviously, constituencies constantly flux, don't they, but that's really the only way of doing it, I would say, without it being so resource-heavy that it's unusable.

And then, on that ballot paper, would it just be for the petition, or would you want it to show that you're dissatisfied with the petition and therefore wanted to keep the person in their role?

Yes, I guess that would be the two: either for recall or supporting the maintaining of the Senedd Member.

Say we put that arbitrary 10 per cent in, once it had hit 10 per cent, would you close that petition down, or would you have it open for six weeks, I think, or would you have it for longer, or shorter, or what—?

I think that petition is a direct democratic moment. I don't see why you shouldn't have it open for a set period of time for people. Just because it's got over the 10 per cent doesn't mean that someone shouldn't have the ability to add their voice. You might be coming round to doing it because you're really dissatisfied with that Member, but then it's the day after they've reached the 10 per cent that you want to lodge your discontent. I think it should be open for a period of time, so that the full feeling can be felt and people can have their opportunity to show their discontent.

Diolch, Vikki. Thanks for that, Joe.

Thank you, Pred. I'll bring in Mark Drakeford now, who I know has a series of questions around the result of a petition.

Joe, we're just assuming now that the petition has been triggered and the threshold has been met. What happens now?

I think this is where, essentially, you would go down the party list to the next member within that party group, see if they are still available to do the job and then work your way down the list as and when they're able to. I think you want to try and make that process as quick as possible so that electors aren't left with a period where they don't have a Member for a large period of time. I think that's quite important. And if it was to be a large period of time, then you'd obviously have to try and make sure that there were counterbalances within any votes that took place within that period to make sure that the balance of the Senedd was still represented and that a party isn't necessarily punished for what could be an individual Member's behaviour, I guess, in that point. But you'd look to try and make it as quick as possible.

One of the pros of doing this recall within this new system is that the list is there; people are voting for a party, they're not voting for a particular representative. Therefore, it goes back to the party to push on to the next level. And obviously, there are issues around the entrenchment of political parties' role within the electoral system, but as the system is in place and has been voted for, it would make sense to just go down the list.

And when the list is exhausted?

Then you've got an interesting challenge. That is a good point. I think you'd have to go quite substantially down a list, wouldn't you; you'd probably have to go through at least two recalls of Members within a particular constituency or region. I'm not sure what you do. You might have to run a by-election at that stage if you were to exhaust a list.

The Bill makes provision for political parties to have up to 12 people on the list, so I guess that's not the most likely area of difficulty; you'd have to have a very, very substantial run of bad luck if you couldn't find somebody further down the list. But it's a more pressing issue in relation to independent candidates, isn't it? If an independent candidate, who is, effectively, a list of one, does manage to get elected, as you could do under this system, and then they get caught up in this process, there isn't anybody behind them on the list. You said in an earlier answer that you are very keen there shouldn't be by-elections, which I agreed with, but you've now just said that you thought maybe you would have to have a by-election. I believe the preferable outcome is that the seat just sits vacant, because I think that the unintended consequences of holding by-elections in a system of the sort we will have really outweigh the absolute obvious difficulties of having a seat vacant in the Senedd. But if I had to choose between the two, I'd rather have a vacant seat than trying to run a by-election in a system that simply doesn't operate in that way.

I wasn't really thinking about independents. You're right, it's a fair challenge. I think in this system one of the shortfalls is the role of independents, and we've been clear on that before. Yes, I think that is probably preferable—leaving a vacant seat.

Just one last question, Chair, if I could. The system we are describing is one where, at the point at which a petition reaches the threshold, that person has, effectively, lost their seat. What is the merit in keeping the petition open for another six weeks then? Because, in effect, you are denying the people in that constituency representation for that period. There is somebody else on the list ready to take their place. Shouldn't that happen straight away in order to prevent weeks going by when people in that constituency don't have the representation that they have voted for?

That is a balance and a trade-off, isn't it? As a voter, I would want the ability to show my discontent, regardless of whether you've reached a 10 per cent figure or not, because I just think it's an important democratic step as part of the petition process to make sure that everyone who has the ability to show their discontent can. I think if you capped it, you'd miss voices that are very angry, and that might lead to some degree of disengagement from people who felt that they were denied their ability to—. I acknowledge there is a trade-off between being denied that voice and having one less representative for your super-constituency, but I think it's quite important that people are able to show their discontent. And if you're barred from showing your discontent, then that can lead to anger and discontent with the Senedd as an institution as well. But it is a trade-off.

Obviously, you've not been barred, because you'd have had all the time that it took to get to the 10 per cent threshold in which to register your discontent. So, nobody's being barred here; it would take weeks. If you look at any Westminster petition, those signatures are not collected overnight, are they? They are collected over a number of weeks. You have plenty of time, I would argue, if you feel strongly about it in the way that you suggested, to get on and demonstrate that by making sure you sign the petition. I'm not sure myself that the trade-off is quite as—. I don't think I'm seeing it the same way as you. I think that once you've got to 10 per cent, every other signature is, at the very best, a sort of—. Well, it's an act without a consequence, because the consequence has already been reached, the person is going to leave the Senedd, and leaving it open for further weeks means other people, who are legitimately entitled to think that they've got representation, will be without it. So, it's a trade-off, I agree with you, but I think I probably just see the merits operating in a slightly different balance.

Thank you, Mark. It's very interesting territory, isn't it? The clock is beating us, but if I can bring in Pred now for one final question.

Say somebody, in that situation that Mark was just talking about, had reached 10 per cent, they'd been removed from office, they have no way of restanding during that Senedd term. Obviously, in a by-election in Westminster, somebody could put their name forward and go to a public vote for that. Is there any merit in disqualification for any longer than the end of the Senedd term?

I would say that they have been barred from that Senedd, rather than that they are disqualified from ever standing in the Senedd. Because then, I guess, it's up to electors to make that decision at the next moment they get the opportunity at the ballot box.

Diolch. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Joe, for kicking off this really important line of work that we are undertaking. It has been a real pleasure to tussle through these issues with you, and I'm sure that as a committee we'll keep in touch as our work on this matter progresses. So, thank you, and you're free to leave.

I'll propose now that the committee takes a short break to allow our witness to leave and our next witness to arrive.