National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this meeting of the Standards of Conduct Committee. Can I welcome Tom Giffard to his first meeting of this committee? Croeso, Tom. The usual things apply: the meeting is bilingual and interpretation is available. We don't have any apologies other than Mick Antoniw, and the Member should hopefully be joining us very shortly, and one of the witnesses today, Francess Ifan, should be joining us shortly due to technical issues, but hopefully she will join us shortly. Can I ask at this point whether Members have any declarations of registrable interests that they wish to declare? Diolch, I'm grateful.

I'll move on to the next item on the agenda, which is our next evidence session in our inquiry into dignity and respect. I'm really pleased to welcome this morning Anthony Cooper, who is the head of office for Welsh Labour; David T.C. Davies, who is chief of staff for the Welsh Conservatives at the Senedd; and we will, hopefully, shortly be joined by Francess Ifan, who is the chief of staff for Plaid Cymru. Croeso, bawb. Thank you very much for giving up your time today to come along this morning to help us with this important piece of work.

I'm sure that members of the committee have got some specific questions they want to ask in relation to some of the findings of the committee's previous consultation, but I thought I'd just open by asking whether you have, from your time working here or your time outside of here, any reflections on the process and any suggestions you'd want to make for improvement at the outset. Anthony, if it's okay, I'll come to you first of all.

Of course, thanks very much, and thanks for the opportunity as well. Just as a bit of an outline, I've worked here for the group since 2001, so I joined in the first Assembly. During that time, I've definitely seen improvements in terms of the fact that there's now a dignity and respect process in place, and we've got a very good and improving training offer. I think there's also greater awareness generally within the Senedd and in wider society about what constitutes unacceptable behaviour and how people's dignity and respect should be protected in the workplace.

I think, also, we've seen better staff representation. I think we've got some very active trade unions now in both Unite the Union and the Public and Commercial Services Union, I think, who are helping to increase awareness, are really powerful advocates for staff in the system. However, I wouldn't want to be, in any way, complacent about the situation. I think we've all read the outcomes of the dignity and respect surveys. There's some concern about the fact that perhaps the response rate hasn't been what it might have been; I think it was something like 27 per cent for staff in the last dignity and respect survey. And, obviously, with a larger Senedd on the way from next year, I think it's really, really key that some of these issues are, maybe, identified.

Just a couple of things, just a couple of introductory points, if that's helpful. In terms of confidence in the system, although I think there's greater awareness of how, from a staff point of view, they can access the system and complain if there's an issue that arises, I do think that some people are still put off by the fact that it's not a properly fully independent system. At various stages of the process, it obviously comes back in-house. If you take aside the actual commissioner stage of the process, for example, having contact officers who are Commission staff in their day-to-day role acting as those important first points of contact, although they do a great job, they're very professional and there are protections in the system around confidentiality and also just trying to avoid any conflict of interest, I still think that that sort of lack of thorough independence and a dedicated service, as it were, can sometimes put people off in some circumstances.

I think there are a couple of other specific issues. In the process as a whole, the lack of clear timescales that are given, particularly to complainants or to somebody who's subject to a complaint, is an issue. I think, sometimes, the complaints process can be seen to take too long. Most cases still take, I think, around 12 months or so.

It's also important that the ongoing support given to complainants and people who are subject to a complaint, through things like the employee assistance programme, I think it's important that that support is fully comprehensive. There can sometimes be gaps, especially, for example, if you're a homeworker. I'm not sure that the existing EAP necessarily meets all those sorts of needs, although it's improved enormously, I think, since its first sort of iteration.

I also think that awareness about the system and visibility of contact points and the rest of it could certainly be improved across the estate, and, again, I think the needs of homeworkers need to be borne in mind with that. As an institution, we sometimes rely too much on, for example, the Senedd intranet, which not many staff really access, and you need to know what you're looking for, really, in order to get some of that information.

The training offer has improved enormously around dignity and respect. As a group, and I know the other groups have done the same, both members and staff have undergone dignity and respect training. We've also, as a group, focused on a couple of other areas, like bystander training, awareness of sexual harassment, and we are about to undergo some anti-racism training. So, those things, I think, all do help in terms of raising awareness, both of the system, but, more importantly, of changing attitudes or making sure attitudes are addressed in the workplace.

There could be possibly more done there about making sure that all staff are able to access this training. I think, at the moment, it's often delivered through an induction, which takes place, pretty much, at the start of your employment. That isn't compulsory, and I think sometimes there is a bit of a gap between you starting and actually being able to take part in one of those. So, I think there needs to be a bit of thinking around what that looks like, certainly in the seventh Senedd, with more possibly on-demand recorded sessions that you could just make sure that all staff have seen. I think there's also an issue there about whether it's possible to make training mandatory. I think it isn't at the moment, and I think it's such an important part of ensuring a good workplace for everybody that I think that's something that needs to be borne in mind.

And just finally, then, something about the dignity and respect survey. I think we all recognise how important that is to provide the evidence and a snapshot of where we are, and identify any issues. There are a couple of practical improvements that could be made to that process, because I think we really need to get it right. As I was saying earlier, a 27 per cent response rate from staff isn't great. So, a couple of things about separating it out, possibly, from the Member survey more, because I think they both took place at the same time, and you had to choose which option, so it was pretty much dealt with in the same sort of way. I think also opening it for a longer period—I think the last one was open for about two and a half weeks, when staff and Members are very busy. So, I just think that that needs some looking at. But, yes, those are just some initial comments. 

Thanks, Anthony, that's really helpful, and bore da, Francess. We're just giving the opportunity for each of the chiefs of staff or heads of office to give an initial reflection, overview and any suggestions for improvements before Members come in on some more specific questions. David, I'll go to you next. I know that you've not been in post here for quite as long as Anthony, but I'm sure you'll have some reflections from your experience at Westminster too, given that process in Westminster has been cited in some of the evidence we've received to our consultation as well.

I was here in 1999, of course, for seven years, and then Parliament, and then came back. My view is that probably culture in the workplace has changed a lot over the last 20 years, and massively since I started work in the late 1980s. I think that I see that reflected in the way that people work here. I think that the general tone is a good one, the atmosphere is good. Obviously I'm probably in a position where I would be able to call things out if I wasn't happy with something myself, but I hope that everyone else would feel the same way, and as far as I can see, they do.

I'd be slightly concerned about mandatory training. I always think that voluntary training is better, that people respond better to that. I have done training where I've been more or less told I've had to do it in different places—not here, by the way, but in other workplaces—and I've always felt that there's a slight sense of a them and us; you know, we've all been forced into doing this and we didn't really want to, and I don't think that is effective. So, I think to continue to offer voluntary training is a very good thing, and the training that is offered by the Senedd in not just how workplaces should be, but in all other aspects, is very good.

Thanks. Just on that point, we had responses to the consultation that this committee ran from November 2023 to January 2024. Broadly, the Plaid Cymru and Welsh Labour groups were supportive of a more independent process, specifically perhaps a separate process for cases of sexual harassment and bullying. I was wondering if you were able to share the position of the Welsh Conservative group on that.

Well, I don't know what Tom thinks, but I would be okay with that as long as it's genuinely independent and that we have some oversight over how people are actually appointed into these roles. There's always a fine balance here because we've had examples of unacceptable behaviour in Parliament, and I assume in the Senedd as well, over the last 20 years. In fact, it's well known there have been. On the other hand, we have to be mindful that people who are here have been elected, and there will always be people who will want to undermine them. I'm not making any political point here; this happens on all sides. So, we have to ensure that people can't simply be suspended from their jobs on the say-so of one person, because that would have big impacts in the run-up to an election, and that does slightly worry me.

So, I think we need a system that's fair and independent. But I sometimes felt as an MP, when I was an MP, I almost felt quite vulnerable to people making accusations. I was, in fact, investigated by the standards commission on at least one occasion just because somebody who I'd never met before and had never seen me made an allegation about me without any basis. It was all thrown out. It was, of course, leaked to the papers, as these things often are. I was told very clearly I wasn't allowed to comment on this, which meant that I had to say, 'No comment—I can't comment on it', which always makes you look a bit guilty.

I'm mindful that I know MPs and probably Senedd Members as well have been the victims of unsubstantiated claims that had an impact on them, and I don't know how you get the balance right, I'm afraid. It's slightly beyond me, that. So, I want to just suggest there are two sides to this as well, and you have to be fair to elected members as well as to those who may be the victims of bad behaviour by elected members. 

I'm sure some of those points Members will want to come back to shortly, but Francess, if you want to offer any initial reflections and suggestions. 

Bore da, and apologies for being late joining. I think Anthony has covered most of the points that I would make as a general introduction. Yes, Plaid Cymru staff and the group are very supportive of having an independent review into the policy, with the hope of that establishing an independent process for some types of complaints. Because although the policy is one that we all support, I think the evidence in terms of how many cases have been brought forward and how many staff feel confident to undertake surveys, and that dropping, shows that there is a problem. And so, if we're serious about getting to grips with that problem, I think we do need to have a wholesale review at this point. I think that's the main point I'd like to make at this preliminary part of the conversation.

Diolch. Peredur, Tom, do you have any questions at this point?

Can I start? Some of the things that have come through in the inquiry are that power dynamic between Members and staff, and getting that balance right, and going to what David was saying there about investigations and being mindful of people's roles, but also being mindful of victims, and also—we've done the bystander training—if you're a witness to an event, being able to complain. I don't know if you want to start, Anthony or Francess, and just unpack some of that part. And maybe, David, could you address that power imbalance, in a way, between staff and Members from your experience in Westminster, as well as your experience here, and see how we navigate that aspect? 

I'll go to David first, and if anybody else has got any questions, they can come in on it. 

It's a very difficult one, isn't it? Because if you're a young person just out of university—I'm sorry to stereotype; I'm talking about typical staff on their first job—then they very often are quite overawed by MPs, Senedd Members and Lords, and probably would be very reluctant or find it very difficult to make complaints about unacceptable behaviour. To be clear, I know for a fact that, certainly in Parliament, there were people who behaved unacceptably—losing temper with staff, that sort of thing, shouting and swearing in a way that wouldn't be acceptable in any workplace now. And in some instances, there have been absolutely people who've sexually harassed members of staff. So, we can't be blind to the problem.

On the other hand, we can't really allow a situation to arise where anyone can take umbrage because somebody's, I don't know, raised their voice once or used a bit of bad language, and then elected members end up being suspended. To answer Peredur's point, unfortunately there is that power imbalance, and MPs and Senedd Members need to be aware of it with young people. Obviously, with people in their fifties who've been around for a bit, I don't really think that that applies in anything like the same way. And I'm looking around; I think most of us are not in our twenties anymore, and all of us, I think, have been around for a long time. So, I can't imagine any of us, really, either being victims of a power imbalance or feeling that we'd be intimidated about talking to our bosses about things that we were unhappy with.

Anthony, did you indicate to come in? I'll come to you, Francess, next, if that's okay.

Thank you. Really briefly, I think it goes back to just making sure we've got proper HR processes in place as well, and training around this, at the very start so both Members and staff are clear about where those limits lie and what is appropriate or inappropriate behaviour, for example. Obviously, there will be situations where staff may be challenged over their performance in the workplace, and it's about where the balance is struck between what's appropriate and what isn't. I do think it is just about having those firm processes in place.

Sometimes, from a staff point of view, it's quite difficult to know who to go to, I think, as well, in terms of getting some of that HR advice. I know, within the dignity and respect process, there are the contact officers you could talk to, maybe in the first instance, but on a HR side, Members' business support, for example, is there to service Members. And there is a bit of a gap there, unless you're a member of a trade union—not everybody will be for various reasons. I think the system has to take that into account. 

Just on that point about HR, having worked in a different industry and different aspects throughout my career, as a manager in those businesses, I had a HR department. As a Senedd Member, I run my own office, so I'm the employer. But then there's the MBS aspect, there's the Senedd aspect, there's the group political party aspect. Is there a case to be made that—because you need expertise, sometimes—with HR, rather than it all landing on the Member, that there's a way of working with MBS to get something that we subscribe into, like a specific HR system that we're able to use that expertise? Would that be something that maybe the groups would be interested in, and especially in thinking forward to 96 Members in the next Senedd, with needing support for quite a lot of new managers, in a way, from all walks of life, hopefully, coming in, and part of that onboarding process? It's a lot to take in as a new Member, as well as, then, a new manager, with different levels. So, just something to reflect on.

I very much agree with that. There's definitely a resourcing issue there. I think any of us who have dealt with MBS realise how stretched they are at the moment and, certainly, if you're adding another 36 Members, I would hope that would be reflected in the plans for Senedd staffing. I think that is a very important point: I do think there needs to be improved HR support all round, really, and certainly for Members, so that they know where they are. Because of the demands on Member diaries, it's really important that you know your HR issues are being dealt with properly by a system, and you've got that fall-back. And from a staff point of view as well, I do think it is important, within that, that there are contact points that staff can go to as well. That probably involves creating some, I don't know, walls within MBS. But I certainly think that that is the gap in the system at the moment, from a staff perspective. And if you're not a member of a trade union or have any sort of expertise in it, then who do you go to to check some of this stuff out with? I'm not sure that the trust is there within the system. I know MBS will try its best in some respects, but, ultimately, they are there to serve Members.

Thanks. Francess, did you want to come in? And just to say, if any witnesses or Members want to come in, if you just raise your physical hand, because I think the Zoom hand can sometimes interfere with the broadcast.

Just to reiterate some of those comments, I think specifically in constituency set-ups, there is this case of falling between two stools, if you like, because Members are the employer, and if a member of staff does want to raise a complaint or a concern about that Member, their options are somewhat limited. That kind of segues then into the issue we have with the guidance, which currently states that the option is to raise it with the Member directly or to go and raise it with the group. I suspect that would be with the chief whip, but then you have this situation where the chief whip role is not a remunerated role, so the support that comes with a remunerated role is not reflected. The other option is to go to the political party. Well, what happens in the case where you've got an independent Member? But also, surely, as an institution, we should have that clear guideline in place where staff would be supported by the institution, and it does feel at the moment that there is a gap there. 

Thank you. Sorry, Peredur, I'll bring you back in, but I want to pick up on the point that Francess makes. I think we've heard it in other evidence too in terms of the role of pastoral support as well, because I think a lot of the time, inevitably, from my experience, that falls—. The disciplinary side often falls to the chief whip, as does the pastoral support, so I think that's not something perhaps that this committee can recommend on or the Senedd can do, but I think it's something that, perhaps, political parties need to consider in terms of how that evolves into the seventh Senedd.

What we're doing as a committee now is seeking to make recommendations that will strengthen not just the code but also what that process is, whether that's an independent process, and to have that confidence in the system for all those who work in the Senedd, whether that's Members, support staff or Commission staff. Because I think we often find there's two disciplinary processes, almost, in some cases. So, you'll have the party process and you'll have the process of this institution as well.

I don't know whether any of the witnesses today have any reflections or wish to perhaps submit any further reflections on consultation with their respective groups about whether, should we have this strengthened system in place in the Senedd, if a Member is under investigation, then that should take primacy over any party process. Otherwise, you could have a dual process happening. I don't know whether any of the witnesses have any initial reflections on that, or wish to come back to the committee on that point.

If I can come in, I think that is likely to be a deterrent, the fact that there can be a dual process, and then the complaint in its entirety can take a very long time to reach a conclusion. So, I can see why that would maybe make someone feel as though there's no point in making a complaint. So, I do think that that does need to be addressed. If we're talking about a complaint about an elected Member, there's a responsibility to the staff that are employed that the institution is able to deal with that complaint, I think, rather than a party process.

Do Anthony or David have any reflections? Peredur, do you have any further questions after that? 

I agree with Francess on that. I think the time that's taken to deal with complaints—. I was in the whip's office for three years in Parliament, so we had similar issues, and the time taken to deal with complaints was far too long, and I can see that here.

Looking at some of the complaints that I'm aware of that have been investigated by the standards commissioner, I have a feeling that sometimes the length of time has been too great. There may be reasons for that that I'm not always aware of, of course, so it's just an impression, and I don't want to be unfairly critical.

I think that Peredur is correct to say that possibly MBS need to expand to deal with some of this, and possibly think about the way that it's organised. I think it was Francess who just made that point, or maybe somebody else, about the problem of a conflict of interest in that sometimes the party chief whip is responsible not only for maintaining discipline, and possibly disciplining somebody, but also for offering pastoral care. That is correct.

I don't know what the solution here is, because one thing I do know is that a lot of elected Members in different Governments across the UK—and I know this for a fact—have suffered a lot from mental health issues as a result of various pressures from the job, sometimes from complaints that may or may not be grounded in fact. It's a massive issue, and I think it's underestimated the number of elected Members who suffer stress and almost come to breakdowns—I've seen this; I've seen this over the years—turning to alcohol and other things as a way of escaping that. But the problem is that most elected Senedd Members and MPs don't trust many people. You can't; we haven't got many friends in this game. So, they will tend to talk to the Chief Whip, but I don't think—. I think you'd find it very hard—well, we've all been doing this for a long time, all of us—to get elected Members to trust some outside organisation and to be willing to talk to them honestly about what they're feeling and the pressures they're having to cope with. I really worry about the health of elected Members. I think we underestimate the pressure that they're under all the time, because they never switch off from that job. The moment you've been elected, people consider that they've got access to you 24/7. When you go back to your constituencies, there are people there who'll come up to you in the shops, when you're out and about, the whole time. You're on duty constantly, and the impact of that over years is not fully appreciated.

Thanks. Peredur, did you have any other questions before I go to Tom?

Just one, touching on what David said earlier about training and talking about compulsory training versus voluntary training. I can see both sides of that argument. I've been in work environments where all training is compulsory, and it's the safety aspect as well as anything else, but I think if it was voluntary, getting clear guidance or clear buy-in from all party groups to say that this is the standard of training that we require, that it's something maybe that any group in the Senedd would sign up to as a basis and then build on that, just to make sure that the very important training that we have had—. And that that is ongoing, that it's not just that onboarding bit, that there are refreshers, because so much goes on in this place of work that you forget some, or thinking changes on a subject and you need to be refreshed on it. So, I think if we could get buy-in from groups now and in the next Senedd term, to a programme of training, I think that might be a good idea and something that—. Maybe, as a group, as chiefs of staff, that it would be something that you'd take on board and feed back into the groups.

Peredur, I think that would be a better approach and a more constructive one. I'll be honest with you; I think we would have to be very clear as to what that training was. I think it's important to say to people to behave in a basic, decent fashion towards people. But there—. You know, I don't want to—. This is not the moment to start being political. I'm trying not to be, as much as I can, and I don't want to draw attention to myself, but there can be aspects of some training that can be controversial, and if you offer that and ask people to buy into it, then, first of all, you will get other political parties, perhaps, not represented here, who will make a big issue out of opting out of it. And secondly, there will be people within, I suspect, all political parties who might have objections. For example—I'm not going to go into this; you all know what I'm talking about—the recent ruling on what constitutes a woman is an area where, I think, because of the nature of that ruling, we're going to have to look at some of the training that's previously been offered and how it's affected by that. So, I think, in principle, I would agree with you. I would like to see that training offered, apart from anything else, so that elected Members don't get themselves inadvertently into trouble by saying or doing things or behaving in ways that are not acceptable. But I think we've got to be clear as to what it is, and everyone's got to have a look at the training very carefully first, and know what they're signing up to in advance. That's my view.

Tom, do you have any points you'd like to make, or questions?

Thank you. Yes. It sort of follows on, I guess, from the line of questioning Peredur was pursuing, but about the role of Members. I'm conscious that, when you first get elected as a politician, as a Senedd Member, it's very much a whirlwind, isn't it? You've got loads of stuff going on all at once and you're going from learning how to table a question to doing training on dignity and respect probably all within the same week, or sometimes in the same afternoon. I wonder, in terms of that training, is it sufficient, first off, particularly bearing in mind that you might have some Members—or many Members—who've never employed staff before, for example, and that's a new experience as well, doing the (a) one-size-fits-all approach but (b) the continuous nature of it as well, I think—. Speaking personally, there can sometimes be a tendency to think, 'Well, it's one and done', right: we've done that training, we've ticked that box, and then we've moved on. So, I'm just wondering if anybody has got reflections on how that learning and that training can be sustained in a period that is a whirlwind, generally.

Francess.

Thank you. Yes, I think it's really important that we have a programme of training, some of it being continuing professional development training that is done, then, maybe, every so often during the course of the Senedd. But it is something that the Plaid Cymru group have signed up to, following Prosiect Pawb. So, we're really conscious about putting on training that is specific to managing staff and how to—dignity and respect in the workplace, essentially, and to make sure that we do at least one training session for all elected Members per year. So, I think that's a minimum requirement for what we should be expecting really, because, as you say, Tom, the first couple of weeks, months, days, it is a whirlwind and these topics are all really important. So, they should be staggered out, but then we should maybe work with Member learning and Members' business support and yourselves to identify a programme that we expect to be carried out in a specific time frame for new Members and returning Members. Diolch.

Anthony.

Thanks. Yes, I just wanted to support what Francess has just said there, but I think also that, if there is a compulsory element to this, the time to do that is obviously at the start of the Senedd, because it's really important that that sort of workplace culture is established early on and it's seen alongside the training for Members as employers, because as, I think, Tom was saying, a lot of Members won't have had that experience. So, I do think it's really key that, in those first couple of weeks, where you've also got the space—. I know that there's a lot going on and Members have to establish offices and the rest of it, but I do think that it's that early bit that needs to have some real attention to this. And then I think, as you say, the programme that we develop from there—. We, as a Labour group, have just, over the last 18 months, been doing a similar training programme to Francess's group, and I think that that's worked quite well. And what we've done is to hold more than one session, so we've been able to adapt it, maybe, to our particular needs and the patterns of our group business. So, I think you have to allow groups some of that flexibility, I think, as the Senedd goes on, just to fit this into lots of the other competing demands that Members and staff face.

Thanks. David, I think I saw your hand up too. 

I did diversity training that was organised by the Senedd sometime late last year, and I thought that that was a good scheme. That was one trainer who came in to talk about diversity, and it didn't feel patronising, it didn't feel like we were being lectured. I think he—. I'm summarising a day's training, but he went at it more in the way of asking open questions and getting us to think about things. So, that was a good example. Equally, I've done other stuff, not in the Senedd, which I thought was quite bad and led to an almost 'them and us' scenario. So, a lot of it is down to how you do it, but obviously you've done quite a good job—. Well, I don't know how much you looked into it, but the experience that I had was a good one. 

What I think is also important, though, is that you—. Particularly if you've got lots of politicians from different parties in a room, I fear that that is likely to lead to a situation where nobody says anything, because everyone is going to assume that anything they say that could be taken out of context could end up being leaked to Nation.Cymru or the BBC or something. So, my advice, I'm afraid, frankly to anyone who is in a room with other politicians from other parties, it would be: be very, very careful what you say, and, if your trainer is inviting open questions to get you to think, you have to be careful how you answer them so that nothing is taken out of context.

So, I don’t know whether that’s worth reflecting upon as well. I was in a room with a handful of people I knew quite well and was very comfortable with, but I might have approached this, and encouraged others to approach it, in a very different way, had there been people in that room in larger numbers or people that we didn’t know, because the risk of stuff being taken out of context—. And we’ve seen this, not so much in politics, but I’ve seen it, examples of people who've been disciplined, apparently, or faced some kind of sanction because something that they’ve said during a training sessions on diversity-related issues has been taken out of context. So, how do we overcome that? I don’t have an answer, by the way; I’m just reflecting on the challenges that you might have.

Thanks, I'm just going to—. Thanks for those contributions. I'm conscious of time; I’m just going to take a few more minutes, because I know we did start a little bit later than planned.

Just taking on board other things about how that training needs to sit alongside any system, I think, just brings us back to what the committee's looking at in terms of how would we improve confidence in the system, what would that system look like, what would an independent system look like—so, just an opportunity for witnesses to give any final reflections on that. But the point around the kind of continuous training as well; evidence we've received previously as part of this inquiry suggested that should we recommend a different process for dealing with, or a more independent process with expertise for dealing with, certain cases, then that isn't the end of the journey, so to speak, that that would then need to be continually reviewed, and that process reviewed as well, to make sure it is doing the best it can possibly do.

David, I've seen you indicate to come in first, and I can see Anthony and Francess nodding as well.

Sorry, I don't want to talk too much, but I always think carrots work better than sticks in any scenario. Forgive me for saying this, and it may sound a bit abstract, but you mentioned earlier on working towards Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development qualifications. I think that would be a really good thing. A lot of MPs and MSs don't realise it, but, if and when they lose their seats or stand down, it's not that easy to get back into other work; people can't really relate to what you've done. If you're offering training that can actually lead to a qualification, I think you might find a much greater take-up than if you're simply saying, ‘Right, you must turn up there for eight hours because that's your training day and it’s part of a compulsory thing.’ Just saying, ‘Actually, by the way, it's going to count towards a CIPD qualification’, they'll all be bright enough to realise that could be quite useful to them, if and when the day comes when they're no longer elected, and I just think it's a very useful carrot to be offering.

Thanks. Anthony, Francess, anything? Mick, I'm conscious that you haven't had an opportunity, and I'm just going to give you the floor very briefly, if there's anything that you want to raise before we have to wrap up this session.

Firstly, apologies for missing the early bit; I've read the papers and so on. I'm afraid I had an urgent dental appointment. Some of us will have been involved in training over many, many years, and I agree with many of the points that David's actually made—sorry, David, it's probably the first time I've been agreeing with you on many things—and what I'd say is, as a senior partner in a firm that employed 1,000 people for 35 years, and then 15 years in the Senedd, 80 per cent of the training I've ever been involved in has been totally useless. So, the quality of the training you get is really important; it’s got to be practical. I think the training you want is also recognising that a lot of Senedd Members coming in will never have employed anyone; they will have no experience of the responsibilities that they might have. Some will, but you'll have that diversity. So, I think a lot of important training is actually about duties and responsibilities. It's about the rights also that you have, but it's also, fundamentally, about the quality of the training that you get, and also then the transparency of what that training is and what it is you can expect from it and so on.

I also agree with the point that, once you go on, training that is compulsory is less effective than training that people have chosen to want to participate in because they think that training is going to add something to them, and I think things like qualifications and so on are very helpful, but it is actually the transparency of what you're getting into, what you will actually be expecting from that training, and also the quality of it. I think those are, really, the big challenges. There are a lot of organisations out there that purport a lot in terms of training, and I think a lot of it is by people who often don't have the experience to deliver that training with the competence that's required. Sorry if that's a bit controversial, but that's my experience over many, many years.

Thanks, Mick. I think, unless any of our witnesses have anything pressing they wish to add—. Francess, did you have a hand up there?

Yes, if you don't mind. I agree that the training is an important aspect, but I think the focus really needs to be on the process itself. We've heard from evidence and today how the process currently is not clear enough for an individual who may wish to bring forward a complaint or a concern. In that respect, I think it is important that you are able to log concerns so that a pattern of behaviour can be identified. That's not currently possible. There are issues currently with the time limit. I know that's included in evidence that has been supplied.

And then just to come back to the fact that it does need to be mandated, the guidance that we pull together on dignity and respect does need to be mandated so that all officers, all Members do carry out that training and have that conversation with staff as part of the process. I think a key one that we haven't touched on this morning is the need for the process to be able to facilitate the anonymity of those bringing forward complaints. Thank you.

Thank you. Anthony, is there anything you wish to add?

No, I think everything was covered. Just to say about the independent process, in your initial question there, I think the Westminster model does offer a really good, clear sort of system that is just a natural evolution of the system we've got anyway, but with that important independent element of having access to independent advisers from the very start, and then also the use of expert panels and expertise just to reflect those different perspectives on some really sensitive issues, which I think, to be honest, are lacking in the current system. So, I think having that expertise there, making sure that there are advisers who know what they're talking about and have that professional knowledge, but are also doing it full time, are two of the key characteristics I'd like to see in an independent system, if that's what we move to.

I think we're over the time for this session, so can I thank all of our witnesses for their contributions this morning? That's been really helpful in terms of moving our inquiry forward. As usual, a copy of the transcript will be provided as soon as possible, so you're able to check for factual accuracy. But thanks very much for your time this morning—it is appreciated.

So, Members, I'm going to move to item 3. I propose in accordance with Standing Orders 17.42(ii) and (vi) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content to agree the motion? Great. In which case, we will now continue in private.