National Assembly for Wales

Welcome to this meeting of the Standards of Conduct Committee. As usual, the meeting is bilingual, and interpretation is available if you need it. The headphones are in front of you, and you can find from Welsh to English on channel 1.

There are no apologies today. Before we start, can I ask Members if there are any declarations of registrable interest that they wish to declare? At this point, I'll declare I'm a member of Unite, and I am married to one of the witnesses. For the avoidance of doubt, it's the only woman.

We'll move to item 2 on the agenda—excuse me—which is the next evidence session in our inquiry into dignity and respect. I'm pleased to welcome our witnesses today. So it'll give me a chance to cough, perhaps you might introduce yourselves, a bit about your role, and any initial reflections on your submission. Osian.

Sure. So, I'm Osian Evans. I'm the current vice-chair of the Plaid Cymru PCS branch. Sûan John is our chair, and she can't be here today due to other work commitments, so I'm just standing in for her.

Thank you. I'm Laura Murton. I'm the workplace representative for Unite the Union. I'm also the branch secretary for the Senedd branch. We represent over 40 members of Senedd support staff. We also have other members in the branch who work on the Senedd estate as well.

Hiya. I'm Ed Stubbs. I'm the other workplace rep for the Unite the Union support staff branch. As Laura said, we've got quite a number of members, and it's a growing branch, and we've got members in the Senedd who are based in constituency offices.

Diolch. I recognise your submissions were quite a while back, and I wonder if you want to start with any reflections or anything you want to add to those submissions, perhaps, around the system. I know the PCS submission was around anonymity and a range of issues. So, if you'd like to—. Perhaps, Osian, anything you'd like to add and reflect on, and I'm sure Members will have more specific questions to ask.

Yes. I think the key thrust of the consultation response we submitted last year is still quite relevant—I think the key asks around confidentiality and anonymity, the ability to submit collective grievances instead of having to log them individually, a target timescale for complainants around acknowledgement and resolution. I appreciate hard dates are difficult, depending on investigative, but I think giving people an idea of when their complaints could be resolved would increase confidence in the process. The overarching umbrella over all of that is that if you looked at a process more similar to what they have in Westminster, around an independent adjudicator process specifically looking at bullying in the workplace, harassment, sexual harassment, this would allow you to address all of those points in much more detail as a separate system. So, that's the overarching point that we would make as a union branch. If there was a separate process, independently adjudicated by a panel of experts with serious experience of these matters who could be brought in—I'm not necessarily saying full time; I'm thinking in a similar way to the way that the members of the remuneration board are brought in, on a day-rate, case-by-case investigative manner—that would allow you to tackle the problems of confidentiality, anonymity, collective grievances, patterns of behaviour, which is another thing that we tackled in the consultation response. So, these points would all sit quite well underneath an independently adjudicated process is the key point of what we would like to submit. 

Seeing as the Chair has had to leave because of a coughing fit, do you want to add to that and maybe say some practical examples of how it could work?

So, we originally submitted the evidence—. I think it was early 2024 that the standards committee started looking at this. So, following that, we did a consultation with our members, and in anticipation of this evidence session, we also held further drop-in sessions. Basically, I think they were the same sentiments and thoughts and feelings in our written submission. And I think there’s an overwhelming feeling that, looking towards the seventh Senedd—where we’ve got more Members, with more support staff, and arguably less accountability for individual MSs with the closed list system—we really think that, essentially, an overhaul of the process, like Osian said, like an independent process, will be key. Because I think support staff are still unclear about the process of how they would make a complaint, and don’t feel comfortable doing so. So, if you’re happy, I can touch on some of what was said in the drop-ins.

Yes, but just on that, how does that interplay with—? You have Senedd support staff, you have Member support staff, you have all different aspects—how does that interplay, because, obviously, we as Members are employers, but then you’ve got groups as employers, you’ve got the Commission as employers? So, how does all that sort of work within that? Maybe you’ll come on to it.

Well, obviously, group staff are still employed by the leader of that group, and I think there’s a designated Member that does that. So, I wouldn’t differentiate between in the Senedd and Members if they were in a constituency, because you’re still in contact with MSs on a daily basis.

So, if we look at if you have a grievance—. So, if one of our members came to us, there are several options available to them. There’s the internal process, which is outlined on the intranet, which is, essentially, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service process, and which is an informal grievance, and then a formal grievance. But that would be run by Members' business support. Then already you’ve got the sort of, I guess, conflict of interest, because MBS is Members' business support, it’s not Members' support staff business support. So, you’ve already got that sort of in-baked, maybe prejudice there, and you wouldn’t want to go there. And then you’ve got, potentially, a party political process, which opens up all sorts of different things, potentially even less transparent than the current Senedd process, because, once it goes in there, there’s no control, there’s no—. And then, finally, you’ve got the standards commissioner, which is an escalation, let’s be fair. Once you get to that point, you are, if you’re a member of support staff, and you’re making a complaint against either an MS, or your own MS, it’s kind of like the end game, essentially—you’re going to end up losing your job one way or another, whether you’re resigning or—. So, it’s a big step. Like Osian said, I think anonymity, but also the process of six months is not long enough. If someone’s been a victim of sexual harassment or bullying, then there shouldn’t be a time limit for when you can come forward.

I think the most important thing to remember—and we set out a lot of this in our submission—is, while you are dealing with different categories of workers that you just outlined—Senedd support staff, Member support staff—you’re, in essence, dealing with workers who are entitled to the same rights, and should be able to look at a process in the same way and have the same rights to a fair and transparent process. At the moment, if I asked our members, (a), most of them wouldn’t really know where to go—and they made that very, very clear; there was a lot of confusion, most of them talked about going to their trade union reps, and stuff like that—but, (b), can we absolutely guarantee, for all these groups of workers within the Senedd, a process that they would recognise from what people receive in other workplaces?

Laura touched on the ACAS code. So, that’s your benchmark, isn’t it? That’s the minimum standard in any other workplace. For a member of support staff, they should be able to see it tracked in the same way, from start to finish. No time limits, but timely, because we’ve seen that in the past. And I think, most importantly—because Laura talked about pressing the nuclear button, and it’s a really difficult thing to do, because you are taking personal risk there—wherever we can, we take the politics out of it. And that’s a message from us to you, as members of the standards committee, but I think it’s also a message from us to political parties as well, that our members want the same transparent process that other groups of workers would receive elsewhere.

Just to build on something Ed said, in the consultation document that we responded to—I've got it here—it says:

'Amongst Member support staff, 61.7% of respondees said that they would feel comfortable raising concerns'.

Now, to my mind, that's not a positive statistic. That implies that there is over a third of Member support staff who either don't know how, or know exactly how, and are just not comfortable and have no confidence in the process to provide just outcomes. What would improve that confidence? I imagine that's what this board wants, to increase the confidence of those Member support staff in the process. It's two things. It's simplicity—it needs to be simple and easier to understand, which is why the PCS branch is quite clear: it needs to be an independent process that sits outside and that manages to treat everyone in the same way, similar to what Ed has talked about, and it needs to deliver just outcomes. They need to see the system working.

There's not a whole lot of registered—. If you account for that devolution has been going now for 26 years, there's not a massive data set of complaints to work with, in terms of, especially, upheld complaints. Now, there are two ways you can choose to look at that. You can choose to look at that as 'Everything is brilliant', or you can choose to look at it as there being an under-reporting problem. I would suggest it's more the latter than the first one, because the amount of upheld complaints is actually staggeringly low, considering it's a 26-year span. It doesn't say anything about the people involved in the process. There have been 26 years of this, and we have a shockingly low number of upheld complaints. So, that suggests there is an under-reporting problem, which stems from confidence in the process. So, I'd imagine that to lift that confidence in the process, you need to show that there is an independent process that safeguards people who make complaints, that delivers just outcomes. Those are the two fundamental ways of increasing, I think, Member support staff confidence.

You talked about independent process and also simplicity. Members of the committee visited Westminster last week to learn more about their process. They do have an independent process. They have the independent complaints and grievance scheme, they have the commissioner, and then they also have an independent expert panel. It does give that level of independence. But what we did learn—. And I'm not trying to speak for members of the committee, but it was quite complicated as well. Each group had a decision maker through the ICGS. So, if it was Member support staff, their decision maker would be the MP. And also decisions still went to—. If it was a complaint relating to a Member, it then still went to the commissioner, who would make a decision, and if that commissioner didn't have the powers for the right sanction, it would then go to the IEP. So, it is quite complicated, and I don't know whether you're familiar with the system and if you have any reflection, or if it's something that you might want to go away and perhaps submit some considerations around.

One of the things they did say is actually how they've worked with an assurance board and stakeholders to develop that. So, whether you have any views on actually any recommendations this committee could make, and in terms of how, perhaps, if we were going to move towards a different process, who should be involved in that—. And the other point I thought was quite interesting is that they had a—. We were talking about that knowing where to go and that first point of contact. They did actually have a helpline, and it was—. I hesitate to use the word 'outsourced' with trade union representatives, but in this context, I meant that it's not done in-house, so people perhaps have that confidence that it's not somebody that's employed that they work alongside in the Houses of Parliament on that estate. I think it's actually done by victim support. So, I don't know whether you have any views or reflections on that.

I'm not quite familiar with the Westminster system. That does sound quite complicated in all different ways. Maybe we can look at it and then come back with some reflections for the committee in writing. In terms of what we'd look at doing here, I think that if you could get trade unions involved in creating the system—. The Wales TUC have actually just launched a new campaign to tackle sexual harassment. There was a launch last week. And I think that maybe potentially even if trade unions have an ongoing role in the process as well—.

Mick.

Thanks for the written evidence. Certainly, the Westminster model, certainly to me, seems incredibly complex, and I actually struggled to fully understand it. Clearly it has also not necessarily solved the problem of delays et cetera. So, it seems to me that the fundamental principle is one of simplicity, if that is possible, and clarity and speed, and developing a system for that is obviously not an easy task.

Just two things I really want to ask about. One is: what do you see being the role of trade unions within this? Because there are also employer-employee relations here within this as well, so there are different potential directions. But firstly, how would we move forward on this? Do you think that the best way of designing a system is to get the key employer bodies together with the trade unions to try and devise a common system that has all of the marks of simplicity and clarity? The view that I take from reading your evidence is that, (1), people don't particularly understand it, it sounds incredibly complex, there are many different channels, and basically that undermines the whole process. So, I was just wondering, perhaps, if you could give a thought to how we go about actually creating something that is acceptable and workable. 

And then the second part of this has two aspects, and one that was made very strongly to us when we looked at the Westminster model is that, of course, you have a workplace, so you have all of the standards and the things that would apply in a normal workplace; the second is more constitutional, that is the direct role in terms of Members, and the processes there as well. I don't know if you've thought through how a system might actually work, whether you're talking about a system that has to be dual in many ways, but how you would move towards a system that has simplicity at its heart.

Just to add to that, to give you a chance to have a think, the model in Westminster, through the independent complaints and grievance scheme, is a workplace-based policy. So, it covers everybody who works on the parliamentary estate, including Members, but a Member's complaint is then referred to the standards commissioner afterwards. And I think that their rationale for doing that is that, if the recommendation is going to be such that a Member could face a recall petition, then it's the significance of what that might mean for them. One of the things where we do differ here is that our current code of conduct covers Members at all times. So, it would cover us, perhaps, in a social setting outside of here. One of the things we did find from our questions in London last week was that, if something was reported about the inappropriate behaviour of a Member, say in a surgery or that kind of setting, then it would not be covered by that ICGS scheme. So, it's actually how we fit that all together. 

The other point I want to make, and I know that you've touched, Osian, quite a bit on the value of anonymity, is that one of the things that they don't have in the Westminster model is that they don't include third-party references. So, in that sense, could a bystander raise something? So, I don't know whether you have any views on that. 

Yes. I think, just to address Mick's point first around simplicity, I think that there's actually a slight paradox in the system that we have right now, where it's too simple from an adjudication standpoint, where we have one system that covers everything from using the wrong envelopes to sexually harassing a member of staff. That's problematic. And I think that the complexity is actually on the complainant's end of the system and navigating that. So, I think that you almost want to flip that, where we have nuanced decision making around severity—and this is where I would, again, stress a separate process that deals with bullying, harassment and things of that nature, separate from standards complaints about the misuse of funds, for example. So, you can have the nuance at the adjudication end of the system, but I think that the simplicity has to lie at the complainant's end. They have to know who to contact, how it works, have support throughout the process, explaining, if something is taking longer, why it is taking longer. Hannah, you mentioned the hotline; that's a good start. Having a phone number that you can just ring and know that you can lodge a complaint without having to go through a 15-page PDF or having to write everything down is really helpful. I think that that would be great. 

To speak back to some of the points that Hannah made about the Westminster system, I'm not saying that we need to pick up the Westminster system and just drop it in here. The context is different. It's a slightly different—. I think that some of the stuff around Member behaviour outside the workplace and that all-encompassing aspect is really useful, especially in constituency offices, particularly the further you get away from this building. You're out in public a lot with the Member, you're working longer hours, you're going to community events on weekends. There does need to be more of a capturing of the actual working week for Member support staff. It's not nine to five, Monday to Friday in an office. So, I think that there are some things we do now that would absolutely translate over. So, there's a way of implementing the best aspects of what Westminster has changed about their system, because I think that they have made some really positive changes, and making it work for this building and the people who work here. 

And then the only other thing that I would say on the Westminster system is that I appreciate that there are complexities from it. As long as those complexities are shielded from the complainants and it's presented to them in a simple way, it can be as complex as it needs to be on the back end—

So, the front end, as long as that's clear. 

Yes, totally. The back end can be as complicated as it needs to be to deliver the right outcomes for people, and there can be a wide-ranging discussion with trade unions and experts in the field on sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace. There are people out there who know a lot about this. So, I'm not concerned about complexity at the back end; my concern is simplicity at the front end for complainants, basically.

I think the reasons or the excuses being given for not having an independent process at the moment is that, basically, we're too small, there's not the expertise, there aren't enough complaints. I just don't think any of those are valid reasons to deny victims of bullying or sexual harassment justice.

To go back to Mick's original question, I think you kind of answered it yourself. I think that trade unions, employers and the experts, get them all in a room to get a common framework in place would be the best way to do this, to have meaningful discussions with trade unions and support staff representatives, because we live this place.

What I will say about your contact officers here, which are the first port of call, and it's very well advertised around the building in toilets, stuff like that, but obviously, if you work in the constituency, you're out of it. You're probably not—. We hold hybrid meetings for our branch, but we don't get to see people on a daily basis, whereas if they're in the building, we do, and that's a hidden element of things that could be happening; that's not saying they are, but—.

And the other thing that came across in the drop-in is, I think, some of our members were quite taken aback that the standards commissioner just said it was a bad idea, dismissing an independent process out of hand. I don't think that the Westminster system, like Osian said, should be dropped in here. I think we have a very sort of unique way—a Welsh way of working, for want of a better phrase. I think we could develop something that builds on the best aspects of Westminster, while basically taking it one step further, ensuring confidence and that everyone feels comfortable with the system.

Peredur.

As union officers, and having maybe worked in other offices, do you see the merit of a work-based policy, layered then with—as Mick explained—the sort of the complexity, if you like, of being an elected Member dovetailing into that? So, basically, the policy would encapture the standard of behaviour that you would expect in any workplace, and then, as Osian says, there is a simple way into it, and then that element, well, it goes where it needs to go to those decision makers, whoever those decision makers are.

And secondly to that, then, from that simplicity of access, if you like, going back to something that Hannah said, and something that Westminster doesn't have, is that third-party bystander aspect. Maybe you could talk about that in what would happen in a workplace environment if that happened currently, and whether or not, you know, how that would go through.

I just do want to come in on something that Mick said, and something you've said as well. I get the desire for some sort of duality, right? I understand that elected representatives have put their own people, and there has to be a process for that. And what duality might bring is there also has to be a process, as I said at the start, that workers recognise, and that they're entitled to. And that's what is the key for me, that if it runs dual, that the first element of that is one that we can recognise and see in workplaces across Wales, and that we're entitled to the same process.

On the how it is developed, the Chair will be familiar with this, we've got a social partnership model here in Wales. We have that model because we feel that that's the best place to develop policy in workplaces, and to protect working people, and in the best interests of employers as well, so I think that it's a no-brainer that that would be the model.

The one thing that I did want to touch on that you said as well, though, is the Welsh Government also pays for the Wales Union Learning Fund, right? It does so because it recognises that empowering groups of workers with knowledge is the best way to go about having harmonious workplaces. At the moment, if there were a particularly complex case in this workplace, we're volunteers. So, there's no time; it's at the behest of our employers. It's a negotiation, but there is no time allocated to it. So, when you look at building a system, and you're looking at other workplaces and how it happens, I think you've got to consider things like that as well, about how unions can be empowered to represent workers as well.

Obviously, we aren't recognised, so we don't have facility time or anything apart from what our employers are—. They don't have to give us anything, but, obviously, they—[Interruption.] Yes. 

In terms of workplace, what is a Member of the Senedd's workplace? Is it—

I'm not saying that they're outside—. Everybody's involved as—.

Obviously, Osian said, basically, your constituency staff will be with their Member at a carnival, a fete, or maybe the person's spouse would be there instead, I don't know, but there is no sort of workplace—. This is the workplace, but is the carnival the workplace as well? I think that the current policy for MSs covers you in your everyday life, and I think that's what whatever future process should also basically cover. So, if you're at a party political conference, I think that should be covered by whatever the standards committee come up with.

I appreciate that the fact that every Senedd Member is an individual employer throws up some complexities around a uniform process, I totally appreciate that, and that's a separate conversation as to whether every Senedd Member should be an employer. That's a whole other meeting with a whole other agenda. But there has to be something that simplifies that, and I think the expectation on Members, as public-facing figures, to be able to adhere to these standards pretty much 24/7—. I appreciate that it sounds like a lot, but these are the elected representatives of our country, and I don't personally think that's asking much, so I would keep that, I think it's strong. Making it workplace based, you would have to construct all sorts of language around the policy that basically makes the workplace within 10 ft of yourself anyway, and that seems like putting a hat on a hat, a little bit.

But in a past life, I worked as a business development manager out on the road. My workplace was wherever I was, so it's possible, it's doable, it's nothing that isn't out there, so that aspect of it can be done, and I think we're talking along the same lines there. When it comes to third-party or bystander stuff, could you talk a little bit about that aspect?

Yes, sure. I think an active bystander policy is healthy. I think it's intrinsically tied to confidence in the process delivering the right outcomes, because it's easier to be an active bystander if you think something will get done. I think the difficulty comes when you have an active bystander policy in writing and you still have a very complex, difficult-to-navigate complaints system, then that seems to be thrusting the onus on third parties to monitor behaviour and navigate the system, which, as we've described in the written submissions and today, is difficult. If that system was easier to navigate and people had more confidence in delivering outcomes, then the active bystander system becomes very useful. I think, in theory, an active bystander system is great, but you need to have a system alongside it that gives people the confidence to become active bystanders. The two things are inextricably linked in my mind.

Just to build on that, if we did have that policy, I think that training around it as well for support staff would be really key, just so they know where to go and also what to do if they're a bystander, if they witness something, and I think that you, Osian, said most of it there.

Tom.

Two things you touched on, if I start with constituency staff, because I think it's been touched on on a number of occasions and I think it's relevant in relation to this active bystander conversation we've just been having. We know in general, and I think the reflections you had on the nature of the union thing is that you've got more, probably, engagement from staff in this building than you do in a constituency. That's probably a fair assessment. So, how do you get to a point where staff who don't work here, who perhaps don't have as ingrained relationships both with the Senedd and with other members of staff, where they can talk things through, become confident and engaged in a process, whether it be this new standards complaints process or indeed an active bystander process as well, so that they feel confident that they know what they're doing, because quite often constituency staff are, as we said, often the last ones to hear and know about these things?

I think a lot of constituency staff are hybrid. I mean, Osian, you work both here and in the constituency. When I worked for a Member before I was in the group office, I was based here and in the constituency, so there is that hybrid stuff, but if your constituency is a bit further away, you'd have one or the other. I think we are still working on it, but we do hybrid stuff, a lot of just reaching out, talking to people, and knowing that they have someone they can reach out to. We are in regular contact.

Yes, we are.

I think the set-up now, in terms of the Teams facilities and everything, it does make life much easier. I think it would have been a lot harder pre COVID, before people got used to working remotely and in different places. But, yes, I think it's down to training, basically.

And you have to ask yourself the question, 'How is it done elsewhere?' We're not a totally unique workplace, right? I come back to the point I made: a lot of workplaces in Wales, where there's best practice, where it's exemplar, it's done by empowering and enabling workplace reps. We don't do that here, so that is a barrier to disseminating information and giving us the opportunity to share information with our members.

Yes. Just to come in on that, I think that's actually a really good question, Tom. I'm a member of constituency staff and they're small teams, they can be long hours, sometimes, in close proximity, and these people can be quite isolated, depending where you are. That throws the risk vector through the roof, doesn't it, in terms of knowing the processes and having confidence in them. So, I think in terms of constituency staff—. I appreciate, as Laura said, we're volunteers and we try our best, we conduct hybrid meetings of union branches. I think the onus has to be on the institution, not on volunteer trade union members who are doing their best because they think that's what's right. 

So, the question is, 'How does the institution safeguard these members of staff?' Mandatory training modules are used widely in the public sector. If you work for a county council, you have to undertake e-safety, health and safety—. There's a whole host of things that could be done. There have been legislative changes on sexual harassment in the workplace this year. Is there mandatory training in place for all Members as employers that they have to undertake? And that's done not by political parties, because there's variation between political parties. The onus should be on the institution to make sure that that training has been undertaken and that people understand their responsibilities, because that gives Members the ability to then tell their staff, 'Look, I now understand what's expected of me.' And I wouldn't be against there being mandatory training modules for staff, just so that they fully understand how to interact with the processes that are at their disposal, obviously once those processes are simpler. I think it's a very big training module at the moment; you could make it smaller. But I would say that I think the institution, centrally—. Again, I appreciate that Members are the employing bodies, I totally get it. I think the institution, centrally, can still, as part of the code of conduct for Members, instil an expectation for mandatory training to be undertaken.

Okay. The second question I was going to ask is around the key message I've heard from the three of you so far, which is around complexity and not having a complex system. But one of the things—and I think you hit upon it at the beginning—one of the reasons why it's so complex is because essentially, you've got three different processes, right? You set up this process, you've got the standards commissioner and you've got parties running their own processes as well. How, in an ideal world, would the three of those interface, particularly where you might have one complaint that is running through all three, in theory, processes as well? Is there a case for political parties not to offer a complaints process of their own for staff, so that everything then is directed towards an internal Senedd structure? And then, how do you see that interfacing with the standards commissioner? 

[Inaudible.]—Tom's point there. Going back to—I know we keep harking back to Westminster, but it's the model we've got to look at, at the moment. Evidence we've taken here is that, whatever we recommend and implement, it's going to be an evolving process. And the last review of the process of the independent complaints and grievance scheme had a recommendation that individuals who submit a complaint to a political party, whose allegations fall within the scope of the ICGS should be directed to the ICGS. Is that something you would be supportive of, with the caveat that we have a strengthened system here?

So, I think I touched on it at the beginning, for most people outside, it's confidence in the system. I think the party political process—any party political process—they're even less transparent than what happens in standards here. And I think it would actually be better for the Member of the Senedd, the politician, and the complainant, if, essentially, the standards process would usurp any party political process.

In answer to your question, yes. No-one's saying that political parties shouldn't have processes, but it's important in a workplace that there's a formal, proper process that is conducted in that manner, that's independent. They do what they have to do, but I think there should be an onus on complaints being pushed towards that formal workplace process as well as a minimum. Because I think that is the one—. If you get it right, and that's the challenge on you, that is the one that I think the public out there will probably have the most faith in.

Yes, I think, to speak to your point, Tom, what you want to avoid at all costs in this process is variability. I think once you start interfacing too much with different party processes, and maybe substituting this for party process, you introduce a lot of variability there, and I think that's probably the opposite of what people want when they're making a complaint. Again, on the front end, they want simple, they want uniform, they want confidence that things are getting done. To follow the logic through, if you're referring to party processes, let's say that happens, your complaint is upheld, the Member you work for is not a member of that party anymore, fab, you still work in his office. It doesn't fundamentally fix anything. And I appreciate, again, party processes as well, they're meant to deal with a totally different group of people—volunteer members; there's personal disputes in play there. That is a system that is designed to deal with more things than workplace problems. So, I would agree with Ed. The system in place here has to be the best practice. I don't think you can rely on the variability of political parties. You add in the extra point then that we've got an expanded Senedd coming up, there's going to be more party representation, not less, most likely, so you're going to have, again, more parties, more different processes, more different attitudes towards different issues. The variability goes up again. I think the Senedd would be really doing itself a favour in presenting a more uniform process for the next Senedd that insulates it from that variability.

Any questions? Just one final question, then. We've talked about a more independent process, and one of the recommendations from the previous work of this committee, in terms of deception, is a recommendation to allow lay members onto this committee, and they also have that elsewhere, but also then independent expertise. So, I think, when we talk about independent members, we're talking about people that are independent, they're not Senedd Members, they're independent of the institution, but it's also about the expertise they bring. So, do you have any final reflections on the sort of expertise we should seek to be looking at here?

Well, HR, workplace law, people familiar with things like that, I think, would be an absolute must.

Obviously, there is expertise in the trade union movement that Wales TUC definitely could—.

Yes, absolutely. 

I completely agree with Laura and Ed. And I think, in addition, especially for more complex cases around sexual harassment, bullying in the workplace, power dynamics, there are really complicated and powerful things at play with a lot of these cases, and I think bringing in expertise in whatever ratio you need, as a case-by-case basis—I'm not saying, 'Let's hire 10 members of staff to do this', I'm saying, 'Let's just get people with the knowledge in the building and let's listen to what they have to say'—I think it would be absolutely essential to any kind of revised system. Because, to be fair to Members, a lot of Members of the Senedd, a lot of you don't have previous experience as employers. You're not here because you're HR specialists, you're here because you're politicians, and I completely respect that. So, I think you would be arming you better as a standards committee, and arming the institution better, if you were bringing that expertise in. I don't think it's fair to ask for you to provide that expertise in the first place.

Mick. 

Just on the issue of 'independent', the view I formed looking at some of the other systems is, of course, when you talk about complexity, part of the complexity is actually understanding the institution and all the aspects of it, and this is a very unique institution. Independent doesn't necessarily mean better. And I'm just wondering what your understanding is of 'independent adviser', as opposed to 'expert', 'expertise'.

I think part of the lack of the confidence in the system is, at the moment, it's peer to peer. Basically, you're marking your own homework. In terms of 'independent', I think that it would be independent experts, basically; it would be people who are experts in their field, whether it's violence against women and girls, or, you know, dealing with HR. It would be finding those people. Obviously, Westminster has an independent process for this, there are people out there who are already doing something similar, who are developing further their expertise. So, they're probably not employed full-time by Westminster—I mean, is there a way we can tap into other institutions and, basically, utilise their experiences?

Could 'independent' mean separate, or vicarious, or, you know, not seen to be in any way in conflict, or are you saying that independent has to be something that is completely external?

If I spoke to my members—. I think, when they say 'independent', what they mean is to try and take party politics out of it. I think that would be their first point—so, someone that everyone involved in the process could have absolute confidence in. I think this is the language they'd be using and that's what they'd be seeking. Could it be those things you talk about? Yes. But I think, when you're talking about independence, it's—. This is a very unique place, right, you're working in a very unique place, right, and, for all sorts of reasons, it can't just mirror any other workplace. But, as I said from the start, what our members are looking for is that surety, that, when they take something, they can at least understand what it will look like, that it's mapped out in front of them, and that the person is not a direct peer of the person they're making a complaint against.

Thank you.

It's back to me now, because I've got—. Osian, if you want to come in, then I've got Peredur and Tom who want to come in quickly too.

Just to add on to what Ed said, I think, yes, he's right. When we're talking about 'independent', we're talking about people with no vested interest in the institution, which we all, frankly, have. We all have a vested interest in this workplace operating well and there not being problems. It's not something we act on, but we all have an intrinsic interest in the institution; it's vested. What we would say about 'independent' is that you can bring people in with the expertise—and I do think the people in the middle of this Venn diagram definitely exist—who've got the expertise on the subject matter and have no vested interest in the institution. These people are absolutely out there. There are a lot of people in this sphere who are already doing work, as Laura said. I think that's what we mean when we say 'independent', that they have no vested interest in the outcomes of these cases, they have no vested interest in the institution generally, and that they can provide you with independent expert advice on what should be happening. I think those are the three key pillars and what I would mean when I say 'independent'.

Thanks. Peredur.

So, if you had independent experts to give advice on specific cases and processes, what about going back to something Hannah said earlier, what about lay members with that intrinsic expertise that are independent of this place but sit as standing members of the standards committee? Is that something that you would welcome, or is that something that you'd want us to explore a bit further, in a similar way to what—? I think, in Westminster, they have a number of lay members sat on—

So, they have more lay members than actual politicians.

Than Members on the committee, and they're always there, and they're there for six or seven years. So, they'd transcend a couple of terms of the Senedd as well. So, just those ideas of what that would look like.

Like in local government, really, effectively.

Sorry?

As well as in local government.

Very similar.

Yes. We'd have to—.

You'd have to take it back, yes.

I can't see—. I can see the attraction of it, but I think we're going to have to go away, have a think about it.

I'm not sure that leads into any more simplicity rather than just—.

It helps with the independence of the decisions of this committee, I suppose, because it's then—

So, it's still the committee making a decision then, rather than the expert panel.

But it could have more lay members than it would Member members, if you like.

I think—

Potentially—

You talked at the start about a duality of processes, right, so as long as they've been—. So, obviously this committee has to exist, and we all want it to be the best it can be, but also we would want an independent HR process first, and then maybe—. I think that would be a more fair way of summing up—.

Maybe it's something that you could think about and write back to us on. 

Yes, happy to.

That would be useful.

Yes, I appreciate what you're trying to say in terms of, you know—. The only issue you have is, with long-term links, do those people become, essentially, fundamentally vested in the institution? I appreciate that that is a complete balancing act of where you find yourself on either side of the argument.

I think the idea of having more lay members than elected Members on is interesting. I'd have to ask members specifically how they feel about that. It sounds interesting. Because, on one hand, I think sitting the arbitration of the entire process in one pair of hands is intrinsically problematic; however, you don't want there to be a 40-person decision-making committee on individual cases, and the answer is somewhere in the middle. It's up to the research to dictate where the best place is.

The only other thing around the independent members, and that, is in terms of that you'd have to make sure the skill mix is absolutely spot on. If you were bringing on long-term members, you'd probably—. You'd have to make sure you've got a real mix of skills across a broad range of workplace scenarios to make that work without having to constantly be pulling in people in all the time anyway; so that's the additional risk that I'd mention, if you're talking about long-term members. And I get the attraction of having them lasting longer than Senedd terms—it depoliticises it; I totally get it. But if you're going to have, basically, pseudo-permanent board members, you're going to have to make sure that, at any given point, the skill mix of that group is completely spot on, which is a different challenge.

Tom.

I'll ask it in private.

Okay. Diolch. Can I thank witnesses for your contributions and taking the time to come along this morning? A note, a transcript, will be provided as soon as possible so it can be checked for factual accuracy.

If no Members object, 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 happy to agree the motion? In that case, we'll continue in private.