National Assembly for Wales

Good morning and welcome to this meeting of the Standards of Conduct Committee. If I could just check first of all—there are no apologies—do Members have any declarations of registrable interests? No. 

We're going to move on to the next evidence session in our inquiry into individual Member accountability. I'm very pleased to welcome Douglas Bain, the standards commissioner for the Senedd, to this meeting. If we could begin, Mr Bain, by asking you for your views on the disqualification criteria.

I have concerns about what's in clause 64 of the Bill, both on the principle and in the detail of what's in clause 64. Dealing first with the principle, in addition to the points made by the Counsel General in his letter to Members, I question why making a deceptive statement should have these draconian consequences, when other arguably more serious misconduct, such as bullying, harassment or inappropriately touching staff, would not have those consequences. I believe that that would be sending entirely the wrong message about how the Senedd regards bullying, harassment and inappropriate sexual behaviour. 

I believe it's also wrong in principle to seek to impose a fixed period of disqualification, having no regard to the seriousness or, indeed, triviality, potentially, of the triggering offence of making a false statement. There could well be occasions where the court would have to convict off the proposed offence although the conduct itself caused no harm to anyone and was of really quite a trivial nature, albeit it was a false statement. It seems to me that it's quite wrong that that should be dealt with and attract the same sanction of disqualification as a very serious case of a false statement that the Member knew was false and caused serious harm.

I'm also troubled, dealing still with the principle, by the idea that making a false statement should bar a person from standing for the Senedd for four years, in effect. As I understand it, that would mean that they wouldn't be eligible to stand at the next Senedd elections. I struggle to see how that can be justified; the fact that they had made a false statement by then would be public knowledge, and, surely, it can be left to the electorate, knowing about that previous misconduct, to judge whether they are fit or not to be a Member of the Senedd.

And, of course, I would point out that if this clause were enacted, any complaint made to the standards commissioner about the Member making a false statement would have to be suspended until the risk of prejudice to any police investigation or prosecution had passed. That inevitably would lead—and I'll say a little more on this later—to a very substantial delay in the complaints process, and that, I think, is inherently undesirable. 

If I could move on to some matters of detail that I think you might wish to consider, I think my descriptor of the drafting of the clause is that, at best, it's clumsy, and I think that's being rather generous. Sub-clause 7, for example, would confer on Welsh Ministers very far-reaching powers to change any legislation, albeit subject to the equivalent of affirmative resolution. So far as I can see—and I apologise if I've missed this—there are no penalty provisions in the clause. That's quite extraordinary, to have an offence but there's no penalty that the court can impose. 

No provision is made for the situation when it's not known that the statement was deceptive or false until six months after it was made, because the prosecution has to be brought within six months. If it's discovered six months and one day after the statement was made that it was seriously false and deliberate, and quite appalling conduct, nothing could happen because sub-clause 5 would bar a prosecution. 

Another defect to my mind is that clause 64 appears to envisage that disqualification will take effect on conviction. No provision is made for what's to happen if there's an appeal against that conviction, and it cannot be right, in my mind, that if there's an appeal going on, that the disqualification should kick in, because if the appeal is successful, there is no remedy—the person has been disqualified. 

Another difficulty is the issue of when it is a Member acting in his or her capacity as a Member of the Senedd. As you know, the code applies to Members at all times and in all circumstances, so, presumably, acting in his or her capacity as a Member of the Senedd means something different from 'at all times and in all circumstances'. [Interruption.] Excuse me, that's a health monitor going off. It may be that 'in capacity as a Member' is meant to be 'when taking part in Senedd proceedings', which is defined already, but that's not clear. And if it does mean that, then there are cases that would potentially be a breach of the code of the conduct in its present form, as I'll come to, but wouldn't trigger this offence, and I'm sure that's not what the person who drafted this intended. 

Another issue I think is, as I understand it, that the clause, if enacted, would disqualify the person from standing for election to the Senedd, but it would still be open to them to stand for election to Parliament or to a council. There appears to me to be no rational reason for that. I believe there is a simpler alternative. My view is that a Member who intentionally makes a statement that is false—he or she knows is false—in a material particular, or makes a statement without reasonable steps to check its accuracy, could amount to conduct that brings the Senedd into disrepute, and so could be dealt with under the complaints procedure. Dealing with it under the complaints procedure would be very much quicker than what's proposed in clause 64.

I’ll just give you a few of the reasons why I believe the clause 64 route would be much slower. You'll be very well aware of the huge backlog in criminal cases and the time taken to bring them to court. The likelihood is that anyone charged with the proposed new offence would seek trial by jury, which would make the delay even longer. There's also a likelihood that, because of the nature of this offence, decisions on whether or not to institute proceedings would not be taken in Cardiff, but would be referred to Crown Prosecution Service headquarters in London, where they have a unit that deals with 'political' offences. Some of you may recall the huge delay in the Neil McEvoy investigation of his allegations against Sir Roderick, because these were referred to London and seemed to disappear into a black hole for a long time.

If the policy intention is that there should be—. I'm sorry, I should have said that dealing with it under the complaints process would, of course, enable the Senedd to impose a period of suspension, and if the policy intention is that there should be some equivalent of a recall mechanism, I believe it should be triggered by imposition by the Senedd of a suspension of more than a specified number of days. Now, I have no strong views on what that should be, but I'd have thought it should certainly be more than seven and less than 42, just to use a couple of fairly recent examples.

But the recall mechanism should not just apply to those who've brought the Senedd into disrepute by making a false or misleading statement; it should apply to all misconduct. That would deal with my concern about singling out making false statements and treating it more seriously, apparently, than bullying, harassment or sexual misconduct. It remains my view that the recall mechanism should include some process for allowing the electorate to decide if the offending Member should continue to be a Member or be replaced by the next person on the party list. Without such a mechanism, suspension for more than a specified number of days would in effect be final and result in the Member ceasing to be a Member. My view is that, in principle, that is wrong. I hope for some of these points that the committee may find helpful. No doubt, I'll try and answer any questions you have on them.

Thank you very much, commissioner. That's really, really useful, for us to hear your views on the practicalities of this mechanism. I'll bring in Peredur Owen Griffiths now. Pred.

Good morning, and thank you very much for your time this morning. In your deliberations there and in coming to some of your conclusions, obviously, you've read the drafting. Have you drawn on any international comparators or anywhere where this has been used successfully or unsuccessfully in other parts of the world, or in your own experience?

No, I haven't looked at them in detail. I'm aware from some of the paperwork of the other examples, but I think it's important that whatever is put in place in Wales is tailored to the particular circumstances of Wales, and I'm not—. The process for electing Members is going to be very different from anywhere else. I think it's important that whatever is put in place, if anything new is required, is tailored to what the needs of Wales are.

And in looking through some of that documentation and in reading the papers before today, do any of those international examples jump out at you as something that we could adopt parts of, or something that you read in there that was particularly useful that would need to be, possibly, amended if this goes ahead, or how would you foresee the standards process changing to—? In the final part of your answer earlier, you talked about adding this in as a potential trigger for a recall petition. Obviously, we've discussed that before. Any thoughts about process from your own point of view of investigating, and how you would possibly come to a conclusion that is rigorous when it comes to whether or not the person has demonstrated that they're trying to deceive? So, just maybe your thoughts on that.

I'm not convinced that trying to deceive would be a particularly helpful way of approaching it because trying to prove intention is never the easiest thing. My view is that a better approach would be making a statement that you know to be false, or making a statement recklessly without making any reasonable attempts to check its accuracy. I think, from an investigation point of view, that would be more straightforward. 

As regards changes to the process, there would be, I think, very little required at the complaints process. It's my view that both these things I've mentioned—making a false statement deliberately or making one recklessly without taking any reasonable steps to check its accuracy—may very well already be a breach of the code of conduct, and so no further action would be required. It would, of course, be possible to include a new rule in the code. The danger of putting a new rule in is it would have to be quite specific, whereas the concept of bringing the Senedd into disrepute allows you more latitude, because, whatever you do, someone will do something that won't quite meet the new offence but is still conduct that brings the Senedd into disrepute and should be dealt with. 

So, I just think this is an incredibly complicated approach to solving a problem that really isn't there. To my mind, this can already be dealt with. If it's desired that people will be disqualified, then you need to move on to some sort of recall mechanism, and I've already expressed my concerns about that.

A final question from me, Chair, if that's okay. The way that it's drafted currently allows for the Member, once they're aware that it is a false statement or the fact has been proved to be wrong, to be able to put the record straight within 14 days. So, that is nearly a pressure valve on this to make sure that you're not caught out in making a statement and realising, after the fact, that you've got that wrong, and being able to put that right. Would we need to consider putting that into an amended process, to be able to allow for you, as the commissioner, to see that somebody showed that they had got it wrong and they acknowledged that they'd got it wrong? So, is there something there that we need to maybe add into our process to show contrition, I suppose, or to show that they've realised the error of their ways, and be able to do that, and maybe, then, does that form part of the rectification process, or does it need to, in this sort of instance, find a different mechanism?

I don't believe that you would need to change the code or the procedure. And may I just mention that that's another example, I think, of unfortunate drafting? I mean, in 14 days—. What happens if the person is on holiday and doesn't know that anyone's complained about the statement being false until the fifteenth day? The way it's drafted at the moment, they wouldn't be able to avail of the defence, which, frankly, is ridiculous. But, under the present process, I'm sure that many Members innocently make statements that are factually incorrect and they correct the record afterwards. There's an example in the guidance on the code of someone saying '10,000' when they meant '100,000', or something like that, and it's quite routine for people to correct the record. And, of course, when deciding, if it was about a trivial matter, it's likely that I wouldn't consider that there'd been a breach, or, if there had, invite the committee to deal with it under the rectification procedure.

But there are further safeguards if the Member has shown contrition. First of all, it would clearly be a mitigating factor when the committee came to consider any sanction. And, of course, the Senedd itself could consider the latter, if they thought the sanction proposed by the committee was inappropriate. So, I don't think any revision would be required to deal with that.

Thank you, commissioner, and thank you, Pred. I'm very conscious of time, and this is a really short evidence session, so if I can say, Natasha, if you could get your questions wrapped up in five minutes, so that we can head on to Mark, then, for the end of the session. Natasha.

Fine. Thank you so much, Chair. Commissioner, I'd just like to ask you—. I'm sure you get a plethora of complaints—no-one here in the committee is doubtful of that—but, bear in mind, if this to come into place, do you foresee any issues, in fact, in relation to malicious complaints?

Well, you see, I struggle a little with the concept of malicious complaint. There are certainly complaints that are made for political reasons, but if the person, under the present procedure, has to provide evidence sufficient to satisfy me that a breach of a relevant provision may have occurred, if that is done, it is not a matter of concern to me that the person may be trying to gain political advantage when making it. The issue is whether the Member has breached the code or other relevant provision or not. So, I don't foresee any difficulties. There are undoubtedly some complaints that are made, where people are trying to score political points—the committee's dealt with some of these quite recently—but it's not a major issue.

Okay. And my second question—and I'm conscious of time as well, but I'm hoping you'll be able to answer it: do you foresee any issues in relation to human rights being an issue of offence if, indeed, deception was introduced?

No. I think it's within the margin of appreciation allowed. Plainly, the Senedd is entitled to regulate its own procedure and to take reasonable steps to keep Members in line.

Okay. Thank you so much. Thanks, Chair.

Thank you, Natasha. Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, commissioner. We heard evidence from you some weeks ago in which you set out your reservations about a potential recall mechanism at the Senedd, and you told us today that your preferred approach to dealing with the sort of conduct that section 64 seeks to deal with would be to regard that conduct as bringing the Senedd into disrepute. Since we heard from you, the committee's heard a number of witnesses on the recall front, and I guess our thinking has developed alongside that evidence. If the committee were to propose that there should be a recall mechanism and that the sort of conduct captured by section 64 should become one of the triggers that would result in a decision about that Member's future being put back into the hands of the people who elected them in the first place, do you see any additional objections to that, over and above the ones you set out for us back in June?

No. I think, provided it's put back into the hands of the electorate, I have no difficulty with it.

Chair, thank you. That was my only question.

Thank you very much, Mark. It appears as though we've covered an awful lot in a short space of time, so we're very grateful for your spending the time with us this morning, commissioner. I'll just check if any Members have any further questions, or, commissioner, are there any final points that you would like to stress to us as we consider this crucial issue?

No, thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much indeed. Okay, so I propose then that we take a short break. I should say, finally, to you, commissioner, that a note of a copy of the transcript will be provided as soon as possible so that it can be checked for factual accuracy. So, thank you very much. We'll take a short break now to allow our next witness to arrive.

Welcome back to this meeting of the Standards of Conduct Committee, and we are ready to now resume with our next session, evidence session 9, into individual Member accountability. It's a real pleasure to be joined by Jane Dodds MS this morning. Jane, you've got a unique insight into this issue, of course, having won a by-election and been elected to the House of Commons after a recall petition against the incumbent Member of Parliament in 2019. So, we're really keen to hear your views, and maybe if I can ask you to begin by setting out a short introduction to your views and your experience of recall.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to come before you, and I do apologise that I wasn't able to join you last Monday, but thank you very much for rescheduling. So, my name is Jane Dodds. I'm the leader of the Welsh Liberal Democrats. I guess my commitment to a form of recall came about from my personal experience in what was the constituency of Brecon and Radnorshire in 2019, but I've maintained that commitment, seeing the importance of a recall process for our residents to be able to hold their MSs, their political representatives, to account. I can see a mechanism of this happening within the proposed new changes in 2026. I've also been lucky enough to be on the reform committee as well, so we've thought that one through from that angle. There are some issues that I think are important to consider as well. So, if I can outline those quickly now, Chair, and then I'm very, very happy to answer any questions.

Just looking back to my own experience in 2019, as you'll recall, for parliamentarians, the system for Westminster is that 10 per cent of the electorate needs to trigger a by-election. So, the recall petition is lodged, and then, in 2019, there was a six-week window to campaign, in order to persuade voters—at least 10 per cent—to call a by-election. My experience was that we were lucky enough to get 19 per cent to support a by-election. But I think the challenges of a six-week campaign were really clear. Six weeks is a long time in politics, and it's a long time to campaign, when, actually, you're trying to get activists as well to look ahead to, potentially, a by-election, where they need also to be campaigning. The public were definitely fed up here in Brecon and Radnorshire with such a long campaign.

The second very pragmatic issue was that voting—that is, when people had the opportunity to go and vote—actually was, if I'm right, over a very long period of time. I think it was two weeks or four weeks that people were able to go into a recall polling station in order to register a 'yes' or a 'no', whether they wanted to support a by-election or not. Now, the very pragmatic nature of that was that we couldn't use schools, we couldn't use facilities where normal activities happened—because, obviously, on a polling day, which is literally one day, then of course those facilities can offer that and cancel or reschedule arrangements—so, I do know that the electoral registration officer here in Powys struggled to find venues for people to go in to register their vote. Now, if you're thinking ahead to what that would look like—and I'm sure you'll take evidence from electoral registration officers—then actually condensing that time of people being able to go in and express their view seems to be pragmatic. But I do think it needs to be more than one day. A balance needs to be struck. So, those are some of the challenges. 

But if I go back, I guess, to the principle—. Do stop me, sorry, Chair. If I go back to the principle, if I may, for me, if we look back, not only was I lucky enough to be elected following a recall petition, but we know that, in Westminster, there have now been four recall petitions that have resulted in by-elections. We know that Boris Johnson would have been prone to a recall petition, but he stood down. For me, it's about democratic accountability. It's extremely important to people, I feel, to have that democratic deficit addressed. That is, if their MS has committed serious misconduct, they should have the right then to express a view as to whether they want that person to remain in the role. And really, we need to be more transparent, I think, about the way that we do it, and much, much clearer, because we're at an all-time low with people's trust in us, and this, for me, is a step in the right direction. Diolch.

I know that other Members will want to come back to some of those practical points in particular that you've raised. Before I ask my questions on the triggering of a petition, I believe Natasha would like to come in. 

Thank you so much, Chair. Jane, thank you so much for that lovely summary and sharing your experience with us and the committee. Obviously, you've been a politician as per Westminster's model, and I just wanted to ask you, as we've had so many different views coming in about this: do you think Westminster's got it right, or do you think there could be certain tweaks made to the system, particularly when it comes to catering it to Wales?

Obviously, because Westminster is first-past-the-post, that lends itself to a 'yes' or a 'no', and then it's a quick segue into a by-election. So, I think, for the Senedd, there are two challenges here: if it's supported, how do you phrase a recall petition; and then how do you move on to the next step, which is about having that by-election, or whatever it's going to be called.

I wasn't in Westminster long. With the behaviour I saw, though, most of them could have had a recall petition triggered, to be honest, given it was Brexit time and it was shocking, the language and the behaviour. But that's a different story. My understanding there, if my memory serves me right, is that the level of misdemeanour has to be fairly high in order for the parliamentary standards committee to trigger a recall petition. And then it's still down to the political party to call that. It was in this case, just to use this, the Conservatives who then had—. There was a period of time where we had to wait for the Conservative Party to trigger the recall petition. And they had a period of time in order to that, but there was still a waiting game.

For me, it shouldn't be down to the political party to trigger it, it should be down to, still, the parliamentary standards committee to actually say, 'The timescale is this. It needs to happen within this period of time, and this is the timetable.' So, I think there are elements that they've got right, but I think the power, for me, is still not with the people or with a democratic representative body of the people, if that makes sense. I hope that answers your question, Natasha.

It does. I just want to ask a subquestion, and then I promise that'll be it from me for a while, because I know my other colleagues want to ask you questions as well. So, if I was to give you ultimate power right now and say, 'You get to decide and design exactly how this is going to work', what would be the ideal, dream scenario, based on the fact that you are aware how the Senedd is going to look and how elections are going to be in the next Senedd term, from 2026 onwards? What would you say is the dream scenario for you in this situation?

Thank you for asking. Because the new system around closed lists and the proportional representation is different, my view is that a committee triggers a recall process—there may be a different name that’s used—and that people get a 'yes' or 'no' opportunity. So, if it was me, Jane Dodds committed a serious demeanour, she is an elected Member of the Senedd, she was elected by a PR system, but still Jane Dodds is responsible for the misdemeanour, and the committee has decided she should be subject to a recall process. The Liberal Democrats have to call that within two weeks, or maybe it’s just called within two weeks, and the people decide ‘yes’ or ‘no’, should Jane Dodds be subject to a by-election, so it is a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ process. And then, the by-election takes place. There would have to be some form of list process, so the political parties would then have to put forward, I think, only one candidate to fill Jane Dodds’s place, and then the by-election happens. It’s not ideal, but I think it’s something that says to the people, ‘You have the opportunity to unseat Jane Dodds and you have the opportunity to elect another political party role into Jane Dodds’s shoes’, if that makes sense.

It does. Thank you very much, Jane. Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you, both. Jane, if I can take you back to the triggering of a petition, we know in Westminster there are three broad areas for that, aren’t there: if a Member has a prison sentence of less than 12 months, a suspension of at least 10 sitting days or if they’re convicted of an expense offence. Do you think that those are the right triggers, or do you feel that we should be looking at something different here in Wales?

I think that they’re the right ones, but I think there are additional ones for us here in Wales. Obviously, we’re debating tomorrow section 64, which is about deception; I think that should be a trigger, so that should be included. Whether it’s passed or not, I think it should still be included. I think, again, all of this for me is about taking steps to try and restore trust in politicians and in political processes. But there may be others; I haven’t thought it fully through to think these are all of the areas that we need to include.

Thank you. If you do come up with any further thoughts after the committee session, please feel free to drop us a line, because we’d be really interested in receiving those.

If I can just probe on an issue that has been particular to our Senedd over the previous Senedd term in particular. Obviously, there are occasions when a Member is elected on behalf of a political party and then feels as a matter of conscience they need to leave that particular political party. But we’ve had instances where a Member has changed their allegiance or political party up to three times in a Senedd term. When that Member has been elected on a PR basis, so they’ve been elected on a party ticket without their name attached, there can be questions that arise there about democracy and whether that is democratic. With the changes that are going to be in place for the next Senedd term, where every Member will be elected on a PR basis, do you have a view about whether Members changing political parties should also be a trigger for a recall process?

I don’t have a strong view. At the moment, the proposal is for people to give a vote for the political party, so changing political parties I don’t think actually gives—. I haven’t thought it through, if I’m honest. But I don’t have a strong view or experience of that, and I don’t think we’ve thought about it too much in our committee either.

That's fine. I'm going to try and rattle through the rest of my questions, because I feel that the questions that will be coming from other Members later on are where we can really probe your experience and probably help to get a pragmatic system here in the Senedd. But I'll just go through some broad issues quite quickly with you before then. Do you think a Member should have the opportunity to appeal a recall decision?

No.

That's useful. Thank you.

Just to say my reasons for that, I think people know the standards expected, they sign that when they come in. That's the expectation, and just as you have in a contract of employment, if you breach that, then you know the consequences.

Thank you. Obviously, disqualification is tied into this as well, and some of the evidence we've taken has questioned whether this 12-month prison sentence is the appropriate trigger for disqualification, or whether a Member who has received a custodial sentence of any length should automatically be disqualified. Do you have any views on that?

Yes, I do. I think the threshold of a custodial sentence—even though I don't believe in custody, anyway—is fairly high. I think it should be much lower. I think it should be lower than 12 months. It's extremely rare—it should be rarer—that people are subject to custody, so for that to be triggered means for me that there's a very high threshold already in place. So, any custodial sentence, suspended or not, should be the trigger for a recall petition. 

Thank you. One final technical question from me. You'll be aware, of course, that, currently, any standards report is subject to a vote of the whole Senedd. Do you think that the triggering of a recall petition should be subject to a whole vote in the Senedd? And if so, do you feel a simple majority in favour should suffice, or would a two-thirds majority be required for that?

That's very interesting, because, actually, in Parliament, that doesn't happen. That is, Parliament doesn't vote on whether a recall petition is triggered or not, so I would have to question whether it even goes to a vote in the Senedd. We should have trust in the committee where this is placed to come up with the decision that a Member has reached the threshold for a recall petition. I personally don't think there should be a step that involves the Senedd voting on this, because, clearly, we then go into the realm of political parties—given that we're so small—potentially engineering a situation where somebody who has reached the threshold then not being subject to a recall petition, which then takes us a step backwards, in my view, in terms of the democratic deficit. I hope I've made myself clear there. 

Yes, absolutely. Thanks very much, Jane. I'm going to bring in Peredur Owen Griffiths now.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Just stepping back slightly to the question before last around custodial sentences, what if somebody was protesting and it was on a matter of conscience, not paying a fine or something? We've seen lots of examples of that. Would you still be of the same view that they should be subject to recall?

That's a really interesting question. Again, I'm not sure I know of many individuals who, on a matter of conscience—. Perhaps this is because I'm coloured by this position that, actually, custody should be used very rarely. I would still have hope in our criminal justice system, particularly when it's devolved to Wales, of course, that we have a better and fairer way of approaching those particular incidents. So, I still think, on balance, that any custodial sentence should trigger a recall petition.

And, assuming that we've agreed that these are the triggers, that the standards committee, or whoever, has decided, looking at the evidence, that those triggers have been met, there's been a report to the Senedd, the Senedd has voted to agree that report, and the question has been put to those paired constituencies, looking at post 2026—we'll use your example from earlier—'Jane Dodds has done this, yes or no, do you want to recall?', where should the threshold be? Is 10 per cent sufficient? 

It's a really interesting one, isn't it, because if I take the smaller political parties, like ours, for us to get people out over a huge area, to talk to people about it—. I mean, there's a big information deficit here for people to understand it, so if this is something that's agreed, there's a big education process to say to people, 'This is what will happen if your Senedd Member commits a serious misdemeanour', so that people can at least, hopefully, be a little bit prepared for it. Ten per cent doesn't sound much, but actually it is a lot in a paired constituency, where there'll be 140,000-ish voters, something like that. Is that right? I think I'm right there—140,000-ish. So, for a small party to try and get 14,000 voters to say 'yes' or 'no', I think is about right. This is all about us stepping back and seeing the involvement that people feel that they have in their political system, and if we can scale that up, then, potentially, it could grow. But I think if you're looking for something where people feel that they've got some buy-in, I think you have to start at a low threshold.

And, from your experience in Brecon and Radnorshire, when the process was happening there, you talked earlier about six weeks being a very long time, finding that balance—you seemed to indicate that it should be a shorter period of time. Given your last answer, getting 14,000 people out is harder over a shorter period of time, but would you advocate then for proxy and postal votes?

Yes. I think so. I think it should be the same. I don't think—. Unless I'm missing something, I don't think it should be any different.

Okay. And, just looking at—. You said, again, that 10 per cent was the threshold to call a by-election in Brecon and Radnorshire, but you got to 19 per cent, should they have stopped after 10?

No, because we went through the same counting process as we did on polling night, so—

So, you wouldn't have known that you'd got to 19 per cent earlier.

No. And, you know, you go through verification, you go through transparency with all the political parties, so the votes were opened in the same way as on polling night.

And was it 'yes' and 'no' for that, or was it just the one vote to say, 'Yes, recall'?

No, it was both. It was 'yes' and 'no'. So, of the votes cast—sorry, maybe I should've said—of the votes cast, 19 per cent was 'yes' and—. No, hang on. No, 19 per cent of the constituents wanted a recall petition—a by-election. Gosh. Brain. You can tell that this general election, kind of—. Exhaustion. Sorry.

That's fine. And talking a little bit about the system that we will have and the closed lists, and we are of the same mind that we'd prefer an STV system, but we are where we are with that, should the by-election bit be—? Basically, the petition would be—. As an example again, 'Jane Dodds: yes or no?', then you've got over 10 per cent who've said 'yes', should it then just be the next person—? By going to the country once with that, should it then be the next person on the Liberal Democrat list who should replace you?

I think that is an option—yes, I think that's an option. My concern around that is that there's still no process for the electorate to be actively involved in following up the decision that has been made. So, I can see that that is an option. That's a very easy option—not an easy option, sorry, but it's a very straightforward option, as it were. I can see that, because that's the process that we use now, really, isn't it, with anybody?

That will be the new by-election process, effectively. Just finally, then, from me, if you decided—. We're going with the Jane Dodds example at the moment, but if you decided halfway through that petition and that process, and you thought, 'Actually, no, I'm just going to resign', should the process stop?

I haven't really thought about that. I guess it does, yes, because it's about the person. The closed list presents a challenge, really, because it's the party making decisions about the ordering of the list, but then you still are about the individuals there, so you've got the balance there. So, I guess, yes, it should stop.

Thank you very much. Diolch, Chair.

Thank you, Pred. I'll bring in Mark Drakeford now.

Thank you, Chair. I've got three questions; I'm going to try to rattle through them fairly quickly. Jane, when Natasha asked you to set out your ideal process, you echoed the two-stage process that is there for Westminster recall. But we've heard quite a lot of evidence from witnesses who might have favoured a single stage. It would go like this: the standards committee would do its work; it would make a recommendation to the Senedd; there would be a Senedd vote on a simple majority that someone had breached a threshold of seriousness, which meant that the decision should be put back in the hands of the electorate. There would be no petition stage; it would simply go back to the electorate on a, 'Do you want Jane Dodds to continue to be your Member of the Senedd: yes or no?', and if the answer is 'no', then the next Liberal Democrat on the list would replace whoever had been decided.

That seems to me to have a number of advantages, really. It simplifies the process, it avoids some of the difficulties you identified of democratic exhaustion with a long process, it puts the decision firmly in the hands of the electorate—the issue of a threshold would be important in terms of participation—and it wouldn't disadvantage the Liberal Democrat party because of the conduct of a single individual. It would not mean that the votes that Liberal Democrats across Wales had cast in favour of that party could be undermined by a by-election on a first-past-the-post basis that could distort the overall proportional casting of votes across Wales. Are there any particular criticisms you would make of that model, given that it's not the one that you preferred?

No, none at all. I can see that that makes perfect sense, and that would assuage the issues of exhaustion of a democratic process. My challenge to you is still that to have the standards committee putting a vote to the Senedd is not putting it into the hands of the electorate, because, potentially, the Senedd could make a decision that that recall process doesn't happen, which, personally, I don't think is acceptable. So, if it were to be boiled down to a total one-stage process, it would literally be that there's a 'yes' or 'no' to, 'Is Jane Dodds going to be removed from the Senedd?'

Yes, fine, I think that's more or less consistent with what I think I described, it's just that you had to come to—. Somewhere, a decision has to be made that that trigger, that threshold, has been breached. I think you prefer it just to be in the hands of the standards committee; other witnesses have said it is such a serious decision that it ought to be subject to a vote of the Senedd as a whole, but on a simple majority, to make sure that no political party by itself could block that because they are protecting their own position. But, anyway, thank you, that's really interesting.

And then I finally wanted to return to a point you made earlier, which takes us to the section 64 issue. I think you said that whether the current section 64 is confirmed or not this week, that this issue ought to be part of the standards committee's considerations, in that threshold sense, but, actually, that's just not possible, is it? It seems to me this is genuinely a choice of either/or, you can't have both, because once there is a criminal offence put on the statute book through section 64, any pursuit of that by the criminal justice system would mean that the standards committee's work would have to pause. That's just the rule. We cannot continue our work once there's a criminal justice investigation. So, if section 64 succeeds this week, you can't have a Senedd standards committee process as well as. It really is that you decide which one you prefer: you prefer section 64, a criminal offence and a criminal justice route, or you decide that the standards committee is better placed to make that judgment, and make it part of this recall process instead.

I guess I didn't express that very well, but I guess what I'm suggesting is that, if amendment 64 is not accepted by the Senedd tomorrow, which is likely to happen, I still think it needs to be in the consideration of the standards committee to look at a threshold. I personally think it's very clearly set out what amendment 64 is about and what those thresholds are.

I think that is exactly where some of us—I won't speak for anybody else—would be. If section 64 goes ahead, the standards committee has no role. If section 64 does not go ahead, then that whole issue should become part of our recall considerations. I definitely agree with that. So, thank you. That's much clearer.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark, and thank you, Jane. The clock has beaten us, so I'm afraid it's the end of our evidence session. But it's been really fascinating speaking to you this morning with your unique practical insight into the recall process in Westminster. So, thank you very much for joining us. A copy of the transcript will be provided as soon as possible, so it can be checked for factual accuracy. And that draws our evidence session with you to a close.

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you, Jane.

So, now, for item 4, I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi), to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content to agree the motion? Members are. Okay. That is fantastic. So, we'll now await notification that we've moved into private session.