Item 6, the debate on the Standards of Conduct Committee report, 'Individual Member Accountability: Recall'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Hannah Blythyn.

Thank you, Llywydd. It’s a pleasure to open this debate on a very important report produced by the Standards of Conduct Committee.

Working to ensure that the Senedd has the processes in place to maintain both individual and institutional integrity is a cornerstone of our devolved democracy and central to the work of the Standards of Conduct Committee. The recall report is part of an ongoing package of reform that is aimed at building trust and transparency in our processes, in our politicians and in our politics. As a committee, we want to see increased confidence in the political system, and proper processes are fundamental to this. Our recommendation around the introduction of a system of recall is a significant step forward in this journey.

I want to be clear that this forms part of the work that the committee has committed to on considering the entire standards framework in this place and to strengthen the systems of powers here in the Senedd to better empower people to come forward with concerns about conduct and serious and unacceptable issues like sexual harassment. To do this, the committee believes it's important to be able to have sufficient powers to deter and deal with serious misconduct, and the sanction of recall is an important factor in that. The introduction of a system of recall ensures that there is clarity and understanding around the measures that may be used to hold Members to account.

We have made nine recommendations aimed at introducing the system in time for the seventh Senedd, so that all Members elected to that Senedd will be held to a consistent standard from the start. We are pleased that the Government has accepted all of our recommendations either fully or in principle. It is both welcome and warranted that we are able to work together to put in place such an important piece of legislation in Wales.

As a first step, the committee looked at the model adopted in Westminster around recall, which has been well received and effectively used in allowing the public to hold to account those Members who have acted in ways that fell short of the standards expected of them. We concluded, however, that, rather than duplicating this system, what was needed was a model that fitted Wales and the electoral system that will be in place for and following the 2026 Senedd elections.

The committee has taken a pragmatic and practical approach to this work, and held simplicity and understandability as the two most important principles when designing the system. A one-stage process, a single ballot that asks whether a Member should be removed and replaced with the next person on the list or retain their position, seemed to us the best way to meet those principles. We also recommended that the Government works with the Electoral Commission to develop a voting paper to present the information in a clear and easy-to-understand manner, and that it works with the electoral community to ensure information relating to recall is clear for voters. These recommendations have all been accepted by the Welsh Government.

As well as a one-stage process, we concluded that a one-day process, akin to a by-election, with postal and proxy voting available, was the most simple and straightforward approach. Alongside this, we are pleased that the Government has accepted the recommendation to consult with electoral administrators and other interested stakeholders on the practical implications of holding the vote on a single day across multiple polling places in a constituency.

Moving now to those recommendations that were accepted in principle, as a committee, we did not feel 'recall' to be a meaningful nor an accurate name for the process that we were recommending. While we recognise there's a level of popular understanding for the term amongst the public, it does not align with the process recommended and may be confusing in light of the difference between Wales and Westminster. We wanted to ensure that the name better and more accurately described the process and recommended the phrase 'remove and replace ballot'. However, we accept this may not be best terminology either, but it serves as a starting point for discussions about what it is called. We look forward to working with the Government as it gives further consideration to this matter.

In order to operate an effective and fair standards system, there's a requirement for flexibility in applying sanctions and a range of options available. As a committee, we believe this is best achieved by not including specific triggers for recall in primary legislation. There's been much criticism levelled at the Senedd about it being unable to react with sufficient speed, and, as such, we considered it prudent to allow the Senedd to be able to decide what may trigger a recall. We believe this will also help futureproof the process, as it would not require amendments to primary legislation. For the ease of simplicity of understanding, we recommended all triggers for recall to be set out in the guidelines, but accept that the Government will want to give this more consideration and that some matters may be included in legislation.

We further recommended that recall should be a stand-alone sanction that is available for the committee with responsibility for matters under Standing Order 22 to utilise. Much of the evidence we received suggested that the 10-day sitting provision in place in Westminster is too low, and it seemed to us like a stark cut-off point. This forms part of the reasoning for the sanctions sitting with the responsible committee, allowing it to take precedent and other mitigating factors into consideration. We welcome the Government's intention to consider this recommendation in more detail, as well as its undertaking to explore the exact form that guidance for the application of recall should take. The committee is supportive of all additional detailed work on these areas, and would not expect anything less of the Government when taking forward such an important piece of legislation.

Llywydd, I'd like to take this opportunity to thank the current committee members and those who started this work—including the previous Chair, Vikki Howells, and former members Mark Drakeford and Natasha Asghar—for their hard work in this area. I'd also, of course, like to thank everyone who took the time to give evidence to the inquiry. We took a significant amount of complex evidence over a short period of time, and this has been invaluable in helping our thinking on this matter and allowing us to make the considered and informed recommendations set out today.

To conclude, as Chair of the committee, I hope Members will agree that these proposals suggest a workable and practical approach to increasing accountability within the political context that we are and will be operating in.

I am particularly pleased that there is cross-party support for the principle of adopting a recall system in time for the seventh Senedd, and that it has been generally accepted by the Government. I look forward to hearing comments from fellow Members in the debate. Thank you.

I'll begin by thanking the Chair of the committee for her work in leading us as a committee in this inquiry.

I think Hannah's chairmanship of this committee in picking this up after the previous Chair is to be commended, as is the work of the other committee members on this, as I myself pick this mantle up from my colleague Natasha Asghar.

But I think this is a really good piece of work. I think this is a really integral piece to where we are as a Parliament in our history, and where we wish to be, going forward. Isn't it right that those politicians who fall foul of the standards that are expected of them are punished accordingly? I think recall, or remove and replace—that recommendation 4—I'm pretty open to that, Counsel General, on what that wording is, but I think anything that is clear to constituents within the new constituency regions as to what the process is is really integral. That's why I welcome the fact that the Government have accepted or accepted in principle the recommendations put forward by the committee.

I think it's really integral that when—if—this happens in the future, those constituents go to polling stations, it feels as real as possible to a general election, to a Senedd election, in that the ballot looks as clear as possible and the polling station feels like a polling station during a general election or Senedd election, and that, for all intents and purposes, it is an election. It might be a recall process, but for those taking part in it and going out and exercising their democratic duty in voting for or against an individual Member, I think it's important that it feels as real as possible to a normal election within the election cycle. I think that's incredibly important on this.

Coming back to the ideas around why we need this, I think the evidence that we took forward is important. And while this is a relatively young institution in comparison to that across Offa's Dyke in London, we're actually bringing this forward far sooner in our history than Westminster has, and I think that's something to be commended, as we move forward into the seventh Senedd.

I'm keeping my contribution relatively brief on this, Llywydd, but I'm pleased that it is the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery who is responding today on this, I believe, and bringing this piece of legislation forward for the seventh Senedd. Because time is of the essence in this; if we are to get this done in time for the seventh Senedd, then the Government must work quickly to bring this forward. It would receive support from myself and others in bringing forward a recall-style election for this and I know that that's one of the discussions that parties had in the initial discussion around Senedd reform more broadly.

I really commend the committee on their work on this, not just because I'm a member of the committee, Llywydd, but I commend it because this is a really interesting piece of work, I really enjoyed taking part in it. I think the chairmanship was excellent and the contribution from committee members on this was great. And my final thanks go to the clerking team and the whole team on the Senedd estate who supported us in doing this. I think we should be proud as a Senedd that we're bringing forward something like this so early in our institution's history. Diolch, Llywydd.

I echo what Sam said.

I really thank everybody who's been involved in this process, from the Chair, the clerks and the members. It's been a seemingly easy thing, but the minute you start looking at it, you realise that it's got many different facets and many different aspects. And in conjunction with some of the other work that the committee is doing—around deception, around bullying and sexual harassment—it forms part of building the trust back into politics, and making sure that this institution and others, especially in Wales, have that trust in the political system, so that at least we can move things forward here in Wales. Obviously, it needs to be done in a timely fashion, and the legislation needs to be brought forward as soon as possible, to make sure that it's embedded in time for the 2026 election. That's going to be a challenge, but I echo again what Sam was saying about at least it's the Counsel General and Minister for Delivery taking that forward, so hopefully it will get delivered. So, we'll wait to see on that one, but we'll do our part as a committee, I'm sure, to facilitate that.

One thing that we needed to consider is that, obviously, the new system in Wales, in 2026, is going to be different from England, and different from anything that we've done before, other than the fact that it is the way that I was elected. So, the electoral system is going to be exactly the same way as every regional Member here has been elected. So, in a sense, we've been doing this for 25 years, it will just apply to everybody now. But in that, then, you need a recall system that mirrors that, and plug-and-play from Westminster doesn't necessarily work. So, that's why we've had to look at that. Obviously, there have been a few parts of evidence where there's been concern—and I'd acknowledge those concerns from people like the Electoral Reform Society—just worried about how it would work, and some of those concerns were raised. But the reality in balancing an effective accountability mechanism with the characteristics of the new electoral system will inevitably form some of those compromises, and that's what we've tried to do in the recommendations coming through from the committee.

I therefore really call on the Government now to give us a regular update as to how this is progressing and to make sure that the Senedd is kept informed. I also look forward to those debates on deception that are coming down the line, and also to now get on with some of the work that we've already started but have had to pause to do this work, which will now continue, around some of those aspects that I talked about earlier. So, diolch yn fawr, and I commend this report. Diolch.

Like others have said, this is an excellent report, and I commend the Chair—or Chairs, perhaps—in the work that they've led on debating and discussing and taking this matter forward. I think there's general agreement—I certainly hope there is—across all parts of this Chamber that whatever name we use, whether it's 'recall' or a different name—I didn't expect to hear that in the speech; it's put me off—is accepted as a point of principle. The principle is accepted, and what we are debating and discussing now, and I hope over the coming months, is the process by which we deliver that accepted principle. I think that's really important. It's important that we recognise that the democracy of this place rests not simply on one election, but on how we deliver and the conduct of Members over a whole term, over the full four years. I think the committee has set out a first-class analysis of that, and has suggested some ways forward.

What I would like to do in the few moments I'll speak this afternoon is to outline some potential alternative options for us to consider as well. I do not have any comments to make on the points over thresholds—I think they are very clear, and I think the point that has been made in the committee's report about previous decisions of the committee creates a context by which we can understand that. But I think we will need to put that in law. What for me is important is, then, the process that we follow. It is important that any process a Member faces has elements of fairness hard-wired into it, and that the process continues to be a quasi-judicial one, where fairness is at the heart of that. Accountability and fairness have to be at the heart of all of this. And what I would like to see is a process by which decisions over conduct are taken in this place, in this Chamber, so that we do continue to hold each other to account for our actions and behaviours and conduct, and that we do that in a way that is done with due serious consideration, and potentially judicial oversight, if that is considered necessary.

For me, the role of the electorate comes in a different place. It comes in the place of elections and accountability, and, for me, that means that we do need to hold by-elections in any system. Now, I believe, and I fervently hope, that the current system we have, by which Members will be elected next year, will be in place only for a short period of time. I do not like the compromise that was made. I accepted it, I argued for it, I voted for it, but that doesn’t mean I like it. For me, I prefer the single transferrable vote, and I will be arguing in the coming months that the next Senedd should adopt the single transferrable vote as the means of election into the long term.

But we can also hold by-elections under a closed list system, because we can hold a by-election using the alternative vote, which maintains our proportionality, and our commitment to proportionality. And it does mean it is the electorate, and not a party, that chooses who sits here. And I think that’s really important. It’s important because one of the trademarks of the Westminster system, and I think we’re all influenced by the Westminster system, is that it is the system of recall that we see most used, and it’s being employed at the moment for a Member in the north-west of England. But I believe that we do need to maintain the principle of the electorate being able to pass judgment, not simply on the individual, but on who follows them. And that means that, in most STV systems, as far as I understand it—and, certainly, the system I’m most familiar with is in the Irish Republic—the system used is essentially the alternative vote system, to fill by-elections in the Dáil, where they occur during the term of office. And I believe that we can employ that here, so that where a vacancy is declared, following the process, we do hold a by-election for that post to be filled, and that that is done through the alternative vote.

But these are debates and discussions that we can have. We need to be moving fairly rapidly, for the reasons that Sam Kurtz has already outlined. But I do believe that we should have this debate honestly and fully as Members, not necessarily from political parties, or representing political points of view, but as individual Members, because the principle of recall, or whatever is accepted—what we debate and discuss now is how we deliver that, and how we make that level of accountability a reality. And I agree with what’s been said, that we need to do that with some speed, but also with due process.

And I’m also grateful to the committee, and to the Chair of the committee too, for this report. It is a report of a very high standard and quality, so thank you very much.

And it comes at a time, doesn’t it, when we know that the context for politics is at an all-time low. Political scandals have significantly contributed to public disillusionment with us as politicians. We went through the 2009 expenses scandal, the controversial personal protective equipment contracts, leaks about lockdown parties—let’s not forget those—and there have been even more, sadly, more recently. We also have a crisis of disengagement, and the two go together. So, our young people are not engaging with politics. We heard this week from the Electoral Commission that only 62 per cent of young people in Wales feel they have a good knowledge of democracy, which is far below the UK average.

But just to the content of this report, and to recall, which in essence, for me, is about restoring the contract between elected representatives and the public that they serve. It ensures that when trust is broken, when standards are undermined, voters have, as we have heard, a meaningful say in whether an individual should continue in office. It’s not about political opportunism, it’s about strengthening our democracy. And we’ve already seen the power of recall in Westminster. When the system was first introduced, some doubted whether it would be used at all, and since then we’ve seen a number of times when recall petitions have succeeded. And to declare an interest here, I obviously played a role in one particular recall petition.

The power of recall is not just its ability to remove an elected representative, it is the message it sends: that politicians must be held to high standards of conduct, or answer to the people. I am pleased to see the Welsh Government's broadly supportive response to the Standards of Conduct Committee's report. The Government's willingness to engage with the recommendations and openness to adapt to the system should be commended, so I do welcome that.

But we mustn’t lose sight of the urgency here. We have Senedd elections next year by, as we've heard, a different process, and it's really important that people feel that they can understand both the new process and understand this new system. So, I do urge the Government to consider how we can inform the public on both the new process of electing their representatives, but also on the recall process as well. So, I'd like to hear, if possible, more detail on how we plan to engage with the public and ensure that voters fully understand the recall system—how it operates and the conditions under which it is triggered. But I do welcome this report and I thank all members of the committee.

Thank you very much to all of you.

And I look forward to seeing this move on. Diolch.

As we head towards the Welsh general election of May 2026, it will be the most radical and the most democratic election in the history of devolution and of all the UK Parliaments: sixteen-plus voting, automatic registration—which will add, potentially, up to 0.5 million people to the electoral register—recall and removal, deception provisions, and a wholly proportional voting system.

The recommendation is for the creation of a process for the removal of a Member, and it is one where I believe there has been complete unity in this Senedd for that objective. It is based on a principle of personal responsibility by Members for their integrity and their standard of conduct. It is a specific Welsh model, creating a process for the removal of a Member whose conduct has fallen below what is acceptable and that the electorate should be allowed the choice of removing that individual. And it is a power to be exercised by the electorate. It’s right that they will be the ultimate arbiter. Thomas Paine wrote:

'A body of men holding themselves accountable to nobody ought not to be trusted by anybody.'

What I think the processes that we are introducing are doing is increasing our personal accountability, but also this Senedd’s political accountability to the electorate of Wales. It is a brave and radical step, and it will create, I believe, the most democratic institution in all of the Parliaments of the United Kingdom. Diolch.

The Counsel General to reply to the debate, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. I want to start by expressing my gratitude to the Standards of Conduct Committee for its really diligent work on this crucial report. I think this is, really, proof that although the Senedd may still be a very young Parliament, we’ve come a very long way in our 25 years of existence. I think devolution has brought government closer to the people of Wales, and as we continue to evolve, we must ensure that our democratic structures remain strong, transparent and accountable. Public trust in politics is hard-won but easily lost, and it’s our duty to safeguard it.

People rightly expect high standards from their elected representatives, and when those standards aren’t met, they expect consequences. And that’s why we need a fair, transparent system that allows voters—the very people who put us here—to have the final say. Without that, I think we risk undermining confidence in our institutions and in our democracy. And in a democracy, confidence is everything.

So, to address these issues, the Welsh Government will bring forward primary legislation before the next election to introduce a recall system for the Senedd. Time is very tight, but we’re committed to working with the Senedd and its committees to get this done. And if we succeed, Llywydd, it will be a landmark moment in our Parliament’s history. This is about ensuring that the people of Wales always have a mechanism to hold their representatives to account, regardless of party, regardless of politics, because this is bigger than any one Government.

On that basis, we accept recommendation 1 in relation to the primary legislation necessary to establish this system. Following the passage of the Bill, there will need to be a focus on implementing secondary legislation and agreeing committee guidelines to ensure a smooth roll-out, some of which will necessarily fall to our successors in the next Senedd.

This proposal must also align with our new electoral system, which every Member, I think, who’s contributed has mentioned—a proportional, list-based system that was agreed upon by this Siambr last year—and I wholeheartedly support recommendation 2, which advocates for a single stage ballot asking voters whether a Member should stay or go. Any resulting vacancy will be filled using the existing processes, ensuring continuity and clarity for both the Senedd and the electorate.

The committee rightly emphasises the importance of clear and accessible information for voters. We accept recommendations 3, 8 and 9, to ensure that ballot papers, poll cards and voter information are well designed and informative. The recall process must be easily understood by the public. We will work closely with stakeholders, Senedd Members and the Electoral Commission to get this right.

I agree with the standards committee that the naming of the process matters. And while I do recognise the need to differentiate it from the UK system, I do myself have reservations about referring to it as a ‘remove and replace’ ballot. I think the Chair in her contribution had a bit of reservation on that as well. The system will not directly replace Members; it will remove them, with successors chosen through standard procedures. Given that 'recall' is widely understood as a mechanism for removing politicians, we will need to carefully reconsider this terminology as we develop the Bill. And, Llywydd, I very much hope that Members will engage in that process to help us all come to a mutually acceptable conclusion, because clarity in language leads to clarity in process.

And then, Llywydd, recommendation 5 introduces a new approach, a stand-alone recall sanction, to address the cliff-edge issues seen at Westminster. I think this is a promising idea and I support it in principle, but, due to its novelty, we must meticulously work through the legal and practical details. It’s essential it doesn’t become an arbitrary measure but instead provides a meaningful way to uphold standards without creating unintended consequences. This work is already in progress and we will move at pace to develop it. And as we develop this recall system, we must ensure it is flexible enough to adapt to future challenges. This is not just about today; it’s about creating a robust framework that can evolve with our democracy.

Llywydd, if we can make this work, it makes sense for the committee to develop clear guidelines on behaviours that could lead to recall, including both mitigating and aggravating factors. The public needs to have confidence in the process and know that it won’t be misused for political gain. We’re exploring how the Bill can formalise this process effectively.

I do slightly diverge from the committee’s perspective here, because I believe that certain clear-cut and externally determined offences should be explicitly listed in the Bill, such as cases where a Member is sentenced to prison but does not meet the threshold for automatic disqualification. This clarity is essential for both voters and Members. People need to know where the line is drawn and that such actions will lead to a recall poll. We also recognise the need for legal certainty in all aspects of the recall process. This will ensure that both voters and Members understand their rights and responsibilities clearly. A fair system is one where nobody is in doubt about the rules.

Finally, Llywydd, we support a simple, one-day vote that mirrors the Senedd election as closely as possible, accepting recommendation 7. The more familiar the process, the more accessible it will be to voters. A recall ballot should be straightforward and decisive, allowing the public to exercise their democratic right efficiently.

Llywydd, I haven’t addressed the issue of deliberate deception today, as the committee has provided a separate report on that matter, which will be debated independently. This separation allows us to focus on the Government’s position more clearly and to ensure that both discussions receive the attention they deserve.

So, in closing, I want to thank the committee Chair for today’s debate and all Members who contributed to this vital work. There is clear cross-party support for introducing a recall system and we have a significant task ahead of us. But, Llywydd, this is about strengthening our democracy, enhancing accountability, and putting power where it belongs: in the hands of the people of Wales. I look forward to collaborating with all of you to deliver this important change. Diolch.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (David Rees) took the Chair.

I call on Hannah Blythyn to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I just respond by welcoming everybody’s contributions in a thoughtful and thorough manner? It really has been a pleasure, as my first big piece of work as Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, to actually do something we could get stuck into that can play a part and really contribute to strengthening our democracy here in the Senedd. I was asked, when we were discussing publicly the report, when it was published, why it had taken so long. I did point out that, actually, it was a lot quicker than Westminster: it had taken them a couple of centuries; it had only taken us a quarter. But, as part of that evolving democracy and alongside the other work we’re doing as the Standards of Conduct Committee, I look forward to working with Welsh Government, with all stakeholders and, actually, with all colleagues in the Siambr. Diolch.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.