16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784414 0 En 2026-11-09T13:22:36 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=-10&l=en 261109-0 C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784422 1 En 2026-11-09T13:22:51 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=5&l=en 261109-0 C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784542 2 Cy 261109-0 I The proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous interpretation is included. This is a draft version of the record.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784415 3 Cy 261109-0 I The committee met in the Senedd and by video-conference. The meeting began at 13:22. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784424 4 En 2026-11-09T13:22:54 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=8&l=en 261109-1 1. Introductions, apologies and substitutions C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Welcome, Members and members of the public to the meeting of the Standards of Conduct Committee. The meeting is bilingual, and simultaneous interpretation from Welsh to English is available. We note that there is an apology from Natasha Asghar, and we welcome Sam Rowlands, who is a substitute, to the meeting. And I would ask: are there any declarations of interest, please, from any of the Members? Thank you. It appears not.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784429 5 En 2026-11-09T13:23:23 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=37&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay The first item is an evidence-gathering session on the recall guidance, and it's my pleasure to welcome, again, Mr Douglas Bain, who is the Senedd Commissioner for Standards. Mr Bain, over to you. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784450 6 En 2026-11-09T13:23:42 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=56&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 7862 Douglas Bain Bain, Douglas Yes, thank you, Chair. I don't think there's anything I wish to add to the submission I made to the committee, but, of course, I'm very happy to answer any questions you may have on that submission.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784454 7 En 2026-11-09T13:23:57 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=71&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you, Mr Bain. I think it's the shape of the guidance that Members will be questioning you on today, whether the guidance should provide broad principles, maybe specific examples of conduct, or a combination of those approaches. And I think that that's going to be the main theme of some of the Members' questions. I'll go through—. The first question is from Elyn Stephens, please. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784464 8 Cy 2026-11-09T13:24:27 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=101&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 12164 12164 Elyn Stephens https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12164 Stephens, Elyn Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the commissioner for joining us today. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784467 9 En 2026-11-09T13:24:31 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=105&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 12164 12164 Elyn Stephens https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12164 Stephens, Elyn I'd like to ask in terms of the type of conduct that may lead to recall. In your experience, do you think that repeated and persistent minor breaches of the code of conduct should be considered for recommendation for recall? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784471 10 En 2026-11-09T13:24:48 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=122&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 7862 Douglas Bain Bain, Douglas Thank you. As you'll have seen from my submission, I don't think it's appropriate to try and categorise types of behaviour that lead to recall. I think any attempt to produce any list of behaviour, such as bullying and harassment or sexual misconduct, would inevitably, for the reasons that I've set out in my paper, be unsatisfactory. And, to my mind, a much better approach is to tie the recall to the level of sanction that the committee recommends to the Senedd. And, of course, that will take account of mitigating circumstances—and aggravating circumstances, such as a repeat offender. I think that's a much sounder approach to the issue. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784432 11 En 2026-11-09T13:25:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=134&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784472 12 En 2026-11-09T13:30:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=434&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784440 13 En 2026-11-09T13:25:54 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=188&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you. Elyn, did you want to come in on relationships with other sanctions as well, as you have the floor, please? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784443 14 En 2026-11-09T13:26:02 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=196&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 12164 12164 Elyn Stephens https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12164 Stephens, Elyn Yes, certainly. Thanks for your answer there, Commissioner. Following on from that, do you think that it would be helpful for us as a committee to have guidance to support us in terms of seeing how the relationship with recall plays off with the other sanctions that are in place for the recall guidance, or do you think it should be incorporated into a single set of guidance in the future? Diolch. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784448 15 En 2026-11-09T13:26:37 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=231&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 7862 Douglas Bain Bain, Douglas Well, I don't have any strong views on whether it should be a single set of guidance or two sets; what I would strongly advocate for—as I did, I think, in 2021 or 2022, when I recommended it to your predecessors—is that there should be the equivalent of sentencing guidelines for all breaches of the code. I would really not regard the recall recommendation as a sanction in the same way, because there is actually no sanction; it's giving the public an opportunity to comment and decide whether the person should remain a Member. I think it follows on from the—. Whatever the sanction imposed is, if it reaches a threshold, and that might be a number of days' suspension, then that would ordinarily lead the committee to recommend that there should be a recall petition. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784456 16 En 2026-11-09T13:27:49 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=303&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Stephen Senior, please. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784458 17 En 2026-11-09T13:27:55 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=309&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen Commissioner, I think you've already, to some extent, answered my question, which was going to be about whether there should be mitigating or aggravating factors, because you're clearly of the view that it should be the outcome that determines whether there's a recall petition. So, I'll move on from that and say, in the Westminster model, clearly, it's more than 10 days. If you reflect back on the cases that have been dealt with here that have involved the 10-day number, would you see those as potentially involving recall, or do you think that there should be another category above 10 days that might trigger a recall? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784469 18 En 2026-11-09T13:28:43 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=357&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 7862 Douglas Bain Bain, Douglas No. I think—. On the complaints I identified in my paper where there was a sanction of longer than 10 days, I would have thought all of them were ones that were suitable for a recall poll. I highlighted also a case where it was seven days, and I think I described that as a borderline case. I think there are many people who would feel that the conduct in that case was of the kind that should have resulted in a recall poll, but there are others who would think it fell below that threshold. I think, whatever figure you pick, there are going to be instances that fall one side or the other, and that's why I think it's important the committee has a discretion. It's not mandatory if you impose a sanction of more than seven days, let's say, if that was the limit that you recommend a recall poll; that should be discretionary. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784435 19 En 2026-11-09T13:30:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=434&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784438 20 En 2026-11-09T13:30:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=434&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784577 21 En 2026-11-09T13:30:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=434&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784485 22 En 2026-11-09T13:35:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=734&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784578 23 En 2026-11-09T13:30:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=434&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen Okay. Thank you, Commissioner. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784445 24 En 2026-11-09T13:30:02 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=436&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you. Sam Rowlands, please. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784446 25 En 2026-11-09T13:30:10 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=444&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Douglas, for being with us this afternoon as well. I guess there's the old adage that voters get the politicians they deserve, and I just wonder how you think the balance is sought between Members being democratically elected and, therefore, that is who is elected, no matter, perhaps, what may happen, versus taking this as a possible sanction for somebody who perhaps misbehaves to a certain degree. And what sort of guardrails or safeguards do you think could be, or should be, put in place, to ensure that balance is about right? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784462 26 En 2026-11-09T13:31:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=494&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 7862 Douglas Bain Bain, Douglas Well, of course, the public do get the people they elected, but I think if that person conducted themselves in a way that was beyond the pale while they were in office, then the public should have a chance to review their decision. I think it's very difficult to think of sensible guidelines or protections at that stage. All I would say is that the whole procedure for dealing with complaints already has a large number of safeguards. The one I think is missing under the present procedure is that, although a Member has the right to address the committee before the committee makes a finding that there has been a breach, there is no separate right to address the committee on the question of sanction, and, in the future, that would obviously include a petition. Now, that appears to me to be contrary to normal practice, certainly in the criminal courts. You address the judge or the jury, whichever is appropriate, on whether your client is guilty or not, and then, once they've been found guilty, you make a separate submission in mitigation of the penalty. And that, it seems to me, is unfair at the moment, that, when a Member is perhaps denying a breach, that that's their only opportunity to put forward any mitigating circumstances, which might conflict with what they've been saying in trying to get off in the first place. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784473 27 En 2026-11-09T13:33:02 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=616&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Okay. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784474 28 En 2026-11-09T13:33:03 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=617&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Thanks, Douglas. Perhaps, Chair, if I may, just follow that up. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784476 29 En 2026-11-09T13:33:06 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=620&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Yes, certainly. Of course.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784488 30 En 2026-11-09T13:33:08 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=622&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam I think that's a fair reflection, so thanks for highlighting that to us. And you mentioned that there are already, perhaps, safeguards to prevent any vexatious or politically motivated complaint that may be unfair to a Member. But, of course, recall is such a significant sanction, potentially removing the democratic will of a constituency. Do you think there should be even more significant safeguards in place then, therefore, to reflect the significance of removing what was a democratic decision in the first place, or do you believe the existing safeguards are enough, despite this being a ramp-up in terms of consequence? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784481 31 En 2026-11-09T13:34:23 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=697&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 7862 Douglas Bain Bain, Douglas I think the existing safeguards are adequate. Of course, a vexatious complaint will probably never reach the committee in the first place, because the commissioner will deal with it. But I would just remind the committee that when lay members are added to the committee that will provide an additional safeguard against any perceived political attempt to remove a Member through the process. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784449 32 En 2026-11-09T13:37:21 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=875&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784421 33 En 2026-11-09T13:37:21 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=875&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784410 34 En 2026-11-09T13:35:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=734&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Okay, thank you. Ken Skates, do you have any questions, please? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784412 35 En 2026-11-09T13:35:07 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=741&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 267 267 Ken Skates https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=267 Skates, Ken Thank you. Yes. I was just wondering how we can ensure that the guidance is as clear as it possibly can be, and that it's accessible not just to Members of the Senedd and the committee, but also to the public in general. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784413 36 En 2026-11-09T13:35:26 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=760&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 7862 Douglas Bain Bain, Douglas By dealing with it in the same way as other important documents that the committee are responsible for, like the code of conduct—there's very good guidance on it. I just would urge caution, though. I think it's quite likely that when this procedure is used, there will be attempts to judicially review decisions. So, there's a danger that, if you try to simplify something and make it very easy to follow, you actually make it legally uncertain. I think great care has to be taken with the guidance.   16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784416 37 En 2026-11-09T13:36:14 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=808&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 267 267 Ken Skates https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=267 Skates, Ken Thank you. How often do you believe the guidance should be reviewed—after a number of cases, or after a specific period of time, or a combination of the two? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784417 38 En 2026-11-09T13:36:26 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=820&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 7862 Douglas Bain Bain, Douglas I think a combination of the two. I think it would be sensible to have a look at it after the first occasion on which it's used, to see if there are any teething problems that have to be sorted out. After that, I think it would be appropriate to do it in tandem with the reviews of the code of conduct. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784418 39 En 2026-11-09T13:36:50 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=844&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you. Members, do you have any other questions for the commissioner? No. Commissioner, thank you so much for providing us yet again with your evidence, and I just think that we—. Sorry, I'm being handed a note. Thank you so much. We'll have to take a short break while we wait for the next witness. But again, Mr Bain, thank you so much for providing your evidence to us today. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784420 40 En 2026-11-09T13:37:20 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=874&l=en 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards C 7862 Douglas Bain Bain, Douglas Thank you, Chair. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784425 41 Cy 261109-3 Session 1: Douglas Bain, Senedd Commissioner for Standards I The meeting adjourned between 13:37 and 13:38. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784426 42 En 2026-11-09T13:38:37 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=951&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay We're now public yet again, and it's my pleasure to welcome Dr Ben Stanford from Liverpool John Moores University. Welcome to you, Dr Stanford. You're joining us for an evidence-gathering session on the recall guidance that the Senedd is considering at the moment. The shape of the guidance perhaps is most important, and whether the guidance should provide broad principles or specific examples of conduct, or a combination of these approaches. These are issues that Members will perhaps like to ask you some questions on, please. Do you have anything you'd like to add, first of all? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784433 43 En 2026-11-09T13:39:19 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=993&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12574 Dr Ben Stanford Stanford, Dr Ben No. First of all, just thank you for inviting me, and I'm happy to help with anything I can today. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784437 44 En 2026-11-09T13:39:24 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=998&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you very much. Members, I'll go first of all to Elyn Stephens, who's going to ask the first question, please. Thank you.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784441 45 En 2026-11-09T13:39:33 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1007&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12164 12164 Elyn Stephens https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12164 Stephens, Elyn Diolch, Gadeirydd. Diolch and thank you, Dr Stanford, for joining us today. Our consultation identified particular concerns surrounding bullying, sexual harassment, deliberate deception and misuse of public resources. Do you think our guidance specifically should identify these as types of misconduct that could warrant recall, or would a broader principles-based approach be preferable in avoiding creating that kind of exhaustive list? And how do we ensure that the circumstances and seriousness of individual cases remain central to any decision made? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784451 46 En 2026-11-09T13:40:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1034&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784487 47 En 2026-11-09T13:44:56 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1330&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784463 48 En 2026-11-09T13:40:10 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1044&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12574 Dr Ben Stanford Stanford, Dr Ben I think I would generally support a broad, principle-based framework rather than setting out very specific examples when recall would be possible. But when it comes to things like bullying, harassment, sexual harassment, I think they should definitely be included as aggravating factors to be applied, and I know that's something that has already been considered. So, yes, I would definitely support a range of mitigating and aggravating factors that could be applied depending on the facts, depending on the circumstances. I think that answers the first question that you asked.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784465 49 En 2026-11-09T13:40:51 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1085&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you. Elyn, as you have the floor, would you like to perhaps ask further questions on the relationship with other sanctions, please? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784468 50 En 2026-11-09T13:41:02 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1096&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12164 12164 Elyn Stephens https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12164 Stephens, Elyn Diolch. From a public law and fairness perspective, what principles do you think should guide the committee when deciding whether recall is proportionate, rather than censure, exclusion from proceedings or removal of privileges? How should the guidance address circumstances where more than one sanction could apply?  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784475 51 En 2026-11-09T13:41:26 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1120&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12574 Dr Ben Stanford Stanford, Dr Ben Obviously, this is a brand-new mechanism, of course. So, tying in the code of conduct and those principles—selflessness, accountability, integrity and so on—I know that will already form a large part of the guidance, and I think that would have to underpin absolutely everything. Obviously, for recall, for retain or replace, it's the most serious, it's the most nuclear option that you could take as a sanction. Of course it is. So, there would need to be some kind of content in it to suggest that this would only apply for really serious examples of misconduct where these principles are violated, where the 27 rules about the code and so on are violated in some way. In the draft guidance, I think it would be quite useful to have some kind of principle, an overarching principle, where it states this can only be used if the other sanctions available would be plainly inadequate to deal with the gravity of the situation. Because the consequences are obviously severe for the Member, for constituents and for the Senedd as a whole. So you've got to get it right. The first time this is used, whenever it will be, is obviously going to set a precedent. It's going to set a benchmark, and other Members will be looking to that as an example of behaviour when recall is possible. I think getting these principles embedded in it, the rules embedded in it, and making it very clear that this is for the most serious types of conduct and misconduct—and, of course, when there are numerous aggravating factors at play as well—would be quite important. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784479 52 En 2026-11-09T13:43:21 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1235&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you. The next question is from Stephen Senior, please.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784482 53 En 2026-11-09T13:43:28 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1242&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen Good afternoon, Dr Stanford. I read your written submission that you made to this committee previously. On the issue of serious misconduct, you've already made clear that you think mitigating and aggravating factors should be taken into account. Do you think that repeated relatively minor breaches over a time would in themselves be an issue of serious misconduct? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784484 54 En 2026-11-09T13:44:02 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1276&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12574 Dr Ben Stanford Stanford, Dr Ben It depends on the facts and the circumstances. Of course it does. But if repeated offences or repeated examples of misconduct in some way could be considered to be throwing the Senedd into disrepute and affecting the reputation of the Senedd, then of course, that should be something to be considered. The phrase ‘three strikes and you're out’ possibly comes to mind, giving Members the chance to redeem themselves, change their behaviour, to respond to criticisms and other sanctions first, maybe. But if it's a repeat offence with repeat misconduct and lessons have not been learnt, then yes, I think that should be a potential example when recall is applied. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784459 55 En 2026-11-09T13:49:05 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1579&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784461 56 En 2026-11-09T13:49:07 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1581&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784419 57 En 2026-11-09T13:45:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1334&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen Thanks for that. My second question now. There's discussion about whether the 10-day threshold should be part of this. I know there's discussion, looking back on previous cases in the Senedd, about whether people feel that the 10 days, on historical cases, should or should not have triggered a recall petition. Do you think that there should be a figure like that included, or would you leave it more open ended? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784431 58 En 2026-11-09T13:45:35 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1369&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12574 Dr Ben Stanford Stanford, Dr Ben I think this is a really difficult issue. Obviously, in Westminster, 10 sitting days is the trigger. For anything less than that, recall won't apply; for anything more than that, it obviously will. That is obviously going to be in the minds of committee members. So, if you set a target or a threshold, then that is obviously going to be in everyone's minds, and that will set a benchmark. It's useful in some ways to make it very clear about when recall will take place, but it does risk creating a straitjacket, and the guidance here can be turned into a straitjacket in many, many ways. If you really do make it too prescriptive and too specific, then it really will strip you of a lot of your flexibility. As I think many people have said, all of these examples of misconduct might come your way. They're going to be so different, they're going to be very contextual, so I think it would probably be best to keep it open, at least for the first time that this happens, and then evaluate afterwards. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784434 59 En 2026-11-09T13:46:52 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1446&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen Thank you, Dr Stanford. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784436 60 En 2026-11-09T13:46:54 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1448&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you very much. The next question is from Sam Rowlands, please. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784439 61 En 2026-11-09T13:47:01 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1455&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Thank you, Chair, and thank you for joining us this afternoon, Dr Stanford. Just picking up your theme from the last question, I suspect, as guidance should be drafted, the type of language throughout it would, of course, be 'could' and 'should'. Even if there were lines saying 10 days, I guess the guidance, therefore—[Inaudible.]—those decision makers to consider that. Would you agree with that, or do you think there should be hard and fast rules, rather than the 'should' and 'could' language in the guidance? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784444 62 En 2026-11-09T13:47:45 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1499&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12574 Dr Ben Stanford Stanford, Dr Ben I missed some of that question because of a connection issue, but I think it was, again, along the lines of should a 10-day suspension be a serious point for recall. Again, I think I would just echo what I said earlier, really, that if the guidance is drafted in a way that is too prescriptive and it really sets out a very specific framework, then that is going to constrain your ability to apply sanctions, but also possibly create loopholes for other behaviour to fall through the cracks. This has happened in Westminster where things have happened that weren't originally considered, and then things have had to change afterwards: for example, the independent expert panel that was created a few years ago to deal with some kinds of appeals. So, yes, I think you'd be best keeping it open ended, but with the principles set out and with the mitigating and aggravating factors also set out. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784452 63 En 2026-11-09T13:48:53 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1567&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Okay, thank you. The last question— 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784453 64 En 2026-11-09T13:49:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1574&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Sorry, Chair, I'd like to come back. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784455 65 En 2026-11-09T13:49:01 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1575&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Sorry, I didn't realise. Yes, please do. I do apologise. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784457 66 En 2026-11-09T13:49:04 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1578&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam I had to wait for my microphone to be unmuted. Thank you. Thanks for that response, Dr Stanford, and apologies if there's a slight connection issue from my side. Just going on to safeguards, as you said earlier on, a recall is the most serious of sanctions because the electorate have made known their will to have somebody elected. You could say that there's already a recall system in place, which is that every four or five years Members are given a vote of confidence or not in their behaviour or in their conduct. So, with the opportunity to remove the electorate's will of having somebody elected, do you think there should be even firmer safeguards in place than currently exist to ensure that there's no sort of vexatious or politically motivated work to remove somebody from their rightfully elected position? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784466 67 En 2026-11-09T13:50:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1634&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784477 68 En 2026-11-09T13:50:20 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1654&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12574 Dr Ben Stanford Stanford, Dr Ben Yes, it's a great point and there has to be natural justice built into this. Obviously, the committee is not a court, but it's a quasi-court, it's a quasi-judicial body, with very serious consequences for the Member. So, at the bare minimum, the Member in question needs to have the right to be heard, to present evidence, to see the evidence against them. Now, of course, another thorny issue is a right to appeal, and I know this does cause extra trouble and it slows down the process, but I would suggest that a right of appeal is quite essential here. And I noticed that, in the past, Members were able to appeal to the Presiding Officer against decisions, but that's been cancelled now; that's been revoked, I believe. So, that might cause some issues here. So, I think an appeal mechanism is needed for Members; this is what exists in the UK model for Westminster, and it is a basic component of due process to have the right to be heard, but also the right to an appeal afterwards. I know that will cause extra expense and slow down everything, but we would hope that this is going to be a very rare occurrence for all of this. So, I think it could be justified to bring back that right to appeal to the Presiding Officer. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784480 69 En 2026-11-09T13:51:52 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1746&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you. And finally, Mr Ken Skates, please. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784483 70 En 2026-11-09T13:51:58 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1752&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 267 267 Ken Skates https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=267 Skates, Ken Diolch, Chair. How do you think the guidance can be made as clear as possible and as accessible as possible to the committee, to Members of the Senedd, and generally to members of the public? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784486 71 En 2026-11-09T13:52:16 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1770&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12574 Dr Ben Stanford Stanford, Dr Ben So, as I said before, I think embedding the code of conduct into this, because that's something that all Members are very aware of already, and I'm sure a lot of the public will be aware of this; the 27 rules that all Members must abide by, making that very clear also in this guidance. Of course, the accessibility requirements, the language, publishing it in various formats, I think a lot of these things kind of go without saying now. But, of course, public awareness, so some kind of public awareness campaign to maybe just inform the public about this or the limits of this. Because we see so often in the news where journalists or public campaigners are demanding that a politician be recalled for whatever reason, and of course that is simply not possible; it's not possible in Westminster, it's not possible in the Senedd. So, there needs to be very clear information and advice to the public about when this is relevant and how it applies, otherwise it's just going to create confusion, it's going to create disillusionment. So, again, it just has to be right and transparent as much as possible. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784489 72 En 2026-11-09T13:53:37 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1851&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 267 267 Ken Skates https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=267 Skates, Ken Thank you. And how often do you think the guidance should be revised? Should it be revised on the basis of a certain period of time or a certain number of cases, or a combination? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784490 73 En 2026-11-09T13:53:52 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1866&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12574 Dr Ben Stanford Stanford, Dr Ben I think certainly the first time that recall, or retain or replace, is considered, certainly the first time it's actually applied, but for any borderline cases, I think maybe you should consider it after a few of those. But if that doesn't happen, if there is not one actual retain or replace poll, then certainly after a couple of years or by the end of the current Senedd term, perhaps. So, a few years maximum, I would suggest. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784494 74 En 2026-11-09T13:54:27 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1901&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? No more questions. Thank you. Dr Stanford, thank you so much indeed for giving us your valuable time today and presenting evidence to this committee. We're very grateful indeed. Hope you have a good day. Thank you.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784495 75 En 2026-11-09T13:54:44 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1918&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 12574 Dr Ben Stanford Stanford, Dr Ben Thank you very much. Goodbye.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784498 76 En 2026-11-09T13:54:45 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=1919&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you. Bye-bye. And we have a short break. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784499 77 Cy 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University I The meeting adjourned between 14:54 and 14:56. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784442 78 Cy 2026-11-09T00:00:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=-48166&l=en 261109-4 Session 2: Dr Ben Stanford, Liverpool John Moores University C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784427 79 En 2026-11-09T13:56:09 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2003&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay The committee is back in public session, and it's my pleasure to welcome Professor Alistair Clark from Newcastle University, who is here to assist the committee on the recall guidance, and answer any questions that Members may have. A very warm official welcome to you, Professor Clark. Obviously, the shape of the guidance, it's whether the guidance should provide broad principles or specific examples of conduct, or a combination of these approaches, those are levels of detail that—. Hopefully, there are some examples you may be able to provide in our guidance. Members will ask you questions accordingly. We've had the submission. I'll call the first Member. Elyn Stephens would like to ask you some questions, please. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784460 80 En 2026-11-09T13:57:06 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2060&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 12164 12164 Elyn Stephens https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12164 Stephens, Elyn Diolch, Gadeirydd. Diolch, thanks for joining us, Professor Clark. Chair, you'll be glad to know that I've merged my two questions into one. Professor Clark, you've previously expressed concerns about the level of direction available to the committee and the importance of objective criteria. Do you think the guidance should establish a clearer threshold for the types of seriousness of misconduct that might warrant recall rather than offering illustrative examples? Should persistent minor breaches be capable of triggering recall where they demonstrate a repeated disregard for the code of conduct? And lastly, do you think there should be a single guidance for all sanctions or separate recall guidance alongside existing arrangements? Diolch. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784470 81 En 2026-11-09T13:57:56 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2110&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 10596 Professor Alistair Clark Clark, Professor Alistair Thank you for the question. There are a few questions there, so let me try and take them from the general to the more specific. In general terms, there's always a tension between whether a code of conduct should be seen as general principles or as specific sets of rules. I think the difficulty with this in providing guidance is that it's difficult to provide a set of rules that will hold sway under all circumstances. One thing that the guidance should make clear is that any examples that it gives are non-exhaustive. In other words, you can't cover every single example. So, I think you have to cover that ground. My preference would be for something that starts at the general principles. You use the word 'seriousness', and I think this should very much be the kind of guiding light. Indeed, trigger event A gives you a sense of the seriousness with which I think the committee should be thinking about this, that this is to do with being convicted. So, it really does need to be a fairly serious event. I think, preferably start with those general principles. By all means, give some sort of sense of how the committee will view things. I think the commissioner for standards, in his submission, has given a reasonable approach to this, which is to look at actual examples that are in the public domain of how the committee and its predecessors have made decisions in the past. He uses the example of suspensions, and I think suspensions are really one of the crucial links between the recall regime and the broader sanctions regime, but I think it has to be guided by that notion of seriousness. In terms of whether or not persistent misbehaviour, misconduct, non-compliance with the code of conduct should be seen as grounds for recall, I think there is a case for seeing that kind of behaviour as grounds for further sanction. Whether that, then, actually amounts to grounds for recall I think depends on judgment. It may well be that a suspension of some sort is more appropriate than going for recall, but that can show a pattern of behaviour that is non-compliant with the code. It certainly merits looking at again. Whether that comes to recall and that sort of seriousness criteria, I think, is going to be a matter of case-by-case judgment. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784491 82 En 2026-11-09T14:00:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2234&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784505 83 En 2026-11-09T14:01:14 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2308&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 12164 12164 Elyn Stephens https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12164 Stephens, Elyn Diolch. Thank you for that. That's really useful. I just wanted to add, in addition: is there anything out there or are there any criteria that you think would protect us against making inconsistent decisions in comparable cases, going on the point you made earlier that you can't put something in place that's going to cover everything and all possibilities?  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784507 84 En 2026-11-09T14:01:39 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2333&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 10596 Professor Alistair Clark Clark, Professor Alistair I think that what you need to think carefully about is how you would operationalise seriousness, how you would actually put that into practice. And I think that is fundamentally the crucial issue. The committee will have some sense of how this has been done in the past, I would imagine, by recommending lengths of suspensions and those kinds of things, but I think that is the fundamental crux of it: how do you operationalise the seriousness of a particular offence?  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784510 85 En 2026-11-09T14:02:20 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2374&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Okay. Thank you. The next question is from Stephen Senior, please. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784513 86 En 2026-11-09T14:02:26 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2380&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen Good afternoon, Professor Clark. You've already touched on this to some extent. When we talk about mitigating factors or aggravating factors, we are talking about serious and very serious misconduct here. Do you think they should be considered, and if so, do you think that the guidance should list some of those factors that could be taken into account? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784522 87 En 2026-11-09T14:02:55 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2409&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 10596 Professor Alistair Clark Clark, Professor Alistair I think the main focus of any particular consideration of recall should be the case in front of the committee at that period in time. That said, in the guidance for the code of conduct, I think I'm right in saying, there is a kind of nod to this notion that previous conduct will be taken into account. There are words to the effect that non-attendance at training, I think I'm right in saying, will be taken into account. So, that kind of thing, back to that idea of a pattern of behaviour, may well be something that feeds into it. But I think the actual crucial thing is: what are the facts of the case; what are the probabilities of the case that you're considering in front of you? It may well be, and I think the commissioner mentioned this before, that you do hear representations from a Member, from their representatives, who may wish to give mitigating circumstances and so on. There are several of those that you list that I don't think really should be considered, such as a lack of knowledge of the code of conduct and those kinds of things. Because, quite simply, Members are given training, they should be given refresher training and those kinds of things. The standards expected of Members are not and should not be a secret. So, I prefer a focus on the specific case at hand, but if necessary—and I think that's again going to be on a case-by-case basis—some of these mitigating or other factors to be taken into account. That principle, I think, is already there in the code of conduct guidance that's out there. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784531 88 En 2026-11-09T14:04:54 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2528&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen Thank you, Professor. My second question would be: there's considerable discussion about the 10-day threshold applied at Westminster and some say that a recall should be linked to a number of days, and others say otherwise. Do you have a view on whether there should be a specific number of days recommended for a recall consideration? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784496 89 En 2026-11-09T14:05:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2534&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784500 90 En 2026-11-09T14:05:20 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2554&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 10596 Professor Alistair Clark Clark, Professor Alistair I think that the recall consideration should, most likely, given the seriousness, be linked, definitely, to suspension. I think that's the most likely thing to trigger this. Ten days or seven days? I mean, to some degree, there's going to be a degree of, 'Does this fall that side or does this fall the other side?' And, indeed, there's been controversy around that 10-day limit in the House of Commons recall process in the past and suggestion that Members are behaving in a particular way to avoid triggering that. I think that kind of behaviour potentially will happen if you set the limit at seven days, if you set it at 15 or if you set it at 10. I think the question, quite simply, is seriousness, and whether the Member is able to do their job on behalf of their constituents for the period they're suspended. Seven days, a week? Well, perhaps that's not so bad. When you start to get beyond that, into two weeks, I think you're into quite a period of constituents without the services of that particular representative. I think it's going to be a largely arbitrary choice, but I think that the decision is somewhere around that seven-day to 10-day limit. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784551 91 En 2026-11-09T14:06:55 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2649&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen Thank you, Professor. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784552 92 En 2026-11-09T14:06:57 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2651&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you. The next question is from Sam Rowlands, please. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784553 93 En 2026-11-09T14:07:01 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2655&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Thank you, Chair. Professor Clark, thank you for your time this afternoon. As has been mentioned previously, this is the most serious of sanctions for a Member, and, obviously, to reflect the most serious of misconduct, potentially. I'm just wondering, in terms of safeguards surrounding the procedure to make sure that this is not taken advantage of in the wrong way, whether you think there should be additional safeguards within the guidance to support and ensure there's a fair and due process for that—[Inaudible.] 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784560 94 En 2026-11-09T14:07:45 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2699&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 10596 Professor Alistair Clark Clark, Professor Alistair To be clear, I think all standards processes have the potential for vexatious complaints being made. I think there's evidence of this having happened in numerous jurisdictions. I think the most important thing is, quite simply, that it's only serious complaints that end up making their way to the committee in the first place. So, I think that, in and of itself, is a safeguard—the commissioner looks at it and decides before giving it to the committee. That protects the committee from any sort of vexatious complaints and so on. The committee, of course, is free to decide in whichever manner it wishes about what sanction it may want to apply to any particular complaint. So, that, in and of itself—the process that the committee would undergo to actually consider a particular complaint—I think you should see as a safeguard as well. You have to also, I think, in this, consider the fact that the public would have a view on this as a safeguard in some ways as well, because the public may not decide, of course, on what's put to them to get rid of the Member; they may decide to retain them. So, there's an additional element there. I think, to my mind, the system as it is has sufficient safeguards. I don't know if you've got any particular safeguards in mind in suggesting those, but, from my point of view, I think that there are sufficient safeguards in the process as is. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784565 95 En 2026-11-09T14:09:34 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2808&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Thanks for your response. I guess it's ensuring that the seriousness of the sanction is fully understood. The electorate have already had their say as to who they want to represent them and they have an opportunity to change their minds in four or five years' time already. So, there is already a recall system in place for all Members of Parliaments. I was struck slightly by what you said there in terms of our system here in Wales, of course, because, for example, with it being a proportional system in Wales, I was elected with 13 or 14 per cent of the votes in my constituency, which is quite different to a first-past-the-post system, of course, where there's much less ambiguity as to what the electorate wants. So, the seriousness of this particular sanction is perhaps felt even further in a proportional system. So, yes, it was just a general point around the seriousness of this sanction, and ensuring that there are guardrails or safeguards in place, so it's not a flippant choice by a committee, and whether the existing safeguards would satisfy the seriousness of this escalation compared to what is in place today. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784493 96 En 2026-11-09T14:10:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2834&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784549 97 En 2026-11-09T14:14:59 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3133&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784504 98 En 2026-11-09T14:10:01 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2835&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 10596 Professor Alistair Clark Clark, Professor Alistair My general feeling is 'yes'. I mean, I take the point about the electoral system. I don't think it's ideal that you have a closed-list proportional system with a recall system, and there aren't that many of these around the world, unfortunately, that we can look at for examples. So, I do take that point. But I think there are plenty of safeguards in this. You have a multi-party committee. You will have an additional safeguard, as the committee goes forward and the legislation is implemented, in that you will have lay members on the committee as well. So, to my mind, I think there are sufficient safeguards in the process that, by the time it gets to the committee considering recall, you actually know you're dealing with a serious offence or misconduct. So, I'd be less concerned about vexatious complaints making their way to that stage, I think. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784512 99 En 2026-11-09T14:12:19 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2973&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Thank you, Chair. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784517 100 En 2026-11-09T14:12:20 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2974&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you very much. The next questions are from Ken Skates, please. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784521 101 En 2026-11-09T14:12:26 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=2980&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 267 267 Ken Skates https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=267 Skates, Ken Diolch, Chair. Can I just ask about how to make the guidance clear and accessible? What's your view on making sure that members of the public, Senedd Members and the committee can access it in the most convenient way? And, obviously, there are different audiences, so what form do you think the guidance should take? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784525 102 En 2026-11-09T14:12:51 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3005&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 10596 Professor Alistair Clark Clark, Professor Alistair I think, quite simply, plain language. I think the guidance that you have for the code of conduct at the moment is actually quite good. It's accessible and it's fairly easily understood. I'd caution against thinking that too many members of the public will be reading this guidance. I mean, it's mainly going to be media organisations who will be looking at this on their behalf, if that makes sense. So, the main audiences are going to be Members and that kind of thing. But, quite simply, plain language is the best way to do it. I think there may be a use for a flow chart somewhere in there of what the steps are and the processes are, to help people be guided through this. The legislation's not necessarily straightforward, and if you have some familiarity with standards processes, it makes sense. But, to someone coming to this without that, a flow chart, I think, would be helpful. But, quite simply, plain language. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784536 103 En 2026-11-09T14:14:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3074&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 267 267 Ken Skates https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=267 Skates, Ken And how often do you think the guidance should be revised? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784537 104 En 2026-11-09T14:14:03 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3077&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 267 267 Ken Skates https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=267 Skates, Ken That's a good question. It should be looked at, certainly, after the first use. However, I think I would caution about reading too much into the first use of it, quite simply, because the first use of any legislation can be anomalous. We saw that with the Recall of MPs Act 2015 that was used in the House of Commons, which was used against Ian Paisley Jr. So, I'd caution against reading too much into that. So, probably after the first and second uses, and then I think it should be reviewed in line with and at the same time as the code of conduct, to be honest. I think I would see it as being part of that broader review piece, because it is a piece of legislation that very clearly relates to the code of conduct. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784548 105 En 2026-11-09T14:14:56 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3130&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 267 267 Ken Skates https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=267 Skates, Ken Perfect. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784614 106 En 2026-11-09T14:15:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3134&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you very much. Do Members have any other questions? No questions. It just remains for me to say, Professor Clark, thank you so much for spending your time giving evidence to this committee. We're very grateful indeed to you. Thank you so much. I hope you have a good day. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784613 107 En 2026-11-09T14:15:18 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3152&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 10596 Professor Alistair Clark Clark, Professor Alistair My pleasure, Chair. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784478 108 En 2026-11-09T14:15:20 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3154&l=en 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you very much. And we'll slip back now into private session.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784492 109 Cy 261109-5 Session 3: Professor Alistair Clark, Newcastle University I The meeting adjourned between 14:15 and 14:16. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784527 110 En 2026-11-09T14:16:55 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3249&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay We are now back in public session, and it's my pleasure indeed, as Chair of this standards committee, to welcome Professor Tonge from the University of Liverpool, who is going to give evidence on our recall guidance. Thank you very much indeed for attending today. It's the shape of the guidance, really, we're concerned about—whether the guidance should provide broad principles, specific examples of conduct, or a combination of these approaches. Those are the broad questions that Members will ask you as a result of your submitted evidence. And, if you don't mind, we'll go straight into the questions and the first questions are from Elyn Stephens, please. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784546 111 En 2026-11-09T14:17:44 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3298&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 12164 12164 Elyn Stephens https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12164 Stephens, Elyn Diolch, Gadeirydd. Diolch, thank you, Professor Tonge, for joining us today. Given your research into the Westminster system, how do you think we should make the distinction between serious misconduct and the ones that are serious enough to warrant a recall, and which breaches should attract those lesser sanctions? Do you think that it's helpful for any guidance to include a list of both types of conduct, and how do you think we should approach those minor breaches? Do you think continuous minor breaches should end up in a call for recall? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784555 112 En 2026-11-09T14:18:21 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3335&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 10973 Professor Jonathan Tonge Tonge, Professor Jonathan Thanks very much. I think you need a balance between prescription and a limited amount of ad hocery in terms of the instructions you should offer. I think you need to offer a clear outline of conduct where a significant presumption of a recall sanction would be displayed. Examples are—I can list a few here—fraud, financial impropriety, failure to declare interests, bullying, harassment, abuse, threatening behaviour, religious discrimination, racism, sectarianism. So, you've got to have a broad list of categories where there is that presumption that there would be a recall sanction, but I think it is crucial that that list, and that it's made very, very clear, is not exhaustive. Otherwise, that is a hook on which people could potentially wriggle. And if you look at the cases from Westminster, you wonder whether—. There have been six recall petitions, six recall procedures, and five cases where recall probably would have occurred. And you could have covered some of them with a list, but you probably wouldn't have covered all of them—for example, inappropriate behaviour during the COVID crisis. How could you know that if you're writing a list of items? You would be struggling to anticipate events like that. So, I think it's really crucial for the committee to be as prescriptive as it can, but also offering some measure—whether 'ad hocery' is quite the right term, I don't know—where each case will be considered on its merit and that this is not an exhaustive list of cases. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784497 113 En 2026-11-09T14:20:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3434&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784539 114 En 2026-11-09T14:20:08 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3442&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you. Anything further, Elyn? 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784541 115 En 2026-11-09T14:20:13 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3447&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 12164 12164 Elyn Stephens https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12164 Stephens, Elyn Yes, if it's okay with you, Chair, I'll move on to the second question. You've spoken before about your concern between the cliff edge of a suspension and recall. How would you think we should be best approaching that for our guidance?  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784544 116 En 2026-11-09T14:20:31 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3465&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 10973 Professor Jonathan Tonge Tonge, Professor Jonathan Well, in many ways you've avoided that, because recall is a stand-alone sanction here, and in many ways I would applaud that. I said the last time I gave evidence that this was a great chance to improve on what is already a good piece of legislation at Westminster, the Recall of MPs Act 2015, and I think, without currying favour, you've done a really good job in making it a recall versus retain stand-alone procedure. I think it would be probably wrong to try and map onto the previous cases of sanction here, to try and list them as illustrative cases, because I think the committee concluded—I made a note of it—the committee concluded last time, 'It is difficult to say—.' I thought I'd brought it with my notes here. Here we are: paragraph 121 of your recommendations last time, you said, ‘The lowest suspension given to date by the Committee is seven days and the highest is 42 days. A list of suspensions to date is at annex A. It is difficult to say what impact a recall trigger at 10 sitting days may have had on these penalties.’ And I think that's correct. And I don't think that retrospectively you should go through the seven-to-42-day list to say, ‘Yes, A would have triggered it, but B wouldn't have.’ I think that's in the past, it's pre legislation, and I think you have to start afresh in terms of that. In terms of how you decide whether misconduct should trigger a recall, if you want to quantify it, there are ways to do it. You could have a scale from, for example, 1 to 4, where offences scaled at 1 or 2 would be into apology territory—apology to the Senedd, for example—and offences 3 and 4 would carry the presumption, subject to the submission of mitigating circumstances, that you'd be into recall territory at that point. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784554 117 En 2026-11-09T14:22:31 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3585&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you. And the next question is from Stephen Senior, please. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784557 118 En 2026-11-09T14:22:35 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3589&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen Yes, thank you for coming, Professor. I was only elected in May, but I read your oral submission previously, which was most interesting and very detailed. So, we're talking about mitigating circumstances and aggravating factors as well. Would you detail that or just make it quite open-ended? 'They are factors that would be considered.' That's the first part of my question. The second one—you've already referred to this—people have looked back and looked at what tariff was done, and I know that last time you discussed whether that 10 days was appropriate. So, you've said to start with a clean sheet of paper on this one, rather than try to base it on previous cases. So, you've probably answered my question on that one as well. My second question would be, because I noticed last time you mentioned about an appeals process— 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784567 119 En 2026-11-09T14:23:34 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3648&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 10973 Professor Jonathan Tonge Tonge, Professor Jonathan Yes.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784568 120 En 2026-11-09T14:23:36 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3650&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen So, the first thing would be: where are you in terms of aggravating factors, particularly perhaps if there has been a series of relatively minor breaches? Could that all add up to being a serious misconduct issue? And secondly, your thoughts on a potential appeal process.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784575 121 En 2026-11-09T14:23:51 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3665&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 10973 Professor Jonathan Tonge Tonge, Professor Jonathan Okay. In terms of the aggravations, I think the factors to take into consideration are the number of breaches of the code of conduct—and your code of conduct is comprehensive—. And I do think, in terms of any sanctions, in terms of the public notice that goes with that, it needs to be mapped onto what offence, which part of the code of conduct is breached. You might want to follow Westminster, because Westminster not only issues the code of conduct, but it issues the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members in a single document, which is, I think, quite a good idea, quite specific. But the number of breaches, the frequency of those breaches, the severity of those breaches would be the aggravating factors to take into consideration. The mitigations I think you should list, but stressing that this is not exhaustive—there might be something that none of us have thought of that could be a mitigating factor—but the ones that I think need listing are: self-referral; co-operation with the investigation rather than being obstructive—if a Member is obstructive, it's a further aggravation; mental or physical health difficulties; personal circumstances—family bereavement, for example; the absence of personal gain; first offence and previous good conduct. I think those are legitimate mitigations—potential mitigations, at least—to list, whilst stressing that's not exhaustive. In terms of an appeals process, yes, I think there needs to be an appeals process in the interests of justice because a person's employment is potentially at stake here. If you appear before an industrial tribunal, you can have a legal representative with you. That's something to be considered: whether the person would appear solo or with a legal representative. There ought to be an appeals process. I think, if I read the legislation right in terms of trigger A, the sanction would be done before a legal appeal process. But in terms of trigger B, I think there needs to be an appeals process.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784503 122 En 2026-11-09T14:25:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3734&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784509 123 En 2026-11-09T14:25:57 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3791&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 12160 12160 Stephen Senior https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=12160 Senior, Stephen Thanks. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784511 124 En 2026-11-09T14:25:58 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3792&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you very much indeed. The next question is from Sam Rowlands, please. Sam Rowlands will be on your screen. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784514 125 En 2026-11-09T14:26:07 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3801&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Thanks, Chair. Apologies, Professor Tonge, that I can't be with you in the room this afternoon. I just want to pick up on—you touched upon it there—potential safeguards, and you mentioned the appeals process. Those safeguards are really important to ensure that the democratic will of the electorate, who've already had their say in terms of electing somebody, is understood within this potential sanction. I just wonder if you think there should be any further procedural safeguards to ensure that there is fairness built into this process. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784520 126 En 2026-11-09T14:26:52 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3846&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 10973 Professor Jonathan Tonge Tonge, Professor Jonathan I think, to echo—. I heard the evidence from my colleague Professor Alistair Clark earlier. You do have safeguards built in, but the fact that you've got a minimum of one lay member, I think, is a very useful safeguard. If you really wanted to stretch safeguards—and this is not a recommendation, it's just something that I thought—you could have a supermajority within the committee before the recall process is triggered. That is one possibility. As I say, it's not necessarily a recommendation, but it's something to consider. So, you'd need, for example, 70 per cent of the committee, or 65 per cent of committee members, two thirds of the committee members, whatever, in favour of recall, so that you're getting, not unanimity, but you're getting something closer to it. The right of appeal, I think, is a crucial safeguard and one that's based upon fairness. As I say, I think recall processes via trigger A could have waited until the appeals process was exhausted. Because, as I say, local councillors who are imprisoned are not removed until their appeals process is exhausted. So, I suppose the same principles could apply to Senedd Members.  I think the other thing, during the period of a recall poll, is it business as usual for the Member? That's what I was puzzled about. Is it business as usual pending the electorate's verdict? Is that a safeguard, so there's no presumption—? If it is business as usual, in one sense it's to be welcomed, because it removes the presumption of guilt that might be there. I think the combination of some of those parts would represent sufficient safeguards overall. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784526 127 En 2026-11-09T14:28:45 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=3959&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Thanks for the response. Just to respond to your thought there, I would assume it's business as usual. If someone's elected to do a role, they should continue to do that unless they're not elected any more to do that role. But I guess that's a consideration elsewhere. I was just thinking also about the political jeopardy, which isn't quite the same with this. It's very much a personal jeopardy for the individual. Because of the proportional representation system we have, the political jeopardy of a recall really isn't there compared to a first-past-the-post system, where, of course, whenever that has been instigated at Westminster level, the political party that the Member who has been recalled is a part of has always lost that election. Do you think that would change the attitude, or potentially change the attitude, of a panel or a committee? And should there be some particular safeguards in place there then to ensure that it is—? Because knowing it is much more a personal thing rather than a political thing, that could mitigate against any unnecessary interference or this being an over-the-top reaction in terms of a sanction. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784501 128 En 2026-11-09T14:30:00 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4034&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784543 129 En 2026-11-09T14:34:45 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4319&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784502 130 En 2026-11-09T14:30:06 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4040&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 10973 Professor Jonathan Tonge Tonge, Professor Jonathan I think it's actually a really good thing that it's a personal thing, because you've seen seats change hands, as you implied, in terms of the Westminster cases. You've seen parties lose the seat under first-past-the-post as a consequence of personal misdemeanours, which I don't think is healthy for the body politic, because these are personal cases rather than political cases. So, I think you potentially have a superior system here, whereby the individual who has committed these misdemeanours is removed by the electorate, so it's a democratic process, but the political party doesn't suffer. I think that's the right way forward. I've lamented the fact that seats have necessarily changed hands as a consequence of the electorate punishing a miscreant's party as well as the person, in terms of the Westminster system. It's one of the few criticisms that I have of the outworking of the Recall of MPs Act 2015, because it's not a party matter, unless the party has tried to hide the conduct of the miscreants. So, I actually think it's healthy that it is such a personal sanction rather than a political sanction. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784506 131 En 2026-11-09T14:31:25 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4119&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Thanks, Chair. Perhaps one last point, if I may. I'm conscious we have the professor in the room, so I'll make the most of his time if possible. I'm just wondering whether you'd consider that any public interest consideration should carry weight in a committee's decision making as well. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784508 132 En 2026-11-09T14:31:44 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4138&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 10973 Professor Jonathan Tonge Tonge, Professor Jonathan The public interest is represented in terms of the electorate's verdict in this particular case, so I don't think it's for the committee to decide what the public interest is in that. I was interested in what was said about the notification of what has gone on here, because section 6, Part 1, of the Senedd Cymru (Member Accountability and Elections) Act 2026, states that the recall poll notice 'must specify—... 'information about the trigger event that has occurred in relation to the Member of the Senedd', but there isn't any more detail as to what format that should take, and I think that is an interesting aspect in terms of the public notice of the poll. What information, and how, will the public be provided with in terms of what the person has done? You can't really put it on the ballot paper, because I think it would pre-empt the electorate's outcome, so I assume that some sort of executive summary of this committee's findings would be available to the electorate. Would electors be notified of the link to that executive finding, in that sense, to better inform the public? Let's be honest: whilst we may live and breathe politics, I'm not sure how much the public would follow, necessarily, the nuance and details of a remove or retain thing, and they may be asking, 'Where do we get the information on this?' So, that needs thinking about, perhaps, in greater detail. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784528 133 En 2026-11-09T14:33:17 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4231&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 8734 8734 Sam Rowlands https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=8734 Rowlands, Sam Thank you, Chair. Thanks. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784530 134 En 2026-11-09T14:33:19 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4233&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you very much. Finally, Ken Skates, please. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784533 135 En 2026-11-09T14:33:23 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4237&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 267 267 Ken Skates https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=267 Skates, Ken Thank you, Chair. I'd just like to know your views on how you see the guidance being designed and delivered in a way that is as clear as possible to the public, to Members of the Senedd and to the committee. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784535 136 En 2026-11-09T14:33:38 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4252&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 10973 Professor Jonathan Tonge Tonge, Professor Jonathan Different aspects on that. Firstly, I think you've got a very broad and comprehensive code of conduct. As I said earlier, I would extend the code of conduct—using the Westminster model—to the guide to the rules relating to the conduct of Members. You can publish it as one volume. I think you'd have to review after each case the procedures and the code of conduct, and, as a minimum, probably every two years, certainly in the lifetime of a Senedd, review the code of conduct and any attendant rules. And also, like I say, in terms of offences committed or alleged offences, they need mapping, I think, to the code of conduct. Bullying would come under, for example, I think section 2 of the code of conduct or rule 2 of the code of conduct—I'll stand corrected on that. That is how I would outline and update procedures on a regular basis. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784538 137 En 2026-11-09T14:34:42 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4316&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 267 267 Ken Skates https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=267 Skates, Ken Thank you. Thank you, Chair.  16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784540 138 En 2026-11-09T14:34:44 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4318&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay Thank you very much. Members, any other questions, please? No. Well, Professor Tonge, thank you so much for coming and spending the time, some considerable time getting to us, and I hope your journey home is much quicker and, obviously, safe as well. Thank you so much indeed for your attendance. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784545 139 En 2026-11-09T14:35:05 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4339&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 10973 Professor Jonathan Tonge Tonge, Professor Jonathan Thank you very much. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784547 140 En 2026-11-09T14:35:06 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4340&l=en 261109-6 Session 4: Professor Jonathan Tonge, University of Liverpool C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay We're very grateful. Thank you. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784571 141 Cy 261109-7 3. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 (vi) and (ix) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of today's meeting I Motion: that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix). 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784572 142 Cy 261109-7 3. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 (vi) and (ix) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of today's meeting I Motion moved. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784573 143 En 2026-11-09T14:35:10 http://www.senedd.tv/en/16434?startPos=4344&l=en 261109-7 3. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 (vi) and (ix) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of today's meeting C 518 518 Lindsay Whittle https://business.senedd.wales/mgUserInfo.aspx?UID=518 Whittle, Lindsay We're going to remain in public, Members, because we have to move into private session. Therefore, I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix), that the committee resolves to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are Members, please, all content? Are you content? Then we will move into private session. Thank you all for your contributions in the last session. 16434 7 2026-11-09T13:22:54 784574 144 Cy 261109-7 3. Motion under Standing Order 17.42 (vi) and (ix) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of today's meeting I Motion agreed. The public part of the meeting ended at 14:35.