Reform Bill Committee

Diolch yn fawr. Perhaps my officials could introduce themselves.

Bore da. I'm Michael Kay. I'm the deputy director for elections.

Good morning. I'm Ryan Price. I'm head of Senedd reform policy, Welsh Government.

I'm Sharon Barry from legal services, and I'm the drafter of the Order.

Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, I appreciate that you weren't the Member in charge of either of the two Bills, actually, that we face under the conduct Order, but you are in charge of the conduct Order, so we want to go through a few things. We also appreciate that, at this point, it's a consultation still ongoing, and the intention of this committee is to look at the conduct Order to see if we can actually submit any extra information to that consultation process, knowing that the Order will come before the Senedd in the future for consideration.

So, I'll start off with simple questions. I suppose the conduct Orders, as we know, always have been in place to ensure elections run smoothly, and when we did the Stage 1 review of the Bill, clearly, the then Member in charge highlighted that various things would be placed on the conduct Order, rather than on the face of the Bill. So, how have you then gone about developing the conduct Order? Have you looked back at the previous conduct Order? How much of what exists will remain in the conduct Order? How much is new going in to actually address the issues that were told to us both at Stage 1, Stage 2 and Stage 3 of the Bill as it progressed through the Senedd?

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd, and thank you to the committee for having me here today. I'm pleased to be able to come, and I thank you for your interest in this conduct Order. As you said, I haven't been the Minister in charge during that time, but I am now, so my officials are very au fait with the issues, and I think we've got some real technical expertise here, if the committee does want to go into that.

Perhaps I could just say a few things at the outset, Cadeirydd, before going a bit more into detail about your questions. As you know, the conduct Order contains detailed rules for the Senedd, and I'm very pleased we've been able to fully redraft the Order as a single instrument for the first time since the responsibility of the Senedd elections has been devolved, and when you compare it to the Order it replaces, you'll see instantly the benefits of not continuing to tweak and amend the existing Order from 2007. It has more appropriate language and, obviously, it's bilingual for the first time, which we're very pleased to see.

In substance, the content and structure of the Order will be familiar. We've also updated the content in line with the historic reforming legislation agreed by this Senedd. The work to remake the conduct Order has been in trail for a number of years now. Much of the decisions on the changes in the Order were taken by my predecessor, Mick Antoniw, and I'd just like to place on record my gratitude to Mick for the work he did to get us where we are today. And I should also point out that the major decisions around Senedd reform were made through the co-operation agreement between Labour and Plaid Cymru, and the conduct Order makes these changes operational.

As Government, our approach to electoral reform is based on the six principles of: accessibility; equity; improving citizen experience; participation; simplicity; and integrity. And as you mentioned, Cadeirydd, in your opening remarks, the conduct Order is still under consultation until 17 February.

Like my predecessor, we're mindful of the capacity of election officials in local authorities, and this means being strict with ourselves and not trying to correct every problem in one go in this Order, particularly where it means there will be a big difference between rules and processes for the different types of elections we have in Wales. But also, I'd just like to put on record my thanks to the election teams for their input throughout this and the work that they do.

Just to go to your specific question, and thank you for being generous in that, Cadeirydd, I'm aware that a number of commitments were made by the Member in charge, Mick Antoniw, to address certain committee recommendations in the conduct Order. In developing the legislation, I've been very mindful of those commitments, and have ensured that the draft conduct Order makes provision to address those recommendations that the Government accepted. And I'm sure the committee will have more detailed questions. But in summary, the Order addresses the committee's recommendations in respect of the ballot paper, the registration requirements and the grace period for prospective Members.

Thank you for that. We'll come to some of those points; I'm sure you expect that.

Yes, absolutely.

I suppose, listening to your opening comments, what it's asking me is—. You mentioned things agreed in the co-operation agreement. Now, none of those, actually, possibly, went through this Bill or through the Senedd at that point in time, because the co-operation agreement was between Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Government.

Yes—[Inaudible.]

Can you identify, perhaps, things that we should be aware of that are in the conduct Order as a consequence of the co-operation agreement, and things that we may not be aware of in this committee?

Perhaps I could ask Michael—

I think Ryan might be—

Yes, certainly. Probably, the main things in the conduct Order that reflect the element of the agreement, I suppose, are the use of the election rules that relate to what are currently the electoral regions. Clearly, the Members and elections Bill and the agreement that sat behind that is what led to what will be a system of lists in 16 constituencies. So, the conduct Order now provides only for election rules for multi-Member constituencies. In effect, it's very similar to the current regions—

I appreciate that, but that was in the Bill.

Yes.

We had that clarification. I'm mostly concerned with things that may not be in the Bill that you say were part of the co-operation agreement. Because if it's in the Bill, we've scrutinised it and we've debated it. I'm just wondering whether there's anything else that was in the co-operation agreement that is not in the Bill.

No, there's nothing in the conduct Order that reflects things that were in the co-operation agreement that haven't come through the primary legislation.

Right, so the conduct Order reflects everything in the primary legislation. That's what I wanted to make clear.

Sorry, to clarify, yes.

So, there's nothing there we don't know about, in other words.

No.

Okay, thank you. It's important we get that quite clear.

Yes, absolutely.

And also, just for clarity purposes, because we are in public, the conduct Order is actually replacing the existing one and not amending the existing one?

Yes.

You did say, I think, in your introduction that there might be further amendments coming down the line. Is it anticipated to be amending the conduct Order for future elections?

I think—. This is the one that we put together for this time. Obviously, I’ve said that we’ve come back—this is from 2007—and we've had that look and put everything in one place, which I think is something that is important. Obviously, this is what we’re putting forward today, and I can’t speak to future changes, but I think this is the right thing, to put everything into one document.

But this will cover both Senedd elections and local government elections.

No, it only covers Senedd elections.

So, it only affects Senedd elections.

Yes.

So, the analogous thing would be that, in 2021, we updated the local government rules entirely. So, we replaced what were the local government rules with a new, clearer set of local government rules. We had to amend that later on to take account of single transferrable vote arrangements for local elections, and the conduct Order, as the Cabinet Secretary said, is being restated. The draft version that’s out for consultation is a full restatement of the Order.

The committee may be aware that there is currently a private Member’s Bill before the House of Commons that relates to application for postal votes using an online system. If that is to pass—and, ultimately, the Government will be recommending that the Senedd consent to that Bill applying to Welsh elections—that would require some amendment to the conduct Order, but that’s the only matter of substance at the moment, where we would be looking to potentially update the conduct Order, that we’re aware of. But, obviously, because it’s a new, fully remade Order, the idea is that it’s more accessible, and, therefore, if it does need to be kept up to date, if there are further electoral changes in the future, then this is a good place to start.

Okay. Obviously, it's out for consultation, so your engagement activities are wide-ranging, I would assume, at this point in time. But what discussions have you had with the electoral registration officers and administrators in relation to the conduct Order, because, at the end of the day, they are the ones that are going to have implement the Order?

Yes, absolutely. And officials, as you’d imagine, have had detailed discussions with electoral officers as well around Wales, and so have I, actually. On Monday of this week, I had a meeting with them online, so I could hear directly from them, but also people could feed into the system as well. But I don’t know if anybody wants to talk about the engagement that officials have had specifically, which might help as well.

Sure. I think this is a piece of work, as the Cabinet Secretary says, that’s been going on for a long time. Some of the things that are in the conduct Order we consulted on formally in a White Paper in 2022. We have very good relationships with electoral administrators. We see them very regularly. So, there was nothing—. When we’ve been talking about the contents, there have been no surprises. If there are particular issues, we’ve been working on them more intensively to take their views.

I think, ultimately, because the conduct Order makes operational the changes in legislation, we’ve wanted to make sure that they are practicable. So, we have been talking in-depth with administrators for a long time about the detail of what’s in the conduct Order, so it’s not surprising. We are very grateful to them for their engagement so far, and, obviously, we look forward to having further formal responses to our consultation in the next 12 days.

Paul.

Thank you, Chair. Are you confident you have the skills and expertise in Welsh Government to bring about all these changes? Because I note that the Association of Electoral Administrators has proposed the Welsh Government undertake a skills audit.

I think that’s a really important question. It's something that we’ve heard back from stakeholders as well. And we do understand that there are lots of changes coming on board, and, as I say, it’s important that we work closely with those officials. And as I say, my officials have those discussions regularly.

I think that, again, it’s something that we all have to be aware of, including the Electoral Commission as well, and the work that they’re doing in terms of the staff and the discussions that they’re having. But I feel very confident that we are in that right space. Do you—?

Yes, I think that’s fair. We are always keen to learn, obviously, as an organisation, and because this is a fairly new responsibility that has been devolved, it is something that—. We’ve always been keen to ensure that we understand the law as best we can and we can fulfil the Minister's policy requirements. But the AEA have actually provided the foundation training for everybody in the elections division in the last couple of years. So, we have been working with the AEA to both take account of their views on things, but also to upskill ourselves so that we can see them from the administrators' perspectives.

So, are you undertaking a skills audit, then?

In a formal way, I would say 'no', but it's something that—. We're always kind of taking account of the skills we have in the team so that we're able to actually administer elections effectively. It's something that's not done in a formal way, but it's something that we always keep an eye on, I suppose.

And just to say as well, the AEA have been invaluable, really, in ensuring that the changes made in this redrafted Order are clear and workable, so we know we really are listening to what they're saying as well throughout this.

Okay. Before we go on to some specific points, I suppose I have one final starting question from myself. On this conduct Order, and I understand the work you've been doing and the consultations, have you identified additional costs as a consequence of producing the conduct Order that were not previously identified?

Okay, so any costs arising from the implementation of the new electoral system were assessed in detail as part of the Bill's explanatory memorandum, and likewise for electoral reforms under the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Act 2024. Any additional costs not assessed as part of those Acts have been set out in the draft regulatory impact assessment in the explanatory memorandum for the Order, and—

So, is that a 'yes' or a 'no'?

Well, it sets out that estimated additional costs for this Order are in the region of £350,000 to £650,000 within 2025-26. This includes £150,000 to £400,000 for electoral management software, postal vote statement correction, operational costs—so all within that—for local authorities and solutions to support disabled people to vote. All costs, as you know, will be met by Welsh Government, and the costs are considered affordable within the agreed budgets, and we'll update the RIA as necessary to reflect any changes to the Order as a result of the consultation. So, we are in this consultation period at the moment. I don't know if there's anything specific.

So, to date, you have identified possibly up to £600,000 extra costs as a consequence of implementing the conduct Order.

Yes.

Okay. Heledd.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. If I may, just in terms of the conversations you've had this week—you mentioned that you're looking forward to receiving those formal consultations—was there anything that surprised you from those conversations, or something that's concerned you, or something that you think will require you to address?

Diolch, Heledd. I think it was an important opportunity for me. It was the first time I've had that opportunity to hear directly as a group from them. Nothing came up, and I think partly that was to do with the engagement officials have had previously. So, nothing was there to surprise me during that. But, like I said, for me, I think that was the first—. Well, it was my first opportunity to hear from them directly. Obviously, officials have been very closely working with them through that, so I don't know if anything previously had come up that we've addressed.

No surprises.

No. In terms of capacity, then, of workforce, because obviously that's something we've addressed previously, is that still a concern, because I know some authorities are often single or very small teams? We know the situation of funding with local authorities as well. Recruitment can be challenging. Are those still issues that they're raising with you, or have those been addressed?

Generally, nobody raised that at all in the meeting that I was at, but I'm not saying they're not an issue. I think we're all aware of pressures on local authorities, and also making sure that we've got the right staff involved, because there has been a huge pressure. It has come up in my discussions that I've had with the Electoral Commission more broadly, and obviously that's something that I will keep raising with them and seek assurances, just to see the work they're doing more generally as well and if there's anything else that we need to do. But I don't want to say that everything is—. We know that there are pressures, but I'm very much alert to that as well.

Thank you.

I must say, I'm surprised they didn't raise it, because, for example, in my proposed new constituency, there will be four local authorities involved, so co-ordination is something that needs—. It's going to be new to them, in one sense. So, it's something I'd be surprised that they aren't raising as a concern, myself.

As I say, they didn't raise that specifically with me on Monday—

You might wish to raise it the next time you speak.

—but that doesn't mean that they haven't raised it with officials. And obviously, we do have—. I do take on board what you were saying with the new constituencies, that there will be new arrangements, and obviously I look forward to the work that local authorities will do together because there will be that memorandum of understanding that we'll expect to see between local authorities as well, because it'll be important for those to work together throughout this process. But that is in train. That is happening, and again we're very much alive to that. But because it wasn't raised with me on Monday it doesn't mean it's not an issue and doesn't mean that that might not be reflected through the consultation responses either. So, just to say that.

Heledd talked about the capacity, and one of the things that we had in the reform Bill was the Gould principle, making sure that there was sufficient time. I'm assuming that you still believe that there is going to be sufficient time, by the time that the conduct Order is confirmed, to actually deliver on it.

Yes.

Okay. Alun.

I'm grateful to you, and thank you for your time this morning, Minister. In many ways, much of what we debate and discuss in these matters are very technical issues, which people are not generally exposed to. But the one part of the whole of this that is at the heart of the process, of course, is the ballot paper. And I'm interested to ensure that the ballot paper is accessible to people and actually ensures that people feel in control, if you like, when they've got that little stubby pencil in their hand. So, my assumption—. Reading the conduct Order, you do have an illustration of the proposed ballot paper in the conduct Order. My assumption is—and I just want you to confirm this if this is the case—that all candidates will be listed, all the lists will be listed, if that makes sense, on the ballot paper and that all political parties or independents or all choices available will be on one side of the ballot paper.

Yes, thank you, Alun. Absolutely, this is really something that goes to the heart of it, doesn't it? It's always the intention that the ballot paper would include the names of all candidates, including all candidates on a list, and thus reflecting how the regional elections were presented in the past. The draft Order makes specific provision for the names of all candidates to be provided on the ballot paper, and I'm sure that Sharon can mention rule 26 of Schedule 5, which I'm sure she could recite to you.

We look forward to that.

And also just to clarify that, for both those forms, information must be contained on the front and the back of the ballot papers, with all parties, including the name of party list candidates and independent candidates, being required to be printed on the front of the ballot paper.

So, all the parties, all independents, all candidates will be on one side, on the front of that ballot paper.

Yes.

That's, I think, the really key thing. And I presume, because—. One of the consequences of these reforms and any move towards a fairer system, of course, is much larger ballot papers. That means that people need to be au fait with being able to use that. I remember the first time I was ever in a ballot station was with my grandmother, I think it must have been in 1983, when she was looking for Michael Foot's name on the ballot paper. And that was with four or five choices, quite a limited number of candidates. But, of course, in this situation, it's very different. So, I presume that you will have tested that process. I presume that you will have had conversations with the Electoral Commission to ensure that the ballot paper, as far as we can ensure, is accessible to people and provides a clear choice for the electorate.

Yes, absolutely. What I could say is that at least Michael Foot's name would have been near the top of that list, perhaps, in alphabetical order.

It wasn't far from the top.

But, in partnership with the Royal National Institute of Blind People and local authorities, we're undertaking some trials with blind and partially sighted people of various audio and tactile voting solutions using a mock ballot paper, based on the current regional ballot paper. Just to say, if I'd come next week, I'd have been able to talk to you about the event that I'm going to tomorrow in Cardiff where there's a trial of this taking place. So, that's taking place, as the first of its kind, tomorrow, and the second will be taking place in Wrexham on 13 February. And although we're not testing the ballot paper as it appears in the draft Order, because it's out to consultation, it will provide a real insight into how blind and partially sighted voters might navigate a long ballot paper including all party list candidates. So, I think this is something that we're taking, obviously, very seriously, and I think that these pilots and projects that are going on tomorrow and in Wrexham will give us a real understanding of, I think, some positive moves towards making sure that as many people as possible are able to vote.

I'm grateful to you, Minister, for that. It might be useful if the Minister was able to write to the committee with an outline of how those pilots have actually gone.

Yes, definitely.

I think the committee would find that quite useful. I don't have any further questions.

And I'm assuming that, when the conduct Order comes before the Senedd for its final consideration, Members will be able to see an example of a ballot paper based upon the final version so that we can understand how it would look to the public, because one of the big issues will be, as Alun has pointed out, how do we ensure that the public are au fait with a totally different system and a totally different ballot paper that they've probably not been used to? I know there are the regional ones, but it's not going to be anything like the one that you're going to get now coming up, because it's going to be much longer, probably with a lot more names on it, as a consequence.

We can certainly look to provide that. I mean, obviously, there would only be eight candidates per party in the new ballot paper, per constituency, rather than 12 for regional ones, so, in terms of the number of names per party, it will be fewer, but we can certainly work—. So, for the trials that the Cabinet Secretary mentioned, we're working with Cardiff Council to produce mock ballot papers for that, so I'm sure—

It would just help us to understand what it would look like.

Yes, and we can definitely write to you following both those engagements tomorrow and next week as well.

Okay. I'll move on to vacancies. We very much appreciate—. Because the Bill committee did have deep concerns over the timescales from a vacancy becoming available and the ability of someone who is on the list, maybe the next person on that list, to be asked to fill that vacancy, who may have moved out of Wales for work purposes, but may wish to take up that opportunity to fill that vacancy, and therefore the grace period was in place. I suppose one of the things that we want to focus on is—. I think we made a suggestion of 21 days, because 21 days was in Darren Millar's amendment, so just confirmation as to are 21 days sufficient to ensure that someone can re-register on the list within a local authority within Wales—because it could be anywhere within Wales—in that time. And why was 21 days picked, and not 28 days, for example?

Okay. Diolch, Cadeirydd. The 21-day period reflects the period that was provided for in the amendments tabled at Stage 2. Electoral administrators are being consulted as part of the development of this conduct Order and if their views are substantially different from that then we'll obviously take that into account as part of our consultation process as well.

So, 21 days is—. If the consultation comes back and says, 'We can't do it in 21 days', you're open to changing it to 28, for example, if they say, 'We can do everything in 28 days'?

Yes. I think—. Sorry, I'll just turn to Ryan, actually, on the specifics around that.

Yes, absolutely. I think if the weight of evidence from electoral registration officers in particular is that 21 days is not a realistic period to enable somebody to become re-registered and therefore meet the qualification criteria, that would certainly be something we'd be open to reconsidering in the conduct Order. I suppose the one trade-off to mention is that, obviously, the longer the potential period for somebody to become re-registered, the longer the potential for the vacancy to remain open. So, there is a trade-off between ensuring that vacancies are filled as quickly as possible whilst ensuring that prospective Members have that time to ensure that they become re-registered.

I appreciate that the longer it becomes the longer the vacancy exists as a consequence, but what I want to ensure is that the conduct Order doesn't stop someone who wishes to be a Member, is eligible to be a Member, both from a party perspective and the fact that they are registered within Wales, that that is not held up by seven days, for example. For example, I get my electoral register updates every month, but they're monthly, not three weekly. So, I just wanted to make sure that it can be practically achieved within 21 days.

Like I say, we're very open to that with the consultation now, so—.

But the other question that has come to mind right to us, and we've received an indication, is, at the moment, from what I understand, if a vacancy exists, the returning officer looks at the next person on the list. Obviously, that next person—. You have to refer to the party as well, to make sure that party is still supporting that name on that list, because the person could have left the party, for example. They contact that individual, the individual replies by e-mail, confirming that they wish to take up the post. The conduct Order says they then must automatically—quickly, as soon as possible—inform the Llywydd. That 21 days actually may not have been completed within that period of time, because people are eager, 'Yes, let's be a Member.' As soon as the Llywydd's informed, that person becomes a Member, but they may not be registered, because they still have to go through that process, so what are you going to do to ensure that the conduct Order gives advice that the 21-day grace period actually is going to be given to that person so the returning officer makes sure that the person is aware they have to register before they write back, in a written note, say, confirming it? Because it's possible at the moment that the returning officer says, 'You're next on the list. Do you want to take the position?' They come back and say, 'Yes', and they send in the confirmation to say 'yes', and then go about the process of registering. But the notification has gone to the Llywydd. They become a Member straight away, but they're disqualified straight away because they're not registered.

That's a scenario that is possible; we want to avoid that, because that's what the grace period is for. How are you going to make sure the conduct Order and the guidance given to the returning officers allow that situation not to happen, so someone can have that grace period before they confirm in writing they're aware of the circumstances, so that we don't end up with a situation where, 'Yes, I'll become a Member,' and then all of a sudden I'm disqualified. It's a scenario that is possible.

Yes, and that's part of why we're having the consultation as well, to make sure we are looking at every avenue. I don't know if that's something that you've considered in—

It's not something that's been raised there so far, but it is—you're absolutely right, Chair—it is a possible scenario. I think certainly, in terms of the production of the Electoral Commission's guidance around this, these are the sorts of things that they seek to give clarity to that often are not necessarily made explicitly clear through the legislation itself. So, again, depending on the consultation responses, we can consider if there's any requirement or any need to change the conduct Order to provide for this, but I suspect a more practicable solution would be to ensure that, as we work with the Electoral Commission on the development of their guidance, that is made explicitly clear to a returning officer, so that when they write out to a prospective Member, asking if they are willing to take up the vacancy and providing this 21-day period, being very clear that the point at which they notify the RO that they are willing to take the vacancy is the point at which the RO will notify that to the Llywydd and take up the vacancy. So, I think clarifying through guidance is probably the most appropriate way here.

Is it possible to amend your conduct Order to say that they should be eligible at the point at which they respond in writing?

It's certainly something we can consider.

Okay. I'll leave that with you. You've now had some feedback.

This is helpful to our consultation process, so thank you.

Well, this is what this committee meeting is for; it's about a consultation process.

Yes.

Okay. In that case, we'll go on to Paul, because I think we've gone through my questions.

Thank you, Chair. I just want to ask you some questions around the electoral timetable. Can you tell us whether the Welsh Government gave any consideration to extending the electoral timetable as advocated by the Association of Electoral Administrators?

Yes. I'll ask Michael to take that one.

I think one piece of context, I suppose, that the Cabinet Secretary mentioned is the mixed environment that we've delivered devolved elections in Wales. We've always been quite keen to (a) avoid complicating things because of capacity issues that have been highlighted already about local government teams, but also general confusion in the system if there is something quite different in Senedd or local elections versus police and crime commissioner and Westminster elections, so we've always been quite keen to ensure that we're prioritising the changes that we think would make an impact, and not create too much confusion.

On the question of the timetable, I think it's one of those areas that would be quite a noticeable change. It would change the deadline for applying for a postal vote, for party nominations and so on. So, I think it's not something that we'd really thought would be helpful to do unilaterally for the Senedd elections in this instance. It's not something that we've got an in-principle objection to, but I think it's partly about thinking in the round around what our expectations of administrators, of voters, of political parties and other candidates are. So, it's not something that we've looked at with regard to this. It is something that we're open to. We know that the UK Government is considering any changes that it could make to electoral law, so these are ongoing conversations we're having with the UK Government, and it might be that there is scope to move in lockstep with other elections.

I think, again, we're very keen to hear about this from people responding to this, as well, so we are aware of the AEA's views, as well.

So, you'd be very keen to try and standardise elections going forward.

Yes. I think it's helpful for people to know—

And you're having discussions then with the UK Government on these matters, I presume.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay. And what assessment was undertaken of the potential impact of expanding the length of the timetable as well in your discussions?

So, because we've not really looked at doing it unilaterally, we've not really looked at the impacts of what that would entail. We would obviously want to talk to administrators and to political parties if we were looking at changing the timetable, because we'd want to understand would they be able to respond to a different timescale, for example, to nominate the candidates by an earlier date, to apply for postal votes by earlier dates and so on. So, there would be quite a lot to be done. I think there's also an interaction with the functioning of the Senedd, because, obviously, the Senedd would have to be dissolved before the election, so what's the right amount of time for there to be no Senedd is something that we'd have to take into account. So, there are quite a lot of considerations we'd have to make, and so it's not something we'd look to do unilaterally.

Now, I understand you've just recently laid regulations to establish an elections information platform, and that you have confirmed that that platform will be hosted by the electoral management board for Wales. Can you just give us an update on the establishment of that board?

Yes, diolch yn fawr. The intention was to lay regulations, which we did yesterday, for them to be debated in the Senedd on 11 March 2025. The electoral management board will operate the platform. The EMB is being established as a board of Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru, following the appointment we've had of two additional commissioners, following the DBCC, in line with its new functions. So, we have Karen Jones, former Neath Port Talbot chief executive, who was appointed as chair of the EMB, and the funding of that and its secretariat staff are in place. So, the board is now functioning and operational, following a smooth transition from the Wales electoral co-ordination board. Progress is happening there, and I'm glad to see that we've been able to make that happen after laying those regulations.

Thank you, Chair.

Heledd.

Thank you very much. I will be asking my questions in Welsh, thanks. I want to move now to election campaign expenditure, which is something that you have obviously been consulting on, and the consultation closed on that specific issue in November. Clearly, there's a great deal of scrutiny of this, having seen some of the discussions around international influence, perhaps, on elections and election expenditure. So, it's an issue that many people want more information on, so can I ask: could you outline for us today what the Welsh Government's proposed approach is in terms of setting election campaign expenditure limits for registered political parties and individual candidates?

Okay, diolch yn fawr, Heledd. I do understand that this is an area that everybody's looking closely at. Perhaps there are a few things I could just touch on there. So, the draft Order provides that candidates are only required to account for notional expenditure as an election expense where that expenditure has been directed, authorised or encouraged by the candidate or the candidate's election agent. It's a bit technical there, and, again, Sharon might be able to go into a bit more detail on article 66(2). But this brings the position in relation to the Senedd elections fully in line with reserved elections and local government in Wales.

You mentioned, really, undue influence as well, so, through the draft conduct Order, we've strengthened provisions around the offence of undue influence for Senedd elections in line with UK Government provisions in the Elections Act 2022, and this made these changes in relation to reserved elections. The changes have already been made in respect of local government elections through the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Act 2024, again, so this brings the Senedd in line with all other elections. And, in terms of the points you made around the—

It's the expenditure limits for registered political parties and individual candidates, so the approach to those.

Yes. So, the limits at which election spending by parties should be set has been the subject of a separate public consultation. So, the spending limit for independent candidates has not been included in the draft Order, but the consultation obviously seeks views on the proposal to align independent candidate spending with party spending. So, the draft Order also creates a single longer regulated period for the campaign expenses of independent candidates. Currently, that period commences at the point at which a person formally becomes a candidate, but will now, in most circumstances, commence four months prior to the Senedd elections.

Okay, thank you.

Can I ask one question on that?

Yes.

You just said that the expenditure would not be in the conduct Order, but in Stage 2, the Counsel General actually said that the individual candidate expenditure limits would continue to be regulated through the conduct Order. So, what's changed your mind?

So, individual candidates are still in the conduct Order, but what the consultation does is draw attention to the link that we think there should be in principle between the expenditure limit for an individual candidate and a party standing one candidate in a constituency. It's a question of principle. So, the actual figure isn't in there, but the regulation of individual expenditure is still in the conduct Order, and the party is in the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.

Okay. So, you're trying to clarify the difference between an individual candidate and a party list of one.

Yes.

Okay.

Just on the point of international expenditure, obviously, there is a limit to what we can do with regard to devolved competence. In the elections and elected bodies Act, we did reflect regulations around non-party expenditure or third party campaign expenditure for devolved elections. Because we don't have overseas voters in devolved elections, it wouldn't apply to overseas non-party expenditure. It is something that the UK Government manifesto included about the regulation of campaign finance, and so on, so we are expecting there to be some developments in the non-devolved space. So, it's something we're keeping an eye on, and also it's part of our discussions with the UK Government about their legislative programme.

Thank you. In terms of the timelines for this work, when do you expect to know in terms of when the limit for individual candidates will be decided, and also when the regulations linking to the election expenditure for registered political parties will be laid before the Senedd?

Yes, there we go. Sorry. Ryan.

Yes. So, we're currently working with the Electoral Commission on the regulations that will change the political party spending limits. Their consent is required in order to make those regulations, so we have taken the responses to the consultation. And I suppose, just for clarity, a couple of the options that are included in that consultation are whether party spending limits should be calculated purely by reference to the number of constituencies that a party is contesting, or should it also take into account the number of candidates that parties are standing on lists. I think the responses to that consultation were very broad, so we're currently working with the Electoral Commission to come to an agreed position on that that the regulations can give effect to.

In terms of the timeline, we're working broadly on the same timescales as the conduct Order, so we'll be looking to have the specific Order that makes the changes to party expenses before the summer. But as soon as we have an agreed policy position on what the parties' spending is, we'll be able to use that figure to effectively create the independent candidate spending limit that's in the conduct Order.

Okay. Thank you. Because obviously, there is a huge variation in the figures depending on the calculation you use—

There is—absolutely.

—and with an election next year, I'm sure it's been flagged to you that some smaller political parties in particular would be concerned about how they would be able to manage within a new system, so that it was fair and equitable for everyone.

Yes. Like I said, that's come through some of that consultation and that's part of that discussion with the Electoral Commission, as Ryan has said.

Thank you.

So, on election expenses, you are now having discussions with the Electoral Commission. It has to be agreed with the Electoral Commission, I understand, as well.

It does, yes.

I go back to this individual member, which is in the conduct Order, and a party of one, which isn't in the conduct Order, which technically could be the same thing, because somebody could establish a party with the Electoral Commission and only stand in one constituency—one person, who is an individual. Are you looking at how that balances out, to ensure that there is consistency across the scenarios, so that the individual is either given the same amount as the party with one, which is one party in one constituency?

Trying to make sure that there aren't perverse incentives is quite an important part of considering it. So, obviously, we wanted to avoid situations where it's more financially beneficial to either stand as a candidate in a made-up party of one person versus as an independent. So, we wanted to make sure that expenditure limits don't encourage behaviour one way or the other, because they should service a fair campaign, not create bizarre incentives, I suppose. That's why we have suggested the principle of an individual candidate in a constituency and a party of one in that constituency, that there be consistency between the two, with that scenario in mind.

And when do you expect to have all this completed—the Electoral Commission's agreement, and everything else—for expenditure? Because, as you say, some will be in the conduct Order, but others will not. So, when will parties, for example, know what those limits are, so that they can start looking at themselves, preparing for their elections?

So, that is the timetable for the Order that will amend PPERA, and as I said, that's being prepared on the same broad timescale as the conduct Order. So, we would anticipate that Order being made before the summer as well. So, that will set the party spending limits, and by virtue of that, we will then be able to determine what the limit for an independent candidate should be, by reading across from a list of one.

So, by the summer recess, we should be able to have all of that information.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

Which is fast approaching. Slightly scary.

The year 2026 is fast approaching.

Exactly.

Sometimes too fast for some of us.

We are very much aware of that, yes.

Do any Members have any other questions? I don't think that there are any further questions. Have I missed anything?

No.

No. In that case, can I thank you for your time today? As you will know, Cabinet Secretary, you will get a copy—and your team will get a copy—of the transcript. If there are any factual inaccuracies, please let the clerking team know as soon as possible.

Absolutely. Diolch, Cadeirydd, and once again, thank you for having us in this morning. Like I said, we will make sure that we keep you up to date with the pilot with the RNIB and anything else that will come up that would be useful for the committee to have before the report.

Thank you. That would be helpful. Thank you for your time once again.

Diolch yn fawr.