The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Jane Hutt and amendments 2 and 3 in the name of Paul Davies.

Item 5 on the agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate, the ministerial code, and I call on Dai Lloyd to move the motion.

Motion NDM6053 Simon Thomas

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Believes that:

(a) the principles of open government should be maintained in all areas of the Welsh Government’s responsibilities;

(b) the Ministerial Code should be laid before and approved by the National Assembly for Wales; and that

(c) an independent adjudicator should be appointed to report publicly on any alleged breaches of the Code.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. It’s a pleasure for me to open this debate, and I will also conclude the debate in a little while. Of course, our motion calls on us all—calls on the National Assembly to believe that the principles of open government should be maintained in all areas of responsibility, that the ministerial code should be laid before and approved by the National Assembly for Wales, and that an independent adjudicator should be appointed to report publicly on any alleged breaches of the code. Now, for obvious reasons, therefore, there are specific demands on Welsh Ministers. As I move forward, I will state now that we will oppose the first amendment in the name of Jane Hutt, but we will support amendments 2 and 3, which add to the fundamental points that we make in our motion on the issue that we are considering.

Now, as I said, there are specific requirements on Welsh Ministers, and each of them, including Deputy Ministers, do have to comply with the ministerial code, which sets standards of conduct. Now, of course, this isn’t an opportunity to revisit any specific incident, but a debate to strengthen transparency within the process, and it’s part of the same kind of debate that we’ve just heard about from Sian Gwenllian and Simon on how people perceive politics these days. Very often, as politicians, we are decried, and we see all sorts of complaints made against us—sometimes on the basis of the conduct of an individual—but I think this is also part of the process of how we respond to that vote in the referendum of last week. We do have to demonstrate to people that we are entirely honest, open and transparent in everything that we do. And part of that process is the ministerial code, which does need to be transformed.

There has been cross-party support in this Assembly in the past to see full transparency in the process, by including an independent adjudicator in the system, so that the First Minister can report any alleged breach to an independent adjudicator and then that independent adjudicator will gather evidence and present a report.

Now, our aim is that the First Minister should not lose the right to appoint and dismiss members of his Cabinet. That’s not the aim of this debate. But I don’t support his right to decide who should be subject to an independent adjudicator or a report if there is a breach of the ministerial code either. And, of course, a member of the public or a Member of this institution should have the right to complain directly to a standards commissioner, just as they would with any complaints about an Assembly Member of the backbenches, and the commissioner should evaluate that complaint, formulate a report, and provide that report so that the First Minister could take a final decision.

As I’ve already mentioned, a crucial characteristic of our objective this afternoon is to look again at this adjudication process and to ensure that the ministerial code is more open, in order to actually rebuild the public’s faith in politics, which has been damaged recently—it is a faith that has been damaged over a number of years. We saw the response, as Simon already said earlier, in the previous debate.

So, in the midst of the anger, the hatred and the untruths that have been flying around the place over the past few weeks, we are very much aware, as politicians, that many of our people have become entirely disillusioned with politicians and with politics, and they have no confidence in us and very little respect for us. There are all sorts of stories of misconduct in the past—I won’t go into those now—but, following last week’s vote, we have to respond robustly, as politicians and as an Assembly, to the substantial challenge that we face. Part of that response is to show very high standards of conduct in this place, which should be weighed up in an open and transparent ministerial code. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I have selected three amendments to this motion, and I call on the First Minister to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Gwelliant 1—Jane Hutt

Delete sub-points (b) and (c) and replace with new point:

Notes a commitment by the First Minister to explore ways to strengthen the Ministerial Code and the way it operates.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally, Dirprwy Lywydd.

I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendments 2 and 3, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Gwelliant 2—Paul Davies

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that openness and transparency in the decision-making process would be enhanced by ensuring key appointments, including that of the Children’s Commissioner, Future Generations Commissioner, Older People’s Commissioner and Welsh Language Commissioner, are made by the National Assembly for Wales, rather than the Welsh Government.

Gwelliant 3—Paul Davies

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls on the Welsh Government to formally respond to the concerns raised in the manifesto of the Cabinet Secretary for Education’s party that Welsh Ministers have been able to breach the Ministerial Code with impunity.

Amendments 2 and 3 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I formally move the amendments on the order sheet, in the name of Paul Davies. I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I can well remember, in the last Assembly, the debates, the discussions and the First Minister’s questions that the former leader of the Liberal Democrats used to use to cajole the First Minister into bringing forward a truly independent ministerial code, and, ultimately, obviously, bring that transparency to the governing process, where Ministers are referred to the ministerial code. It does seem slightly bizarre that you can be all things to all people, as the current code is, with the First Minister being the ultimate arbitrator, sorting it all out, rather than any independence at the heart of the process.

I do hope that the First Minister, when he does respond to this debate this afternoon, will respond in a positive light, because the arguments that are being put forward here today are not new arguments. And I know the First Minister, some two or three years ago, was making the point, ‘Well, we’ll have a review, we’ll have a look into this, I’ll see what I can do’. Well, it’s two years on; hopefully he’s got the answers to maybe some of the questions that were posed back in July 2014.

In particular, I do think there’s an opportunity to look at the way the commissioners are appointed—the children’s commissioner, for example, and the other commissioners, who, over time, have come from this institution, and have proved to do a power of good in the areas that they are charged with delivering. And, in fairness to the Welsh Government, they have reached out to the parties here and formed working groups to, obviously, make those appointments. But that really shouldn’t just be at the behest of the Government. It should be the Assembly as a whole that instigates the selection procedure and the appointments, because those commissioners do need to be acting in the name of the National Assembly for Wales, I would suggest, rather than just, obviously, the Welsh Government.

From my own personal point of view, and in the Conservative manifesto back in May, we would have liked to have seen hearings into the appointment of special advisers undertaken as well, because a feature of modern Government today, in any Government in fairness, has been—. I accept that in all Governments, the role of special advisers has increased dramatically over the years—the last 40 years in particular, from their inception in the early 70s, to the more formal role they now fill, and they do play an important role in advising Government Ministers, in carrying out Government function. And, yet, again, that particular role, and those appointments, are completely at the behest of the First Minister. Again, I do believe that there would be a welcome spotlight put on the process of the role of special advisers, and in particular, the way they’re appointed, and in particular, the suitability that they might have to take such important roles within Government, albeit not ultimately removing from the appointments process the ability of the First Minister to approve that, or, as an example in Westminster, the Prime Minister. That’s not a political point I’m trying to make about the specific special advisers here in Cardiff. They are an important piece of the political landscape that you see in all parts of Government, wherever they exist across the United Kingdom and, indeed, anywhere else in western democracy. I do believe that, along with the appointment of commissioners, that would be very welcome in bringing transparency to a very opaque procedure that people outside of this institution know very little about.

I’d also like to move the second amendment in Paul Davies’s name, which refers specifically to the education Minister’s manifesto commitment, and the wording in the manifesto about the ministerial code. It does speak, the Liberal Democrat manifesto—it says,

‘it’s no wonder voters lose confidence when Labour Ministers can apparently breach the Ministerial Code with impunity’.

I read that directly from the manifesto. And so I do think that now, obviously, the Liberal Democrats are formally part of the Government, it is important that the First Minister does give assurances, if nothing else, that Labour Ministers haven’t been breaking the ministerial code with impunity, as I’ve just read out from the manifesto. And, if it is the case that that was a correct assertion, what measures will the First Minister be taking to give confidence back to people that such a statement was, shall we say, reckless to put before it if it didn’t bear any relation to the workings of Government? This debate can now, hopefully, after the last two years that the First Minister’s had the chance to think about how the ministerial code should develop—because a lot of these questions were first put round when Alun Davies had to resign from the Government in July 2014, and legitimately put down as well, I might add. So, the First Minister, in that folder that he has before him, has hopefully now got the answers to the review that he undertook at that time and some of the changes, rather than standing and saying, ‘We’re just keeping the status quo’, and that he will be able to enlighten the Chamber as to the changes that he will be making to the current ministerial code, to make it more open, to make it more transparent, and, above all, for that openness and transparency to reach across the whole of the new Welsh Government in the fifth Assembly.

I just want to add one thing to the debate, really, when we talk about ministerial codes and codes of conduct, because, constitutionally, there’s one person in this building who is not affected by any of this, and that is the First Minister. Now, in terms of democratic accountability, that cannot be right, because if some of us think that, perhaps, the First Minister may have misled this Chamber in some way, or not, as the case may be, there is no recourse for any Member of this Chamber and there is no recourse for any member of the public to challenge this wrongdoing. So, what we have here, constitutionally—[Interruption.]

Can we just all calm down and listen to what the Member who is on his feet is saying? Then others will get the chance later.

Diolch. What we have here is a democratic Chamber where we all should come and listen to people giving their points of view, no matter what the points of view are, no matter which party, and I ask every single Member to respect that.

Right, moving on. So, if there is a dispute, as I mentioned earlier, there is absolutely no recourse for any member of the public, any Member here, and that cannot be right in a democratic chamber. What we have here is a huge, huge constitutional gap, where, potentially, any First Minister can come here and say what the hell he or she likes—anything at all. There is absolutely no recourse for anybody here. That cannot be right. So, what I’d like to finally say is that, as well as ministerial codes and as well as codes of conduct for Members, what we need here is a way to hold the First Minister to account constitutionally, because I know from my experience, both as a Member of the public and as a Member of this Chamber, that there is no way of doing that. Any First Minister can come here and they can potentially mislead this Chamber; they can potentially lie and there’s nothing we can do about it. That is not right.

No, no. Wait a minute. Have you finished?

I have finished.

I would ask you to just think about that last sentence and whether you could change the wording in that last sentence. Nobody lies in this Chamber while I’m in the chair.

What I did say, to qualify, was ‘potentially’—’potential untruths’, shall we say? I don’t know. I’ll go with your guidance, Chair.

Okay, we’ll check the Record. First Minister.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. Can I thank most Members for their contributions? [Laughter.] Just to explain first of all—to deal with the amendments. I know that Members are concerned that the ministerial code should be open—it is; that it gets amended and reviewed from time to time—it is; and that Members are aware of what the ministerial code actually says. What the amendment does, of course, is ensure that I continue to review the ministerial code and indeed the way that it operates and that will continue for the future.

The second amendment, in the name of Paul Davies, about the commissioners, is related, I suppose, to openness in Government, but I really ask the question: is this really a problem? We know that the commissioners should be independent and they are once they are appointed. They would be no more independent if they were appointed by the National Assembly; somebody has to appoint them. What’s important is that they are able to operate independently as soon as they are appointed. That is something, I believe, that has indeed happened. They don’t operate in the name of the Government any more than they would operate in the name of the Assembly if the Assembly appointed them, and so, from my perspective, certainly I believe that commissioners have operated independently and have fulfilled their duties properly. At no time has it been suggested that the commissioners are in some way hamstrung in terms of being able to express their views and express those views properly.

In terms of special advisers, this is not something that happens at Westminster. Special advisers are appointed by me; they are subject to a code as well and that is something that I, again, keep in mind as they are appointed. Special advisers are expected, of course, to keep to rules in terms of their job and particularly in terms of the way in which they separate their political life, in terms of campaigning, from their work as a special adviser.

On the third amendment—

I take the response that the First Minister has given. I take that point that it’s not a situation that occurs in Westminster, namely confirmation hearings, but don’t you think that we shouldn’t always try and replicate what Westminster do? This would be groundbreaking, because they are an important part of the Government architecture, special advisers are, and having a form of confirmation hearing would bring public awareness to the role that they fulfil in advising Ministers.

My answer to that is: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Special advisers have never been called into question in terms of their behaviour. They are indeed expected to behave in accordance with their own code. I see no reason why there should be hearings for the appointment of special advisers.

In terms of the third amendment in the name of Paul Davies, this is a mischievous amendment, let’s be honest, as the party opposite well knows. There are Members here who will know that, where I take the view that the ministerial code has been breached, then action is taken. I don’t think that I can be accused of doing nothing if there are issues that need to be dealt with. Those decisions have been difficult and painful for all involved, but nevertheless it has been important to take those decisions. The suggestion is that somehow no decisions are ever taken in terms of breaches of the ministerial code. Members know otherwise. Besides, I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Education can act, now that she is in Government, as a guardian in terms of this in any event. I have no doubt at all that, when it comes to the Government that we have set up in the last few weeks, the ministerial code will be adhered to. All Ministers have been made absolutely aware of the code and have been informed that they must read the code as well.

Just on that point, could you therefore confirm that all your Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers have signed the ministerial code? Did the Cabinet Secretary for Education give her views to you on the ministerial code?

The answer is ‘yes’ and she did, as she’s just informed you. As all Ministers are bound by the ministerial code there is no question of them being able to pick and choose, and there never has been. That code will apply to all and it is known what the consequences are if the code is broken.

Well, I won’t comment much on what the Member Neil McEvoy said. His obsessions are well known to this Chamber. He has his own furrow that he wishes to plough. He was not brave enough to make any allegations and, therefore, his comments in this Chamber are not worthy of a response.

So, with regard to amendment 1, as I say, that is something—[Interruption.] You’ve had your view. That is something that I’ve already formally moved. We will not be supporting amendments 2 and 3, nor indeed the motion itself as unamended.

Thank you very much. I call on Dai Lloyd to reply to the debate. Dai.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I thank everybody else for their contributions? Just to return to the nub of the debate, a number of different principles have succeeded in creeping into the debate, but the fundamental point was regarding the ministerial code. We call for the principles of open government to be maintained. People have said some very nice things about that standard, and we want to see it upheld, and we want to see the ministerial code being laid before this Assembly and being approved by this Assembly. We also call for an independent adjudicator to be appointed to report publicly on any alleged breaches of the code. That, basically, is the point of this debate, in order to persuade and convince the public that we are responding affirmatively and positively to what happened in the referendum last week. We must have a strong response to show that we as politicians are standing up for the right things. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Thank you. Therefore, we will defer this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.