‘Enabling candidates standing for the same party or as independents to stand for election on the basis of job sharing arrangements could lead to an increase in the diversity of representation within the Assembly. The flexibility to stand on the basis of job sharing could be particularly beneficial for older candidates, those with disabilities, or those with caring responsibilities.’

Professor Rosie Campbell and Professor Sarah Childs—who shared their role, as it happens, as members of the expert panel—have contributed a great deal to the debate on job sharing, and both contributed to work undertaken by the Fawcett Society on the possibility of Members of Parliament sharing jobs, drawing attention to the advantages. And in 2012, John McDonnell MP introduced a 10-minute rule Bill at the House of Commons, which received cross-party support. However, during the 2015 general election, two members of the Green Party who hoped to stand for election to the UK Parliament were refused permission to do so.

It’s true to say that there’s been limited discussion about job sharing for elected positions. I was very pleased, therefore, to see the recommendation of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, and it is now an opportunity for us to have this debate here. Job sharing is a form of flexible working and, put simply, it enable two employees to share the responsibilities and the duties of one full-time post. It’s not a new concept; it dates from the 1970s, and job sharing has increased over the past 40 years, particularly in some managerial roles and across all sorts of careers, and there are several examples of good practice.

In a report entitled ‘Working Families’ researchers looked at 11 cases of job sharing, and these posts included the chief executive of a health trust, a detective inspector, the manager of a large shop, a director in the civil service, a head of department at an international bank, a manager with a water board, and a chief executive of a charity. And looking at one of these in brief, the joint directors of the Judicial Studies Board shared their role for over 20 years, in a total of seven posts, and this was a great success. They shared the same values and the same attitude towards work and leadership, but they had different personalities and they benefited from each other’s strengths. Sharing the job was valuable in terms of discussing and supporting each other, and sharing a job encouraged a more collaborative approach to leadership, which was beneficial to the whole team, encouraging delegation and therefore creating empowering opportunities for other members of the team.

I believe there would be clear advantages to allowing Assembly Members to share the job. Disability rights campaigners also see clear advantages to job sharing, and others see that those in professional positions could continue to maintain their skills as doctors, teachers and scientists and so on, while having an elected role, and decreasing the risk if they were to lose their seats, meaning that putting their names forward for election in the first place would be more attractive.

The expert panel’s report noted that the central guiding principle for job sharing is that parties who wish to share a job should be treated as one person, and this would mean, for example, that if a partner were to resign, it should be assumed automatically that the other would resign as an Assembly Member. Furthermore, clarity and transparency would be needed regarding remuneration and financial support for such an arrangement. The report recommended that the principle at the heart of arrangements of this kind is that candidates should explain to constituents the agreement that they have to share the job and that those partners that share should not give rise to any additional costs greater than the cost of one Assembly Member.