We now move to the short debate and I call on Siân Gwenllian to speak on the topic she has chosen—Siân. 

Thank you very much. The subject is whether allowing Assembly Members to job-share would lead to the creation of a gender-balanced Assembly and one that is more representative of the population as a whole. I’m very pleased to lead this debate this afternoon. Jane Hutt and Julie Morgan are eager to contribute too, and I look forward to hearing their contributions.

A few weeks ago, I led a short debate in this Chamber about the need to improve gender equality and representation among minority groups at this Assembly. I do believe that having more women—indeed, an equal number of women—in posts where decisions are made is important as we strive to be a nation of equality, to be the kind of feminist nation that others have talked about that we need to create here in Wales. In the previous debate, I talked about research undertaken that shows that issues that are important in women’s daily lives and issues that should be focused on, in terms of creating equality, are far more likely to be raised in discussions led by women. Striving towards equal representation in public life, therefore, helps to improve women’s lives in general. And that’s not the only element that demands our attention—nowhere near. I’m not trying to say that, and I am fully aware of the wide range of work that needs to be done. That’s why I would like to see a national action plan on gender quality. But it is one element, and one that we as elected Members can influence if we wish to do so.

In the previous debate, I talked about the work of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, and the report 'A Parliament that Works for Wales', which was published in December 2017. I believe that adopting all of the recommendations in that report would help to create a more equal and diverse Assembly, and that efforts should continue to seek consensus around the report’s findings. In the previous debate, I drew attention to a recommendation relating to requiring political parties to introduce quotas to have an equal number of candidates. Today, I want to draw attention to another one of the panel’s recommendations, which was also part of the work of considering how to improve diversity at the Assembly. According to the report:  

‘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.

Job sharing has clear advantages in providing opportunities for women with caring responsibilities—caring for young children or for older members of the family. As women still make up the majority of carers, creating opportunities to combine caring responsibilities with work as an Assembly Member could lead to increasing the number of women represented here at the Assembly. Job sharing could be a much more convenient option if you're a women with young children, particularly so if you live far away from Cardiff Bay and need to spend a period of time every week away from home.

So, how would it work, then, in terms of Assembly Members sharing their jobs? These are some of my ideas, and some of the ideas that have arisen from the work of the Fawcett Society. These are things for us to discuss, clearly, if we want to pursue this path. But, initially, the two people would need to present themselves as one team from the outset. Both candidates would need to be judged by their parties as being qualified and having the appropriate qualifications—both. In being selected by their parties, and again in being elected, a clear and comprehensive statement would need to be made about what they believe, their priorities, and their objectives that have been agreed jointly. Candidates for job sharing should detail the rules that will be adopted to determine their working arrangements on a daily basis.

It's important that there isn't a need to be too prescriptive here. Flexibility is vital in terms of these working arrangements. Perhaps they would work at different times of the week or different parts of the parliamentary year, working the in the constituency, or in Cardiff, sharing constituency work on the weekend, based on a rota perhaps, sharing portfolios or campaigns. The working pattern could vary according to circumstances and change over time. One could travel to the Senedd in the middle of every week and do the work here in the Chamber and on committees, while the other could deal with casework in the constituency. But, truth be told, this would be a matter for discussion, with flexibility being key.

This could also change over time as well, perhaps with a Member with caring responsibilities for young children spending more time in the constituency at the beginning, but with this pattern changing over time. This would be a good way of attracting women with children to the role, and the job share could come to an end as these responsibilities decrease, allowing for a period of mentoring to engender confidence, which would make being a candidate for the Assembly much more attractive to many more people, including, of course, women.

Two people would share the work of representing their constituents. Two Assembly Members sharing a job would have one vote, and the public should be clear who will be voting and when. The Assembly Members would win or lose an election as one person and would be held to account as one person by constituents. Of course, a protocol would need to be agreed to deal with any differences of opinion. This is important, but there is a way around it. Having that communication clear at the beginning is very important. And remember, of course, that Members of parties are accountable to their parties, and parties have their own procedures for dealing with any disagreement if that kind of situation were to arise. Clear communication between the two candidates for job sharing, between the candidates and their parties, and between candidates and constituents is vital to the success of job sharing.

And it is easy to draw attention to some of the problems, and I see that the issue of voting could be one of the issues here, but that's just one issue. It's easy enough to draw attention to some of the problems, but I think that we need to discuss the concept in a great deal of detail, because I do believe that no stone should be left unturned in the effort to achieve a nation of gender equality in Wales. This could be a small part of the jigsaw—a very small part—that we need, and we here at the Assembly have an opportunity to consider this part of the jigsaw as part of the suite of electoral reforms that are being discussed at present. So, let us consider this and discuss it, and let us come to a decision, hopefully, that will allow us to move in this direction. Thank you.

I'm very pleased to speak in this debate, and congratulations to Siân Gwenllian for obtaining this debate and really focusing attention on this very important area. I want to speak here today because I want to give my wholehearted support to—well, I want to see job sharing introduced here for elected Members. I think Siân has done a really good job in explaining and all the difficulties—well, not difficulties, but all the positive things—and the sort of areas that we would have to look at if we were going to bring this in. 

Now, I know that there aren't any examples in Westminster, and certainly there are no examples here or in local government, I don't think, of people actually standing as job shares to be elected, but there are examples of people holding executive posts. For example, in Swansea council, the future generations portfolio is held as a job share by two councillors, and there's the example in Wandsworth, where the two Labour deputy leaders share the deputy leader post, which seems very good progress. So, I think that's something we ought to be considering here as well. So, although we haven't got any actual elected people in that sense, there is a movement towards it with these executive posts being job shared.  

So, I think it's absolutely crucial that we do make our Assembly more representative, that we have disabled people, women with caring responsibilities, men with caring responsibilities, and this is just one of the things that we can do to enable that to happen. So, I support very strongly the recommendation from the expert panel, and I hope that we'll all be able to move together and work towards perhaps making this the first elected place in the UK where we actually have councillors and Assembly Members elected on a job-share basis.  

Okay. One second, Jane—oh, we've gone over time. No, I'll let Jane Hutt have a minute, so it's a minute. 

Thank you very much. 

Or 'ish'; I might not be able to count. Go on. 

Right. I'm really delighted to say a few words in support of Siân Gwenllian in this debate. It took me back to a book that I wrote, Making Opportunities—A Guide for Women and Employers, when I was director of Chwarae Teg. Believe it or not, this was 26 years ago that I wrote and published this book, and there are chapters on everything we need to know and that we're still trying to do in terms of trying to make Wales a more representative place—chapters on recruitment and retention, childcare. There are interesting points, of course, throughout this book about how we can make Wales more representative in terms of our workplace, and I'll just read from the chapter on job sharing: 

'Job sharing is being seen as a major attraction in the recruitment and retention of women employees, particularly for those who are having or have had a job or career break. It is also being used by male employees as a way of combining work and home responsibilities, and diversifying job experiences.'

So, I can perhaps hand that to the remuneration board as they look at the practicalities. But I think what is important is that we now take this forward. You've done a great deal of work to explain how we could address this, and I think it's a good example of how we can respond to the expert panel, and I fully support your debate and your intentions today.  

Thank you very much. 

I call on the Llywydd to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank Siân Gwenllian for bringing this debate to the Chamber and for giving us an opportunity to discuss this interesting and important issue, and for the supportive comments also made by two other Assembly Members. As has already been explained, it is very timely that Siân Gwenllian has chosen to raise this issue now, as the Assembly Commission will soon begin the process of deciding which elements of the Assembly electoral reform agenda should be progressed, and at what timescale—whether it should be by 2021 or 2026.

Any decision on any element of electoral reform will, of course, need to achieve broad consensus across this Chamber, and a two-thirds majority of Member votes will be required for that—a little more than we have in the Chamber at the moment.

Siân has chosen to focus on one important aspect of this agenda, one that ensures greater diversity of representation in our National Assembly, and within that, she's raised the question as to whether allowing Assembly Members to job share could lead to the creation of a more gender-balanced Assembly. The Member, as she has described, will be aware that this was a matter raised by the expert panel on electoral reform in its report, ‘A Parliament that works for Wales’. The panel’s report points to the fact that:

'One of the principles integral to the Assembly’s ethos is that, as far as possible, family friendly working should be embedded in its culture and procedures.'

From the outset, we have adopted and developed a timetable of business and practices that have attempted to reflect that principle. Although, I would be the first to admit that, in part due to issues of capacity and increased responsibilities, we have not always been able to adhere to that. The truth is, as the expert panel’s report suggests, that Members here have very limited flexibility in terms of their working days, and this is compounded, in my view, by the increasing demands and responsibilities on an institution whose Members are too few.

The impact of this has been laid bare in a number of reports and studies, for example the work produced by Bangor University in 2014 to evaluate the barriers to entering the Assembly. This study examined the impact of being elected to this institution on individuals and families and how these factors could serve to deter others who may wish to stand for election. The potential solutions are numerous, of course, and bring about various complexities, but all are worth consideration if we are to secure greater diversity in our national Parliament.

Partly with this in mind, the expert panel explored the potential for candidates to be selected and to stand for election on the basis of job-share arrangements. The panel cited the arguments raised in a pamphlet published by the Fawcett Society, which said that job sharing would be a proportionate step towards making it possible for more people to consider standing for election and making parliamentary representation more diverse. Moreover, they concluded that job sharing could be particularly beneficial for older candidates, those with disabilities, or those with caring responsibilities.

The panel’s recommendation, therefore, was that electoral law and procedures should be changed to enable candidates to stand for election on the basis of transparent job-sharing arrangements, and they set out some very broad and general principles that could be followed to achieve this. The Assembly Commission subsequently decided that the recommendation was indeed an interesting one that merited being included as a topic in the public consultation on Assembly electoral reform. That consultation was held between February and April this year, and we intend to publish initial headline responses before the summer recess.

This work requires detailed analysis in order to ensure that it is able to fully inform the decision of Members. I can confirm here today, however, that the Commission has received over 3,200 submissions to the consultation process. I’m sure you’ll agree that that is very encouraging, that there was such a substantial response to that consultation. I’m looking forward, therefore, to reading some of the comments of the consultation and to hear the comments of Members on this quite complicated policy area. It's an issue that certainly offers opportunities, but I’ve no doubt that it also raises a number of practical, political and legal challenges.

One reason for this, as was noted in the panel's report, was the recent High Court case determination that job sharing is not currently permitted for Westminster elections according to electoral law. The same would also stand for Assembly elections, as things currently stand. In that particular case, two women made a request to the returning officer in Basingstoke to stand jointly for a Westminster election on behalf of the Green Party, as Siân Gwenllian mentioned. That request was rejected by the returning officer and the decision was challenged unsuccessfully in the High Court in London.

The initial legal advice that I have received also casts doubt on the competence of this Assembly to make all of the changes needed to implement such a policy, particularly if Members would wish to allow a job-sharing Member to become Minister or Cabinet Secretary.

On a more practical note, it remains the case that there is no precedent elsewhere of elected Members job sharing. There are examples within the European Parliament that are not dissimilar to this arrangement, but they are arrangements within political parties rather than a statutory electoral system. I am aware, for example, of Members of the European Parliament giving up their seat during the term in order to allow the next person on the list to undertake that role for the rest of the term. In the European elections in 2014, the Peoples Decide alliance from Galicia won one seat. The alliance decided that they should allow one Member to serve for part of the term and another to serve for the rest of the term—Ana Miranda Paz—and she has just been elected for the second part of the European parliamentary term as the other Member stands down in order to allow her to be elected. A job share of a different kind, of course, but a job share nonetheless.

As I mentioned, this current system was established within a political party or alliance rather than through legislation and that is quite different to the situation where two politicians are elected to undertake a single role. Certainly, for this to work, constituents would need assurances in relation to the practicality of job sharing, particularly in terms of who is accountable and responsible, and in terms of costs.

There are questions also to be asked as to whether creating a law to allow job sharing would necessarily lead to political parties adopting candidates on a job-share basis. That's a matter of politics, not law, of course.

None of this is an excuse for inaction, of course, nor a reason for dismissing the idea out of hand. I am proud that this Assembly is innovative and forward-thinking, but a significant amount of work would be required before the Assembly Commission, Members and, indeed, electors could feel confident that such a policy could be implemented effectively. But now, of course, the powers for Assembly elections sit in this Assembly, and we can have this kind of innovative, interesting debate where, in previous Assemblies, we would have discussed something that wouldn't be possible for us to deliver as an Assembly.

Therefore, I'm grateful for this initial discussion today. I think it sets a clear precedent for this Assembly to be innovative in how we draw up our electoral systems for the future.

Diolch. That brings today's proceedings to a close. Thank you.

The meeting ended at 18:48.