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.