The next item, therefore, is the motion to appoint an acting standards commissioner, and I call on Jayne Bryant to move the motion. Jayne Bryant. 

Motion NDM6856 Jayne Bryant

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes that the National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards is unable to act:

a)  in relation to a complaint from Joyce Watson AM dated 8 May; and

b)  in relation to any other complaint arising from the same subject matter.

2. Appoints, in relation to any complaint referred to in paragraph 1, Douglas Bain CBE TD as acting Commissioner, in accordance with Section 4(1) of the National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards Measure 2009, on the following terms:

a)  the appointment takes effect on 7 November 2018.

b)  the appointment ends immediately when notice is given to the acting Commissioner by the Clerk of the Assembly.

c)  the acting Commissioner’s remuneration is to be a daily rate of £392 (or pro-rata for part of a day) for activities that relate directly to the role and responsibilities of the post plus reasonable expenses.

d)  all sums referred to in paragraph 2(c) are to be paid to the acting Commissioner by the Assembly Commission.

Motion moved.

I formally move. 

Mark Reckless—oh.

Apologies that Mark Reckless wasn't in his space. [Laughter.] I had assumed that the Chair of the standards committee would be speaking first.

There's no notice of this event on the computer system we have here for the agenda. It wasn't mentioned as a change to the agenda by the acting leader of the house. I did get an e-mail at 12.34 p.m. with a link to an agenda, with this as an unnumbered item between No. 2 and 3. And I just want to share my concern about the way that we're addressing this. It says in the motion that the standards commissioner can't consider the matter of this complaint from Joyce Watson in May, or the other complaints relating to the same subject matter, and the reason he can't consider it is that he has already considered it and determined that, in his view, in that consideration, it did not merit consideration by the standards committee as a whole or a report. 

Now, I don't know the merits of that decision. I haven't seen the video that's been complained about. All I know is that we have a standards commissioner. I respect him and his decisions, and if he's considered a matter, surely we should accept that decision rather than complain about it and pressure him to retake that decision in a different way, when, actually, our procedures don't allow us to. So, we now look to have a different motion to get around this by appointing someone else to come in and do it over the head of the standards commissioner who's already considered it, and we propose to pay him £392 a day, as well as having a press officer coming in for the standards commissioner in future. I would just question the way this is done. I think it's important that Members and others in the justice system, as in the justice system outside, don't suffer double jeopardy, and just because a Member may be unpopular or people may take a different view from the standards commissioner on a certain thing he's considered, surely it would be better to accept his decision rather than seek to reopen it. 

I wholly agree with everything that Mark Reckless has said. I believe that this motion raises fundamental questions of due process in the context of our standards committee and the way it works. This is a quasi-judicial body and it does have the power to impose sanctions that are both financial and of other kinds. It has the power to exclude from this Assembly to which we've all been elected by the people outside. These are very serious powers and therefore should be exercised with caution, and the procedures for the investigation of complaints, on the basis of which any sanction is applied, should be fair and should be relied upon by everybody who is a member of this place, equally, and individuals should not be singled out. 

Now, this motion applies only to one complaint against one Member. The commissioner has written to say that there is no provision in the procedure laid down by the Assembly for reconsideration of a complaint, either at the request of the original complainant or a third party. However, each of the requests that he has now received in relation to this specific matter contained a complaint about the video, and he has decided that each request should therefore be treated as a fresh complaint. Now, this is a reconsideration of a complaint that has already been considered, not on the basis of compelling new evidence, which the double jeopardy Act, brought in following the Lawrence inquiry, has provided for, for example, DNA evidence that was not available before. In those circumstances, one can well see that miscarriages of justice involving serious crimes like murder may call for a reconsideration on the basis of new evidence. There is no new evidence in this case. There is only the video, and it's a matter of subjective opinion what one thinks of it. I haven't seen the video either, although I have myself been the subject of such a video—[Interruption.] I have myself been the subject of such a video on YouTube, where my head was put in place of Miley Cyrus's in 'Wrecking Ball'. I laughed that off; I certainly wouldn't regard that as a serious criticism worthy of consideration by the standards committee.

I do believe that double jeopardy is a serious matter. The United Kingdom is signed up to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, article 14.7 of which says:

'No one shall be liable to be tried or punished again for an offence for which he has already been finally convicted or acquitted in accordance with the law and penal procedure of each country.'

If this motion passes this afternoon, it is flatly in contradiction of Britain's obligations under that specific provision. And I see a fellow lawyer laughing at this, which I'm very surprised at, actually, because he could well find himself in a similar position in future. If we are to say that, regardless of the commissioner's decision, further complaints that are identical in form can be considered and reconsidered ad infinitum, then there is no end to this process. One of the main reasons for supporting the double jeopardy rule—

That's simply not true.

Will you please shut up and listen? [Interruption.] I'm trying to make a serious point here, which is—[Interruption.] I'm trying to make a serious point—

Make the point. And other Members will be silent.

—of a non-partisan nature. It may be Gareth Bennett today, it may be anybody else tomorrow. Therefore, the procedure that we set up has to be fair and reliable and to be applied equally. Yes, by all means let us set up a process of appeals from a decision of the commissioner, but let us not do it in an individual case, where it might easily be said that this is a case of victimisation, against a specific individual, because he is not popular in the Assembly. That would seem to me to be the correct way in which to proceed.

Organisations like Liberty have spoken up for the double jeopardy rule to be maintained in the past, and many organisations that should be revered by Members of Plaid Cymru or the Labour Party have explained publicly, and in documents, how abhorrent it is that individuals should be subjected to a retrial, unless there were compelling new evidence, which is allowed for in the European convention on human rights as well. In this particular instance, there is nothing new whatsoever, as I understand it, in these complaints.

Now, Mr Bain, I'm sure, is a totally acceptable choice for such a position; I've nothing against him whatsoever. If he comes to a different conclusion from Sir Roderick Evans on this matter, where does that leave Sir Roderick Evans's credibility? Whose decision are we to accept as preferable and why? Are we then to have a third commissioner appointed, in order to resolve the impasse between a difference of opinion between the existing two? And how many times does this have to go on? Should we have a people's vote on this matter, ultimately? This seems to me a matter of extreme importance to not just the liberty of the individual, but also to justice, and justice should matter to all of us, even though it may not be apparent to some who have noisily been trying to intervene in my speech today.

Jayne Bryant to reply to the debate. Jayne Bryant.

Diolch, Llywydd. I think it might be helpful just to outline a few points here. As stated in the motion, the commissioner has indicated that he's unable to act in the matter relating to the complaint made by Joyce Watson, and any related complaints, and he has asked for an acting commissioner to be appointed. The provision for an acting commissioner has been included in the Measure, and therefore it will have no bearing on the commissioner's position. In this instance, after careful consideration, the commissioner decided that this was the best option to deal with the matter.

The commissioner made it clear in his statement that he'd received further complaints, and has concluded that he should not act in this matter. And it's permissible within the legislation for an acting commissioner to be appointed. There is nothing in the Measure to prevent a complaint being looked at where one of a similar nature had been dismissed.

Will the Member give way? I wonder if she could answer a question—very genuinely. When she says that the commissioner asked for this acting commissioner to be appointed, can she assure Members that no pressure was brought on the commissioner by any Member prior to that decision in any way?

It certainly was the decision of the commissioner to do this, so, yes. Thank you, and that was—. I was coming to—you've intervened right at the end of my speech, so thank you. 

Just in time. [Laughter.]

Good timing. 

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed, in accordance with Standing Order 12.36. 

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.