We now move on to the debate on the Standards of Conduct Committee's report 01-19 to the Assembly under Standing Order 22.9. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion—Jayne Bryant.

Motion NDM7032 Jayne Bryant

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Considers the Report of the Standards of Conduct Committee—Report 01-19 laid before the Assembly on 1 April 2019 in accordance with Standing Order 22.9

2. Endorses the recommendations in the report. 

Motion moved.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. As Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, I formally move the motion. The committee considered the report from the acting Commissioner for Standards in relation to a complaint made against Gareth Bennett AM regarding his integrity, which is a breach of paragraph 4(b) of the code of conduct and the Assembly's dignity and respect policy. The Standards of Conduct Committee gave the Commissioner's report careful consideration, and our report sets out the committee's judgment as to the sanction that is appropriate in this case. The facts relating to the complaint and the committee's reasons for its recommendations are set out in full in the committee's report. I would also like to take this opportunity to put on record the committee's thanks for the work undertaken by the acting Commissioner in relation to this complaint. The motion tabled invites the Assembly to endorse the committee's recommendations.

I realise that what I'm about to say is going to fall on deaf ears, but I will make my speech in any event. It's not related to the individual who is the subject of this report. These are general considerations about the way that the Standards of Conduct Committee is operating in order to give effect to the dignity and respect policy and the Standing Orders of this Assembly.

I'm concerned first of all at the admissibility of these complaints, because there were complaints made some time ago to Sir Roderick Evans, our standards commissioner, which he dismissed in a letter to Gareth Bennett of 3 October, which is published with the report. Sir Roderick says that

'I concluded that complaints that the video'— which was being complained of—

'was sexist and misogynistic were not made out.'

Subsequently, several other complaints were made by other Members of the Assembly asking Sir Roderick to review his decision. There is of course no provision that would permit that under the existing rules. So, therefore, Sir Roderick decided that he would not be able to hear these new complaints, as a result of which Mr Bain was appointed to act in his place. Mr Bain then concluded that the new complaints were admissible, notwithstanding the fact that identical complaints had already been dismissed.

Now, it is a serious matter when we expose Members of this place to double jeopardy, as it would be of any citizen in the United Kingdom. In a court of law, where a matter is functus officio, being the official legal term for this in a court of law, no such complaint could be entertained, yet we are allowing double jeopardy in this place for complaints to be made ad nauseam, possibly, against individual Members. I believe that that in principle is wrong.

Mr Bain, in paragraph 6.1 of his report—excuse me—says that—

Member of the Senedd:

It's a long report.

Well, it's not so much long, but without my glasses it's difficult. Yes, in paragraph 6.1 of his report, Mr Bain says that he acknowledges that:

'the determination of complaints of this nature is a matter on which persons may legitimately reach different decisions.'

He then goes on to say:

'I am, of course, aware that the Commissioner for Standards, without the benefit of all the facts now before me, decided that Mrs Watson’s complaint'—  which was the original one—

'about the publication of the video was not admissible.'

So, that leads us to: what had changed between the original complaint and the new complaints? Well, of course at the time that Mr Bain decided to investigate the matter, nothing had changed, because there had been no further investigation. As a result of his investigation, he decided—therefore retrospectively decided—that there was new information that enabled him to consider the complaint that he'd already decided to consider.

This revolved around a phrase that Gareth Bennett used, which was—I don't know whether Members know what the video was, which was basically Joyce Watson's face put onto the body of a barmaid. I'm explaining this for the benefit of those outside who may not understand what this case is about.

You're minimising it.

I'm not minimising it. I haven't finished my speech as yet. You can make your speech in due course.

I will read from the report. Mr Gething, whose complaint was that the video was

'transparently sexist. The buxom barmaid imagery is plainly meant to belittle and offend. The reference to'— 

Sorry, I'm wrong. Sorry, it's the wrong paragraph. Without my glasses it's difficult for me to read. I apologise to Members for having made that mistake. Close to the start of the video is the following text:

'Joyce once ran a pub in Pembrokeshire but you wouldn't guess that from looking at her. She doesn't look like the life and soul of the party.' [Interruption.]

I am quoting from the report, which is published. I am quoting from the report, which is published, and I will make my speech, with the permission of the Deputy Presiding Officer, in my own way.

If you've got a concluding sentence.

Then—this is the important sentence—

'I'm not sure I would fancy popping in for a quick one at the local if I saw her pulling pints at the bar.' [Interruption.]

I wish Members would listen. I am trying to make a—[Interruption.] I know that Members do not want to listen—

Whoa—

—to listen to things that you don't want to hear.

Can I ask the Member to wind up, please?

Member of the Senedd:

Turn his mike off.

I don't need help, thank you. Can you wind up, please?

No, I can't, Deputy Presiding Officer—

I think you can wind up.

—because I've been enduring interruptions that have interrupted the flow of what I'm trying to say. I'm trying to make a serious point about the meaning of this term, 'a quick one at the local'. Mr Bain—

Member of the Senedd:

Point of order.

No, no—no points of order in the middle of a debate, sorry. Will you come to your concluding sentence? Will you come to your concluding sentence?

Mr Bain claimed that that was a sexist remark. 'Popping in for a quick one at the local' to me— 

It's not the world of Benny Hill, you know.

Can you come to your concluding sentence?

'Popping in for a quick one' means to almost anybody, I would have thought—

Mr Hamilton, please come to your—

—popping in for a drink.

Mr Hamilton—

I did a quick search on the internet—

Mr Hamilton, please come—

I couldn't find a single—[Interruption.]

Mr Hamilton, please come to your concluding sentence.

The Cambridge English Dictionary says 'have a quick one' means

'to have a drink, usually an alcoholic drink, just before going somewhere'.

There is no—

Right, I have turned your mike off. Please come to your concluding sentence; you have had far too long to speak.

Well, I'm sorry that I'm being silenced in this serious matter—

You're not being silenced; you've had time.

—which affects the freedom of speech of Members of this place—

Please come to your concluding sentence.

You'll have heard the attempts of Members here to silence this speech and to interrupt it.

Please come to your concluding sentence. Please come to your concluding sentence, or please sit down.

Hardly a day passes in this place when UKIP Members are not belittled or offended by some of the remarks that other Members of this house—[Interruption.] I believe that in a free society members of a democratic assembly should be prepared to put up with criticism and, indeed, sometimes being belittled and offended. That is part and parcel of it, and Joyce Watson—

No, sorry, you've had long enough. Sorry, please, sit down. Please sit down. Please sit down. Your mike's not on. Your mike's not on. Your mike will not go on. Please sit down. 

Right, sorry, Huw Irranca-Davies is the next speaker. Sorry, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. And actually, this has illustrated the point I wanted to make.

First of all, can I commend the report that's come forward? It's a difficult decision whenever such allegations are levelled against any Member and also for the individual, I have to say, who has been the subject of the original complaints as well. And I think the way in which, Neil, you've dealt with this today has just resurfaced those issues in a very uncomfortable way—and I say this politely—to great discomfort, not only to the individual, but to Members and people watching these proceedings.

But can I just say, because the point that I wanted to come to is to do with the way that we deal with this? And first of all, it should be on the basis that you play at the whistle. You do not question the referee. And, Neil, you know as well as I know that when a Member in the House of Commons is sanctioned, they not only appear there and are expected to sit there and to listen, in courtesy and in humility to what is being said, but they are often asked by the Standards and Privileges Committee to make an apology in person. I am amazed, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I think we need to revisit our Standing Orders to insist that the Member is present. I've seen it too many times in this place that the Member scuttles off somewhere to hide from this and allows somebody else to barrack a defence on their behalf. And I would welcome the opportunity that we actually revisit Standing Orders and look at both the insistence that the Member should be present and, secondly, that we extend those Standing Orders that we have under 22.10—where we are allowed to censure a Member, withdraw rights and privileges, exclude a Member from Assembly proceedings—to also add the fact that we could demand an apology if the grievance is significant.

Secondly, the power of the Chair, or in this case the Deputy Presiding Officer. In Erskine May, in the House of Commons, it says very, very clearly that the power of the Chair, the Speaker, to name and sanction a Member who's disregarded the authority of the Chair, or who has persistently and wilfully obstructed the house by abusing its rules, he or she, after generally being given every opportunity—that empty chair today speaks volumes—every opportunity to set matters right, may be named, and then may be suspended for five days, for 20 days, for as long as that house decides. In our Standing Orders, here in this red book, which is our bible, it says, if a Member, Neil,

'refuses to conform to any Standing Order or other requirement...; or...disregards the authority of the chair.'

There is only one thing that keeps us within rules, within conduct in this house; it is the authority of the Chair.

The reason I've stood to speak is not on the substance, although I welcome the findings and the recommendations that have come forward, I really do. But, should that Member not see it fit—who is absent today—to apologise, to show some contrition for what is done, I would thoroughly recommend that the committee revisits it, comes back, and revisits the option of actually bringing forward a further suspension, but in so doing also looks at the range of penalties that can be done.

I would like to see that Member here, not being defended by somebody else, but to speak for themselves and to apologise and to show contrition. Because if they don't, it is not only out of compliance with Standing Orders, on which we will shortly vote and show the will of this house, but it's also out of compliance with the Standing Orders about the power of our Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer. Disregarding the authority of the Chair. I should think there is disrespect being shown not only to the Member, but also to this Chamber here. And if we are a democratic institution, as Neil was so keen to say, then we abide by the rules, we apologise when we all do things wrong, and the committee says so, and we listen to the Chair and we accept the sanctions. [Applause.]

Thank you. Can I call on the Chair of the committee, Jayne Bryant, to reply to the debate? Jayne.

Diolch, Deputy Llywydd. Firstly, I'd like to say that I'm disappointed with the tone of the Member for Mid and West Wales. I'm surprised he didn't quote the report, which says:

'As Assembly Members, we have a responsibility to set an example on how to behave with dignity and respect to all of society, and this video falls well below the standards expected.'

On the point that he made on the acting commissioner as well, the commissioner did make it clear in his statement concerning the appointment of an acting commissioner back in October, which he shared with Members, that he'd received further complaints and therefore considered himself unable to act in this matter. It's permissible within the legislation for an acting commissioner to be appointed and there is nothing in the Measure to prevent a complaint being looked at where one of a similar nature has been dismissed. The committee received legal advice that the double jeopardy provisions would not apply in such instances, and I'd like to remind him that this is not a court of law.

Moving on to Huw Irranca-Davies, I thank Huw Irranca-Davies for his contribution. The committee does consider, and it did in this instance, whether a Member apologises as part of its deliberations. In this instance, it did take the Member's lack of contrition, which is noted in the report, into account when reaching our conclusion. We'd be happy to look into the points that you raise as well, as we'll be looking at sanctions once our code of conduct work is complete. It's timely to review that and make sure they're fit for purpose. 

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.