The next item, therefore, is the Standards of Conduct Committee report, report 02-19. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Jayne Bryant.

Motion NDM7148 Jayne Bryant

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Considers the Report of the Standards of Conduct Committee—Report 02-19 laid before the Assembly on 18 September 2019 in accordance with Standing Order 22.9

2. Endorses the recommendation in the report.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. As Chair of the Standards of Conduct Committee, I formally move the motion.

The committee considered the report from the National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards in relation to a complaint made against Leanne Wood AM regarding the use of unparliamentary language. 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 to this case.

The facts related to the complaint and the committee's reasons for its recommendation are set out in full in the committee's report. The motion tabled invites the Assembly to endorse the committee's recommendations.

Leanne Wood.

I may have a reputation for being robust in my response to trolls and bullies online, but I don't normally engage in language that some may consider to be unparliamentary. This is the first time that I've called someone 'an arsehole' on social media, and whilst I can't promise that I won't swear on social media ever again, I can understand why, on receiving a complaint, the standards commissioner felt unable to be seen to be condoning the use by an Assembly Member of what he considers to be an offensive word.

However, this case raises a number of questions. The case that follows this one is arguably similar if you just take this question as an Assembly Member's use of unparliamentary language on social media. But because the Member in that case has chosen to issue an apology to the Llywydd, there is no censure for him. I, too, was offered a chance to apologise in order to avoid a censure, and the committee, in fairness, had a lot of sympathy with my position on this when I addressed them. But it would not be honest or right for me to issue an apology, because this is much more than a case of just swearing on Twitter. I, along with countless other women who are active in politics, regularly receive trolling, abusive tweets and general nastiness on social media on a daily basis. Sometimes, it's co-ordinated; undoubtedly, it's rooted in misogyny. 

The context, therefore, where a well-known online misogynist bully, who describes himself as a blogger, issued a snide passive-aggressive tweet, a thinly veiled attack on my colleague Delyth Jewell before she'd even started in her role and before she was in a position to properly defend herself, after I had seen this person issue attack after attack on mostly women, but others, including disabled people, gay people, trans people and so on, usually from a right or far-right perspective, calling people names like feminazi, socialist handmaids, woke, Nietzscheists, virtue-signalling snowflakes—terms that those who pay attention to such matters will know are straight out of the far-right play book. 

These types of attacks are personal, but they are also political, and the timing, after our group had experienced such a horrific loss just that week, well, enough was enough. I decided that the best way to stand up to that bully was to use language that he was sure to understand. It's not language that I would normally use, but sometimes, when standing up to bullies, you have to deploy whatever strategies you deem necessary.

There is something very wrong with an organisation's complaints procedures when the people standing up to a bully, and so often we are women, people of colour or LGBT people calling them out, and then we are the people who get the complaints, and we are the people who get censured.

Take the case of Naga Munchetty. Just last week, Naga was censured by the BBC for questioning Donald Trump's racism. People have to be able to call out and robustly challenge this growing scourge that comes with increased support for far-right parties. Sometimes, panels and procedures don't get it right, and as at the BBC, there are mechanisms in place to reverse poor or wrong decisions, and we have an opportunity to do something similar here. The mechanism exists here through Members' votes. Will we do the same?

I feel I have to make Members aware that this is the third complaint made to the standards commissioner that I'm aware of about me in the last year. Prior to this, I'm only aware of one complaint ever since my election to this place in 2003. Thankfully, the commissioner has deemed that the other two complaints do not warrant any further action.

For one of those complaints, there were 37 separate complainants, all about the same thing, coincidentally after a far-right politician had tweeted the complaints procedure information and encouraged his followers to complain. Well, that little ruse seems to have been seen through and dismissed as vexatious, and I am grateful to the standards commissioner for that. It is dangerous to have far-right politicians in the mainstream almost directing their bands of followers to bully, troll and intimidate people online and to make official complaints, yet that seems to be what's happening.

I don't need to outline the impact of online bullying and trolling, or how it is used to silence women and minorities, because the support statements in the report from Women's Aid and GlitchUK, the charity that's been set up to tackle online abuse, outline all that very well, and I'm grateful to those organisations and everyone else who has written in support on this.

A lot has been said about Members being almost obliged to support the committee's recommendations for a censure, that somehow the committee, the commissioner or the process will be undermined were Members to disagree with the censure recommendation. What is the point of AMs having a vote on this if all we can do is rubber-stamp what a committee has already decided?

I am grateful to the Plaid Cymru group for backing me and the principle that we have to differentiate between those who bully and those who stand up to bullies. I know that there's solidarity from other benches in this Chamber for me as well and I'm very grateful for that. I hope this afternoon that Members will feel able to vote in line with what they honestly believe to be right on this question. Diolch yn fawr.

I have very many speakers who've asked to contribute to this 15-minute debate. I have enough speakers to last an hour. Most of you can expect not to be called in this debate, which was scheduled for only 15 minutes. Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I rise as a member of the standards committee and speak to the report, obviously, that's laid before the Assembly this afternoon. It is, without question, unparliamentary language that the report refers to. I have a huge amount of sympathy for the situation that Leanne presented to the committee—that she and other Members across all parties face here. Only this week, for example, in the renaming of this institution, I've been told to go back to England, the place where I'll feel more at home than Wales, because I'm not Welsh because I don't speak Welsh. There's a mute button on my social media. I can mute people. I do not use unparliamentary language on social media. That's not to say it might not happen in the future, because that spark might go on and, one night, one day, something might be said that will really enrage me.

But it is a fact that this report, and I think the Member agrees with this fact—that none of the facts are contested in the report, and the report is accurate. Each Member in this process is afforded that opportunity. It is a fact that it is a cross-party committee that has brought this report to the Chamber, and Plaid Cymru's Member on that committee supported wholeheartedly the report. So, it is a little surprising to see that, as a group, now, you are dissenting from the Member's position, which she took in that committee meeting. That is a statement of fact. [Interruption.] Well, if I could just finish, I'd be grateful, as I didn't interrupt when you were standing.

I think the points you made on the wider issues of trolling, and also the abuse that politicians and members of society across the board face, is something that is a phenomenon in the modern age. Twenty or 25 years ago, there wasn't social media, there wasn't the intrusion into our homes, where you can switch your phone on and get that abuse in your home. No-one should have to put up with that. But it is a fact that this institution set up a standards procedure that is clearly defined and that has a commissioner at its heart, who presents a report. That report then comes to the committee with the outcome of the standards commissioner's investigation. That's what we're discussing here this afternoon. I appreciate the Member used the term that is in question here—the word—and I am trying to avoid using it because I do not believe that it is right to use it in this Chamber. Frankly, if it isn't right to be used in this Chamber, then clearly it's not right to be used on a platform when engaging with members of the public.

It is a fact that the complainant in this particular case is not the blogger that you referred to—I don't know whether there is an association with the blogger—but a third party. The Member cited the blogger in this particular instance, whom the word was used against, but the complainant was a third party—it was not that individual. I don't know who the complainant was because we weren't privy to the name; it was not released.

Don't you think they've got mates?

I'm just making the point that it was a third party. [Interruption.] Well, I don't know whether the person was a mate or not, but it could have been someone not associated at all. But that's an important consideration that this Chamber needs to reflect on.

There are three things that need to be reflected on with this report that's before us today. One: is the report contested for its accuracy? No, it's not. Two: is that word, associated with this report, suitable to be used in this context, in the Chamber or on a public platform that is Twitter? I would suggest not. The third and final outcome is: do we need to do more about trolling and social media activity in general? Of course we do. But we shouldn't mix the two together with the report that is before the Senedd this afternoon, and the wider issues that this report and publicity around issues that are raised in this report, which are raised on a time-by-time basis and that come up virtually every day of the week now.

I do hope that the Senedd will have the confidence to endorse this report, which has gone through full scrutiny, cross-party support and the rigour of the standards commissioner's office and investigation—which this Assembly itself, and the Members within this Chamber, elected to establish—and the rules that govern his investigations.

The refusal of any Assembly Member to accept the findings of the standards committee is completely reprehensible, because it means that the code of conduct becomes obsolete. We would, in fact, practice being a ruleless Assembly. We must remember that the whole of the Assembly voted to introduce this code of conduct. I also find the comments on social media with regard to the standards commissioner totally unacceptable. Sir Roderick simply gathers evidence and decides whether he believes the behaviour of a Member breaks the rules contained in the code of conduct guide. It is the standards committee—

Will the Member take an intervention?

—that decides whether to agree with this finding. Yes, of course.

The only question I have is, procedurally, the committee brings a report to this Assembly in the same way as any other committee would do, so that the Assembly as a whole can come to a decision. Surely you have to recognise that we're all within our right to vote whichever way we wish to vote on this.

Well, of course. There was an opportunity for the Assembly Member to talk to the committee and to explain her views, and we took those views into account before we made a decision. But it's the standards committee that decides whether to agree with his findings and, if so, set the level of sanctions that it feels are appropriate. It is also important to note that the Member agreed with the factual content of Sir Roderick's report. By refusing to accept these sanctions, a Member is ignoring the decision of a cross-party committee—in this case, a committee that included a Plaid Cymru Member who agreed to the sanctions being imposed. Whilst I am willing to accept that there was a level of provocation from the person who was subject of the comments, and there is no doubt that there was extreme provocation from that person, provocation cannot be a defence for breaking the Assembly's code of conduct, particularly on social media. The committee was satisfied that the language used was inappropriate conduct for an Assembly Member, and it took into account the provocation aspect of the case in setting the level of sanction imposed. Refusal to accept such sanctions leads to anarchy in the Assembly procedural rules. I urge the Assembly to endorse the report.

There is an attempt to make this debate about one word used by Leanne Wood. It is, after all, the simplest thing to do, but then it is simpler to arrest someone who steals a loaf of bread than ask why they are hungry. It is simpler to jail a woman moved to violence than address decades of coercive control. It is simpler to censure a woman of colour than listen to her call out everyday racism on tv. And that is what happens every day, because it is simpler not to rock the boat, not to lift the lid, to say that the system must be respected. It would be simpler to just say that Leanne should not have used that word, give her a slap on the wrist and then move on. That's what most people want to happen. It would be simple and wrong. When you are dealing with people, prejudice and politics, systems don't always fit. You need to inject a bit of judgment and humanity. You also need to be able to take the long view. So, it isn't Leanne's choice of words that I want to focus on today, it's the double standards at play, the context of the situation and the words, the attitudes and the actions that prompted her anger.

'"Women's rights and international development". God help @Plaid_Cymru".

These are the words that really give context to today's debate. This is the ancient, entitled, misogynistic attitude that runs like a torrent through the heart of this discussion, and through the heart of Welsh politics. The world view has not shifted as much as we would like to pretend in this place. It has not shifted in this place as much as we often pretend. As recently as last year, an Assembly Member, not a blogger or a commentator, but an elected Member, produced a sexist, deeply insulting video about a woman he works with. A councillor in my own borough, who actually chaired the safer communities committee at the time, repeatedly referred to refugees as 'rapefugees' on Facebook; 5,000 refugees died in the Mediterranean the same year he made those remarks, hundreds of women and children fleeing persecution. The friends and colleagues of the Prime Minister say he has a woman problem. He refers to Muslim women as 'letterboxes', an intervention that preceded a 375 per cent rise in Islamophobic incidents. The Prime Minister used the death of Jo Cox to make a flippant point about Brexit, an outburst that moved MPs to tears, not because they are women or weak, but because they mourn their friend and feel genuine fear for their own safety. The Prime Minister's own words are being used in death threats against women MPs.

Can I tell you the two things that connect the Prime Minister, the councillor and that Assembly Member? They are all men and none of them were censured. And are we really getting ready to censure Leanne Wood for a one-word outburst—a politician whose opinions on gender issues and immigration have earned her death threats and daily abuse that require police intervention? Really? She’s the bad guy in all this? Here’s the third difference between Leanne’s one-word offence and that of the three men I mentioned: hers was an entirely instinctive response, a human response to someone known for sexist views who is attacking a new, young, female colleague shortly after the death of a much-loved friend and colleague. It was not a planned intervention designed to provoke outrage, hatred or division.

The lesson here seems to be that as long as you invest money and focus-group your intolerant language, and choose a message carrier in trousers, then you’re free to say what you like, unchecked by the authorities. It simply does not make sense, measured against anything and everything we claim to hold dear in this Assembly. If the result of the policy is nonsensical, then surely we should not shrug and blame the process—we should change the policy and the process to match the reality being faced by too many women. And can I say to Andrew R.T. Davies: most of the abuse I get online is not even repeatable here or—[Interruption.] No, I haven’t got time. Here or any anywhere else.

I've asked twice for an intervention.

And we should not ignore the backdrop to this inconsistency, and that is the tone set by journalists and commentators of a certain age, gender and class. They are wonderfully quick to claim that equality’s a done deal, despite all evidence to the contrary. There is a belief amongst this class that feminism in the UK is anachronistic, and as for women’s rights, well, ‘God help us all’, to misquote a certain blogger.

Next week we welcome Julia Gillard to Wales, the former Australian Prime Minister. Most of the people in this Chamber won’t need reminding about her famous speech on misogyny, sexism and double standards in 2012, a speech that helped rewrite the dictionary definition of misogyny to include ‘entrenched prejudice against women’. Men and women from this Assembly will be queuing to meet her when she’s here, rightly so—she’s a brilliant politician. But ask yourself before you meet here whether you’ve met the challenge she set in 2012, that there should be no place for sexism, no place for misogyny, no place for double standards.

Now, Leanne Wood is not a political ally of mine, but I have never felt closer to her than throughout this episode. Her reaction was human, instinctive and protective, and it is those three characteristics that continue to bind women from all parties together in this Chamber in the face of dehumanising threats and abuse. I know that we won’t all vote the same way today, but I cannot believe that we don’t at least feel the same way. I commend Leanne for standing her ground. This is no time to be punishing women who, when they are abused, threatened and insulted, say ‘No more’, no matter how impolitely they may say it.

I want to remind Members of the context surrounding all of this. Context is everything in a case like this. When our friend and colleague Steffan had passed away in January, nobody, including me, wanted to think about what would come next. We wanted to grieve for our friend. And I had decided that I wouldn’t say anything in public, on social media or otherwise, until after his funeral. Events meant that I had to be returned quite swiftly, but I did not want to take the oath until the funeral had passed. So, when my name was announced on Twitter, I didn’t say anything about it. I was already feeling tremendous guilt and grief. A few very vocal accounts on Twitter immediately responded to, I think, the BBC's short article, making assumptions about what a disappointment of an AM I was already going to be, and that was because the first line of my personal Twitter biography noted that I worked in women’s rights and international development. My job at the time had been to be a women’s rights campaigner for ActionAid. It was a job I was very proud of having. But that one line was enough to infuriate some people, and to assume that that was all I was going to be interested in. I didn’t feel like I could answer and speak up for myself in the circumstances. Leanne did what she did, in large part, to support me. Leanne was also grieving for her friend, and she could see how ill-judged, insensitive and cruel the timing and the tone of those messages about me were. So, I was incredibly grateful to her then, and I'm still grateful to her now, for sticking up for me when I couldn't do that for myself. So, I will be voting against this censure. I hope other Members will do the same.

Jayne Bryant, the Chair, to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'd first like to start by thanking all Members who've contributed to this debate today, and I'd particularly like to thank Leanne for saying her words as well. I think some of the complexities around implementing a standards regime are apparent from some of the views that we've heard today. So, I think it might be worth setting out a few facts on the system to start with. An independent standards commissioner is appointed through an open and transparent appointment process. The commissioner uses the code of conduct and supporting guidance, including the dignity and respect policy, voted on by the whole Assembly, to investigate the complaints. If he finds that a complaint has breached the code, that complaint, and the commissioner's report on why he found a breach, is brought before a cross-party committee. The committee's role is to take into account the report of the commissioner and decide if a—and, if so, what—sanction is to be given.

The committee's role is quasi-judicial. We cannot, and do not, make decisions on party political lines. We've been given the responsibility by this Assembly to uphold the highest of standards, and we're all incredibly mindful of that. I, and the committee, have a huge amount of sympathy with the Member in this instance. The trolling, bullying, misogyny, racism, homophobia and so on that happen on social media platforms are reprehensible. Politicians and other public figures are often seen as fair game. We have more to do to support Members on this. I have a great deal of respect for the Member, and there's no doubt in my mind that the Member will continue to call out misogyny, racism, homophobia, bullying and trolling, as she always does, and she always does in a robust way. This is not a problem with the complaint. The committee are united in considering the level of abuse that the Member has faced as completely unacceptable. The rules we have ensure that we maintain those high standards around language we use. The committee's decision was based on the use of a word—however minor the Member or others see it—which breaches the code of conduct and the dignity and respect policy. Just to draw attention—I think Lynne mentioned in her contribution the issue of a Member here, Gareth Bennett, who had a complaint before us. And, in that instance, we suspended the Member for a week without pay. The debate and language about politics at the moment is toxic. We have to maintain our own standards so we don't descend ourselves. These are the high standards that we have set ourselves in our rules.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.