That brings us to group 8 and the amendments relate to equality and diversity and job sharing. Amendment 161 is the lead amendment in the group. I call on Delyth Jewell to move the lead amendment and to speak to the other amendments in the group. Delyth Jewell.

Amendment 161 (Delyth Jewell).

Diolch, Llywydd. I speak to all the amendments in this group, which have been tabled following discussions with external organisations, who, like myself, are continually disappointed at the lack of diversity in local government. At Stage 2 I tabled a number of probing amendments on equality and diversity, and I hope the Minister will work with us on this agenda, regardless of how this vote goes.

Turning to a specific amendment, and of course some of them are consequential to the main ones, amendment 162 would allow job sharing for councillors. Job sharing arrangements are crucial in making any role more accessible and we do hope to see some movement on this in the near future.

Amendment 163 would require registered political parties to provide information on the diversity of its candidates according to protected characteristics. The truth is, we all have a responsibility to improve diversity in public life and a small requirement to publish information, which is all this amendment does, may be a positive contribution to this important aim.

Amendment 172 would require local authorities to update their strategic equality plans. Many, of course, already do review and update those plans, but this amendment would ensure that those that do not see it as a priority would do so.

Again, I reiterate that I hope the Minister agrees that these and a number of amendments that I tabled at Stage 2 illustrate the extent to which we should be updating local government, its practices and competition, and I hope we can continue this debate again regardless of how the vote goes, although I do hope very much that Members will support the amendment. Diolch yn fawr.

Amendments 178 and 179 would remove the limit on the number of executive members in cases where one or more councillors are elected or appointed to the executive in a shared office. I understand the principle that underpins that this amendment, and it's one of promoting greater diversity, but unfortunately the amendment does not consider the potential implications of such an approach. During the development of the Bill, though consideration was given to whether the limit of 10 should be completely removed, it was felt that there was still a need to limit the overall size of the cabinet to ensure that the number of councillors included within it did not result in the cabinet having too much weight within the council as a whole.

This is especially true in smaller councils, and we have a number of councils with around 30 members. In order to ensure that there is capacity for appropriate levels of scrutiny of the executive, the balance needs to be maintained and this is where the numbers matter. Let’s consider a scenario where each executive post is held on a job-share basis. In some councils, this could lead to a very small number of members being available to fill vital scrutiny roles.

We have acknowledged the need to increase the number of individuals that can be in the executive to accommodate job sharing. I do believe it's important to pause and see how this operates in practice before considering further changes to the provision. I therefore call on Members to reject amendments 178 and 179, and also amendment 161, which is consequential to these amendments.

Amendment 162 introduces provision to enable two or more people to jointly stand for election to a single council seat. I am very supportive indeed of measures designed to increase diversity in local democracy. However, I do not think we could proceed with a change of this magnitude without consulting extensively with the electorate to determine whether they support it, and in order to do so, we will need to be clear about the questions that will need to be answered.

This will mean a thorough examination of all aspects of the process, from selecting a candidate, their nomination, their election, to the way in which they would perform their role as an elected representative. The current body of elections and local government administration legislation would need to be examined in some detail. For example, would job-share partners have to be from the same party? What if one of the job-share partners left the party that they stood for? What would happen is electors were happy with the performance of one job-sharer but not with the other? What if a leader wanted to include one of the job sharers in the executive but not the other? And what if one of the job sharers is suspended for misconduct?

That is why I committed to undertake work in this area as part of phase 2 of our diversity in democracy programme. The work will be undertaken during next year and, as such, I recommend Members reject amendment 162 and also amendments 160 and 174, which are consequential to it.

Turning to amendment 163, which seeks to require political parties to publish information relating to the diversity of candidates standing in local government elections, the proposed provision would also enable Welsh Ministers to specify a range of matters, such as descriptions of information to be published, the timing and manner of publication, and descriptions of the political parties to which the duty would apply.

This amendment reflects a long-standing debate about the need to have greater information about the range of people standing for election. The rationale for data collection is that the more information we have, the more we are able to measure whether the support and interventions put in place are effective in increasing diversity within local democracy.

In response to the report of the ELGC committee on diversity in local government, I agreed to assess the effectiveness of the provisions in the Local Government (Wales) Measure 2011 in relation to the candidates and elected members survey, which has been undertaken after every local government election in Wales since 2012. Section 1 of the 2011 Measure already requires each principal council in Wales to conduct a survey of both successful and unsuccessful candidates. The form of the survey, its questions and the manner of collating the information are all prescribed in regulations made by the Welsh Ministers. The prescribed questions include gender, sexual orientation, language, race, age, disability, religion or belief. Unlike the proposals in amendment 163, the survey has the benefit of covering independent members as well as those representing political parties. This is a particularly important issue, given the level of independent representation across Wales.

Local authorities must ensure that individuals are able to provide the information anonymously. However, these individuals are under no obligation to respond, which raises an important truth about collecting this data. We can put in place any number of arrangements, but we cannot, and should not, require individuals to provide what is, in some cases, sensitive data. This could actually put people off standing for election and itself become a barrier to diversity. We will be reviewing the current arrangements around the local election survey as part of phase 2 of our Diversity in Democracy programme. As part of this work we will be able to consider what changes, if any, could be made to improve data collection in this area, and we will be taking forward this work next year. Therefore, while supporting the spirit behind these amendments, I’m afraid I will not be supporting them today.

Turning to amendment 172. The second part of the amendment is unnecessary; a new authority established by merger or restructuring regulations under Part 7 of the Bill will assume the full range of functions and duties of a local authority on the transfer date. It will thus be a public body as defined in the Equality Act 2010. As such, each new council will be automatically subject to the public sector equality duty of the 2010 Act, will have to publish its equality objectives, and will—the date in regulation 14 of the 2011 regulations notwithstanding—have to make a strategic equality plan. The appropriate vehicle for specifying a date by which the SEP must be made would be in the merger or restructuring regulations that establish the new authority.

I consider it likely that we may actually want the new authority to make its SEP sooner than the 12 months suggested. So, we could make it a function of the shadow council and direct the relevant transition committee to undertake preparatory work, so it could be in place on the transfer date or very soon afterwards. A reporting requirement for all Welsh public authorities to remake or revise their SEP every 10 years is also unnecessary. There is an intrinsic link between a public authority's SEP and its equality objectives, with a public authority required to review its equality objectives at least every four years. It would be very difficult for an authority to be compliant with the 2011 regulations overall if it did not revise its SEP in the wake of reviewing its equality objectives. As such, in practice, public authorities revise their SEPs every four years, and imposing a statutory duty to revise or remake every 10 years would just add to the monitoring and reporting burdens. Accordingly, I'm sorry to say that I recommend that Members do not support amendment 172. Diolch.

Delyth Jewell to reply to the debate.

I thank the Minister. I take those points on those things that could happen as an unintended consequence of the amendments. I do welcome some of the Minister's comments, but because of the importance of these principles, we will push them to a vote. Thank you.

The question is to agree amendment 161. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes. Open the vote on amendment 161. Close the vote. In favour nine, 12 abstentions, 30 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 161: For: 9, Against: 30, Abstain: 12

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 178. Delyth Jewell, do you wish to move the amendment?

Amendment 178 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

[Objection.] There is an objection to the amendment, so we will vote on amendment 178. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour nine, 13 abstentions, 29 against. Therefore, amendment 178 is not agreed.

Amendment 178: For: 9, Against: 29, Abstain: 13

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 179, in the name of Delyth Jewell. Is it moved?

Amendment 179 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Yes, it is. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. Therefore, I will open the vote on amendment 179. Close the vote. In favour nine, 13 abstentions, 29 against. Therefore, amendment 179 is not agreed.

Amendment 179: For: 9, Against: 29, Abstain: 13

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 162 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Amendment 162 in the name of Delyth Jewell is moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. I will therefore open the vote on amendment 162. Close the vote. In favour nine, five abstentions, 37 against. Therefore amendment 162 is not agreed.

Amendment 162: For: 9, Against: 37, Abstain: 5

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 75 in the name of the Minister.

Amendment 75 (Julie James) moved.

Any objections to amendment 75? [Objection.] Yes, from Gareth Bennett. Open the vote on amendment 75. Close the vote. In favour 44, six abstentions, one against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Amendment 75: For: 44, Against: 1, Abstain: 6

Amendment has been agreed

Delyth Jewell, amendment 163.

Amendment 163 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

It's moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. I'll therefore open the vote on amendment 163. Close the vote. In favour 17, three abstentions, 31 against. Amendment 163 is not agreed.

Amendment 163: For: 17, Against: 31, Abstain: 3

Amendment has been rejected

Delyth Jewell, amendment 160.

Amendment 160 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

That's moved. Any objections? [Objection.] Yes. I will therefore open the vote on amendment 160. Close the vote. In favour nine, five abstentions, 37 against. Therefore, amendment 160 is not agreed.

Amendment 160: For: 9, Against: 37, Abstain: 5

Amendment has been rejected