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.