Item 13 is next, a motion to amend Standing Orders, miscellaneous changes. A member of the Business Committee to formally move—Rebecca Evans.

Motion NDM7674 Elin Jones

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 33.2:

1. Considers the report of the Business Committee, ‘Amending Standing Orders: Miscellaneous Changes’, laid in the Table Office on 17 March 2021.

2. Approves the proposals to amend Standing Orders 1, 11 and 20, as set out in Annex A of the Business Committee’s report.

Motion moved.

Formally moved.

It's good to see at least one other Member engaged in the process to the extent of objecting, even though I seem to be alone in speaking to these debates. This section on miscellaneous changes I thought was particularly interesting. There's a range of different Standing Order changes, in actually quite disparate areas, but on these I'm afraid I'm not able to insist on separate debates, so I will deal with them as a group.

We have the Senedd pension scheme, and I can understand why this change is proposed to the extent that the current Standing Orders appear to contradict the arrangements we have where the remuneration board has taken responsibility for appointment of the trustees to the pension scheme, yet we still had this Standing Order 1.7, which puts in place an apparently competing process. I'm not clear why we have the remuneration board doing this. These are scheme rules, and the pension scheme is for the benefit of its members, current and future pensioners, and the trustees' job is to look out for their interests properly within the law. So, given that, why do we have this independent body, the remuneration board, determining how people should be appointed to represent members' interest? I think, as with the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority at the House of Commons, with the remuneration board that we have here, it's probably a good principle to have this separation between Members and an independent body making decisions over Members' rations, so to speak, but that doesn't appear to be what's engaged here.

Our pension contributions are being paid, the system is set up. I'd like to see the pension scheme better managed, with a greater focus on returns. I have particular concerns about the emphasis on the index-linked gilts and the failure to have an agreed allocation towards UK equities, which have been performing much more strongly of late. But surely there is an interest of Members to manage that scheme well, and an interest of the Commission to see it managed well, so that future contributions of taxpayer funds may be minimised, and that would seem to be well done, I would have thought, with the trustees under the general law representing the interest of the members, and that's quite proper within it. So why we don't do that and we have an independent body determine that instead is not clear to me. But that is currently an apparent contradiction between those. I don't see that as a reason for opposing this, although if it were possible to have a vote on this specific Standing Order, rather than having had these grouped in such disparate areas, I might have taken a different view.

Another area that is interesting here is the difference between the constituency and the list Members. We say in our Standing Orders that constituency and regional Members should be treated equally and are of equal value. Some Members seem to cast doubt on that sometimes, but that's the provision in Standing Orders, and I think it's the right one. Yet we have the Standing Order that has a provision with regard to resignation that only references section 10 of the Government of Wales Act, and not section 11, and that then means it applies to the constituency but not to the region. But I'm not wholly sure why this Standing Order 1.9 is required. It has a provision where it says 'or otherwise' anyhow, so there is a broad discretion and I don't see why we need to go beyond the statute reference to vacancy in order to determine through the common sense application of English and a necessary reference to the courts when a vacancy has occurred, and given it is in legislation, that would presumably trump the Standing Orders interpretation anyhow, so I'm not sure that this Standing Order is required. In my view, it may be redundant and would perhaps be better erased, but given it is there, I think it is better that it does refer to both the regional and constituency provisions in the Act on a consistent basis, so I don't propose to oppose it.

I also think it's a sensible thing to remove the Business Committee Chair from the reference—I think there was quite a bit of discussion when I joined the Business Committee at the beginning of the term around that—and to the extent the Business Committee is chaired by the Presiding Officer. It does seem proper that it shouldn't be part of the party balance, notwithstanding the Presiding Officer's potential membership of a political party. Thank you.

I have no further speakers. The proposal is to amend Standing Orders to make miscellaneous changes. Does any Member object? No, I don't see any objections, and therefore, the motion is agreed.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.