Item 15 is next, a motion to amend Standing Orders on the definition of political groups. I call on a member of the Business Committee to formally move, Rebecca Evans. 

Motion NDM7676 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: Definition of Political Groups’, laid in the Table Office on 17 March 2021.

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

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move the motion to amend the Standing Orders on political groups. After much discussion and debate, this amendment seeks to make clear not only the threshold for the formation of groups, but also the underlying principles. It sets out that a political group is a group of at least three Members belonging to the same registered political party that won at least one seat at the previous Senedd election—or, three or more Members not satisfying those criteria who have notified the Presiding Officer of their wish to be regarded as a political group and satisfied the Presiding Officer that exceptional circumstances apply. At their core, what these changes seek to uphold are the principles of democratic accountability and stability in our Senedd, which are critical to the way our institution is perceived and operates. The changes do not prevent new groups being formed, but they do offer a more robust system of checks and balances. 

Being recognised as a group brings significant privileges, and in the interests of the integrity of this institution, it is only right that there are at least some minimum tests in place. If this motion is agreed, the Presiding Officer must issue guidance to Members under Standing Order 6.17 on the interpretation and application of Standing Order 1.3(ii). 

Mark Isherwood. I can't see Mark Isherwood at this point. If he—ah, yes. Mark Isherwood, did you have a problem with your broadband?

Yes, I had thought it was on. I apologise. 

Right, okay. So you have been listening to the debate. Mark Isherwood.

Thank you. This proposed amendment to Standing Orders, I regret to say, can only be described as nasty, high handed and domineering, exercising arbitrary and overbearing control over others. As the Business Committee's report on this states:

'This proposal does not have the unanimous support of the Business Committee. The proposal was made by Rebecca Evans MS (the Trefnydd) and supported by Sian Gwenllian MS who, in accordance with Standing Order 11.5(ii), together carry 39 votes on the Committee. Mark Isherwood MS and Caroline Jones MS, comprising a total of 14 votes, do not support the proposal and support retaining the current Standing Order.'

On the pretext that, quote:

'The Fifth Senedd has seen unprecedented fluidity in the membership, formation and dissolution of political groups', an unholy alliance between Labour and Plaid Cymru claims that this level of fluidity is undesirable, and that the automatic creation of new political groups in what is supposed to be this people's Parliament, should be restricted to those consisting of three or more Members belonging to the same registered political party that won a seat or seats in the most recent Senedd general election, unless the Presiding Officer is satisfied that exceptional circumstances apply. Well, although this proposal would be as much to the partisan benefit of my party, as to Labour and Plaid Cymru, it is clearly targeted in an entirely unseemly and unfitting way, exhibiting the mindset of the playground bully rather than the responsible politician who recognises that the measure of a representative democracy is how it treats the minorities within.

Effective checks and balances within representative democratic systems are essential if those systems are to sustain, yet this proposal seeks to undermine this fundamental principle. As my colleagues in the Welsh Conservatives' official opposition have said to me, we should stick to the current arrangements. These already give the Llywydd some discretion and are fair to small parties. New parties can and do emerge in vibrant democracies like Wales, as has been demonstrated throughout the Senedd's existence. And, ouch, this is gerrymandering at its worst, where gerrymandering is designed to give political parties an unfair advantage and keep bad incumbents in power—a dictionary definition; I'm not alluding to anything in person. 

I therefore say to the Members opposite: before you follow your voting party whips on this matter, please therefore ask yourself whether this is really the road you want this young Parliament, this Welsh Parliament, this Senedd, to travel down. I hope not. 

My group strongly objects to these proposals as we feel they are anti-democratic. The upshot of these proposals will deny independent Members the opportunity to work together on common issues, deny independent Members the ability to feed into the workings of this institution, and deny independent Members the same opportunities as those in established political parties, the very political parties that we have rejected and, increasingly, so have the Welsh public. 

Independent Members need more support, not less, as they do not have the benefit of a party machine behind them. And I've heard the argument that independents cannot form a group because they do not share the same political beliefs, the same ideals, and that is a fallacy. We all share the strongest belief that the people who elect us are the most important; not party leaders or big donors—the public. So, we all have a common goal to hold the party in charge to account.

That is why we are seeing more and more independents in office, and why the traditional parties combined represent just a third of the electorate in this Senedd. We will see more and more independent Members in future, and I therefore call on Members to reject these proposals in the interests of fairness and democracy. Diolch. 

It's good to have some colleagues to debate with on this one. Thank you to Mark Isherwood and Caroline Jones for their contributions; I suppose I should also thank Rebecca who was kind to me in her remarks. I'd also like to apologise to the Welsh Conservatives because when I first heard of this extraordinary proposal from Business Committee, I was misinformed that the Conservative business manager had supported it. I found out that wasn't true, so I apologise wholeheartedly for my initial error in responding to this news. I thought he made a very good speech earlier. 

And reading the report from Business Committee, and I've seen the clerk who's written it, the 'case against' amendment—paragraphs 12 to 14—is really very eloquently put. I can't say the same for the 'case for' amendment, but I think the reason for that, I mean, Mark Isherwood described it as nasty, high handed and domineering. But what I would emphasise is that Plaid Cymru and Labour appear to me to be abusing their two-thirds majority in the current Senedd in order, in effect, to bind a successor Senedd. They fear they will not have that majority; together, no doubt, they'll cobble up something else, but without a two-thirds majority they'd be unable to change Standing Orders, so they've decided to use their two-thirds majority in the fifth Senedd to determine what the Standing Orders should be for the sixth Senedd in these very, very controversial and very partisan areas. 

I note that a previous proposal to increase the minimum size of a group from three to four hasn't made it through to the final version. I'm not sure if that's because the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party is now polling at a position where we're projected to get four seats, so it was thought it was no longer necessary or helpful to make that change, but in any event it stays at three. I've no particular argument of principle about the size a group should be, but I'm content with three.

We've also lost some of the extra proposed guidance that was initially proposed. We were told that it could also stipulate that the Llywydd can take into account whether a group has a significant and demonstrable democratic mandate for formation and whether it shares a political philosophy that would be clear to the electorate. I'm not sure how a Presiding Officer is meant to determine those things, and it's good, at least, that that bit hasn't made it through. However, we do have guidance that's already—. I mean, I thought the Llywydd should be drawing up guidance under these Standing Orders, yet the guidance has already been drawn up before the Standing Order changes have been passed. And under the proposed new Standing Order 1.3A, we're told that the Llywydd should provide guidance that relates to new Standing Order 1.3(ii), but the guidance that the Llywydd has already presented as an annex, purportedly under 1.3A as it should be, actually applies at least in part to 1.3(i). So, we're already in a confusing situation. The guidance says:

'By-elections may also change the Senedd's political make-up in a way that makes it appropriate to recognise a new group.'

Well, that applies, at least in part, as I said, to 1.3(i), which defines a political group as

'a group of at least three Members belonging to the same registered political party that won at least one seat at the previous Senedd election'.

So, if a party wins one or two seats, but doesn't have the three for a group, it will be unable to form a group, but, if it later wins a by-election, it will be able to form a group under 1.3(i). So, why, Llywydd, have you published guidance purportedly under 1.3A that's meant to relate to 1.3(ii), yet relates at least in part to 1.3(i)? I'm afraid it's typical of how we apply our Standing Orders and the sort of attitude that we see to them in this place. I believe it's inappropriate to give the office of the Llywydd such wide discretion, exercise of which would inevitably draw its holder into party political controversy. Perhaps that's what's desired. I wrote to the Llywydd on 23 February with some of these points. I haven't had the courtesy of a reply. 

After all, as drawn, the proposed changes to Standing Orders might be read by some as if designed ex post to prevent the formation of the Brexit Party group, of which I was part. I would argue that major parties betraying their voters by promising to deliver Brexit but then blocking it did constitute a national crisis or major event that changes group affiliations. Arguably, most Conservative supporters deserting their party to vote for the Brexit Party in the May 2019 European elections, which the Brexit Party won, constituted a split in a registered political party, but would you as Llywydd consider it such? We saw you delay recognition of that group for a week, purportedly to check with the Electoral Commission whether it was a registered party, despite the register of parties being a public document online, updated in real time and available to all.

Today, we've seen on behalf of, I assume, Caroline Jones, that it's now been made public how you responded to her, berating her on the formation of the Brexit Party group and saying you expected better of her. Yet these Standing Orders propose to give the Presiding Officer discretion to decide whether a group should be formed, purportedly on the basis of guidance, which is already contrary to the Standing Order it's meant to be done under, but the reality is it would be a discretion, and it would be exercised by a Presiding Officer, I fear, according to that Presiding Officer's own personal political opinions, whether about Brexit or anything else, and that is not how a Parliament should operate. It is wrong. These issues simply should not fall to be decided on that basis.

We're told that a national crisis would justify a change to party affiliation. Does COVID fall within that? Is it okay to have different groups because of that? What about if a major political party is taken over by an anti-semite as a leader? Is it okay then for Members to form a different group, or are they expected to stay in the same group and support that party at the election and say, 'He should be Prime Minister of the United Kingdom', as we saw in 2019? I don't think it should be a matter for a Presiding Officer to decide, or for guidance, or for Business Committee—two-thirds majority there at the moment, but probably not in future—to use. It should be a decision for elected Members, answering to their electorate in a democracy.

The provisions on independents are outrageous. I mean, if, in a general election, individuals get themselves elected to this place as independents—a very high hurdle—if three or more of them do that, why on earth should they be banned from having a group? It's just a protection of the vested interests of the established parties trying to squeeze out competitors. The hurdle is already very high for independents to come in and, if three of them do, the idea that they shouldn't be allowed to form a group, but potentially could if they later won by-elections, makes absolutely no sense whatever. These provisions are unfair; those who are putting them forward, those who are drafting guidance that's inconsistent with them and have shown their own bias on these things before, should not be doing this. We're opposed to them. Thank you.

Siân Gwenllian to reply to the debate—Siân Gwenllian.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. It was interesting to hear a catalogue of Mark Reckless's various analyses of different constitutional matters within the Senedd. I thank him for taking such an interest in the Standing Orders of our national Parliament, an institution that he and others here this afternoon, unfortunately, want to abolish, of course, contrary to the mandate of our people. It's not the interests of our national Parliament and our nation that have been addressed in this debate thus far.

But, in turning to item 15, I do believe that it's important that we take the two clauses in these changes to the Standing Orders in relation to the formation of political groups together. They work as one, with the first safeguarding the rights of minority parties to form groups automatically, and the second providing discretion to the Llywydd to allow the formation of groups that don't have a clear mandate. The second clause provides sufficient flexibility for the Llywydd as circumstances change.

Therefore, the new Standing Orders will not prevent the formation of new groups. But what will be in place will be a far more robust system. This change will provide greater transparency and an improved system, unlike what's been possible during this Senedd term, and, in doing that, it will safeguard the reputation of our national Parliament. The change also highlights the importance of democratic accountability and will create greater stability for the institution in future. There's been a great deal of thought and discussion about the very wording contained within this change, and I would encourage everyone who wishes to retain the reputation of our Parliament and to maintain its stability to support this change.

The proposal is to amend Standing Orders in relation to the definition of political groups. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections, and I will defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.