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.