National Assembly for Wales

Good morning, everybody. Welcome to this meeting. You're welcome, as you know, to speak in English and Welsh, and headsets are available for translation. Just to remind you to switch off all electronic devices.

The first item is on the code of conduct review—a consideration of consultation responses. The Llywydd and I recently met Andrea Leadsom MP, Leader of the House of Commons, to discuss the work that the UK Government has been doing in light of the work that the Assembly Commission and this committee are currently doing. Andrea Leadsom has subsequently written to the Llywydd and me and included a copy of the cross-party working group's report on an independent complaints and grievance procedure. We have received four responses to our consultation, which have been published. Any comments and responses to the letter, or happy to note the letter? Any comments and responses for the document? Are you happy to note the document?

Yes.

And then to move on to the next item we've got the code of conduct review stakeholder event, and I think we can bring the witnesses in, please. Thank you.

Good morning, and welcome to you all. Just to remind you that we can speak in English and Welsh. Headsets are available for translation. You're very welcome to this meeting today. We're keen that it's a very open and frank conversation that we'll have with you. Perhaps you can all state your names, and your roles as well, just for the record—whichever way, whoever wants to start.

Iestyn Wyn. I'm campaigns, policy and research manager at Stonewall Cymru.

Ruth Coombs, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission in Wales.

Gwendolyn Sterk, public affairs manager for Welsh Women’s Aid.

Cerys Furlong, chief exec Chwarae Teg.

Brilliant. Thank you. Does anybody want to make any opening statements, or do you want to just go into the conversation? Anybody? Happy to go into the conversation? Brilliant.

So, as you know, we've started this consultation, and some of you have already put in formal responses to that. The first point that we were looking into was how people felt—would people feel comfortable about making a complaint about an Assembly Member or somebody who works on the Assembly estate. Does anybody want to suggest your findings or what you would think—if you think that people would be comfortable making those complaints?

I'm happy to kick off.

Yes. Thanks, Cerys.

I think there's some consistency in the responses that you've had so far, having read submissions from the other organisations here. I think, while the intention is good, there's still a lack of clarity around what is deemed acceptable behaviour or not and what the process is for people to report, and also what the implications of that reporting would be. I think there's particular confusion around the status of different types of people who work on the estate: so, whether they are civil servants, civil servants working with politicians, politicians themselves, political party employees, people working for politicians. All of those people will behave in different ways, have different professional lines of reporting, and also different career paths and ambitions that affect their choices and behaviour. So, I think we feel that there's still a long way to go in improving people's understanding of what the process is, but, more importantly, what we do collectively, what the Assembly can do, what members of staff, what political parties can do, and what all of us, as organisations, can do to improve the culture more generally so that people can come forward without fear of negative repercussions.

Any other comments?

I would reiterate that our findings were, very much, when we went out to survey our members, that that was the case. The other thing I would say was the confidence in reporting and the confidence that it would be investigated in a fair process came across very strongly in the responses that we got from our members. I think knowing that these cases are going to be investigated and investigated fairly, and that the complainant is going to be safe within that process, is an important thing that needs to be communicated and made public.

I would just like to—

Thank you. Ruth.

One of the things that we feel is that the consultation asked a lot of questions about the complaints procedure and development in that respect, but what we would like to see is it actually looking at how to prevent a situation arising. So, upstreaming, I think, is really important. So, it needs to consider clearly what is inappropriate behaviour and use that as an opportunity to look at sexual harassment, but how we look at it in the terms of building a culture that is different, moving people on and having a more a diverse Assembly in all ways—and that would be with Assembly Members, with staff, interns, volunteers, visitors, across the piece—because we know that if you've got a more inclusive and a more diverse work environment then you are more likely to have a more positive culture around these sorts of standards of behaviour and so you can actually begin to look at the preventative agenda a bit more closely. I think that's something that might be a bit lacking at the moment in the way that it's been set out thus far.

Andrew.

I would echo Ruth's comments there. I think we need to acknowledge that the last few months particularly have been difficult in this place, but they've also skewed the public perception of the behaviour and the process of this place and potentially dented confidence, and, in going forward, actually, more than just reviewing a code is going to need to happen—reviewing culture and practice on a day-to-day basis is going to need to happen, and that will need to be communicated effectively by Members and staff here.

Thank you, Andrew. Paul.

Yes. On that point of communication, obviously, I think it's quite clear from you that there is a lack of clarity as to how people can actually about making a complaint. How do you think this institution should go about communicating those processes, once we've got those processes right, of course? How do you think the institution of the Assembly should do that?

I think it's very important that it's done in multiple ways, because you have different people who prefer different means of communication. So, by having a multi platform—. I think that things on websites need to be really, really clear, and it needs to be accessible language, in plain language, whether it's plain Welsh or plain English. And, I think, for this type of work, consideration of other community languages is really important—that it's not limited. But, for some people, having a leaflet when they come in is the way they like to hear information, for others, it might be an Instagram message or a tweet or any other form of social media, and, for some people, they like it in different ways depending on where they're at at the time. It would be very important to ensure that it's communicated in a way that people with different protected characteristics can access it, so British sign language, for example, large print, braille—what we consider to be the usual, but the full range. But the full range on those multiple platforms.

Cerys, you wanted to come in.

Yes. I agree with everything that Ruth said. I think it's about setting out really clearly and showing strong leadership from the Assembly what kind of inclusive culture you want to create here. And then this is recognising that all organisations and workplaces struggle with culture change, and it takes a huge amount of commitment and a long time, and a real persistence to be able to change culture in any place. So, it's recognising that it's not easy and we all struggle with it in our own organisations in different ways, but it's about how we do induction, how we appraise and review people, how we talk, the language we use to talk about these issues, how we make our staff and colleagues feel comfortable, the language that we use on our website and in our training materials. But I think the key is that we show real leadership in what it is we're trying to achieve and then be very committed and persistent in pursuing that aim. So, one policy is not going to be the end of it, but an absolute dogged determination to change the culture of this place.

Iestyn.

Just to come in—

Sorry, Andrew.

No, that's fine.

Thank you. Llyr—. Gwendolyn, sorry.

Just going back to the language that Iestyn has just raised, I also think that, within the language and within how we communicate, it must empower the person to come forward, because, actually, what we'll see is that a lot of the experiences around this will disempower that individual, and that language must be empowering and give them the confidence and that empowerment to come forward and challenge this behaviour.

It would be important, therefore, that it's not seen as a top-down approach. And it would be important to engage people who are part of the Assembly, in its broadest sense, in developing what that might look like, and also taking on board recommendations from work that other organisations have done. We've undertaken a survey of employers, and a separate survey of men and women, around experiences around sexual harassment. So, employers, what processes and policies are in place, and what the challenges are, and also, for individuals, what their story is, and how easy/difficult that's been. And we would be very happy to share those recommendations when we finish wading through the data. We're in the data analysis stage at the moment, but we'd be happy to share that with you, because that could hold some really interesting information.

That would be really helpful, thank you. We'd really appreciate that. Llyr.

Paul, did you want to come in?

Gwendolyn.

I think a list can be helpful but, as you say, there is no way of having that list as exhaustive—it will go on—but I think it can be a very useful tool in communication. I think when we're talking about sexual harassment, what we're talking about is unwelcome sexual behaviour towards an individual, and the most important part of that isn't necessarily the sexual aspect that everyone often concentrates on, it's the unwelcome aspect, and that can only be defined by the complainant. They will be able to say whether that experience was unwelcome and that they did not want it, so the definition needs to recognise that it is about how that person felt and what they felt was inappropriate that they experienced. So, while you can have a list that helps to communicate what those experiences might be so that somebody can recognise themselves within that, I think you need to make sure that that is not a defining list, and actually how you define it is on the sort of experience that the individual has and why they want to bring it to you.  

Ruth.

I would echo that, and what you may find helpful is that our commission published a sexual harassment and the law guidance for employers in 2017, and that contains advice and guidance around definition and examples of what sexual harassment is. So, there are some places where you can look for signposting. And, yes, I absolutely agree that if you write a list—. We always know that if you write a list you always forget something, but it's also about embedding that sense of responsibility and that sense of accountability amongst everybody that if it would make you feel uncomfortable receiving it, then that should make you not want to give it, as it were. And it's about having those open and honest conversations, and they're not going to be easy. 

It's also very important—we live in a diverse culture, and I think it's also really important that we look across the protected characteristics, because for some people with some protected characteristics, there are greater sensitivities than perhaps there are in others, and we need to respect those cultural traditions and those sensitivities as well, which does make it more complex, but it also makes it more accessible and more encompassing. So, for example, we know that there's a lot of transphobic harassment and behaviour around in Wales at the moment, and I think it's really important that that's also seen as important, as it is for people with other protected characteristics. I know the trans community are very concerned about the levels of harassment that they're receiving on a day-to-day basis, and it's something that needs to be considered amongst other protected characteristics, but there are some particularly vulnerable people and people with multiple vulnerabilities who need to be taken into account.   

I think Cerys wanted to come in before Llyr. 

Thanks. I agree with the last point particularly around people with multiple, or intersectionality or different experiences, but I also wanted to echo what Gwendolyn said about helping to clarify any definition of unwelcome behaviour. I think that is the point that we would like to make: that we know a lot of this inappropriate behaviour stems from a power disconnect between two individuals, where somebody is in a position of power and influence and somebody is not, and that might be an elected member, it might be a senior civil servant, it might be somebody who's your line manager—there are a whole range of different scenarios there. So, I think you can't have an exhaustive list. You can have one that says, 'These kinds of things would be deemed unwelcome or inappropriate conduct.' 

There are two other points that I want to highlight. We're not always talking about face-to-face interactions, and Ruth started to touch on this when she was talking about the trans community in her point. One of the particularly damaging and disturbing patterns that we're seeing is this kind of targeted sustained harassment and aggression on social media towards individuals. And it's often from anonymous accounts, but it's not always from anonymous accounts, and I think we need to consider how we capture that kind of behaviour in any code of conduct. And then the other point that we've tried to make is about patterns of behaviour, so cumulative patterns of behaviour where perhaps somebody has not done something grossly inappropriate, but consistently operates at a level that makes people feel uncomfortable. 

So, you think there should be a record kept of that, so that there is then a repeat offending sort of system almost—that you recognise that somebody has repeatedly offended. 

I think some consideration needs to be given to how you capture that cumulative behaviour, whether it's a record or any time-based thing—I think it's difficult, and we need to grapple with that. 

That's where I wanted to go next because I read in your paper that suggestion, and I have no issue with that in principle, because, in practice, who quantifies or measures that accumulation, and at what point do you feel it's appropriate. And I know, coming back to Gwendolyn's point, that it's the individual who actually has to define that, but we're trying to look at a code of conduct here, which we've talked about outlining certain behaviours that are inappropriate, and then we're saying, 'But maybe there'd be others as well', but that's up to the individual, and then, if there's an accumulation, who makes that call? The individual can bring the complaint, but then the standards commissioner or others have to decide whether that's admissible as well. So, there's a huge grey area there, isn't there, and that's what I'm grappling with a little bit? And I think that's probably the crux of what we're trying to negotiate here as a committee—negotiate around, not negotiate in terms of whether it's right or wrong.

Just to go back to the list, I think also it's talking about the method, not kind of saying that a list is the way forward, but it's the method, again going back to communication. So, if it's by induction, training so on and so forth, that's bringing a policy and a code of conduct from paper, from words, to action, and communicating it. So, I think that's a method to explore as well in terms of defining it, and having a conversation rather than an extensive list that we'll inevitably forget and not include situations, because, also, we are talking about a whole host of situations that would not be able to be documented in a list, because, obviously, they vary on a case-by-case basis as well. 

Gwendolyn.

On the accumulative point, and, as you said, I was talking about the individual, but, actually, what we probably find in most of these cases is that it's multiple individuals who are experiencing this, because it's about an attitude towards a certain segment of the population, namely women, or those within a situation of deemed less power often. So, we're not necessarily—. We're talking about a cultural change, and, actually, we need to deal with all of these, even the smallest cases that come forward that may not seem necessary to go through a full disciplinary procedure because they're not deemed as serious enough, but that's about the cultural change, the prevention element that Ruth mentioned at the beginning, and that training and having that procedure and policies that are spread throughout the institution that you're working within, and beyond hopefully as well, because we know that this is happening across sectors, and just walking down the street it's what women experience constantly. And our experiences are that it's accumulative on a daily basis for us, just to walk and be in society. So, every small incident does need to be dealt with; it's just how you deal with those incidences, and you do need to have some sort of record that this has happened, so that you know that you're having an impact on changing that behaviour. So, you do need to record every incident and look at it as a consistent and ongoing thing.

Cerys.

Just to add, I've tried to simplify and think about how we do things in other organisations, and I think the range of organisations that I've been involved with all have disciplinary policies, codes of conduct and those kinds of thing, which set out clearly—'If you're in this position, or you're employed by us, these are the ways in which you make a complaint.' And all of those complaints are dealt with individually, but I, as a manager, have been in positions in the past where I've had to take into account, 'Okay, this is not the first time that this issue has been raised with me; now perhaps it's time to make this a more formal disciplinary process.' So, there are ways in which, whilst dealing with the individual case-by-case basis, you can still take a judgment at some point that, actually, this now needs to be escalated to a more formal procedure, and that is what most organisations have in place. So, I don't think we need to reinvent the wheel.

It's very important that anybody who is investigating sexual harassment has been trained to do it. It's a specialist area—it's not something that you can do as part of your general line management or complaints procedure. It is specialist. So, in order to support the person who is receiving the complaint, and looking into it and investigating, they need to be supported and trained, and that's really important. And of course it's really important to make it quite clear that sexual harassment is prohibited in the workplace by law, and that you have to have an anti-harassment policy. Sexual harassment can be looked at within that, or within your grievance policy, but it needs to sit somewhere, and there are legal minimum standards that have to be adhered to. And of course, over and above that, the Assembly has got obligations under the public sector equality duty and its own strategic equality plan. So, there are a lot of levers that you can use in order to stimulate the discussion and make it serious and open and honest, and we really want to move on together, but we also have responsibilities in order to do this. So, it's that balance, I think.

Andrew, did you want to come in?

Llyr.

We would say that, in our guidance, it's very clear that less serious, or more minor, incidents need to be dealt with quickly, in an appropriate, light-touch, medium-touch way, that not everything should be dealt with—you know, it's not a one-size-fits-all. So, it might be appropriate to have somebody who is more able to respond more quickly to those minor—before they become cumulative. Because we all have, in all processes that people have in terms of disciplinary or grievance processes—there are stages, aren't there? So, there could be some incidents that you think, actually, it is inappropriate, it has crossed that line, but A is not as serious as B. And how you define that is very tricky; I'm not saying it's easy. But if you were to have a one-size-fits-all procedure, that could have unintended consequences of people thinking, 'Well, I actually don't want to make a fuss about this because it's making me feel uncomfortable and I don't like it, but it's not so big'. What we don't want is we don't want to inadvertently stop people. We want people to be supported to say, 'Yes, that is out of order and I'd like it looked at'. And then if it's out of order again, then maybe you need to ramp it up a bit.

And for Assembly Members as well.

Yes.

Two other points that I wanted to make: one is around political employees. So, you're all politicians, and lots of us have worked in politics over many years. You know that particularly young people, at the early stages of their careers, perhaps wanting to forge a political career, feel a very strong allegiance to their political party—that extended political network and family—and are perhaps uniquely disadvantaged in terms of how they would want to report any incidents of inappropriate behaviour for fear of damaging their own personal relationships, brand, friends, and future career prospects within that political party. So, I think there's a delicate discussion that needs to be had—well, actually not a delicate discussion, but a robust discussion that needs to be had with political parties about how the code of conduct needs to be seen by political parties and what their role is in implementing that change as well.

The other point is around the standards commissioner. I don't think the standards commissioner is visible to people. I don't think people would know who he is, what he looks like, or where he's based and all of those things are huge barriers to anybody reporting any of this.

That's very helpful. Are there any other points? You've touched on social media, for example—that's something that's come up. What's your vision for that? How do you see that we can incorporate that in the code of conduct or how can we affect that? How can we try to do something about what's happening on social media in terms of perhaps Assembly Members or how they treat other Assembly Members or staff or people? As you say, sometimes, anonymous accounts are doing these bits of harassment and they are cumulative. Do you have any comments on that?

I suppose the difficult one is where accounts are anonymous. Obviously, if they are serious, then they need to be investigated appropriately and that would have to fall outside what you would be able to do, I would think. But it's about educating people, I think. I think that because there's so much social media use now, and it's become something that you do every day,7 and some people don't think twice about tweeting however many times a day, it's about having that accountability for what you do. So, if you send something out into social media, that doesn't abdicate your responsibility for what you said. Just because you're not saying it directly to a person, it doesn't mean that it doesn't matter. I think there is a slight disconnect between what people's fingers are doing and actually what they're thinking that they're doing. And they think, 'Oh it's gone now and it's not to do with me'. Well of course it's to do with you, because if it's in your name, then you have to take responsibility for it. Monitoring that might be quite a challenge, but if there are people who are using it inappropriately, then we think that there should be something that covers that in the code of conduct, because that's the world in which we now live.

I agree, and I think we have to recognise that what we're seeing at times is a sustained focus on those who speak out from an unpopular position perhaps against the narrative around certain issues. Worse than that, it's an attempt to discredit individuals or organisations through social media particularly, and I think it's the kind of language and tone that you wouldn't use to somebody's face or in front of a board of trustees, but you'd be happy to tweet or message them directly. So, I think the code needs to think about not just an individual's personal account; we have to see their social media account as an extension of their words and their actions. So, we hold them to the same standard on social media as we would otherwise. But, in terms of the anonymous ones, I think there needs to be a duty on people to report where they know that there is inappropriate behaviour coming from somebody. So, it might be anonymous, they're not visible, but if there's a person working in this place or elected to the Assembly who knows that inappropriate behaviour is being used through anonymous accounts, then they also have a duty to report that. Because that's the kind of duty that the code of conduct would—. If you knew an Assembly Member or a fellow colleague was acting inappropriately, you have a duty to report that, and the same should extend to social media. 

I would probably reiterate what's been said, but I think we need to look at social media and our lives online as integrated within our normal lives, that it's part of our normal life now, and what is said and done on social media is part of our everyday work. So, as you say, it should be held to the same account. Yes, there is an issue with the anonymity of some of these accounts and how do we hold those people accountable when we don't know who they are, but I think particularly those in power have a responsibility to call out this behaviour, regardless of whether they know who these people are, to say that it's not appropriate and that it shouldn't happen. Because especially with an anonymous account, they're very much aiming to silence certain sections of society, and in particular I would say women in society. They're silencing that conversation and that ability to engage in what is a major part of society and conversation now. So, while we might not be able to effectively hold that individual person to account through a complaint process, we can as organisations and institutions call out that behaviour and say that we don't accept it and that we will not put up with it. We're going out to students at the moment talking about bystander initiatives about students calling out in bars and stuff when they see inappropriate, sexist and harassing behaviour. We should do the same online. Especially people around the table with a significant amount of power—they should be calling that out.

I agree with all of that, but I just want to develop this in terms of the code of conduct as well, in that elected Members of the Assembly all have a nice verified blue tick from Twitter—that's given to them to verify they are an elected Member of the Assembly—and with that comes a responsibility for behaving in that way. I'm not suggesting I've evidence of Members behaving in inappropriate ways from this institution. I've certainly seen things from Westminster politicians that I just don't think should be published—and that is what tweeting is—by an elected Member.

So, in terms of the code of conduct, it should be made clear that this is a public statement, this is publishing material, as is retweeting, as is engaging in the hashtag #AllLivesMatter as a counter to #BlackLivesMatter, or #NotAllMen as a counter to the #MeToo movement, or #PeakTrans. All these things that are being used, they're really pervasive. Just in the last week, I've seen YouTube videos created for specific trans individuals to berate them and target them specifically as an individual. This happens to women, it happens to people of colour, and it certainly happens to LGBT people.

I think it has to be made clear in the code of conduct this issue of hate versus debate. I, for one, love a heated debate, but in doing so let's do that with respect for the other person. I think those principles of respect and dignity should absolutely underline everything, but made clear that that extends to your social media presence—and not just to elected Members, actually, but the hundreds of staff who work in this place. Social media should come under their code of conduct as well. 

Picking up on the debate and that side of it, I know that we need to respect privilege, but, within that, there has to be consideration in the code of what is the bottom line or the red line that absolutely, you know, 'Yes, you have privilege, but there are some things that are absolutely not acceptable.' Obviously, the Presiding Officer has a role in that, but there would also be a role in the code for something that speaks to that, whilst also ensuring that we still have freedom of expression. That's where all of this—that's the counter to all of it around, you know, we do have freedom of expression. Freedom of expression is a human right.

Again, we've issued freedom of expression legal framework guidance in 2015, which could be useful with that. We've also issued Prevent guidance in Wales, which is aimed at the university and further education sector—higher education and further education—but actually, the tips in there are equally helpful regardless of what the institution is and could be helpful for that, about what is acceptable, how you don't go over the other way and say, 'Oh, we can't have X or Y or Z speaking because of this, this and this', and actually being too narrow and not allowing that freedom of expression. It's very much a balance.

I think balance in social media has been demonstrated on several occasions to be way over what should be freedom of expression, but that does also have to be taken into account, that human right to expression, and that can make it difficult and challenging. That's okay when you're in a fairly balanced situation. When you're in a very unbalanced situation, where you're in very much a minority or a minority view, but your view is one that would be seen as being appropriate and encompassing, when you're faced with freedom of expression of a lot of people who are countering that, then that's when it becomes much more difficult to look at the individual versus the greater weight of people. It's important that we have freedom of expression because otherwise people like Martin Luther King Jr. would never have been able to make that speech. So, it's about having that balance, but an appropriate level of scrutiny and accountability within that.

Llyr, did you want to come in?

I just wanted to ask about the 12-month cut-off point for complaints, because that's clearly referenced in a number of the papers that have been submitted and there are suggestions about how the clock stops ticking if somebody loses their seat, but then starts ticking again if they're re-elected later, et cetera. Shouldn't we just scrap it? Should not all complaints, even those dating back years ago, be dealt with and addressed, regardless of whether you're still an AM or not? If it happened when you were an AM, then—. 

That's what survivors say to us, because actually, many survivors take years to come forward. As we've seen with recent historical cases, for very good reasons, they may not have been able to speak up at that moment or did not feel they had the power to speak up. So, having a statute of limitations as such on these is highly problematic and means that you don't necessarily get the full picture of what has happened.

The Assembly is obviously in a very unique, well, not unique—. Elected institutions are in a unique situation and there might be some issues with how to deal with that. But, as we pointed out in our response, that person, even if they're not an Assembly Member at that time, they can easily become an Assembly Member again and be back into the institution where this situation happened. So, having some limitation on investigations is highly problematic and detrimental to those that have been affected.

So, would your suggestion be that, even if that individual is no longer an Assembly Member, then a process should be run and come to conclusion, and irrespective of whether they return to the Assembly or not a decision is made as to whether that is—?

Yes, because it's not just about that case as well. As I say, it's about a cultural change and so the investigation isn't just about investigating what happened in that instance. It's also about investigating why and how it was allowed to happen and why that happened in the institution. So, it's not just about looking at that individual that maybe perpetrated the incident, but it's also looking at the culture of the institution that allowed it to happen. So, the investigation needs to happen to change that and prevent it from happening in the future as well.

Okay, another point made in the paper was this imbalance in that Assembly Members can appeal against the decision, but someone else can't. Would that help to redress that imbalance of power and for victims to feel more empowered in being able to come forward and help change that culture?

Yes, I think it seems to be a one-way street and this needs to be a two-way street, because there's at least two people, if not more, involved in this and I think there should be equal rights for whoever is involved in this case.

There should be, yes. And that's everybody's view.

I think having that two-way street is presumably going to make people think twice in certain situations. This is about the victims of abuse as well as the perpetrators, and that the victims have a voice in that process.

Yes, okay.

Right, we talked about the clear communication—that has come through very strongly today—do you think there should be more support for people coming forward, because it is a big step to take, even if you can see that process in front of you? Do you think that there should be a bit more contact with somebody before you make that complaint, or some support available for people who would want to come forward? Or do you think that just seeing that process is enough, in a clearer way? What would you suggest on that?

Our guidance firmly states that anybody who brings forward a complaint should have support and that support should include access and signposting to other places of support, including mental health support. We also think that it's important that the culture is such and the way that the system operates is such that a person who is an alleged perpetrator also feels supported in a way that is appropriate. But, absolutely, victims need to be supported to make that step, and also need to be supported through the journey, otherwise it can be very difficult for people to speak up. And by having ongoing support and knowing that support will be there, and having people trained to be able to give what support they can, but to signpost to specialist support where necessary is vital.

Yes, obviously, we would advocate that coming from a support service background. Sexual harassment is a form of violence against women and girls, it's recognised by the UN as that, and in any other form of violence against women, we recognise that there is a need for specialist support, that somebody is supported and has an advocate through a complaint case. And so, I would say, yes, absolutely, and the complaints process needs to be very clearly linked to that specialist support, so that signposting can happen. The Welsh Government funds the Live Fear Free helpline that we provide and I would say that that link needs to happen between the complaints process and the support that the helpline can give, as well as linking directly, obviously, to those local specialist services, and particularly for the advocate support that somebody may get within that.

Thank you. Any more questions, Llyr?

There's reference to the need to align the code of conduct with Welsh Government guidance, such as the ministerial code. Would it not be easier if there was just one process presided over by the standards commissioner? Because it's very confusing, from what I'm hearing from the evidence, that there are different ways of complaining against, potentially, the same person, but in different capacities. I know it's something we've touched on in the past about, yes, alignment, but at the end of the day, wouldn't it be easier if we just had the one system?

I think whatever system that the Assembly Commission chooses to move forward has to have enough synergy that if people are behaving inappropriately in different facets of their life, that can all be picked up and joined together. Where you've got two different codes, there is a potential risk that unacceptable behaviours fall through the hole in the middle. So, if you have two codes, or you have one code with different sections in it, they need to speak to each other, so that if somebody is behaving inappropriately in two different aspects of their life, or three or four different aspects of their life, they're not seen as individual actions, but that cumulative impact is noted and recorded as part of that whole picture.

I hadn't thought about that question, to be completely honest, in advance, and there may be circumstances in which a ministerial code is required for other things, but I think when it comes to behaviour towards individuals, I see no reason why there should be separate codes. I think how we treat individuals and how we conduct ourselves, how power relationships work, should be consistent across the board. But I must admit to have not really considered it in detail before.

I think there is a way around it. If the desire within the Commission and the Government is to have two codes, then bring in a clause that clarifies that relationship to both codes, that if there is a loophole, it can be closed either by having a single code or by amending the existing codes, but there's absolutely no reason not to do that.

It just strikes me that there can be confusion as to whether you're in a ministerial capacity or in an Assembly Member capacity. Sometimes it's pretty clear cut, but other times, not necessarily so. And if the code of conduct is relevant to Assembly Members even in their private lives, then surely it should be relevant in their ministerial roles as well. So, I think there is a tension there that needs to be addressed, and I was just interested in hearing your views, really. 

Finally from me—sorry that I'm going on a bit—there's reference in the papers as well to referring cases to political parties. Potentially, the standards commissioner could do that, notwithstanding the fact that there's a whole process that needs to run in its own right within the standards regime of the Assembly. What about independent Assembly Members who aren't affiliated to parties? Clearly, they wouldn't have that avenue to pursue, and I'm just wondering—. There may be issues around confidence in political parties' capacity, abilities, to deal with some of this. Is that—not confusing the issue, but should we not be focusing on the standards commissioner, the standards commissioner's work, and not depending too much on parties to pursue this as much as they should? But, you know, clearly, that's—.

I think we want consistency as much as possible, but I don't particularly buy the argument around capacity, because organisations much smaller than political parties have to deal with these issues in their everyday work as part of a normal part of holding ourselves to a higher standard of public conduct. So, I think capacity is not an excuse for not doing it, and political parties will inevitably be drawn into this because of what I tried to explain earlier, around how people behave in a political environment. It is a unique environment where, as you know, people feel very loyal and they're very passionate and ambitious for their cause and their party. That is a barrier to them potentially reporting things. So, there is an inevitable tension between the two, but I think capacity can't be used as an excuse.

I agree with that, but my question, in essence, is: should it be for the commissioner to refer issues to political parties, or should the political parties' processes themselves be able to pick up on those issues and deal with them?

I'm not sure. I don't know if anyone else has got—.

Just to come in, my observation on that was—. Obviously, that would be—if I'm correct in saying—if there was a complaint against an Assembly Member, but I think if we're looking across the board, and obviously a lot of our conversations have been around that today, I think it's a duty on any employer within a workforce to create an inclusive environment and a safe environment. Yes, I would say that I think there are two elements to look at: if a complaint is made against an Assembly Member, but also what about if there was a complaint made against a co-worker or a senior member of staff? That's just my—. Again, I haven't thought about that question in advance, but that's my observation on that comment.

One thing I would say about that is that I think political parties should want to investigate and hold their employees, whoever they are, whether they're an elected Member or an activist, to account on this kind of behaviour and not have that culture happening within their organisation, like any other organisation. And so, yes, they should have a process within their party structures to address this kind of behaviour and also to prevent this kind of behaviour happening within their organisation. 

And, again, it's about ensuring consistency, though, and that's the risk that would need to be considered if you're going to have slightly different road maps—that there needs to be a consistency of standard, a consistency of definition, a consistency of approach, and a consistency of level of approach so that some are not seen as more light-touch than others. 

Because the clause here says that the standards commissioner maybe should refer more serious cases to political parties, and that's the risk, isn't it? If you have parallel inquiries, they may come to contradictory conclusions as well. So, should it not be for the standards commissioner to refer, but actually for parties to respond to the decision of the standards commissioner? Anyway, that's just a thought. 

Gareth.

I think these are big issues. I think, as Iestyn suggested, political parties have to have an environment that does adhere to the code of conduct, or they should strive for that. But, of course, Llyr has just raised the danger of parallel inquiries, and, of course, if you bring in his other issue that he mentioned a couple of minutes ago, the ministerial code, if it's a Minister, you could theoretically have a ministerial code breach, you could have a code of conduct breach, you could have a party rules breach—they could be three separate inquiries. It all becomes a big mess. This is what, in practical terms, we maybe should be learning from recent cases: it does become a mess, and the political reality is, if political parties become the driving force in an investigation, the reality is, if you've got someone who's a senior member of a political party, there are going to be people in that party who are theoretically going to be compliant in sweeping something under the carpet. So, I think we have to be very clear in what the role of the parties is going to be in this, and I tend to think, if you want something with teeth that's actually going to work, in reality, you have to actually take it outside the political party, you have to remove the possibility of that kind of cover up and you have to have somebody outside the party process, like the commissioner, taking the leading role. That would be what I would suggest. I don't know what anyone has in terms of thoughts on that. 

I think the challenge then is whether the commissioner has the powers to be able to act on the findings of any inquiry, and that's different—. All political parties have different structures for how they deal with those complaints and what ways in which they might discipline or otherwise deal with an individual acting inappropriately. So, in terms of what Gareth is saying in terms of consistency of approach, I think that's really important, but we have to be confident that the commissioner is able to deal with the types of complaints that they may have and that parties buy into—all parties buy into—whatever is put in place so that we don't have the situation where a commissioner recommends something and then a party says, 'Well, actually, we disagree and we're going to do something entirely different.'

I was going to say, though, the point of independent Assembly Members is a good one, because, if we do have different ways of investigating, they must be in a way that doesn't either inadvertently give somebody an advantage or a disadvantage because they are an independent Assembly Member. So, mechanisms for support, clarity and independence of investigation can't solely sit with parties. You can't say that anybody who is being investigated will get support from their political party, for example, because, if they're an independent, then where do they get that support? So, it needs to be one of those things that's cut through the 'What if they are independent?' so that that's kind of one of the tests going through whatever decisions are made. 

And also the point of being independent in the Assembly, but still a member of a party, which we've seen several times recently. 

Which makes it more complicated.

Yes.

I think one of the things that probably needs to happen across the board is that we have a standard of what we expect an investigation to look like and how this should be dealt with. While there might be—. Political parties may want to have one kind of investigation, and there may be others happening elsewhere, but what there needs to be is a clear standard of what that investigation should look like and the processes that will be taking place within that, and, as you say, how the complainant and the alleged perpetrator are dealt with should be standardised as well. 

That's an important point I think. Any other questions? No. All right. It leaves me to say thank you very much for coming. I know we've taken up a bit more of your time than expected, but are there are final comments you'd like to say, or something that we haven't touched on that you want to make sure that's given to us so that we can—?

I think it needs to be clear how the work that you're doing joins up with the work of Government and the wider culture change that all of us want to see so that we don't have a piecemeal approach to what is clearly a significant issue within society more broadly, and not just here. So, having that bigger picture view on how what we're doing, the important work that you're doing, fits and aligns with the rest. 

Absolutely. And just to reiterate that ongoing conversations, support and information that we get through, we'd be more than happy to share with you, and I'm sure other colleagues around the table would as well. And just making sure that, whatever is decided, and however it's built, it's built with people, not at people. 

Yes. That's great. Well, thank you very much, as I said, for coming in today. You will be receiving a draft transcript from the clerk just to check that we haven't got anything wrong or missed anything, but, as I said, thank you very much for attending today. 

Thank you. 

Okay. Now we move on to item 4. I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42, that the committee resolves to meet in private for item 5. All agreed? Yes.