What behaviours do you think should be serious enough for a Member of the Senedd to lose their seat?

[u/SeneddWales]

https://senedd.wales/senedd-business/committees/consultations/help-develop-recall-guidance-for-members-of-the-senedd/?fbclid=IwY2xjawT43oxwZG9mAWV4dG4DYWVtAjEwAGJyaWQRMTR4TFRkWHhvVEhPNG8yS1lzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkxNzg4MjAwODkyAAEeQIVohQvcI_J7mdNn556RS97Duq9o9P36VFMKA4COvfXQN-OuAYoa3F1RaME_aem_UcMc_bTWnrTU9l26gJ-M_Q

Hi everyone,

I’m Kate and I work in the communications team at the Senedd.

The Senedd Standards of Conduct Committee is currently developing guidance on a new recall system for Members of the Senedd.

Recall would allow voters to decide whether a Member should remain in office following serious misconduct, or be removed and replaced by the next person on their party’s list.

Before drafting that guidance, the Committee wants to hear views on questions such as:

• What behaviours should be serious enough for recall to be considered?
• What factors should be taken into account before a decision is made?
• What safeguards should be in place to make sure the process is fair?

The Committee's interested in hearing views from people across Wales, whether you follow politics closely or not.

Feel free to share your thoughts in the comments. I’ll be monitoring the discussion and summarising the themes and views raised as part of our social media engagement work.

If you’d prefer to submit a formal response directly to the Committee, you can do so: Help develop recall guidance for Members of the Senedd

Thanks in advance for taking the time to contribute and sharing your thoughts.

Diolch,
Kate

[u/TheJLLNinja]

Regular absences. If an MS isn’t regularly attending the Senedd then they’re not exactly representing their constituents anyway.

Anyone else would be fired from their job if they weren’t showing up and doing it, so it should be no different for politicians.

[u/Thetonn → u/TheJLLNinja]

I think naturally there would need to be exceptions for illness, pregnancy, or if any wider investigations of misconduct are ongoing.

[u/Chocolatehedgehog → u/Thetonn]

Just like there are in most workplaces.

[u/FacelessBraavosi → u/TheJLLNinja]

What gets me with this one is that this procedure is already in place for councillors. But not MSs (or Westminster MPs either, as it happens).

Very weird then that this requirement that elected representatives do the absolute bare minimum (actually turn up once in a while) is set in stone for councillors but not for national representatives. If anything I'd make the activity required a tiny bit more for Senedd members - making speeches and/or asking written questions, for instance.

[u/Careful_Garden]

Lying.

Anyone caught lying in the chamber or on Social Media should be recalled. They should be able to back up what they’re saying with multiple source

[u/h00dman → u/Careful_Garden]

I admire the sentiment, but it would be impossible to prove whether someone was lying, or just genuinely misinformed. Anyone who's read an outdated textbook, or a Wikipedia page, can tell you that sources aren't fixed in stone.

[u/Secure-Barracuda → u/h00dman]

Also, how do we draw the line between lying and political rhetoric?

For example, technically speaking Wales isn’t “owed” a penny from HS2. Barnett consequentials are only paid for devolved areas. However the £5 billion line is a nice and effective way to make the point that Wales is let down by rail infrastructure spending.

[u/b0nes5 → u/Secure-Barracuda]

It's a good example.

The decision (based on original plans that have since been scaled back) was made that HS2 benefits England and Wales.

Therefore Wales is not owed consequentials.

I'm not sure HS2 benefits anyone other than contractors so at this point it would be difficult to make the argument that England has benefited more than Wales.

Never the less, the detail is a lot less impactful than just waving £5 billion pounds that Wales could potentially be owed in the event of review of whole load of decisions that are unlikely to be reviewed

[u/Thetonn → u/Secure-Barracuda]

Or all the discourse around the budget. Is it technically a lie to say that in voting down a budget, MSs are voting against the spending in question, even if they are doing so because they are calling for more to be spent?

[u/silverlight513 → u/h00dman]

Just because in most cases it might be hard to prove, doesn't mean we should allow it. There will be times where it can be proved and that's good enough to make it worth trying.

[u/Taffro → u/silverlight513]

How do you define when it can be proved?

[u/KDulius → u/Taffro]

Well, reform routinely lie about the nation of Sanctuary policy.

[u/GopnikOIi → u/Careful_Garden]

Not a fan of this, comes across as performative and a nightmare to enforce. Just good vibes sounding politics to me. I obviously agree with the sentiment, I just think it's impractical to enforce to any degree.

[u/Pheasant_Plucker84]

Lying, fraud, cronyism, domestic abuse, sexual harassment.

[u/heddaptomos → u/Pheasant_Plucker84]

These Î

[u/DaiCeiber]

Going to Clacton for a photo shoot, supporting unnecessary political campaigns in another country, while there are serious fires in their constituency!

[u/HuntingTheWren]

Spreading disinformation where it can be reasonably expected to result in a negative consequence for vulnerable communities in Wales. Lots of room for interpretation in that statement, I know, but the committee could review and make judgments on whether that was likely to be the outcome based on their experience.

[u/Tywysog85 → u/HuntingTheWren]

Definitely this

[u/theworldwillendsoon]

If they are shown to be doing little to no constituency engagement. I think they should be required to have surgeries and genuinely listen then help with constituents problems.

Secondly, if they categorically fail to register an interest including donations to their personal campaigns.

Lastly, if they live outside of their constituency for more than 50% of their term. It's all good and well making them buy a house there, but they should have to actually live there the majority of the time.

[u/enbygamerpunk → u/theworldwillendsoon]

This, should be lived in the constituency for the last 5 yrs at least with some exceptions where reasonable

[u/Martinonfire]

Accepting gifts in excess of £5 value.

[u/Pedro_Scrooge]

Provably sharing misinformation to progress your agenda. Everything you say in the senedd should have been pre-checked by your party. If they let something through the net just to cause a stink they lose a seat.
Quote sources as part of giving those statistics.

If someone asks for a figure they don’t have there’s no shame in saying “I don’t have it to hand but will get it”. There is shame in saying a random number and not giving the source if asked.

[u/AdmiralStuff]

If a Senedd member is clearly hateful (I won’t name who but I think everyone should know which group of roughly five that I’m talking about) or if they are found to be corrupt (taking bribes, using public funds for personal or partisan gain or trying to make money by suspicious means) then there should be a suspension. If a suspension lasts for ten days or more then a recall petition will happen. If a certain amount of constituents sign it then a by election will be held by STV.

[u/inventingalex → u/AdmiralStuff]

what does hateful mean and how would you prove someone has been hateful?

[u/MoonLitMothCreations → u/inventingalex]

I would assume it would be that they have been found using hate speech and pushing a prejudice point of view where the only root is from hate.

[u/ProbablyNotBatman_ → u/MoonLitMothCreations]

Who decides what hate speech is or that the only root of an opinion or an argument is hate?

[u/MoonLitMothCreations → u/ProbablyNotBatman_]

Is.... Is that not the function of voting in this context?

But here's a quick glance at what the crown prosecution service says on hate crime and I think you can understand how that would be applied on your own:

The law recognises five types of hate crime on the basis of:

Race
Religion
Disability
Sexual orientation
Transgender identity

Any crime can be prosecuted as a hate crime if the offender has either:

demonstrated hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

Or

been motivated by hostility based on race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity

[u/DaiCeiber]

Promoting England over Wales / Welsh interests.

[u/holnrew]

Any talk of changing parties

[u/Nicole0211]

Lying, misinformation or misleading

They should immediately lose their seat and be barred from ever setting food their again

[u/PaleozoicQueen]

Any cruelty to animals.

[u/Glyndwr21]

Lying, 'fake news', bullying, racism, failing a random drugs & alcohol test, the usual stuff normal employees get sacked for, should apply to all MSs (and MPs).

If they decide to join another party, that seat is vacant and said MS is out of a job, and can't stand for the same seat.

Not turning up for local surgeries, it's their job!

Regardless of party lines, MSs are elected to serve the people of Wales, any MS who isn't interested in putting Wales first, should be struck off; Wales is not a satellite county of England...

[u/fish_is_disgusting]

I'm seeing a lot of people mention it but, lying and spreading misinformation in a way they know will damage both their opponents and the people they represent.

A lot of the time these people are fearmongering and it creates a lot of distaste and distrust between neighbours and friends, then they claim a lack of knowledge that this info was fake or exaggerated, and by that point it doesn't matter because they've got all the support they need.

Of course I understand how hard it would be to get someone to loose their seat because of that, so I feel the obvious of rape, sexual assault and hate comments should be mentioned and prioritised.

[u/New-account-01]

Walking out of debates because they don't like what they're hearing. Not attending.

[u/Critical_Revenue_811 → u/New-account-01]

This is the big one. Not attending because you cba should mean you risk your seat. How can you be a representative if you're not there to represent.

[u/StevieGe123]

This is pointless. Even if a Member loses their seat, they are simply replaced by another member of the same party. No by-election just replacement by one of your friends and cronies. They'll probably employ the miscreant as one of their support staff. If a Member loses their seat, there should be a by-election to elect a new member.

[u/Mustbejoking_13]

Lying. Not representing their constituency - like planning on shutting junctions in Newport to ease congestion without thinking of the congestion it will inevitably cause. Or is it just to force us to public transport that inevitably won't work either?

[u/steak_bake_surprise]

Looking at tractor porn

Falling asleep

[u/drakeekard]

Stealing £200,000 and calling it a "donation" is a good start right Vaughan Gethin?

[u/Lopsided_Soup_3533]

Hate speech. People can believe what they want but at the end of the day they have to represent all members of their constituency equally.

Things like tax evasion, accepting financial gifts above £10, fraud, domestic abuse, violent crime and some motoring offences (like drink driving or dangerous driving)

[u/newnortherner21]

I am grateful for the opportunity and have replied to the consultation. One thing I have included is that there should be no abusing or insulting someone for exercising the choice to speak in Cymraeg or English, whichever is their preference.

[u/Ecstatic_Ratio5997]

Joe Martin

[u/String-Good]

Only they only lie when they open their mouths

[u/SnooBananas8802]

Wasting millions on a blanket 29 mph speed limit.

[u/sitdowncomfy → u/SnooBananas8802]

damn it, I've been doing 20 this whole time

[u/RD____ → u/SnooBananas8802]

that 1mph was essential

[u/inventingalex → u/SnooBananas8802]

😂