CAMPAIGNERS called for voters to be given a say over who replaces Senedd politicians booted out of office for bad behaviour under a proposed system of recall.

Jessica Blair, director of the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) Cymru, supported calls for a recall system to allow voters to remove misbehaving politicians between elections.

But Ms Blair said voters should have a say over the replacement, warning an element of personal accountability will be lost with the Senedd’s new “closed-list” electoral system.

From 2026, people will vote for parties rather than individuals as Wales ditches first past the post in favour of a full form of proportional representation, with no by-elections being held.

Ms Blair said: “This idea of replacing someone with the next person on the list, it could be … from the voters’ perspective …  seen as a party being rewarded for bad behaviour.”

Giving evidence to the Senedd’s standards committee, she added: “This shouldn’t be necessarily about parties keeping control, it should be about voters having their say.”

Labour’s Mick Antoniw pointed out it is the person, not the party, that has transgressed.

But Ms Blair said: “That could also reflect badly on the party or the way a party’s handled it, so I don’t think it’s necessarily as clear cut, as this is one person’s actions.”

She told the committee that three of the four UK Parliament by-elections triggered by recall petitions since 2019 were won by a different party.

She said: “Parties can be punished for an individual’s bad behaviour or it could be a reflection of changing political support post election. There doesn’t seem to be a real case for retaining that party’s seat, especially three years after an election, for example.”

The standards committee will make recommendations on how a recall mechanism should work in Wales as part of its inquiry on Senedd Members’ accountability.

Hannah Blythyn, who chairs the committee, asked witnesses whether the circumstances for recalling a Senedd member should be the same as Westminster.

Ms Blair suggested the triggers – a custodial sentence of less than 12 months, a suspension of at least ten sitting days, or an expenses offence conviction – make a good starting point.

Nia Thomas, ERS Cymru’s research officer, agreed rules should be the same for Senedd Members as councillors who can be removed if they do not attend meetings for six months.

Ms Blair added: “In any other job, you wouldn’t be able to do that? If I didn’t turn up to work … people would be like ‘what’s happening here?’, I think there has to be a line in the sand and I think a recall petition is probably appropriate in this instance.”

In an earlier evidence session on November 19, Clare Sim, of the Association of Electoral Administrators, warned against replicating Westminster’s “flawed” system of recall.

Ms Sim described the recall process as a massive administrative burden as she raised concerns about the cost to the public purse.

She argued recall petitions, which are open for six weeks in Westminster, should close once the threshold of 10% of the electorate signing has been met.

Mr Antoniw, the former counsel general, suggested a simple yes-no public vote on whether a politician should remain in office in place of a “pointless” two-stage process.

Colin Everett, chair of the Wales Electoral Co-ordination Board, said it could be a feasible alternative to reduce the administrative burden while protecting the voice of electors.

Ms Sim added that a minimum 25-day timetable would be required for a quasi by-election.

She warned of complications with the 32 constituencies used in July’s general election being paired to create 16 for the Senedd poll in 2026, with each returning six members.

She said: “We’re talking about potentially three-four authorities being involved … it’s far more complex than any other process anywhere else in the UK.”

Calling for consistency and simplicity, Mr Everett said electors would expect to be able to vote in person on a designated day or days, with a right to a postal or proxy vote.

He rejected suggestions the 10% threshold should need to be met in each of the paired constituencies, saying this would question why they were combined in the first place.

A FOURTH call for a south Pembrokeshire dog boarding and day care centre, refused on multiple occasions and dismissed on appeal has been submitted to planners.

Michelle Bramwell, of Little Langdon, near Kilgetty, had submitted re-sited plans for a commercial dog boarding and day care centre at Little Langdon following the previously-refused applications and appeal.

A supporting statement by agent Hayston Developments & Planning Ltd said: “The application involves the erection of a single boarding kennels building providing a total of 12 kennels together with various ancillary facilities, with upgrading of the existing vehicular access together with parking, landscaping and biodiversity enhancements.

“The application follows on from three previous applications for a similar form of development, which were refused by the council with the more recent application also having been dismissed at appeal in October 2023.

“This planning practice has been brought in to seek a solution for the development of the site. Having reviewed the previous applications and the appeal decision, the scheme has been reviewed with a materially different proposal now being presented for consideration by the council. The revisions made are significant and have significantly reduced the impact of the development with additional planting and provision of a hedgebank.

“This revised submission provides additional information which demonstrates that such a location is justified and that with the economic and social benefits highlighted and would align with the thrust of TAN 6 which encourages business developments within the countryside. 

“Whilst it is acknowledged this revised proposal would still have some impact upon the countryside, it is contended that those impacts have been minimised such that it would be compatible with the capacity and character of the countryside in which it is located.”

It says that, while dismissing the appeal, “the Inspector concluded that such a business in this location could be acceptable in principle, the Inspector expressed concerns over the scale, siting and visual impact of the proposed development and how possible outdoor noise disturbance from associated activities could be satisfactorily controlled, such as through mitigation measures”.

It concludes: “In our view, the changes made are such to in effect to represent a materially different scheme from that which was before the Inspector in 2023. Further, certain aspects of the proposal, including its layout and operation, have been clarified by the applicant.”

The agent, in previous applications has said: “One of the key benefits of such a proposal, as fully acknowledged by the appeal Inspector, was that with the proximity of several local visitor attractions it would provide a useful service to their customers, amongst other clients.

“As part of the appeal application, it was contended that with staycation on the rise and the increase in pet ownership, boarding kennels and day care services are in demand.

“The proposal would allow tourists to visit, knowing their dogs can board within a reasonable distance of their holiday accommodation. It would allow tourists to visit nearby attractions which quite often have no-pets policies, such as Oakwood, Manor Wildlife Park, the Dinosaur Park, Heatherton and Folly Farm.”

The latest proposal will be considered by county planners at a later date.

A PROPOSAL to disqualify dishonest politicians from the Senedd is wholly unrealistic and could see the courts inundated with complaints, barristers warned.

The Criminal Bar Association, which represents practising members in Wales and England, criticised calls to create an offence of deliberate deception.

Jonathan Rees, a Welsh barrister, urged real caution before making any changes made to the criminal law as he gave evidence to the Senedd’s standards committee.

He suggested the Welsh Parliament could instead expand the scope of the “tried-and-tested” offence of misconduct in a public office which is subject to important safeguards.

Mr Rees raised concerns about a model proposed by the Institute for Constitutional and Democratic Research, warning a new offence would put a huge burden on courts.

The think tank recommended disqualifying Senedd politicians and candidates from office for deliberate deception, to further the aim of restoring public trust in politics from record lows.

But Alex Greenwood, who practises regulatory and criminal law, warned the proposed model could infringe on longstanding rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

He told the committee: “It fails to address, potentially, fundamental issues not just in terms of  European human rights case law but also natural justice and common law.

“There are fundamental issues … in terms of the reversal of the burden of proof, in terms of arguably infringements with the right to silence.”

Cautioning that crucial safeguards could be sidestepped or diluted, Mr Greenwood warned of the practical consequences of creating an offence with courts already struggling to cope.

He said: “The current backlog in the crown court is in excess of 67,000 cases – it’s the worst it’s ever been – and in magistrates’ courts, I think it’s in excess of 383,000 cases.”

Mr Rees added: “In many respects, it’s wholly unrealistic. It states that a key objective … is the need for swift justice. Well, the proposal they have then set out will not come anywhere near meeting that objective.”

The King’s Counsel pointed to examples including “fake claims” on chancellor Rachel Reeves’ CV and Labour’s manifesto commitment not to raise tax on working people.

He said: “We think it is entirely foreseeable that the courts … would simply be swamped, inundated with applications by voters of all political persuasions competing.”

Labour’s Lee Waters countered: “On the practicality point, that’s an argument for not bringing any more criminal sanctions in … I don’t deny the courts are swamped but I’m not sure if that should be the first basis on which we make law.”

Mr Greenwood said: “In reality, one only has to consider the number of disgruntled individuals reading today’s papers….

“But, more fundamentally, it is an entire departure from our present system which has a reviewing body to ensure only merited matters are put before the courts.”

Mr Waters said the paper’s model should not be treated as the last word, pointing out that it is only evidence to the committee rather than a firm Welsh Government proposal.

The former minister suggested it would be perfectly possible to address the witnesses’ concerns while departing from a system of self-regulation in the Senedd.

In July, the Welsh Government committed to introducing a ban before the next election.

Mick Antoniw, then-counsel general, the government’s chief legal adviser, said: “The Welsh Government will bring forward legislation before 2026 for the disqualification of members and candidates found guilty of deception through an independent judicial process.”

During the meeting on November 18, Mr Antoniw, now a member of the standards committee, reiterated concerns about the implications for parliamentary privilege.

Under the principle, parliamentary proceedings receive protection from legal challenge and Labour has committed expanding privilege in the Senedd to match Westminster.

Mr Rees agreed about the danger of politicisation, saying: “To introduce the courts as some sort of third-party arbiter of hotly disputed statements … would undermine the independence of the courts and, moreover …, would not serve the public interest whatsoever.”

He warned of a chilling effect on political discourse and freedom of speech.