Awareness

The Committee considers a key part of transparency and trust is ensuring that the right information is available.  We would be keen to know: 

• Whether you would know how to access the information on what donations Politicians have received? If so, which sources do you use? 
• Whether you think that information is sufficient about donations and what information you would expect to be available about donations? 

Transparency is a fundamental principle of political finance regulation. Appropriate transparency measures can ensure that voters are aware of who is funding campaigns and that regulators have the tools to ensure that political finance rules are being met. Transparency is also fundamental to deterring corruption.

The UK Electoral Commission political finance database is considered world leading in the accessibility and breadth of information available.[1] Donations and loans (that meet the thresholds for disclosure) are searchable for parties and for candidates.

For Senedd elections, spending returns and total donations received are reported, for parties and candidates, in a searchable format online. Having both publicly available information and online searchability is considered best practice for transparency. However, details of donations below the national disclosure threshold are not reported, and full individual candidate spending returns are only available to the public on request from the Returning Officer.

The thresholds for reporting donations to the Electoral Commission have increased in recent years. Now only donations to candidates over £2,230 from a single source need to be registered with the Electoral Commission, and only donations over £11,180 to parties. These limits (even before the increase) are, by international standards, quite high, meaning many donors and donations do not meet the threshold for transparency. The average threshold for donation disclosure across EU Member states in 2,400 Euros. There is a strong argument that the UK threshold is, particularly after the increase, set too high.

However, the type of information available and accessibility of the data remains a strong part of the UK’s political finance regime. One area that hinders transparency in donations and spending is the length of time between an election and the publications of returns. Spending returns for parties spending over £250,000 in the 2021 Senedd election were not reported until February of the following year. The Committee on Standards in Public Life has previously recommended reducing these timescales so that the information is available in a timely way.[2]

Many countries have moved to reporting either in real time or much more directly, and advances in technology allow for streamlining this process without additional administrative burden, improving transparency for voters.

Value of Donations

At present there is a monetary threshold for registration of a donation having been received, but there is no limit on the amount of money that can be donated.

We would be keen to know:  

• How much discretion do you think politicians should have in the amount of money they accept? 
• Do you think there should be a limit on the amount donated for specific campaigns, and if so, what should this limit be from: a) individuals; b) companies; c) charities; d) other organisations; or e) for the entire campaign 

Rules around donations typically seek to ensure that there is a ‘level playing field’ for electoral participants so the electorate is enabled to vote for their preferred candidates and policies. They may also seek to prevent distortion caused by foreign interference and ensure that those with the deepest pockets are not able to have an undue influence over campaigns, to safeguard against corruption and maintain a fair contest. This is essential for public trust in the system.

Whilst there are limits on spending, there are currently no limits on donations. This creates a space for individual, corporate or other interests to have an outsized impact on the financial flows to parties and candidates. Both the total amount of political donations and the size of donations has been increasing. Transparency International found that in 2023, £56.5 million of the total £85 million of reported contributions from private sources that year came from just nineteen donors. In addition, TI found that since 2001, almost 1 in every 10 pounds of reported donations has come from either unknown or questionable sources.^[3] Whether it’s parties or candidates, reliance on a small number of wealthy donations can distort politics and open up the potential for corruption. A donations limit is not only better for preventing undue influence, but protects political parties and representatives from risky fundraising behaviours.

A Welsh example of controversy related to donations was the £200,000 donation to Vaughan Gething MS, at the time when he was a candidate in the Welsh Labour leadership contest. This led to significant debate within the Senedd, and ultimately, to him standing down. This is likely to have had a negative impact on public trust in the system as a whole.

Many countries place limits on donations. Canada for example has a limit of $1,750 maximum total donations to a party by an individual in a year (the same limit applies to total donations to election candidates and leadership candidates).^[4] Most Northern, Western and Southern European countries also have individual donation limits, either annual or for electoral contests, (ranging from 2,500 Euros in Ireland to 50,000 Euros in Spain).

In 2011, the Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended a donation limit of £10,000 each year.^[5] This would be high by international standards but was seen as appropriate in the UK context. A lower limit might be appropriate for specific electoral contests, and it would be sensible to consider donations limits alongside spending limits, as well as considering the period in which the limit is in effect (whether annual or contest related) to ensure that regulations are compliementary.

There are clear spikes in donations during electoral cycles, but it is also understood that much activity also happens outside of regulated periods, and campaigning can take place all year round, every year. Restricting donations for a regulated period would not necessarily prevent larger donations being made outside of that.

Additional Accountability

The Senedd currently records information about donations on the individual Member’s register of interest and the information is also published on the Electoral Commission website. 

There is no other requirement on Members to record any interaction with individuals or groups. 

• Would you expect people/individuals donating to politicians to declare or register information somewhere? 
• Do you think the various ways, other than financial ones, in which Members can benefit should be recorded (such as the use of resources / facilities / services etc..)? 
• Do you think that the Senedd needs a method for recording interactions, other than financial ones, by any particular group of people with Members?

Outside of donations, the main areas of concern are gifts and hospitality, the funding of foreign trips, and the funnelling of funds through third parties.

The Senedd Register of Members’ Interests covers most of the categories of gifts and benefits.

Whilst foreign trips are registered, there are no restriction on the funders of those trips, which leaves open the possibility of foreign states seeking influence through funded visits.

In addition, there are still gaps in the framework around Unincorporated Associations (UAs) and the source of funds that come through UAs. Similarly on corporate donations, there are currently still loopholes that allow for funds made outside the UK to be funnelled through shell companies. Knowing the name and address of the entity that makes the donation is often not enough to ensure that the donation comes from a permissible source.

The onus is typically on the candidate or party accepting the donation rather than the donor and there is a strong case for having robust know-your-donor checks to protect parties and candidates, and for entities that receive and collate donations such as Unincorporated Associations to be required to enhance their permissibility checks.

Outside of the financial rules, one clear gap in how interactions are recorded between MSs and organisations or campaigning groups is a lack of a lobbying register in Wales. At present, the guidance on lobbying and access to Members of the Senedd is not extensive, indicating that “members should consider” a number of steps, including taking records and notes of any meeting with those they consider to be lobbyists.^[6] The lack of mandatory record keeping and strong guidance, risks inconsistency between members when capturing information around meetings. Given the guidance also does not require the publication of such information, there is a lack of transparency for the public who have no way of accessing information about meetings their elected members have undertaken.

As such, we would recommend that a lobbying register is introduced ahead of the seventh Senedd. This would bring the Senedd into line with the register in operation in Scotland,^[7]  and at a UK level.  

[1] International IDEA (2022) Regulating the Business of Election Campaigns: Financial transparency in the influence ecosystem in the United Kingdom, https://www.idea.int/publications/catalogue/regulatingbusiness–election–campaigns

[2]  CSPL (2021) Regulating Electoral Finance https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/60e460b1d3bf7f56801f3bf6/CSPL_Regulating_Election_F inance_Review_Final_Web.pdf  

[3] Transparency International (2024) Checks and Balances: Countering the influence of big money in politics https://www.transparency.org.uk/publications/cheques–and–balances–countering–influence–bigmoney–uk–politics  

[4] This amount increases each year.

[5] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/political–party–finance–ending–the–big–donor–culture

[6] https://senedd.wales/how-we-work/code-of-conduct/guidance-on-lobbying-and-access-to-members-of-the-senedd

[7] https://www.lobbying.scot/

Part 1: Guidance for political parties about developing, publishing, implementing and regularly reviewing diversity and inclusion strategies for local and national Welsh elections

Question 1: The Welsh Government must specify the characteristics and circumstances for the purpose of Parts 1 and 2 of the guidance. What are your views on the specified characteristics and circumstances? For ease, they are listed here:

• Age*
• Disability*
• Race*
• Religion or belief*
• Sex*
• Sexual orientation*
• Trans status or history (including gender reassignment*)
• Socio-economic background
• Health conditions
• Previous political experience
• Caring responsibilities
• Parental responsibility
• Language

* Protected characteristics as defined by the Equality Act 2010

We are broadly supportive of the characteristics and circumstances listed for the purpose of Parts 1 and 2 of the guidance. This appears to be consistent with the Local Government Candidate Survey, however we do believe there should be a balance between gathering the information needed and ensuring the survey isn’t overly extensive, to maximise the number and usefulness of responses.

Research into the impact of survey length on response rate indicates that shorter surveys obtain a higher response rate. A number of staff members at ERS Cymru have tested the proposed template survey and found it to be under five minutes to complete on average, which we imagine would vary depending on the nature of an individual’s response (i.e. if you have more protected characteristics to declare).

Question 2: Please indicate your level of agreement with the suggested actions for political parties to take to increase diversity and inclusion in Welsh elections?

Strongly agree

2a: Please explain your reasons for your rating of agreement with the suggested actions for political parties to take to increase diversity and inclusion in Welsh elections.

We were supportive of the statutory gender quotas outlined in the Senedd Cymru (Electoral Candidate Lists) Bill and were disappointed with the Bill’s withdrawal. As such, while these measures are not statutory we do welcome them. With no formal quotas being introduced, parties’ actions to improve diversity and inclusion and the data around this are even more important.

However, we do remain concerned about the voluntary nature of these measures. They will only be effective if all parties returned to the Senedd in 2026 adopt them. We will be working with the parties to support them in this, alongside WEN Wales, Race Council Cymru and EYST Wales as part of the Diverse 50:50 campaign.

Yet, it is important to consider how wider support can be offered to political parties to help them to utilise these measures. With each party in theory taking on the same or similar measures, regardless of their size, there could be a central hub for information or support, potentially through the new Electoral Management Board of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru.

Question 3: Are there other things which you think political parties need to consider in developing, publishing, implementing and reviewing diversity and inclusion strategies for Welsh elections? If so, what?

Parties must properly consider issues around data protection and anonymisation. Parties must ensure data is disaggregated so it does not easily identify individuals’ complete responses. They should also ensure they have the structures to hold this data securely.

We are happy that this guidance is comprehensive and strikes the right balance between effective, if utilised properly, and hopefully not too overburdening for parties. However, parties’ feedback should be a key part of considering this.

Part 2: Guidance for political parties standing candidates at Senedd elections on collecting, collating and publishing diversity information relating to candidates and elected Members

Question 4: What are your views on the candidate survey questions in Part 2?

We are broadly supportive of the candidate survey outlined in the template and in the draft guidance.

As outlined in our response to question 1, we are confident that this is consistent with the Local Government Candidate Survey, however are mindful that this should be balanced with something people will actually want to complete. Response rates for the Local Government Candidate Survey have historically been low (12% in 2022) and it is worth considering why this is. Any learning from low uptake of the Local Government Candidate Survey should be applied to this survey of candidates for the Senedd too.

Parties should be encouraged to use this template to ensure consistency and that when published, parties’ performances around diversity and inclusion, in terms of the selection of their candidates, are easily accessible and comparable.

Question 5: Do you think the guidance will help political parties to collect, collate and publish diversity information on Senedd candidates?

Yes – depending on uptake

5a: Please explain why you think this guidance will / will not help political parties to collect, collate and publish diversity information on Senedd candidates.

The lack of official data on the diversity of candidates and elected representatives is a significant issue that has yet to be addressed. Existing data around the diversity of candidates and Members of the Senedd is not based on official figures and this could go some way to addressing that.

The limited information currently available on the diversity of the Senedd is largely restricted to those elected as MSs and not the candidates that stood (apart from gender representation where some candidate data is available). This guidance on collecting, collating and publishing diversity information on Senedd candidates will help to provide an important missing link in the information chain. To understand where barriers to election lie we need both diversity information on those who stand as candidates and those who are then elected.

This allows parties and electoral stakeholders to identify barriers at specific stages of the process i.e. whether there are barriers in terms of candidate selection or candidate placement on lists.

It also allows for measuring the effectiveness of a party’s strategy on diversity and inclusion. For example, the effectiveness of approaches taken around voluntary gender quotas.

This is the first time guidance has been developed centrally to help parties to collect, collate and publish diversity information on Senedd candidates. The reality is that it doesn’t matter how strong the guidance is, due to its voluntary nature it is the uptake that will make it successful or not successful. The responsibility will be on political parties to implement these measures and ensure they are collecting and publishing this data.

In terms of the timescales on reporting back on diversity information gathered we are supportive of the six weeks proposed.

If parties do adopt the guidance it is worth considering how the guidance evolves over time after parties have used it and fed back. This should be a relatively iterative process.

Over the longer term the Welsh Government should engage the UK Government to see whether further powers could be devolved allowing for statutory measures around equalities in relation to elections to be implemented.

Part 3: Guidance for political parties standing candidates at Senedd elections on voluntary quotas for women

6a: Please explain why you think this guidance will / will not support political parties to take appropriate steps to achieve better gender representation in the Senedd.

We welcome the inclusion of voluntary quotas in the guidance, in lieu of the statutory quotas outlined in the now withdrawn Senedd Cymru (Electoral Candidate Lists) Bill. While we remain disappointed that this Bill was withdrawn, if parties take voluntary quotas seriously they could have a big impact. Voluntary measures in Wales have had an impact on gender representation in the past. The relatively high levels in terms of the representation of women in the Senedd has historically been reliant on voluntary measures. These include political parties taking positive action around the selection of their candidates and the placement of these candidates in winnable constituencies or high on lists, for example through the use of All Women Shortlists and Zipping.

This effect of voluntary measures impacting gender representation can be seen at the 2021 Senedd elections where 31% of candidates were women but 43% of elected MSs are women. This increase in womens’ elected representation compared with the candidate pool was in part due to positive action by specific parties, namely Welsh Labour, who returned 30 MSs, 17 (56.7%) of whom are women.

While this was a positive outcome for women’s representation in the 6th Senedd, it is heavily reliant on specific parties winning seats. Continued levels of party representation can never be guaranteed at future elections, and with the new electoral system coming in for the 2026 Senedd elections the results are even more likely to be different, thus highlighting the importance of every party committing to voluntary quotas for women ahead of 2026.

The new Closed List electoral system will allow for quotas to be easily implemented but parties will have to think carefully about their placement of women candidates to ensure the representation of women in the Senedd does not backslide.

The three dimensions of quotas outlined in the guidance (representation threshold, vertical criteria and horizontal criteria) are vital and should be used by parties in combination to maximise the effectiveness of voluntary quotas. Parties should also consider polling and past performance (although difficult in the first Closed List elections in 2026) to also consider where winnable seats may be.

In the course of work around the Senedd Cymru (Electoral Candidate Lists) Bill ERS Cymru produced some modelling of the effects quotas might have if implemented.

This modelling shows that quotas, while likely to have a positive impact on the representation of women in the Senedd, still requires parties to play an active role in considering where to place women at the top of electoral lists.

This can be seen in more detail in our written evidence to the Bill and should be considered by political parties when selecting candidates.

The most significant factor in the success of the voluntary quotas will be uptake by the political parties. Unless all parties represented in the Senedd after 2026 use voluntary quotas, its success will be limited.

Question 7: Are there other measures you think political parties could take to achieve a gender balanced Senedd? If so, what?

In terms of what else the political parties could do to help ensure a gender balanced Senedd we believe that timing is key. One issue likely to arise is that parties are already positioning candidates for 2026, even ahead of the final boundaries being published. That could put this guidance at risk of being published after the horse has already bolted. Parties should be playing an active role in the development of this guidance and having discussions within their leadership now ahead of any selections.

At the same time the Welsh Government should be playing their part in ensuring timely conversations with parties around this guidance and that it is published as soon as possible.

Final comments

Question 10: We have asked a number of questions in respect of the different parts of the guidance. Do you have any other thoughts you would like to share with us on the guidance?

We strongly welcome the publication of this draft guidance on diversity and inclusion. It is vital that the Senedd is properly representative and reflective of the people it serves. The Senedd has an important scrutiny function to undertake and a more diverse Senedd ensures that a wider range of lived experiences are taken into account on a day-to-day basis.

For this guidance to be effective, the political parties should engage and commit to implementing these processes.

Q1 – Do the procedures outlined in the draft Order accurately represent the requirements for conducting a successful election under the Senedd’s new electoral system?

No

Whilst the procedures outlined in the draft Order appear to accurately represent the technical requirements required for conducting an election under the Senedd’s new electoral system, we have significant reservations that impact our assessment of whether this will lead to a truly successful election.

Our primary concern relates to the new voting system, which is going to be taking choice away from voters and putting it into the hands of political parties. This change could inadvertently undermine voter engagement and confidence, as it limits the ability of individuals to express preferences for specific candidates over party lists.

In addition to this, the breadth of changes that will be happening to Senedd elections in 2026 necessitates a robust and comprehensive communication campaign to ensure voters fully understand the new voting system and its implications. Without such an effort, there is a real risk that confusion and misinformation could erode public trust in both the electoral process and the Senedd itself. Therefore, while the draft order sets out procedures that meet the formal requirements for electoral administration, how successful the election will be will depend on addressing these issues.

Q2(b) – Do you agree with the principal of aligning the election expenses limit of individual candidates with the limits for party expenses?

This question can’t be properly answered without having a party funding system finalised. That said, while we understand the reasoning behind aligning the spending limits for candidates and parties, we have concerns about fairness.

Depending on the chosen system, this alignment could place independent candidates at a disadvantage, as they do not have the centralised resources that political parties do. Independent candidates could be particularly affected if the system chosen limits funding based on the number of candidates a party puts on its list in a constituency, as opposed to the number of constituencies in which they stand. As such a system may incentivise larger political parties to fill their list to increase their funding limit, a luxury which individual candidates would not have.

Q5 – Are the provisions relating to the new requirements of a statement of party membership clear with regards to what is required from candidates?

Yes

It is clear from the order that candidates will have to declare if they have been the member of a political party in the 12 months leading up and this is clear on the related form. We support the requirement as it will improve transparency for voters. This system is already in place for local elections in Wales and we believe that introducing it for the Senedd should be make the process easier to understand for candidates and manageable for election officials.

Q6 – Do you agree with the new provisions in Rule 37 of Schedule 5 regarding the equipment provided at polling stations to assist disabled voters, which is in line with the approach adopted following amendments made by the Elections Act 2022?

We welcome the new provisions which aim to assist disabled people to vote independently in polling stations. However, we believe there is room to go further on this. Disability campaigners and stakeholders have previously pointed to the ad hoc nature of accessibility equipment in polling stations, where some stations are better equipped than others.

People with disabilities should be able to vote independently as much as possible. However, if the equipment is not sufficiently available in all polling stations, this will not be possible. The RNIB have conducted research into the ability of blind people to vote independently and found that fewer than one in five blind voters were able to do so. However, trials showed that when tactile and audio solutions were introduced, 93% of blind voters were able to vote independently. We welcome the currently ongoing pilots around this area and would like to see the outcomes of these, along with input from other key stakeholders, being fed into secondary legislation.

Q7 – Do you consider that the content and format of the forms, as well as the new numbering system, satisfies users’ needs?

No

The forms and numbering system are logical and appear to satisfy the needs of users. However, there are some visual elements which appear to be missing from some of the forms. Most notably form 22 in the order is missing the visual elements that were present in the old amended Senedd order from 2016 (Related to Rule 37 (14) of Schedule 5).

In addition to this difference, the first piece of guidance (relating to going to the desk when entering the polling station) is ommited in the new form. We feel these visual prompts are useful in addition to the text. This is particularly important given the expansion of the franchise to young people who have never cast a vote before and may be nervous about knowing what to do.

Another feature that appears to have been ommitted from the new forms is the use of bold information boxes which sign-post voters to additional help. This can be seen in postal voting and poll card such as form CC2 in the amended 2016 order.

While the forms do include text around getting help, having this information presented in a bold and clear way will make it easier for voters to find it.

Along with these points, given the changes taking place at the 2026 election, a strong communications campaign will need to be coupled with the new forms. This will be essential so that the electorate are able to understand the new system and subsequently their ballot paper.

Q10 – We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them:

Given the huge changes that have occurred to electoral legislation in Wales since 2017, we welcome the move to consolidate all the rules that govern Senedd elections into this order. This will help ensure that election rules are more transparent and easier to follow for those that use them.

However, due to the scale of the changes outlined in the order, it is vital that they are introduced with a comprehensive and clear communication strategy well ahead of the 2026 election. This is crucial to ensure that both candidates and, more importantly, the electorate fully understand the new process for electing Senedd Members. Additionally, any changes made to the conduct order after the consultation should be published in a timely manner, allowing enough time for proper guidance to be produced before the 2026 elections, which are just 15 months away.

ERS Cymru warmly welcomes the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill. We support the idea of bringing elections in Wales into the modern age and the aim of removing barriers for voters. It is right that with devolution of elections to Wales, we consider how we can create a democracy that really works for the people of Wales.

It is important that this legislation is seen as a wider package of democratic reform with the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill and any forthcoming legislation around gender quotas.

We have outlined our views on some of the main areas of the Bill below.

Electoral Management Board of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru

Wales currently lacks a specific body to oversee democracy. While the Welsh Government and the Senedd as an institution both undertake a number of activities around elections and engagement with the public, oversight should be at an arm’s length basis. This could be in a body that would take a strategic view on democracy including at elections. The creation of the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru (DBCC) in the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill has the potential to fill this gap.

We have previously called for the creation of an Electoral Management Board (EMB) and are pleased to see provisions for its establishment in this Bill. It is logical that the EMB should sit within the DBCC.

One thing that will be key to the success of the new EMB, and indeed the DBCC, is engagement with stakeholders and partners. Since the extension of the franchise, multiple networks have been established to bring together partners working with newly enfranchised groups or those less likely to be registered to vote. ERS Cymru coordinates the Democracy Group Cymru, a network of about 50 organisations across Wales, which works to bring together organisations undertaking activities around democracy and elections and to share best practice and developments. The Welsh Government also convenes a Democratic Engagement Partnership Group. While these groups may or may not continue with the creation of the DBCC and the EMB, it is vital that these kinds of networks continue to exist. For example, the legislation provides for the EMB to be made up of a Commissioner from the DBCC (to act as Chair), with further members consisting of EROs and ROs. We do not take issue with this, but the board’s engagement with the third sector, who often represent groups that are either newly enfranchised or less likely to be registered, will be vital. A joined up approach should be taken.

In terms of the functions of the EMB, as we set out in our response to the Welsh Government’s White Paper on Electoral Reform and Administration in January 2023 – data collection and publication should be one of its responsibilities.^[1] The publication of election results data in Scotland is currently far more consistent than that in Wales. For example, after the 2022 local elections, local authorities in Scotland published their election results data using the same proforma, whereas in Wales the data published was in a different format across all 22 local authorities. Data publication is one area where we think an Electoral Management Board for Wales could take a pan-Wales approach. Taking a standardised approach would mean results are clearer and all of the relevant data is published by all local authorities. It would also provide a location to publish overall results data, as the EMB for Scotland currently does.

Electoral registration without application

 We warmly welcome the provisions in the legislation to provide for electoral registration without application. Simplifying electoral registration for voters will go a long way in removing barriers to our democracy. As the Electoral Commission have found, around 260,000 eligible electors in Wales are not registered to vote, just shy of 10%.^[2] Data also shows that some groups are less likely to be registered than others, with young people, EU nationals and people who have recently moved house and those in the private rental sector among the least likely.^[3]

Registering eligible electors without application will level the playing field, but it is vital that automatic registration is administered effectively. As such, we welcome the idea of a pilot and evaluation period.

There are many questions that can be addressed during this period. While we note a Notice of Registration will be sent to eligible electors when they are added to the register, it is unclear when people will expect these notices. Given this, it is important that Ministers set out how people will be aware if they have been missed from the register without an application process? We have previously called for an accessible and easy way to check if you are registered, ideally through an online portal, and would hope that a way to deliver this is developed.

We would also suggest that ahead of any devolved elections a letter should be sent out reminding each individual that they are registered, of the election date and signposting people to further information ahead of casting their vote. A similar letter is sent to residents in Estonia, where AVR is used, ahead of elections. We have provided a copy of the most recent letter to the Committee alongside this written evidence.

We strongly agree with the removal of the open register in relation to devolved elections. The combination of an AVR system and an open electoral register would increase opportunities for fraud and the undermining of privacy due to the larger possibility of data linkages to be made between Personally Identifiable Information held on the systems. Moreover, the sale of the open electoral registers is currently common practice and should be curtailed due to potential for misuse and privacy infringements. The removal of the open register under AVR would mitigate these dangers. The data of people who are registered to vote should not be for commercial sale and should not turn a profit. The data provided is given in good faith so that a member of the populus can take an active part in the democratic process of voting.

The provisions in the Bill to allow application for anonymous registration during the 45 day notice period are essential to ensure anonymous registration is still possible under a system without application. It is vital that information on how to apply for anonymous registration is clear and the process is as simple as possible. It is unclear from the Bill and accompanying Explanatory Memorandum whether anonymous registration would need to be re-applied for on a yearly basis, as is the current method under the Individual Electoral Registration process. Also whether the current procedure of Electoral Registration Officers sending a yearly reminder to reapply for anonymous registration would remain in place for those anonymously registered.^[4] These processes and safety nets become ever more crucial under an AVR system and thus communication is key, especially as some of those affected may have simply avoided registering to vote previously.

There is little information currently available about what form the pilot, or pilots, on automated registration would take. We would welcome further information around this as soon as possible. It could be useful to undertake pilots which target traditionally under-represented groups and those that will likely be hard to register or verify the identification of, for example private renters, students and people with no fixed abode. It would be beneficial to assess how well AVR works in these contexts. AVR could also be piloted within a local authority area and then comparisons made between the completeness of the register there to a non AVR using local authority.

Welsh elections piloting

We have long welcomed the idea of piloting and testing different electoral innovations in Wales. Many countries across the world take a different approach to democracy, and further pilots in Wales will allow for us to explore whether such innovation would strengthen Welsh democracy. The pilots in 2022, although limited in number and geographical spread, demonstrated that processes such as electronic registers allowing a vote to be cast outside of a voter’s regular polling station, and having a polling station open for numerous days rather than just election day, could be delivered. It is now time to build on this experience.

The provisions for further pilots in the Elections and Elected Bodies Bill go further than the existing provisions in the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021. We welcome this development as this legislation is much more comprehensive and allows for a broader range of pilots to be undertaken. We also welcome the stronger provisions around who can suggest pilots, which allows for much more oversight and collaboration.

The power to compel a pilot is something we also support. All four of the local authorities who opted to take part in the advance voting pilots in 2022 were from the more urban areas of south central and south east Wales and were fairly small in terms of land-area.^[5] A power direction that would enable Welsh Ministers to compel a local authority to pilot electoral innovations would be a good tool in widening the areas involved and ensuring a balance across the geographies and demographics of the 22 Welsh local authorities.

Pilots to solve specific issues, for example increasing voting options in the more dispersed rural communities of Wales, could be targeted to those local authorities that would provide the best fit. Support and resources would need to be made available so that no local authority was disadvantaged by being involved in future pilots. It is also key that compelling a pilot is not the first port of call in terms of working with a local authority to ensure a pilot is held. Conversations with local authorities should be constructive and begin much earlier in the electoral cycle than ahead of the 2022 elections.

The challenge with changing the way that people can vote will always be how best to communicate it to the public. During the 2022 pilots, given the small number of areas taking part and the short time scale for planning, it was difficult to communicate to people that they had the chance to vote in different places and on different days. Indeed only 22-30% of people reported they were aware they could vote before election day across the pilot areas, according to the Electoral Commission.^[6] If this was rolled out in further, larger pilots or on a national scale it would require a much larger communications campaign, which in theory could be easier given it could be more widely targeted. A communication campaign should also begin much earlier in the electoral cycle. The voter information platform also provided for in this legislation should contain information on this, for example plugging into an extension of the Democracy Club’s ‘where do I vote?’ platform.

In evidence to the Committee on the 26th October the Counsel General confirmed there would be no pilots before 2026 except for pilots around automated registration. It would be useful to get an insight into whether there will be further pilots at the elections in 2026 and 2027.

Place a duty on Welsh Ministers to put arrangements in place aimed at improving diversity within the Senedd and local government members

Overall, we support the measures to improve diversity in elected office within this Bill. We look forward to the introduction of legislation around gender quotas, to see what other areas are in consideration in relation to diversity.

Duty to assist disabled voters

We support the principle of additional duty being placed on the Electoral Commission with respect to reporting on the steps taken by ROs at elections to assist disabled people at Senedd and local government elections in Wales. However, the Commission should properly engage with disabilities organisations and disabled voters to assess how this can best be done in practice. It is important that these changes are communicated effectively to those who will be affected so that they know more support is available.

We also support secondary legislation to provide equipment to support disabled people being able to vote independently, and believe the guidance to do this should be co-produced with those key stakeholders affected by such legislation.

There is also a question of whether the voter information platform contained in the Bill would be able to host information on the accessibility of polling stations or the equipment provided at individual stations. This could streamline access to information for disabled voters.

Diversity of representation in elected office

We welcome the provisions in section 29 of the legislation to formalise what is currently referred to as the Access to Elected Office Fund. Disabled candidates can incur additional costs and need additional support when standing for elected office. So, a scheme for financial assistance to help disabled candidates overcome barriers must continue. We hope that the scheme can build upon the success of the 2021 and 2022 pilots and take forward the recommendations of the review of the fund, published this July.^[7]

Section 29 of the Bill also provides for schemes of financial assistance to be put in place to support others with specified characteristics or circumstances. We support this broadening of criteria for financial support and have long called for an extension of the Access to Elected Office Fund or the introduction of a similar, wider scheme. For example, covering childcare costs during a campaign would be useful for those with childcare responsibilities. An assessment of which costs provide barriers for candidates should be undertaken, and it would be helpful to get an assessment from the Welsh Government on what particular schemes they may be considering ahead of the 2026 and 2027 elections.

More broadly, in relation to section 28 of the legislation, we support the duty being placed on Welsh Ministers to put in place provisions to improve the diversity and representation of elected representatives in Wales. We also welcome coaching and mentoring being specifically stated as an area of support in the Bill. Schemes like the Equal Power Equal Voice programme have a key role in encouraging a much wider range of people to stand for election.

One thing that will be critical in improving the diversity of representation in elected office in Wales is going to be the provision of data. Data collection must be improved to understand where gaps currently lie and where progress is being made. We explore this point further in our evidence relating to the flexibility of the local government candidate survey, and we await further details on what measures are likely to be within the forthcoming legislation around gender quotas on this. A survey or collection of data around Senedd candidates is also vital, and we hope this will be included in some way in the forthcoming legislation.

Allowing more flexibility for the local government candidate survey

We strongly agree with the provisions to improve the flexibility of the local government candidate survey by removing the requirement for the specific wording and format of the survey to be in the regulations. The last local government candidate survey in Wales only had an overall return rate of 12% with 19% for county council candidates.^[8] The low response rate was partly due to the survey being delayed as a result of the extra complexities in amending it given the wording provided for in the regulations.

Measures should also be taken to increase its take up. We are unclear at present whether measures to collect better candidate data will be in forthcoming legislation around gender quotas. We have long argued that the collection and publication of candidates’ demographic data is vital in measuring the effectiveness of provisions to increase the diversity of our elected representatives. If these measures are contained in the forthcoming legislation then we would welcome information on how that would interact with the local government candidates survey. If those measures are not contained in the forthcoming legislation, or are not as strong as we would like in terms of requiring candidates share or parties collect this information, much more must be done to improve the uptake of the local government candidate survey. A similar survey should also be developed for Senedd elections.

Require a voter information platform that can host candidate and voter information for Senedd and ordinary principal council elections

Following the 2022 local elections the Democracy Group Cymru, facilitated by ERS Cymru and the Politics Project, held a workshop with members to identify what measures could be introduced to boost engagement in devolved elections in Wales. Many of the recommendations co-produced at this session were around voter information and education. While many different organisations across Wales produce a range of really good resources on democracy and elections, there is no one place that voters can go to easily access all of this information.

A voter information platform would provide that ‘one stop shop’ for voters to view information around elections on an accessible and easily searchable site, for example on a ‘vote.wales’ specific url.

In terms of what information this site should contain or signpost to, there are a number of particular areas we know voters would like more information on.

Those basic areas would be:

• Registration- how to register to vote, or in the case of a rollout of automated registration, signposting on how to check if you are registered
• What the election is about- e.g. what the Senedd does, how it relates to Welsh Government and the role of Members of the Senedd
• Who the candidates are- linking to personal statements
• The process of casting a vote- polling station locator, different voting options and what to expect in each (e.g. what to expect in a polling station and how to cast a vote there)
• Where to seek advice and support- this would be particularly useful for questions about accessibility

Some of this information already exists, for example the Democracy Club hosts a polling station finder and a search tool to find out who your candidates are.^[9] The Electoral Commission and the Senedd have some good resources on different elections. The Democracy Box has also outlined the story of democracy that every citizen should know. The voter information platform should bring all of this together in one place.

Given some of the information required is already available, a mapping exercise would be hugely helpful in planning the voter information platform. The Politics Project would be worth engaging in this mapping as they collate many of the existing resources at election time. Discussions with providers of the existing information should also take place to allow for collaboration – this platform should take a partnership approach.

We have also seen some testing of ideas in some local authorities that we believe could be worthwhile rolling out. For example in Merthyr for the local elections in 2022 a candidate statement, saying who the candidates were and why they wanted to be a councillor was available for many of the candidates. Building on the work of the Democracy Club’s https://whocanivotefor.co.uk/ site, which holds some candidate statements, however the amount varies by area, would be really useful if rolled out on a national level. While this is something we support we are also aware of the risks in terms of what candidates might want to put online there in some cases. As such, guidance should be produced, for example on what candidates’ statements should contain and not contain, word lengths and formats.

In light of these organisations already having a lot of the content that would be useful for a voter information platform, whoever leads on the delivery of the platform should engage with these stakeholders in the platform’s development.

There is also a question of who runs and manages this platform. Currently the Bill places a duty on Welsh Ministers to provide for the establishment and management of a voter information platform. In practice this could be delivered by the DBCC or elements could be managed by an EMB.

In summary, we are really pleased to see provisions around a voter information platform within the Bill. We strongly believe this can be an iterative process, ideally in place for the 2026 and 2027 elections that can be built upon. Considerations should also be made about how those who are digitally excluded can access better voter information ahead of an election. As such, we welcome provisions in the legislation that the information on the platform can be available other than by electronic means. Our recommendation for an additional one pager containing information for voters to be sent to every eligible voter ahead of the election, as takes place in Estonia, would go a long way to complimenting an online resource. Taken together, these measures would provide a comprehensive set of information and signposting for voters ahead of any election.

Hold candidates and agents accountable for notional expenditure only where directed or authorised, and clarify third party campaigning rules

We note that these changes will bring the devolved arrangements in line with changes at a UK level that were made in the UK Government’s Elections Act 2022.

We were disappointed that measures to tighten the regulation of political finance – as recommended by the Committee on Standards in Public Life ‘regulating election finance’ report^[10] – were not included in the Elections Act 2022.

It is important that there is a robust and transparent regime for political finance that applies to both parties and campaigners without stifling democratic debate and participation. To that end we support the recommendations of the CSPL and would like to see them implemented at a UK level.

However, we also recognise that there is the potential for confusion if the regulatory framework differs for different elections. Whilst we would like to see more done at the UK level, these changes make sense in terms of ensuring consistency across elections.

Additional comments:

STV

While we have welcomed this Bill and its efforts to remove barriers that voters face, there is one big reform missing from this legislation that could really transform Welsh democracy. The current voting system for local authority elections is not fit for purpose and reform to the local government voting system is sorely needed.

While councils are now able to vote to move to the Single Transferable Vote (STV), the specific requirements to do this ensure that only the status quo is incentivised. Councils will have to incur their own costs to move to STV at present.

There are significant issues with Welsh local democracy including uncontested seats, disproportionate results and ultimately voters feeling they lack choice. Unless a full reform of the voting system for local elections in Wales is commenced, these issues will remain despite the positive changes contained in this legislation.

Communications

As we have said in our evidence regarding the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill, after the legislation is passed communication to voters around the changes is going to be vital.

Joined up and clear communication of the changes coming in ahead of the 2026 Senedd elections are crucial in ensuring that people are being brought along in that journey. This will involve working across the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill, Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill and the forthcoming bill on gender quotas to provide a clear narrative that covers all of the changes to Welsh democracy for voters.

^[1] https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/parliamentary-briefings/response-to-the-welsh-governments-electoral-reform-and-administration-white-paper-consultation/

^[2] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/electoral-registration-great-britain-2022

^[3] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-is-registered

^[4] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/i-am-a/voter/register-vote/register-vote-anonymously

^[5] https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/who-we-are-and-what-we-do/our-views-and-research/our-research/advance-voting-pilots-evaluation

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] https://www.gov.wales/review-access-elected-office-fund-wales-pilot

^[8] https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2023-03/local-government-candidates-survey-2022_0.pdf

^[9] https://wheredoivote.co.uk/

^[10] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/999636/CSPL_Regulating_Election_Finance_Review_Final_Web.pdf

ERS Cymru welcomes the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill. We have long supported and campaigned on the case for increasing the size of the Senedd along with broader reform of the Senedd’s electoral arrangements, and are delighted to see proposals being brought forward for 96 members within this legislation. While we are supportive of the measures to increase the capacity of the Senedd we have some concerns about the specific voting system chosen, which we detail below.

Increase in the size of the Senedd

It has been nearly a decade since the publication of our ‘Size Matters’ report calling for an increase in the number of Senedd members,^[1] and nearly two decades since the work of the Richard Commission recommended that by 2011 the ‘National Assembly for Wales should increase in size from 60 to 80 members’.^[2] Several committees and, most notably, the Expert Panel on Assembly Electoral Reform, have come to a similar conclusion since then.^[3]  During this time further powers have been devolved to Wales, including law making powers, and thus the Senedd has taken on greater responsibilities and had its scrutiny capacity stretched even further. The increase in the number of Members of the Senedd has been long overdue and we welcome the provisions in this Bill to rectify this under-resourcing and realise a Welsh Parliament with sufficient capacity to do its job.

Both the Expert Panel report and the Committee of Senedd Reform recommended increasing the size of the Senedd to between 80 and 90 members, with the Expert Panel highlighting that a move to the upper end of this range would provide the most benefits and allow a level of future-proofing of capacity. ^{[4], [5]}

Since these two reports were published in 2017 and 2020 respectively, the political landscape in Wales has changed considerably with Brexit, the Covid-19 pandemic and the UK parliamentary boundary review reducing the number of Welsh MPs from 40 to 32. Extra responsibilities in devolved areas, which were previously covered by EU law, have added to the workload of the Senedd and as such the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform recommended an increase in MSs beyond 90.^[6] We agree that 96 members is an appropriate number to both allow better scrutiny of current legislation and to future proof the parliament for further devolution of powers down the line. This also brings the Senedd more in line with other devolved parliaments, still significantly smaller than the Scottish Parliament and only slightly larger than Stormont.

Voting System

While we agree that a new voting system is needed to elect a larger Senedd, we have concerns about the closed list proportional representation (PR) system included in this legislation.

The Bill’s explanatory memorandum recognises that a closed list PR electoral system reduces voter choice and uses it as part of the rationale for the introduction of a residency requirement for candidates, stating “if an elector supports a party’s list except for a candidate who they believe has no residency in Wales, they must either not vote for that party or be unable to express their objections”.^[7]

This dilemma is not unique to the issue of candidate residency, as there are endless reasons why an elector may not support the candidate at the top of a given party’s list but wish to support one or more of the candidates further down the list with their vote, and provides one of the arguments as to why a closed list PR electoral system is not an appropriate electoral system for Senedd elections.

Research by LSE in 2013 showed that closed list systems can lead to voters selecting which party to vote for based solely on single, often divisive, issues. This was due to the overall party line on a topic being broadly applied to everyone standing under that list and the lack of consideration for individual candidate viewpoints, which may vary even within a specific party.^[8]

We would advocate for the Single Transferable Vote (STV) to be the Senedd’s new electoral system, as did the Expert Panel in 2017, the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform in 2020 and two members of the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform in 2022.^{[9], [10], [11]} An STV system would allow voters to not only select their preferred candidate, but also provide as many alternative options, through ranking candidates, as they desire. It is also the electoral system that has been selected for councils to choose to move to under the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act.^[12] Across the UK STV is also used for Scottish local elections since 2007 and for local and parliamentary elections in Northern Ireland.

Given the timescale of implementation for this Bill is tight, an alternative option would be to look at the electoral system recommended by the Expert Panel in the event that STV was not implemented, the flexible list system.^[13]

We would endorse the addition of an amendment to the legislation to allow for a flexible list. This would entail allowing voters to vote for an individual candidate or a party, with individual candidates only moving up a party’s list if they pass a certain threshold percentage of the party’s votes in that constituency. This would improve voter choice, and give voters a mechanism to effectively deselect a candidate at the top of the list if they believe they were not doing a good job. Minimal amendments to the Bill as it stands could facilitate the change to a flexible list voting system.

This flexible list approach is used widely in countries across Europe including Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Norway, the Netherlands, Slovakia, and Sweden.^[14] There are also examples of countries who have abandoned closed lists in favour of a flexible list approach. One such example is Sweden, which initially used a closed list PR system and upgraded this with a move to a flexible list system in 1998.

The Expert Panel developed a system for flexible lists in Wales as part of their 2017 report.

“In terms of the second dimension, Flexible List systems use a wide variety of mechanisms. The system we have developed uses flexible lists of the ‘threshold’ form. Under this system, parties determine the order in which candidates’ names appear on the ballot paper. If no candidate receives sufficient personal votes to meet a specified candidate threshold, the party’s preferred order is the order in which candidates take up any seats won by the party. If a candidate’s personal votes pass the threshold, she or he moves to the top of the list. If several candidates pass the threshold, they are ordered by the number of votes they have each received. For example, in Sweden, candidates receiving 5 per cent or more of the votes received by the party list move to the top of the list. We have opted for this system because it is simple and therefore readily understood by parties, candidates and voters. While other forms of flexible lists have certain advantages, we do not think these outweigh the value in the context of Assembly elections of the threshold system’s simplicity.”

A flexible list approach, as described by the Expert Panel, could alleviate some concerns around the lack of voter choice under the current system proposed, while likely being manageable in light of the tight timescales of the Bill.

Seat Allocation

The electoral formula stipulated in the Bill to allocate seats under a list PR electoral system is the D’Hondt method. We have reservations around this as this method can result in less proportional results than the Sainte-Laguë method which was recommended by the Expert Panel.^[15]

If a list PR approach continues (either flexible or closed), then as the Expert Panel recommended, the Sainte-Laguë formula should be adopted to allocate seats on proportionality grounds. The D’Hondt method usually produces less proportional results than the Sainte-Laguë method due to the electoral formula normally favouring larger parties over smaller parties. The Expert Panel found in its modelling work “that the D’Hondt electoral formula generally produces outcomes which are less proportional than those using the Sainte-Laguë formula, and sometimes less proportional than the current electoral system” with two members of the Special Purpose Committee also initially preferring this formula.^[16]

Constituency Boundaries

While we recognise the time limitations in getting this legislation enacted for the 2026 Senedd Elections we would like to note that it is a shame that there won’t be bespoke Senedd constituencies at this time. Using the new UK parliamentary constituencies relies on boundaries that operate for an entirely different political system, that are drawn based on incomplete electoral rolls instead of actual population figures and are based on a different franchise.

We also have concerns about the provisions to ensure the number of representatives per constituency are equal due to the variance in constituency size and the number of voters represented, which specifically is an issue in the case of Ynys Môn given its protected status in the Westminster boundary review. As acknowledged in the explanatory memorandum of the Bill this will mean that voters within that paired constituency are effectively over-represented at the Senedd^[17].

The pairing of the Westminster constituencies also doesn’t account for the different franchise in Wales and how that might alter the electorate size across the constituencies. The boundary review ahead of the 2030 Senedd elections should rectify this by establishing bespoke Senedd constituencies with more balanced electorates based on the Welsh franchise. However, the specification on the face of the Bill for 16 constituencies each electing six members has the potential to be too rigid in terms of balancing the competing interests of equal numbers of electors and respecting natural community boundaries in this boundary review exercise.

In Europe, both Spain and Portugal use the closed list PR system for their parliamentary elections. Spain has district magnitudes varying from 2 to 37 across its 50 multi-member constituencies, and Portugal has district magnitudes varying from 2 to 48 across its 22 multi-member constituencies. In the UK, MEP elections used to be held using the closed list PR system; these too had varying district magnitude with between 3 and 10 MEPs being elected across the different nations and regions. Having equal district magnitudes, such as in this Bill, is far from the norm as natural boundaries and communities rarely fall into such similarly populated geographies.

In fact across all of the 20 EU member states who use any variation of the list PR electoral system, only two countries, Croatia and Slovenia, use equal district magnitude across multiple constituencies. The result of this is that their electoral districts follow unnatural boundaries, something which is a cause of contention at the moment in Croatia.^[18] Given this, we believe that there is no need for the rigidity around the number of elected members per constituency. This will only serve to constrain the boundary review due to take place following the 2026 Senedd elections.

Job Sharing

The requirements in the Bill for the next Senedd to vote on a motion to establish a committee to look into job sharing are welcome, but leave us yet again without an opportunity for the benefits of job sharing to be realised in the next Senedd. The Expert Panel made recommendations around the provision of job shares for MSs in 2017, and nearly a decade later we will have made little practical progress on this issue.^[19] Both the Committee on Senedd Reform and the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform looked at job sharing in varying depths but advised further consideration was needed. Job sharing for cabinet members in principal councils already takes place, and has been considered quite successful over a number of years.

We have a number of concerns around the suggested method for any future discussion of job sharing. The legislation as drafted only requires a motion to be tabled following the 2026 Senedd election to establish a committee. There is no guarantee that motion would even be passed by the Senedd. There are also limited parameters in the legislation in terms of that committee if it were to be established. While it will be required to report on job sharing and temporary cover for if a member was unavailable, there is little to ensure that this work is extensive. Likewise, while this legislation requires a report to be tabled and Welsh Ministers to respond there is no guarantee these recommendations will be taken forward. We have concerns that this amounts to a further kicking into the long grass in relation to an issue that has already had substantial discussion within various Senedd committees and is supported by a range of third sector organisations and academics.

Senedd Terms

We support the return to four year terms for the Senedd, meaning that the electorate are able to choose their representatives more frequently. This return to pre-2011 term lengths is logical given the issue of clashes with UK parliamentary elections has changed with the introduction of the Dissolution and Calling of Parliament Bill, which repealed the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011, removing the five-year interval between UK parliamentary elections.^[20] Alongside the provisions to change Senedd elections to every four years, the Welsh Government should also consider making this change for local elections. The electorate should have a frequent say in their representatives at a local level.

Recall/ by-election mechanism

The provisions for filling vacant seats are consistent with the current rules regarding vacancies when a member who has been elected on the regional list stands down, is disqualified or dies, with in most cases the next person on the list taking that vacant seat. This highlights the need for parties to stand a full list in each constituency if they can.

We are concerned by the lack of provision for a protocol around Members of the Senedd who change parties or leave a party to become an independent member, as detailed in paragraph 265 on page 73 of the Explanatory Memorandum.^[21] Given that under a closed list PR system, voters will be voting specifically for a party not for individual candidates, this brings into question the legitimacy of the mandate from their electors of any MS who changes party during a Senedd term.

While up until 2016 this was a relatively rare occurrence, with only four MSs switching parties across the first four Senedd terms (1999 – 2016), in the 5th Senedd term (2016 – 2021) nine MSs changed parties a total of 19 times. All of the MSs in question were elected under the regional list, using the closed list PR system where voters cast their ballot for a party not an individual candidate. Six of these nine MSs changed parties multiple times over the course of the fifth Senedd, with then Member of the Senedd Mark Reckless changing allegiance a total of four times. To date 87% of incidences of MSs changing parties during a Senedd term have been those elected via the regional list (20 of the 23 incidences), with the regional list currently only making up ⅓ of the membership of the Senedd. This situation could get worse as we move to a 100% closed list PR system and leave voters represented by a party that they didn’t vote for. A move to a flexible list system would give candidates more of a personal mandate and alleviate this situation somewhat.

Post-2026 election review of the legislation

We were pleased to see a requirement in the Bill for the review of the legislation post-2026 Senedd elections. We believe this review should be as wide in scope as possible, and we welcome the parameters outlined in the Bill’s Explanatory Memorandum.

We also believe there could be a role for additional principles to be used to assess the effectiveness of the changes brought forth in the Bill. For example, the Electoral Administration and Reform White Paper set out six principles to guide the longer-term programme of electoral reform; equity, accessibility, participation, improving citizen experience, simplicity and integrity.^[22] Likewise, in 2017 the Expert Panel took a principles-based approach to assessing different electoral systems in its work; these covered 10 areas: government accountability and effectiveness, proportionality, member accountability, equivalent status, diversity, voter choice, equivalent mandates, boundaries, simplicity, sustainability and adaptability.^[23]

The Explanatory Memorandum details that the review should also take into account ‘the extent to which the elements of a healthy democracy are present in Wales’.^[24] The recently published Defining, Measuring, and Monitoring Democratic Health in Wales report from the Wales Centre for Public Policy, commissioned by the Welsh Government, has outlined various metrics that could be used to do this. This could be through the inclusion of Wales specific data collection in international projects such as the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project or through data that is already collected on a Wales level such as metrics around the Wellbeing of Wales in the National Survey for Wales or data from the Wales Election Study.^[25] A comprehensive dataset covering all aspects of democratic health in Wales will likely involve a combination of existing surveys/projects and the commissioning of new data gathering.^[26] We would urge the Welsh Government to adopt the recommendations of this report, and think about what additional data it could commission or produce around elections. For example the Explanatory Memorandum for the Bill includes turnout as a measure that could be considered. We would support the idea of this being disaggregated by demographic data, as takes place in Iceland.^[27]  We believe it is a sensible approach to link this data with the review of Senedd electoral arrangements.

Additional comments

The successful implementation of this Bill relies on good communication. Good ballot design and rigorous testing will be essential closer to the election, as will wider engagement with the public on these changes.

Continued electoral divergence between systems across the UK makes public engagement and communication vital, especially when the changes in this Bill are considered alongside those in the Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill. While electoral divergence should not be a barrier to improving devolved elections and making changes to the Senedd, it does heighten the need for effective communication to voters.

Joined up and clear communication of the changes coming in ahead of the 2026 Senedd elections are crucial in ensuring that people are being brought along in that journey. This will involve working across the Senedd Cymru (Members and Elections) Bill, Elections and Elected Bodies (Wales) Bill and the forthcoming bill on gender quotas to provide a clear narrative that covers all of the changes to Welsh democracy for voters.

^[1] https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/size-matters/

^[2] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03018/

^[3] https://senedd.wales/media/eqbesxl2/a-parliament-that-works-for-wales.pdf

^[4] https://senedd.wales/media/eqbesxl2/a-parliament-that-works-for-wales.pdf

^[5] https://senedd.wales/laid%20documents/cr-ld13452/cr-ld13452%20-e.pdf

^[6] https://senedd.wales/media/5mta1oyk/cr-ld15130-e.pdf

^[7] https://senedd.wales/media/ixjdywtx/pri-ld16037-em-e.pdf Paragraph 184, p53.

^[8] https://eprints.lse.ac.uk/62331/1/Hix_Open%20closed%20list_2016.pdf

^[9] https://senedd.wales/media/eqbesxl2/a-parliament-that-works-for-wales.pdf

^[10] https://senedd.wales/laid%20documents/cr-ld13452/cr-ld13452%20-e.pdf

^[11] https://senedd.wales/media/5mta1oyk/cr-ld15130-e.pdf

^[12] https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asc/2021/1/contents

^[13] https://senedd.wales/media/eqbesxl2/a-parliament-that-works-for-wales.pdf

^[14] https://www.santiagoolivella.info/pdfs/es2013.pdf

^[15] https://senedd.wales/media/eqbesxl2/a-parliament-that-works-for-wales.pdf

^[16] https://senedd.wales/media/5mta1oyk/cr-ld15130-e.pdf, p37.

^[17] https://senedd.wales/media/ixjdywtx/pri-ld16037-em-e.pdf

^[18] https://analihpd.hr/en/hrvatske-muke-po-izbornim-jedinicama-sto-ne-valja-s-vladinim-rjesenjem/

^[19] https://senedd.wales/media/eqbesxl2/a-parliament-that-works-for-wales.pdf

^[20] https://bills.parliament.uk/publications/41467/documents/206

^[21] https://senedd.wales/media/ixjdywtx/pri-ld16037-em-e.pdf

^[22] https://www.gov.wales/consultation-electoral-administration-and-reform-white-paper-html

^[23] https://senedd.wales/media/eqbesxl2/a-parliament-that-works-for-wales.pdf

^[24] Paragraph 201 https://senedd.wales/media/ixjdywtx/pri-ld16037-em-e.pdf

^[25] https://www.wcpp.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/Defining-Measuring-and-Monitoring-Democratic-Health-in-Wales-REPORT.pdf

^[26] Ibid.

^[27] https://www.hagstofa.is/utgafur/frettasafn/kosningar/althingiskosningar-29-oktober-2016/

We welcome the Welsh Government’s consultation on the draft rules for local government elections using the single transferable vote (STV) system. The option for councils in Wales to now move to STV is one that we fully support having seen significant issues with the local elections run under First Past the Post (FPTP). These have ranged from a large number of uncontested seats to disproportionate results, as detailed in our Time for Change report of the 2022 Welsh local elections.^[1]

However, we remain concerned at the permissive nature of this, and have outlined our concerns in full in response to question 13 of the consultation. Our responses to the full consultation questions are below.

Question 1: Do you agree that the draft STV Rules should only include the option of manual counting, omitting the option of electronic counting?

The proposal within the consultation document that only manual counting should be put in place for STV rules, at this stage, underpins many of the other aspects of the rules; not least reducing options around the ordering of candidates on ballot papers and the transferring of surplus votes. We consider this to be suboptimal.

While manual counting is a valid option and used in Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland, we are concerned that this could be seen as another barrier to moving to STV by existing councillors or future candidates who don’t want to wait two to three days for election results. The experience of electronic counting in Scotland has been very smooth with results now published on the day of the count, and while we recognise there is a cost associated with this, we believe that this is a worthwhile investment in reassuring councillors of the ease with which STV can be implemented.

There is also an argument that electronic counting could result in increased confidence of the legitimacy of the results. The Implementation of a Single Transferable Vote (STV) system for local elections in Wales report featured a number of quotes from interviewees in support of this, including an election official in Scotland who commented on a count in Northern Ireland saying “I marvel at those officials who manage to deliver a result that people accepted as accurate, but that count [in North Antrim] took nearly two days […] if there was a feeling for a new system, you don’t want it to start like this”.^[2]

Another interviewee commented “you get a live tally of the bar charts appearing, so early on you get sight of how the preferences are distributing. You also get data afterwards, that’s 100% accurate to the polling place.”^[3] We believe this to be an important element in the case for electronic counting and have seen the benefits first hand of having such granular detail in terms of the results of an STV election.

While there is a risk in electronic counting of a technical glitch or systems failure we are confident that learning can be taken from Scotland’s experiences in 2012 to avoid any issues during implementation in Wales.

We also do not agree that electronic counting adds a layer of complexity when counting community and principal council elections. There would be an element of complexity with community councils using FPTP systems and a principal council moving to STV, but electronic counting would make things simpler and more efficient in comparison to the manual counting of an STV election.

In terms of the costs associated with introducing electronic counting in an STV election in Wales, especially with a small number of authorities potentially moving to STV, we would urge the Welsh Government to consider the cost of training staff and having venues open for longer under the alternative manual system. Manual counting does not come without its costs and paying for electronic counting machines may be worthwhile in increasing confidence in the results from candidates and improving the efficiency of counts.

Finally, the reality of permissive PR in Wales, as we detail in our response to question 13 is one of barriers stacked against councils who wish to make this change. A commitment to manual counting could potentially be yet another barrier to councillors considering making the change of voting systems. Councillors will not want to be explaining to voters that results might take days and that detailed data might be missing. The Welsh Government should be investing in decisions relating to STV that reduce the barriers for councils looking to make the change, not add to them.

Question 1b: Should rules that allow for electronic counting be prepared for future elections, in time for local elections held after 2027?

Yes, we would support the introduction of electronic counting in Wales for subsequent elections if 2027 is not feasible.

Question 2: Do you agree that the current requirement to list candidates alphabetically by surname should not be changed?

ERS supports either alphabetical or random ordering on ballot papers. Given the plans to use manual counting, listing candidates alphabetically makes sense. We would also support randomisation in the event of electronic counting.

While we support alphabetical list ordering it is worth parties considering how they can effectively campaign to overcome any issues with alphabetical voting from voters. Alphabetical voting has been more evident in Scotland than other nations. Dr James Gilmour has written on this issue and found that Scotland faced this issue due to political parties taking a “safety first” approach” where they “nominate in each ward only the numbers of candidates they expect to win seats.”^[4] Looking at elections in Malta, Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland he found only evidence of alphabetical voting where a smaller number of candidates were nominated.

We therefore believe this to be a challenge to the parties to have good vote-management processes. Indeed when parties field more candidates it actually gives increased choice to voters, which is a good thing.

As such, we don’t believe the current requirement to list candidates alphabetically should be amended, particularly if plans continue for manual counting.

Question 3: Do you agree that the guidance to voters explains clearly how they should mark the ballot paper in an election under STV? If no, please suggest improvements.

The guidance to voters in the draft is relatively clear in explaining to voters how to mark the ballot paper in an STV election but we do have minor suggestions for improvements. In terms of the guidance to voters we have considered the following:

• amendment of part 3 of schedule 1 to the 2021 rules
• the ballot papers and guidance to voters detailed in the amended schedules from page 50.

In terms of the guidance to voters presented in the schedules 2-8 we have concerns about the interchangeable use of the words ‘numbers’ and ‘figures’ when providing guidance to voters on how to cast their vote under STV. We feel that ‘numbers’ is clearer to voters and the guidance on page 63 should be amended.

We are also aware that the Scottish local election ballot papers include the number of seats up for election. The Welsh Government should consider the benefits of including this, particularly in areas where voters are used to single member wards.

The guidance to voters will be crucially important to ensure voters feel confident in casting their vote under a new system. However, it is worth noting that a wider communications campaign will be required in the event a local authority moves to the STV system, especially if a patchwork of systems then exists. Voters should not find out about the change in voting system for the first time at the polling station.

We would urge the Welsh Government to support the relevant local authorities and others such as the Electoral Commission to deliver an effective awareness raising campaign ahead of election day. Parties will also have a role to play in this and should seek to learn from how parties campaign under STV in other parts of the UK.

Question 4a: Do you agree with our choice of the Droop quota?

We agree with the choice to use the Droop quota as part of the process of counting votes under STV.

Question 4b: Do you agree that the steps for calculating the quota as set out in Rule 60H and 64L are sufficiently clear?

We agree that the steps for calculating the quota as set out in Rule 60H and 64L are sufficiently clear. It might also be useful for returning officers to see the quota set out as it is in the consultation document, as copied below. We would imagine that additional information would be circulated to returning officers based on these rules ahead of any STV election. It may be worth engaging with electoral stakeholders to discuss the most accessible formats for this information to be presented.

Droop Quota

Question 5: Do you agree that the rules about the transfer of surplus votes are sufficiently clear?

We are concerned that step three of the rules about the transfer of surplus votes is unclear. Our main concern is that it is unclear how step three should be implemented. We feel that examples would be useful in terms of guidance for Returning Officers and a simplification of the language in step three would be helpful.

The rules in Northern Ireland state that:

​​(7) The vote on each ballot paper transferred under paragraph (6) shall be at—

(a) a transfer value calculated as set out in sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph (4), or

(b) at the value at which that vote was received by the candidate from whom it is now being transferred, whichever is the less.

It is worth considering the wording of the Northern Ireland rules, however in both instances we believe clear guidance is required to support Returning Officers in transferring surplus votes.

ERS supports the use of the simple gregory method used in Northern Irish elections. In the event that electronic counting is introduced, which we would advocate for, we would also support the weighted inclusive gregory method.

Question 6: Do you agree the transfer of surplus votes should not take place where it cannot make any material difference to the prospects of the continuing candidate with the lowest number of votes?

While we understand why returning officers would want to avoid continuing counting when all positions have been filled, this does raise concerns around casual vacancies.

The Expert Panel on Assembly Electoral Reform concluded in their discussion of casual vacancies under STV that countback should be used.^[5]

They proposed a by-election only in the event of no remaining candidates for the party who are eligible or willing to serve, saying:

“To this end, we propose that casual vacancies should be filled as follows:

• Countback of the original election, taking account only of candidates standing for the party represented by the outgoing Member at the time of the original election;
• If there are no remaining candidates for the party who are eligible or willing to serve, or if the outgoing Member originally stood as an independent, a by-election should be held.”^[6]

There is a limitation with the rules as drafted for last vacancies in the event a seat does become vacant following an election. The draft rules should be amended to consider casual vacancies and reflect on the Expert Panel’s conclusions.

Question 7: Do you agree that the rules about the exclusion of candidates and the subsequent transfer of votes are sufficiently clear?

 We are content that the rules are in line with other STV rules across the UK.

Question 8: Do you agree that the draft STV Rules are sufficiently clear about the circumstances under which a ballot paper becomes non-transferable?

The circumstances under which a ballot paper becomes non-transferable should also explicitly include where a ballot paper has no further preference given.

Question 9: Do you agree that the draft STV Rules are sufficiently clear about the provision for filling last vacancies?

 The draft rules are clear about the provision for filling last vacancies, however the rules are unclear about what happens in the event of a casual vacancy. Our answer to question 6 details our concerns around this further.

Question 10: Do you agree that in elections conducted using STV, a re-count may be requested in respect of the last completed stage of the count only?

This is another consequence of the decision to use only manual counting for STV elections in Wales. While this system works successfully in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland we are concerned about the perception from candidates and voters that they can have less oversight of the election results.

One of the benefits of electronic counting in Scotland is the provision of detailed stage by stage data alongside the final results. As we have already referenced in our response to question 1 this is evidenced by the Implementation of an STV election research report, where an interviewee specifically referenced the live tally of bar charts and the data provided after the count is complete.^[7]

This data would go a long way to improving confidence in a new voting system. Electronic counting also provides for much faster recounts, which are not limited to a single stage.

While we recognise that the time constraints associated with manual counting do limit the extent of the recount that can take place, we believe that there are much better options in terms of recounts and the transparency of data where electronic counting is used.

Question 11: We would like to know your views on the effects that the draft STV rules would have on the Welsh language, specifically on opportunities for people to use Welsh and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than English.

What effects do you think there would be? How could positive effects be increased, or negative effects be mitigated?  

No view.

Question 12: Please also explain how you believe the rules could be changed so as to have positive effects or increased positive effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language, and no adverse effects on opportunities for people to use the Welsh language and on treating the Welsh language no less favourably than the English language.

No view.

Question 13: We have asked a number of specific questions. If you have any related issues which we have not specifically addressed, please use this space to report them.

While we very much welcome the moves towards STV in Wales and this now being an option for councils in Wales, we remain of the view that the permissive nature of this presents significant barriers.

We have been undertaking a significant piece of work with councillors for the past two years, surveying them, meeting with them and hearing their concerns. Many councillors in Wales are supportive of the change but have told us that they would not like their council to make the change alone.

The move is also disadvantaged by the lack of information from the Welsh Government on STV and the process to change voting systems.

It is clear that the onus on individual councils to vote to move to STV puts significant barriers in place, in terms of both capacity and finance. Councils moving to STV will have to invest in stakeholder engagement, communications prior to an election and additional costs will be incurred with manual counting as discussed in our answer to question 1. Meanwhile, councils that stick with the disproportionate first past the post system will not incur any new costs.

As such, we believe under the current arrangements the Welsh Government should consider how they support councils to move to a fairer electoral system. One option could be a pilot pot of funding to support the first councils to change systems ahead of the 2027 elections and cover the costs associated. We believe that if permissive PR is going to work, councils sticking with FPTP will need to see the positive effects of changing to STV from other councils who can lead the way and there needs to be no material disadvantage to councils making this positive change to STV.

We also remain of the view that the best way to reform local democracy in Wales is for all local authorities to move to using STV for their local elections at the same time, as happened in Scotland for their 2007 local authority elections.

^[1] https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/time-for-change-the-2022-welsh-local-elections-and-the-case-for-stv/

^[2] https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2021-03/implementation-of-a-single-transferable-vote-system-for-local-elections-in-wales.pdf, p27

^[3] Ibid, p28.

^[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327702499_COMPARISON_OF_WITHIN-PARTY_VOTING_PATTERNS_IN_RECENT_STV_ELECTIONS_IN_SCOTLAND_NORTHERN_IRELAND_IRELAND_AND_MALTA

^[5] https://senedd.wales/how-we-work/our-role/future-senedd-reform/expert-panel-on-electoral-reform/, p138.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] https://www.gov.wales/sites/default/files/statistics-and-research/2021-03/implementation-of-a-single-transferable-vote-system-for-local-elections-in-wales.pdf, p28

We welcome the report of the Senedd’s Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform and the recent deal on Senedd reform between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru.  The Special Purpose Committee report includes the delivery of a larger Senedd, which is something ERS Cymru has long campaigned for. This will deliver a better Senedd for voters, ensuring a stronger parliament, fit to scrutinise key legislation and budgets.

Yet, we also believe there is room to strengthen the recommendations around voting systems, ensuring that this too delivers a good deal for voters both now and for years to come.

Below we have outlined our position on the particular policy instructions developed by the committee, including how these should be evolved from the current recommendations.

More MSs

The increase to the size of the Senedd to 96 members is a significant move to improve the capacity of our parliament and deliver better outcomes to the people it represents. The role of scrutinising over £17bn of spending every year, significant legislation and undertaking inquiries into issues that matter requires a properly resourced Senedd that is fit to do its job both now and into the future.

ERS Cymru’s Size Matters report in 2014 analysed the size of institutions across the world and concluded around 100 members would be appropriate for a Welsh parliament.^[1] The move to 96 members delivers this and we welcome the Special Purpose Committee’s recommendation on this, alongside the deal reached between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru.

This is a case of levelling up the Senedd so it is fit for the modern, confident, self-governing Wales of today.

Voting systems

Closed list systems

The Committee’s report has recommended the closed list system be used for elections to the Senedd, following the deal struck between Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru. While we welcome the move to a system at least as proportional as the current one, we do not believe the closed list system is the best available for the Senedd.

A closed list system is the version which puts least power in the hands of the voters. Each party publishes a list of candidates for each constituency. Voters mark a cross next to the party they support. Seats are filled depending on the listed order of the candidates chosen in advance by the parties.

This was the form of list PR that was used in Britain for elections to the European Parliament. This system was rejected by the Expert Panel on Assembly Electoral Reform who said it left “No choice for voters between individual candidates” and “No accountability for individual members directly to voters”. This is consistent with the findings of The Power Inquiry in 2006. Recommendation 13 of the inquiry was “The closed party list system should have no place in modern elections”.

Alternative types of list systems

We favour the Single Transferable Vote (STV) for electing the Senedd, a view that was initially held by two members of the Special Purpose Committee, and is still party policy of both Plaid Cymru and the Welsh Liberal Democrats. Indeed, in their responses to the Special Purpose Committee report, both reaffirmed this commitment, with Jane Dodds MS stating, “A Senedd elected by STV would be fairer, less complicated, more proportional, and gives voters more choice. I do not believe that a compelling case has been made for moving away from the earlier recommendations.”^[2] and Rhys ab Owen MS stating “STV remains Plaid Cymru’s party policy.  We also recognise that no one party in the Senedd has the two-thirds majority required to deliver reform.”^[3]

However, the committee also considered other types of list system, which would also deliver more choice to voters compared with the closed list system that has been recommended.

 Open List

On the ballot paper, each party has a list of candidates.

An open list system allows voters to vote for a particular candidate on a party’s list and thereby have an opportunity to indicate their support for a candidate, not just a party. The more votes a candidate gets, the more likely it is that they will be elected, if their party receives enough votes to elect any of their candidates. A vote for a candidate is counted as a vote for their party when it is decided how many seats each party should receive. In some countries, a voter can just vote for a party and leave the ordering of the candidates up to the votes of others.

Flexible List

In a flexible list voters are presented with a ballot with the option to vote for a candidate or a party.

Unlike in an open list, voting for a party is taken as an endorsement of the order of candidates chosen by the party. With enough individual votes, candidates can still move up the ordering.

Within Europe, flexible lists are the norm^[4] – though the exact thresholds (see example below) vary from the fairly open systems of Sweden and the Netherlands^[5] to the practically closed system of Norway.^[6] Fully open systems are relatively rare, but Finland and Latvia are two examples of countries who use fully open lists to elect their national parliaments.

The Expert Panel said that if their preferred option of STV with integrated gender quotas was unable to be implemented, then a flexible list system would be their next preference.^[7] The form of flexible list they recommended used an electoral ‘threshold’, with them stating:

“Under this system, parties determine the order in which candidates’ names appear on the ballot paper. If no candidate receives sufficient personal votes to meet a specified candidate threshold, the party’s preferred order is the order in which candidates take up any seats won by the party. If a candidate’s personal votes pass the threshold, she or he moves to the top of the list. If several candidates pass the threshold, they are ordered by the number of votes they have each received. For example, in Sweden, candidates receiving 5 per cent or more of the votes received by the party list move to the top of the list.”

ERS Cymru believes this Flexible List system would be more suited to Senedd elections than the proposed Closed List system, offering a balance where parties could manage their lists well but voters also have a choice.

Allocating seats – D’Hondt versus Sainte-Laguë

The committee report has recommended the use of the D’Hondt system of allocating seats under list PR. However, other electoral formulas are available and widely used, such as the Sainte-Laguë method.

The D’Hondt method usually produces less proportional results than the Sainte-Laguë method due to the electoral formula normally favouring larger parties over smaller parties. Whichever method is used, seats are allocated in rounds to the party with the highest quotient, and each party’s quotient is recalculated every time they win a seat. While the Special Purpose Committee has recommended the use of the D’Hondt method of calculating votes, the Expert Panel recommended that a Sainte-Laguë formula should be adopted in the event the Senedd moved to list PR, which we would endorse. Two of the Special Purpose Committee members also initially preferred this formula, with discussion in Committee reflecting this and one member referring to the Expert Panel’s findings in its modelling “that the D’Hondt electoral formula generally produces outcomes which are less proportional than those using the Sainte-Laguë formula, and sometimes less proportional than the current electoral system”.^[8]

D’Hondt Quotient = Votes / Seats +1

Sainte-Laguë Quotient = Votes / (2x Seats) +1

Boundaries

We are pleased to see a commitment to a boundary review included in the Special Purpose Committee report to be implemented following the 2026 elections. We believe the pairing of the proposed Westminster boundaries is a stop gap, and it is important to develop a system that works effectively for the Senedd itself. As was suggested in the Expert Panel report, the local authority boundaries could be a good starting point for this. While the committee has recommended the number and size of constituencies be included in primary legislation, we would warn against the legislation being too constrictive ahead of a full boundary review.

As well as committing to a review of boundaries, to take place prior to the 2026 election, the legislation on Senedd reform should also commit to reviewing the effectiveness of the voting system and the effectiveness of diversity measures at some point following implementation, within the framework of the Expert Panel’s principles.  

Diversity measures

ERS Cymru is supportive of quotas and measures to improve diversity in the Senedd. We want to see a diverse Senedd properly reflective of the population of Wales, in terms of gender, race and ethnicity, disability, the LGBTQ+ community and in terms of age and economic status.

We support the measures outlined in the report, including the integration of gender quotas, zipping, further work on quotas on a larger range of protected characteristics and the provision of better data on diversity.

The implementation of these measures is key. It is vitally important that the legislation does not have unintended consequences that could actually see backsliding on diversity.

^[1]https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/latest-news-and-research/publications/size-matters/#sub-section-16

^[2] https://www.welshlibdems.wales/jane_dodds_responds_to_senedd_reform_report

^[3] Plaid Cymru, 30th May 2022, “A huge boost to Welsh democracy” – Plaid welcome key report on Senedd reform as stronger Senedd moves step closer [Press release].

^[4] https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/which-european-countries-use-proportional-representation/

^[5] https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/the-netherlands-is-going-to-the-polls-but-how-do-dutch-elections-work/

^[6] https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/how-do-elections-work-in-norway/

^[7] https://senedd.wales/media/eqbesxl2/a-parliament-that-works-for-wales.pdf, p102.

^[8] https://senedd.wales/media/5mta1oyk/cr-ld15130-e.pdf, p37.

This briefing discusses a number of the different electoral systems under consideration as part of the negotiations on Senedd Reform; the Single Transferable Vote and the three variants of List Proportional Representation – open, semi-open/flexible and closed; along with examples of countries that have integrated gender quotas under each electoral system.

Single Transferable Vote

The Single Transferable Vote (STV) is the Electoral Reform Society’s (ERS’s) preferred form of proportional representation. It is used in Scotland for local elections; Northern Ireland for Assembly and local elections; and the Republic of Ireland for general elections to the Dail Éireann and for local elections. The Welsh Government has passed legislation allowing Welsh local councils to move to STV for their elections, after the next set of local elections in May 2022.

How it works

A number of candidates are elected per constituency, often between four and five, representing the diversity of opinion across an area. To get elected, a candidate needs a set number of votes, known as the quota, which is based on the number of people to be elected and the number of votes cast. Any candidate who has more first preference votes than the quota is elected, with any excess votes over and above the quota being transferred to the second preferences of the voters who voted for this candidate. If no candidate reaches the quota, the least popular candidate is removed and the people who voted for them have their votes moved to their second preference candidate. This process continues until all candidates are elected.

Why STV?

STV places maximum power in the hands of voters and is very straightforward for them to use. Voters simply rank as many candidates as they wish in order of preference, 1,2,3,4 etc. This allows them to express nuanced preferences and indicate not only which parties they prefer but often also which candidates from within the same party.

How to apply gender quotas under STV

Of the countries employing STV, Ireland was the first to enact a gender quota law in 2012.^[1] The law instructs political parties to select at least 30 per cent female candidates and 30 per cent male candidates (to increase to 40 per cent for elections from 2023 onwards). Not to do so results in the forfeit of 50 per cent of State funding that political parties receive on an annual basis. The quota is designed to incentivise political parties to select women candidates but does not direct them how to go about this. Parties maintain their autonomy to decide their own candidate selection processes and procedures.^[2]

In Irish political parties, candidate selection operates within a hybrid framework of ‘local selection, but with national approval’.

In 2016 the number of female candidates increased by 95 per cent from 15.2 per cent in 2011 to 29.6 per cent in 2016^[3], with a 47 per cent increase in the number of women elected from 15.1 per cent in 2011 to 22.2 per cent in 2016.^[4] This reflects the changes that can be achieved in just one electoral cycle after integrating gender quotas but obviously from a very low base and with a current quota size of 30 per cent. There is also no mandatory placement mechanism included in the quota which is likely to have an impact on how many women are actually elected as a result. In the 2020 elections the number of women candidates exceeded the quota at 31 per cent, but the number of elected women only increased slightly to 22.5 per cent.[5]

List PR

List PR is another form of proportional representation. It is not currently used in the UK but a form of it was used in Great Britain for elections to the European Parliament, prior to the UK’s exit from the European Union.

How it works

As with STV, a number of candidates are elected per constituency, with the aim being to represent the diversity of opinion across an area. There are different types of list system, which put varying degrees of power in the hands of voters. Another thing to consider is the method of allocating seats under List PR electoral system – there are two main electoral formulas used, the D’Hondt method and the Sainte-Laguë method.

The D’Hondt method usually produces less proportional results than the Sainte-Laguë method due to the electoral formula normally favouring larger parties over smaller parties. Whichever method is used seats are allocated in rounds to the party with the highest quotient, and each party’s quotient is re-calculated every time they win a seat.

A closed list system is the version which puts least power in the hands of the voters. Each party publishes a list of candidates for each constituency. Voters mark a cross next to the party they support. Each party gets seats roughly in proportion to its vote, generally the more seats in a constituency the more proportional the result will be. Seats are filled depending on the listed order of the candidates chosen in advance by the parties. This was the form of List PR that was used in Britain for elections to the European Parliament. This system was rejected by the Expert Panel on Assembly Electoral Reform who said it left “No choice for voters between individual candidates” and “No accountability for individual Members directly to voters”.[6] This is consistent with the findings of The Power Inquiry in 2006. Recommendation 13 of the inquiry was “The closed party list system should have no place in modern elections”.[7]

An open list system allows voters to vote for a particular candidate on a party’s list and thereby have an opportunity to indicate their support for a candidate, not just a party. The more votes a candidate gets, the more likely it is that they will be elected, if their party receives enough votes to elect any of their candidates. A vote for a candidate is counted as a vote for their party when it is decided how many seats each party should receive. In some countries, a voter can just vote for a party and leave the ordering of the candidates up to the votes of others.

In a semi-open or flexible list system, voters are presented with a ballot with the option to vote for a candidate or a party. Unlike in an open list, voting for a party is taken as an endorsement of the order of candidates chosen by the party. However, with enough individual votes a candidate can still move up through the list.

How to apply gender quotas under List PR

Open and Semi-Open/Flexible List PR:

Open List PR is a sliding scale in terms of its openness, as such Semi-Open/Flexible lists are discussed in tandem with regards to applying gender quotas under these electoral systems.

The Belgian lower chamber Parliament is an example of legislated candidate gender quotas under an open list PR electoral system. In 1994 it legislated that no more than two-thirds of a party’s candidates could be of the same gender (applicable from the 1999 elections), followed by stricter legislation in 2002 requiring parties to put forward an equal number of male and female candidates. In addition to these ‘quota size’ mandates, strong enforcement mechanisms and mandatory placement were also introduced as part of the gender quotas legislation. Strict enforcement was introduced from the outset, obliging electoral authorities to refuse the registration of any lists that did not fulfil the quota, whereas mandatory placement was introduced subsequently, alongside the increase in quota size in 2002, stating that candidates of the same gender could not occupy the top two positions on any list (this was implemented from the 2007 election, with a more lenient mandate in the 2003 elections requiring one of the top three candidates on each list to be of each gender).^[8] Over the 25 years since the first quota legislation was introduced, female representation in the Chamber of Representatives has increased by 350 per cent from just 12 per cent in 1995 to 42 per cent in 2019.^[9] Piecemeal improvements in the quota legislation has improved their effectiveness.

Despite voters being able to vote for any candidate regardless of their position on the ballot paper under open list, mandatory placement may still play an important role in the election of women as there is often a strong link between place on the list and number of votes received.[10]

Closed List PR:

In Costa Rica legislated candidate gender quotas are used with a closed list PR electoral system. In 1996 legislation was introduced that required 40 per cent of candidates to be women. Placement mandates to ensure that the 40 per cent of women were in ‘winnable seats’ as determined by the previous election’s results and enforcement mechanisms followed in 1999, such that they applied to the 2002 election.^[11] Further amendments in 2009 required increasing the quota size to 50 per cent of candidates for the 2014 elections.^[12] Zipping is in built into the system through the requirement that two persons of the same sex cannot be placed sequentially on the list of candidates, and in 2016 a Supreme Elections Tribunal (TSE) ruling stated that parties must also alternate between men and women at the top of the candidate lists across the seven provincial ballots.^[13] Over the 22 years since the first quota legislation was introduced, female representation has increased over 300 per cent from only 15 per cent in 1994, to 45.6 per cent in the 2018 elections.^[14],[15]

Measures to increase the effectiveness of legislated candidate gender quotas

Candidate quotas are the most common form of legislated gender quota currently used, with 63 countries having legislated candidate gender quotas for their lower or single house.^[16] However, these vary considerably in terms of quota size, enforcement mechanisms and whether there are any rules around mandatory candidate placement.

The size of candidate quotas in themselves are only one part of increasing female representation in a parliament. How they are delivered, and the design of the quota has a huge impact. A cross-national study showed that quotas were three times more effective in increasing representation of women when coupled with mandatory placement (such as zipping) and strong enforcement.^[17] In addition, some countries, such as Costa Rica, alternate between genders across the top position of their lists of candidates while zipping their candidates lists, which further impacts the number of women elected.^[18] Understanding how these additional measures can support the effectiveness of a gender quota in realising the descriptive (electoral) representation of women is vital in producing effective gender quota legislation.

Reserved seats

Reserved seats are a form of gender quota that set aside a certain number of seats for women or representatives of the under-represented gender to be elected to a legislative body. 26 countries currently use this method of gender quota for their lower or single house elections, largely from the Middle East and Africa.^[19]

There are three main methods of implementing reserved seats[20]:

• A special nation-wide tier for female candidates only, e.g. a set number of seats reserved for women-only. This method is used in Morocco where there are 60 seats are elected through a women-only list.
• Rotational quotas, e.g. rotating women-only reserved seats across constituencies/regions. This method is used in India at the sub-national level with the reserved wards rotating between elections.
• Alternate thresholds, e.g. there are two thresholds for being elected, one based on absolute number of votes where all candidates compete directly for seats, and a second threshold based on only the votes received by a sub-set of candidates i.e. women candidates, to elect a set number of reserved seats. This system is sometimes referred to as the “best loser”.

All of the examples of gender quotas in this briefing could have been implemented under any of the electoral systems discussed. Their effectiveness in returning elected women to parliament depends on their design including quota size and the supporting elements of mandatory placement and enforcement mechanisms. We would urge those designing the legislation to carefully consider these aspects in ensuring effective quotas to promote diversity. Wales should learn from the iterative process of gender quota legislation in other countries (i.e. Belgium and Costa Rica) to implement the most effective legislation from the outset.

An electoral system that ensures voter choice as well as proportionality is vital in delivering a system that is sustainable for the Senedd long-term. The principles of a good electoral system outlined by the Expert Panel should underpin any final decision on electoral system for the Senedd.

For more information on the areas covered in this briefing please contact:

Jess Blair
Jessica.blair@electoral-reform.org.uk 

^[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317835248_The_Irish_legislative_gender_quota_The_first_election

^[2] https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas/country-view/143/35

^[3] https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/03/16/the-2016-irish-election-demonstrated-how-gender-quotas-can-shift-the-balance-on-female-representation/

^[4] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317835248_The_Irish_legislative_gender_quota_The_first_election

[5] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/07907184.2020.1762283

[6] https://senedd.wales/media/eqbesxl2/a-parliament-that-works-for-wales.pdf p128.

[7] https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn03948/

^[8] https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas/country-view/60/35

^[9] https://blogs.eui.eu/genderquotas/wp-content/uploads/sites/24/2015/04/Executive-summary-Belgium-Meier2.pdf

[10] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379421000500

^[11] https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/10.1111/j.0022-3816.2004.00296.x.pdf?casa_token=CUAlljeBDqEAAAAA:Z_qJ_F1uSeVgDvdzXJ3fbGs8u5AaQ0B2DiOS8OgXY6jLZ2zTYC-PFjyxBt48lvCT98MhVi12PHLLYVMYnygrvHD1RVswg9Kkj-_lnPO_I1Voedsg7g

^[12] https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas/country-view/87/35

^[13] https://ticotimes.net/2016/05/27/gender-equality

^[14] https://opendocs.ids.ac.uk/opendocs/bitstream/handle/20.500.12413/7860/IDSB_41_5_10.1111-j.1759-5436.2010.00163.x.pdf;jsessionid=C57125D6A2C296B7BD348EFA171179E0?sequence=1

^[15] https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas/country-view/87/35

^[16] https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas/legislative-overview

^[17] https://www.jstor.org/stable/20680225

^[18] https://ticotimes.net/2016/05/27/gender-equality

^[19] https://www.idea.int/data-tools/data/gender-quotas/reserved-overview

[20] https://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/ge/ge2/ge22/gender-quotas-in-elections/legislated-reserved-seats