National Assembly for Wales’ Independent Remuneration
Board
Evaluating Barriers to Entering the Assembly
A
research team from Bangor University was commissioned to undertake
an evaluation of the barriers to entering the Assembly. The main
aim was to better understand what, if any, deterrents there are for
individuals with the necessary commitment and ability to stand for
election.
We
were interested to explore the aspects of the job that make it
attractive and those that deter individuals or groups of people
from standing. Of particular interest were the current remuneration
package and the distance between the constituency and Cardiff. In
total 20 individuals agreed to be interviewed. The sample included
key stakeholders from each of the five regions in Wales and each of
the main political parties and independent candidates. We invited
Assembly Members, former Members, prospective and former
candidates, party officials and electoral officers to take
part. We sought to:
6.
Understand the
aspects of the job that make it attractive, such as background and
motivations.
7.
Understand
aspects that may deter individuals or groups of people from
standing.
8.
Consider the
current remuneration package in influencing decisions to
stand
9.
Consider issues
of capacity (for example, office and staffing allowances, training
and legal awareness)
10.
Consider
geographical location; such as distance between the constituency
and Cardiff.
In 2009, an Independent Review Panel published its report,
Getting it Right for Wales, with recommendations on how to
improve financial support for Assembly Members.[1]
The Report recommended that an Independent Review Body should
undertake decisions regarding ‘all aspects of financial
support for Assembly Members’.[2]
Established in 2010, the Independent Remuneration Board (the Board)
has the statutory responsibility to determine Assembly
Members’ pay and allowances under section 3 of the
Measure.
The Board has a statutory duty to ensure that the level of
remuneration does not, on financial grounds, deter persons with the
necessary commitment and ability from seeking election to the
Assembly.
As part of their first Determination, the Board noted the
considerations they had taken into account to provide sustainable
arrangements.
“We
have aimed to ensure that the remuneration available to Members
reflects the nature of their roles; should not deter any suitable
candidates from standing for financial reasons; provides Members
with adequate resources; and ensures that public money is
appropriately spent with regard to probity, accountability, value
for money and transparency.”[5]
The current Determination was updated in July 2013 and supersedes
the Determination made in 2012.[6]
Matters of how to support elected representatives’ through
pay, expenses and allowances have been a concern for all UK
legislative institutions in recent years. This has led to several
reports and reforms in the UK and devolved institutions. The main
principles and issues are similar for each, even if there are
differing approaches.
Although the Westminster expenses scandal in 2009 has had a
widespread effect on the public, consideration of remuneration
reform was already being undertaken in all parts of the UK.[7]
For example, a review of financial support in the National Assembly
for Wales was already underway.[8]
Similar reviews had also been undertaken at UK level[9]
and for the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland[10]
and Scotland.[11]
Official reports illustrate two perspectives: general aspects of
representation and functional aspects of remuneration. The
Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation)
considered general aspects of representation, such as citizen
engagement; the role of political parties, selection processes and
their implications for women; black and minority ethnic candidates;
disabled candidates; and changing the culture of Parliament
regarding support for families.[12]
Such reports consider social issues beyond those of remuneration
alone.[13]
The Committee on Standards in Public Life in their report
MPs’ Expenses and Allowances: Supporting Parliament,
Safeguarding the Taxpayer in 2009[14]
tends to take more of a functional approach towards remuneration,
which focuses on how the system should be arranged in practice so
that it is flexible enough so as to ‘not deter’[15]
or to ‘not unduly deter’[16]
suitable candidates from all sections of society. There is
recognition of the need to balance the arrangements of remuneration
schemes with their effects on representation.
The principle underlying UK remuneration systems has been adapted
from the one set out in earlier reports by the UK Review Body on
Senior Salaries (SSRB) and developed further by them in
theirReview of Parliamentary Pay, Pensions and Allowances
2007.[17]
Similar principles underpin the systems of pay, allowance and
expenses in Wales,[18]
Northern Ireland[19]
and Scotland.[20]
In Wales, two independent reports, Assembly Members’
Salaries in March 2008[21]
and Getting it Right for Wales in July 2009, included
significant recommendations.[22]
Subsequently, the Remuneration Board for Wales published its first
Determination in 2011. This was accompanied by a report, Fit for
Purpose, to explain the background and reasons for their first
Determination.[23]
The Hansard Society conducted research with Assembly Members at the
beginning of the fourth Assembly to find out more about the
experience of newly elected Members. It published a briefing,
Assembly Line? The Experience and Development of new Assembly
Members in 2013.[24]
The briefing considers the general aspects of the daily workload of
an Assembly Member and the experience and level of satisfaction of
those newly elected in 2011. It reflects some issues of
remuneration, and salary in particular.[25]
Getting it Rights for Wales concluded
that the pay levels at the time were appropriate and that they were
‘sufficient to attract a wide range of able and
well-motivated candidates to become Assembly
Members.’[26]
In the SSRB review of parliamentary pay in 2007, some MPs expressed
concern that some people ‘in the professional middle income
range’ could be deterred from standing for election ‘by
the salary and lack of pay progression.’[27]
As a result there was a concern that this would predominantly
attract only those earning less than £60,000, and/or those
who could afford to take the reduction in salary down to this
level.[28]
The SSRB came to a similar conclusion in their review of the
Northern Ireland Assembly where they were ‘mindful that
reward may have an impact on the number and quality of
candidates.’[29]
In particular, they raised concerns in terms of equality that there
were a lack of candidates ‘from a wide range of
backgrounds’ and that there was ‘speculation that pay
levels might be a deterrent for some.’[30]
In relation to the Welsh Assembly, the Hansard Society noted that
for half of their respondents of newly elected Members in the
fourth Assembly becoming an AM meant a salary increase; of
£30,000 a year or more for two Members. While for the other
half it was a decrease or no change, with two Members experiencing
a salary decrease of £30,000 a year or more.[31]
However, they were clear to note that this ‘was not a source
of complaint’.[32]
The current salary for Assembly Members is £53,852.[33]
Additional salaries are available to Members who are also office
holders.[34]
A four-year pay freeze was agreed for the period of the fourth
Assembly which began in May 2011.[35]
The term of the fourth Assembly was extended for a year beyond
2015. Consequently, the Remuneration Board for Wales have decided
to increase the basic salary by 1% up to £54,390 for
2015-16.[36]
The Board have indicated an intention to conduct a further exercise
to consider salaries before the fifth Assembly.[37]
The Hansard Society briefing also considers issues of capacity
within the Assembly. Capacity includes Assembly Members’
support and allowances in terms of their office, employing and
training staff; their own personal experiences of the training they
received from both the Assembly and their party groups at the time
of their election; and accommodation. The Remuneration Board for
Wales has published its Review of Assembly Member Staffing and
Support Staff Pay which addresses some of these issues in more
detail.[38]
Getting it Rights for Wales considered that ‘capacity
issue and its effect on Members’ workload could deter
potential candidates from standing for election.’[39]
An example of such an issue that could deter potential candidates
is accommodation allowances. The Committee on Standards in Public
Life highlighted that systems of accommodation allowances should be
flexible for those with ‘families, disabilities, or other
particular needs, so as not to discourage them from seeking to
enter Parliament.’[40]Similar
views were reflected by Assembly Members in 2009. Especially, they
noted that arrangements should not ‘penalise’ Members
who live outside Cardiff and that consideration should be given to
families and security.[41]
Otherwise, they noted, it could prove difficult for people with
family commitments and that could impact on young women in
particular.[42]
For the purpose of calculating the amount of housing allowance
there are three different tiers based on whether the main home of
the Assembly Member is within the inner area, the intermediate area
or the outer area.[43]
Members within the inner area may claim up to a maximum of
£1,425 for overnight stays in Cardiff. Members within the
intermediate area may claim up to £3,420. Members in the
outer area may select from four options of how to arrange
accommodation. Option A is for renting furnished property.[44]
Option B is for expenses in relation to a home in Cardiff provided
at the Member’s own expense.[45]
Option C allows claims for other overnight accommodation which is
an alternative to A or B of up to £8,400.[46]
Option D is a transitional provision with a maximum allowance of
£8,400.[47]
There is also provision to claim for overnight stays away from
Cardiff if required.[48]
It appears, from the Hansard Society research, that some new
Assembly Members were ‘dissatisfied’ with the
properties available in Cardiff at the £700 per month limit
and these provisions did not reach their expectations.[49]
Members have also expressed concern to the Remuneration Board for
Wales that ‘rises in the market for rented properties had
outstripped adjustments to the allowance.’[50]
Subsequently, the Board decided to increase the maximum allowance
for those in the outer areas to £8,820 (£735 per
calendar month).[51]
Assembly Members are entitled to an Office Cost Allowance to cover
the expense of running an office and engaging with
constituents.[52]
Prior to 2014-15 Members could claim £16,697 for an office in
the Member’s constituency or region, or £4,174 if they
use the office facilities in Tŷ Hywel.[53]
For 2014-15, the allowance will increase to £17,014 in line
with the forecast rise in the Consumer Price Index.[54]
Political research has focused more on the financial implications
of being a candidate rather than the financial implications once
elected. Norris and Franklin highlight the factors that candidates
face in terms of a supply and demand model. On the
‘supply’ side, the motivation of a candidate and their
political capital, including financial resources, influence whether
they choose to stand. The ‘demand’ is determined by
party rules and attitudes of those selecting candidates. This is
set in the context of the structure of opportunities which is
determined through legal regulations, the electoral system and
political culture.[55]
Norris and Lovenduski further highlight the challenges of the
supply side and the path of a political career as ‘risky,
gruelling and unglamorous’ which requires ‘stamina,
optimism and dedication’.[56]
They point out the significance of occupations which give potential
candidates these opportunities through motivations and
resources.
“Those
aspiring to Parliament need professions which allow them, at an
early age, flexibility over time-management, financial security,
transferable skills, horizontal mobility and the possibility of
interrupted career paths. These occupation minimize the costs and
maximise the opportunities associated with the risks of a political
life.”[57]
The Hansard Society similarly draws attention to barriers regarding
seeking selection and then actually fighting the election.[58]
It points out that the average cost for the new Members in 2011 for
seeking election was £1,200 and a further cost of
£2,900 for standing in the election.[59]
Additionally, there could also be loss of earnings while running
the campaign.[60]
The briefing notes that although this cost is considerably lower
than those seeking a Westminster seat it still raises ‘some
concerns about the accessibility of public office to those who have
limited resources.’[61]
Further:
“Would-be
Assembly Members need flexibility in their work and home lives to
seek selection, need to be able to give up their jobs (in most
circumstances) to fight the election itself, and need to be able to
invest around £4,000 of their own money in the process.
Clearly, not every aspirant Assembly Member in Wales will have such
resources at their disposal.”[62]
As a result, the Hansard Society suggested that political parties
and the remuneration board for Wales need to consider how
candidates can be supported with selection and election so that
membership is ‘fully accessible to people regardless of
financial means’.[63]
This can be related to the development of inclusiveness as a key
principle for the Assembly as discussed by Chaney and Favre who
consider, in particular, participation of women; the disabled and
ethnic minorities; equality of opportunity; and consensual
politics.[64]
For example, childcare and flexible working practices were seen as
a positive consequence of having more women members.[65]
This is also related to mechanisms used by political parties to
encourage more women candidates such as twinning and all women
shortlists, as highlighted by Charles and Jones in ‘Grey
Men in Grey Suits’: Gender and Political Representation in
Local Government.[66]
A 2003 report, Public Appointments: Motivations and Prompts,
investigated what motivated and prompted people to apply for public
appointments in Wales, and whether there were variations between
groups defined by gender, age, race or disability.[67]
Respondents were not motivated primarily by finance, however they
did note that better payment would ‘attract a more diverse
set of applicants’ but not necessarily ones that were more
committed.[68]
Remuneration issues were found to be a barrier for disabled
candidates in particular.[69]
The report highlighted ‘size, geography, and the role of the
Welsh language’ as potential factors affecting the
appointments process in Wales.[70]
Fit for Purpose by
the Remuneration Board for Wales included an Equality Impact
Screening[71]
and the Board was also mindful that the Determination ‘does
not inadvertently disadvantage or unlawfully discriminate against
persons with protected characteristics’ under the Equality
Act 2010.[72]
The Board noted:
“There
is also an opportunity to promote equality and demonstrate to
existing and prospective Assembly Members and their staff that the
Determination is fair and equality considerations have been taken
into account during its formulation. Any barriers to Members being
able to perform their roles effectively in terms of the protected
characteristics will be identified and addressed.”[73]
The initial screening raised issues such as disability (in terms of
Members, staff and constituents); pregnancy, maternity, co-parental
and caring leave; housing flexibility; childcare provision; age;
and sexual orientation.[74]
There are duties inherent in the Government of Wales Act 2006 for
the Assembly to ensure equality of opportunity and to have an
‘inclusive approach to exercising its
functions.’[75]
Therefore, it could be argued that representation and inclusiveness
have been factors in assessing issues of remuneration in Wales due
to social and legal considerations.
The
work was completed over a two month period using qualitative and
quantitative methods of data collection and analysis. Following
approval from the College of Business, Law, Education and Social
Sciences Ethics Committee we invited Assembly Members, former
Members, prospective and former candidates, party officials and
electoral officers to take part.
An
information sheet describing the research and detailing the areas
of interest was sent to participants in advance. The sample
included key stakeholders from each of the five regions in Wales,
as well as each of the main political parties and independent
candidates. Interviews were conducted by telephone or face-to-face,
and in the participants choice of Welsh or English.
Interviews
were framed around a topic guide that drew on secondary research
and considered remuneration and barriers to participation. Each
interview was conducted in three phases. The first phase began with
a generative question in order to elicit an uninterrupted
narrative. This enabled the participant to define what they
believed was relevant and important to them, their experiences and
influences in considering standing for election or being involved
in politics. In the second phase, the interviewer asked questions
to clarify or extend issues raised in the narrative. In the final
phase, the interviewer asked for thoughts on specific areas of
interest including the pay, expenses, location, legal awareness,
housing allowance and training.
A
fixed response questionnaire was given consisting of 16 questions.
This was followed by participants being asked to rank in their own
words the three most important barriers to entering the National
Assembly for Wales.
The
readings of the interview scripts enabled themes to be identified
including those emerging from the unstructured narrative and those
informed by the schedule. Themes were organised and compared
manually.
Participants
were given assurances about confidentiality and anonymity. Data was
anonymised and stored in accordance with data protection
requirements. Adequate physical and electronic security of data was
ensured and password protection on all computers used, even though
identifiers were removed. Data was accessed only by the research
team.
There
are two main parts to the findings. The first is based on an
analysis of the semi-structured interviews and the second is based
on an analysis of a brief fixed-response questionnaire.
The
interview process elicited a rich and detailed data set. For
the purposes of this report we have undertaken a thematic analysis.
We have used verbatim quotes, whilst ensuring respondents
anonymity, throughout the report to illustrate each theme. We
consider the policy and practice implications of the findings from
the analysis in the last section of the report. A more finely
detailed analysis could be undertaken but is beyond the scope of
this piece of commissioned research.
Most
of the interviewees gave us some biographical information about
their entry into political activity. For some their political
interest started in their youth, as one AM reported.
“I first
got involved in politics at the age of 14, at school […] and
I sort of renewed my interest when I was at university - I have
been involved in politics all my adult life.” (AM)
We
heard about early experiences influencing subsequent participation
in political work. These were expressed as part of their
family’s interests or as something that had sparked an
interest in politics during their early adulthood.
“Having
originated from a family where there was heavy involvement in
politics, my father was involved in politics for many years, [...]
and my mother” (AM)
An
early exposure to politics made the decision to become involved
uncomplicated and unremarkable as one interviewee
commented.
“My
parents were actively involved in politics, so I guess I thought it
was a normal thing to do…and if you were unhappy with the
world then you should try and change it through a political
structure. I was a member of my political party for a long
time” (AM)
This
experience was underpinned by a belief in a democratic political
system, personal values and a family tradition of political
participation. These sorts of early experience appeared to inform
career choices and underpin motivations for subsequent political
involvement, including standing for election.
For
the majority of participants, prior community-level engagement was
a common background to a further involvement in politics. A
key motivation amongst many was the aspiration of bringing their
own beliefs and philosophies to politics. There was a perception
held that they could contribute to effecting change for the better
as these quotes illustrate.
“I
was heavily involved in the community in several different ways,
[...] and then one night, I shouted at the television screen at
something a politician was say, [...] and my [partner] simply said
shut up or do something about it…so I did! So I joined the
Party, started at the bottom [...] it was a life ambition”
(AM)
“I’ve
always had strong views on what needs to be done in my community
and in the country, so the logical position was to stand for
election and change it, so when I stood in my own community as a
councillor and promote my own perspective” (AM)
“My
motive has always been to change things and to promote my own
philosophy” (AM)
This
desire to make a difference was mentioned by many of the people we
interviewed and was often situated within the context of their
previous experiences, whether personal or through their
professional life within the private or public sector.
“It
was because of experiences of things that were run by the Welsh
Government that I was not happy with, [...] Another influence was
part of my former job, [...] I thought the best way of trying to do
something about that was to try and stand for the National
Assembly.” (AM)
“[...]
we have a view about the way we want to see society in general
[...] and all of us who work in areas in the public service think,
‘well actually, think I could do a better job myself’,
sounds incredibly arrogant [...] I was arrogant enough to think
that I could make a positive contribution [...] in Wales,
that’s why you do it, because you’ve got a view of the
way you want society to be organised and you want that view to
prevail.” (Former AM)
“To
make a difference, [...] represent normal people’s views and
in my case it was business views, [...] and make those views known
within the Assembly” (Former Candidate)
The
motivation behind standing for election for some respondents arose
because they were at a particular moment in their life that
provided an opportunity not previously available to them. For
example, some of the people we interviewed talked about the time
their children became young adults and others referred to reaching
a point where previous goals had been achieved and they wanted a
new challenge.
“I
want to be contributing towards creating a fairer society,
there’s also because now the opportunity came to me now and
the time is right now from a personal perspective, [...]it has got
progressively easier as the kids grew up”
(Candidate)
“My
goals were to find a [partner], hopefully have a family, have a
career, qualify, get involved in other activities in the community,
and thereafter have a go at pursuing a political career. Sixteen
years later I had done all of that, finished my degree, married,
had children” (AM)
“[...]
where you think I could that job, and I could do a good
job[...]feel they can give something back to society [...] settled,
their children are no longer small, they have had a fruitful
career, and they feel they are now in a position to give something
back to Society.” (Party Official)
For
others, the opportunity to consider standing presented itself when
they were approached and supported by members of their political
party, as these two extracts illustrate.
“I
think they were struggling for a candidate and I stood and
that’s how it happened [...] wanted to make a difference, do
something in my community…. and I wanted to help out in my
local party as well (Former Candidate)
“Encouragement
from a number of individuals within [Party] and members down the
country made me go for it. “ (Former Party
Officer)
At
time of the establishment of the National Assembly for Wales, it
was also regarded by some as presenting an opportunity to become
involved on a new political platform not previously experienced in
Wales.
“I
remember that may day in 1997 and there was a manifesto commitment
for a referendum for the national assembly, [...] I thought it was
a very exciting time in politics, a brand new institution and I
thought I would want to be a part of that [...] (Former
AM)
A
belief among some people we interviewed was that there was an
obligation or duty for them to take the opportunity. This was
linked to a common view that being a politician was a vocation.
Respondents talked passionately about sacrifice and
duty.
“It
was an opportunity to contribute towards Wales’ future and it
was something I wished to do. It’s something that someone has
to do, some of us possibly has felt the duty to do, and I felt the
duty to take the opportunity to try and play my part”
(AM)
“We
have to get good people in there and people who are willing to
sacrifice things. They shouldn’t have to sacrifice as much as
they have to go to the Assembly, but in the situation as it is at
the moment, there’s no option but to ask people who are
willing to sacrifice things.” (AM)
There
was a strong belief expressed by participants that there should be
a diverse representation of people within the Assembly as well as
involved in politics in general and for this to be encouraged. The
need for broader participation was suggested by one participant as
contributing to a healthy democracy which would in turn encourage
more people to participate. Enabling diversity was thought to
be particularly pertinent during the establishment of the
Assembly.
“I
think it’s important that people who go into it have
experience [...] if we’ve got a mix of people, young people
fine, they might want to know what they are going to do next, if
you have people with business and private sector background,
that’s quite good. [...] Wider representation would be
better, women and young people representative of the people they
represent” (Former Candidate)
“Personally,
I think there needs to be a cross section of different ages, every
gender, different backgrounds, [...] it would be a weaker
place if only younger people went for it, but for me I think it is
also a weaker place if just older people go for it.” (Former
Party Officer)
Some
respondents perceived that there was an increasing
professionalisation within the Assembly. It was thought
important to balance this with the involvement of people with a
more diverse range of experiences.
“[...]
I think it’s a perfectly acceptable route to do a politics
degree […] looking for your own seat, nothing inherently
wrong with that but if that becomes the majority, I think
we’ve got a real problem. You need people who have done real
jobs, got a slice of life, rather than just working in politics,
for all political parties. (Former AM)
“We
see more career politicians now than used to be the case, although
perhaps less so in the Assembly. I think there’s more of a
trend towards career politicians amongst MPs, people who, you know,
they leave university and they actively want to be a politician
[...] now they’re becoming more of a mix of professional
politicians, if you want to call it that.” (Electoral
Officer)
It
was understood by many, that in order to consider being a
politician, a degree of resilience was necessary. They linked this
view to the levels of public and media scrutiny that appear to be
part of public life. This was seen as one of the less positive
aspects of politics. It was suggested that the levels of scrutiny,
particularly from the media, could inhibit participation from a
potentially broader spectrum of people.
“Essentially,
political media, [...] sort of see it as fair game, and attacking
people for things they have done before they were candidates
is….it’s quite immoral really, but it is done [...] if
you want the elected member to reflect the constituency, then you
need a real person and the more we go down this route of attacking
people’s pasts, the more we are going to get robots standing
as candidates” (Party Officer)
“I
found it quite difficult to manage the media and the press. I had a
bit of bad press [...] that was difficult…its depends on who
you are and how well you think you would cope with the press,
there’s quite a lot of pressure. It depends on the
person.” (Former Candidate)
“I
do think that you need to possess a certain degree of robustness
–you have to have a clear idea of what you are doing, what
you believe in and the tenacity to take that through. So you do
need that toughness,[...]. You’ll develop that anyway on the
campaign trail, but when you get in office you sure as hell going
to need it.” (Former AM)
Self-confidence
was thought to be an important characteristic for people
considering standing, particularly when they had no previous
political experience. An understanding of the processes involved in
the political system was thought to be important. Previous
experience of public life was also considered useful in negotiating
some of the challenges of standing and interviewees acknowledged
that not everyone is well equipped when they are
nominated.
“Having
the confidence I guess to go to public office where you’d
never done anything, I’d never done anything …I
hadn’t been a county councillor, never held a major public
office….even coming from a fairly senior background in
[public sector], there’s always this thing, well can I
actually crack the job? [...] am I actually capable of doing this
job as it’s such a high visibility job. So it think that
there is an issue of confidence, especially for people like myself
who come from a strong working class background, we’re not
people who are educated and borne to rule as it were” (Former
AM)
“I
don’t think the general public understand the party processes
that take place, I don’t think party members understand the
processes that take place before you get nominated”
(AM)
Although
there were negative perceptions and experiences reported by
respondents, the overall view of working as an Assembly member and
of being involved in politics in general, were characterised by
feelings of satisfaction and enjoyment.
“Working
(as a minister) in the Assembly in Wales is one of the most
intellectually interesting and challenging jobs I’ve ever
done by some considerable margin [...] it is so intellectually
interesting and the ability to bring one’s own views and
beliefs to play in policy, it’s the greatest job in the
world” (Former AM)
“But
as a serving politician it is the satisfaction you get in helping
individuals and helping them with problems, and helping someone win
a tribunal for DLA or helping someone get rehoused, or get sorting
out a pot hole, gets you a tremendous amount of satisfaction
really” (AM)
“I
think I have enough political and business experience to be quite
objective about it. I absolutely love it, I would fully recommend
it [...]” (AM)
There
was a widely held belief among participants that politicians are
not perceived to be popular by the public. This was thought, in
part, to be linked to the Westminster expenses scandal,
which
was mentioned by almost all interviewees. However, most respondents
noted that the Assembly is very transparent with payments and
expenses, more so than Westminster. Some respondents
suggested that the public are not aware of this greater
transparency.
A
number of participants alluded to the opinion that politicians have
never been held in high regard. They suggested, however, that
this dislike was reserved for politicians as a generalised group of
people as opposed to individuals working locally. Some of the
people we interviewed felt tainted by public perceptions of
Westminster and a damaging effect of the expenses scandal in
particular.
“Public’s
perceptions of politicians…let’s be clear, there was
never a golden age you know, politicians never did have the
unadulterated respect from the public, but I think in recent years,
the standing has gone right down” (Former AM)
“As
I say the Assembly is much less generous than Westminster, and that
has always been the case. The rules are very regimented, and they
are pretty clean and clear. The scandals we have had here have not
been about duck houses, someone complaining about someone claiming
for coat hangers here, it is a very different ball game and
perception when compared to other places.” (AM)
“Public
perceptions in general of all politicians isn’t very good, I
think we need to be more transparent, more straightforward in the
way we communicate [...] part and parcel of that is expenses, but
in Wales anyway, not as much as an issue with Westminster anyway at
that level” (Candidate)
Many
of the participants saw the media as having some responsibility for
the way the public views Assembly Members. This was not confused
with scrutiny of policies, which was perceived to be appropriate
and welcomed. There was concern that ad hominem attacks were
unhelpful and unnecessary. The lack of positive reporting in the
media was seen as a challenge and potentially a barrier to standing
for election.
“The
problem is the media will not publish reports of cross-party
working[...]at the moment one Member slips up here, or even one MP
in Westminster slips up, we are all the same…and it ends up
reinforcing perceptions. It’s a tight rope, nonetheless we
should not penalise people in choosing to stand for office”
(AM)
“What
is now essentially a world of social media into politics, I think
that makes a difference, I think peoples pasts now, if
they’ve been a real person, made mistakes in the past, that
can be a barrier now[...] is a shame because people make mistakes
people learn and real people are possible frightened to
stand” (Party Officer)
The
role of the media was not universally criticised. Participants
noted the importance of positive stories, consensual politics and
opportunities in promoting individual candidates. The latter
was regarded as a greater challenge for independent
candidates.
“Press
don’t take you seriously as an independent. They go straight
on the main parties, it’s very hard to get press coverage
[...] I think I got one article in the press, through the whole of
the election campaign” (Former Councillor)
Many
of the people we interviewed suggested when individuals enter a
political career, they do so with full awareness of the
implications but not necessarily the skills to handle the media.
Self-confidence was noted as an important prerequisite for a
political career.
“There
is the expectation that people in politics are larger than life. It
takes ‘balls’ guts and determination and
self-confidence to put yourself in the role in front of an
audience” (Former Candidate)
“They’ve
got to have good media skills, which not everybody has [...] They
need to be open, capable of receiving new ideas, able to challenge
appropriately, have a capacity to absorb lots of detail that you
wouldn’t normally bother about” (Independent
Councillor)
Most
participants held high regard for the Assembly as a political
institution, and as referred to earlier, advocated the importance
of greater participation in politics. For some the attraction to
political life was linked to the increasing popular legitimacy of
the Assembly itself. However, for some the downside of increased
awareness by the public brought with it negative perceptions
similar to the views about Westminster politicians.
“One
of the exciting things about the Assembly, with the Silk Commission
going through, it can make it a much more attractive prospect for
people, not just with ambition, for people who can actually
visualise an improvement in their constituency, [...] and I think
for all parties, the higher the quality of candidate the better for
the constituency, …with greater powers comes greater
candidates” (Party Officer)
The
need to communicate better with the public was offered as a
solution by one, with the understanding of the importance of being
held to account despite the perceived pervasive nature of the
press.
“The
public perception is however very important, because ultimately
that is how we are judged and how we are held to account. The
public’s perception is that we are all paid too much, we do
not do enough work and why should we even need expenses to do our
job. So we need to be a bit more honest in how we speak to
the public about expenses in particular.” (AM)
Some interviewees felt that public attitudes were
a barrier, particularly where the constituency was far away from
Cardiff. They also thought
that the public’s perceptions of the Assembly were influenced
by their geographical location, suggesting that many people in some
areas did not understand the need for its existence.
“It may be that people in North West Wales
especially feel further removed from Cardiff and are less
interested in the Assembly because of it, and […] less
interest in the Assembly by seeing it to be Cardiff-based for that
reason, and that probably impacts on the number of candidates that
are interested in standing.” (Electoral Officer)
“Ministers
do come and visit, but that’s seen like a royal visit rather
than coming here to have a discussion about here.” (Former
Candidate)
“There’s
a perception now that everything is kept very close in Cardiff Bay
and that’s it, and that is part of why I think there is still
this lingering feeling in many quarters in Wales, well do we really
need it?” (Councillor)
The
public understanding of the roles of people who work in the
Assembly was also brought into question regardless of
geography.
“I
feel the public perception of Assembly Members is one of a lack of
clarity. You could go to a hairdresser for example; they say
“What do you do?” You say you’re an Assembly
Member, “What is one of those?” they do not
know. (AM)
A
large number of interviewees identified issues within political
culture itself that could create barriers to entering the Welsh
Assembly. Many felt that more could be done by the Assembly to
enable candidates from certain backgrounds to become Assembly
Members.
Interviewees
identified issues that they had come across as candidates, or when
they had considered standing as candidates. These were perceptions
within their own party or the public of what a candidate should be.
Many commented that they felt it was a ‘macho’ or male
dominated environment, and that they received negative comments
about standing, especially if they were mothers.
“Whilst
the situation was better in the Assembly than for Westminster, the
male “party apparatchiks” held a lot of sway, and
tended to select those they already knew or knew of. Women also
tend to get left with the caring responsibilities, still, and
oftentimes tend not to even put themselves forward.”
(AM)
“The fact that I’m a woman, a couple
of comments in regard to what would happen when you settle down and
have babies, how will you be able to be an Assembly member? I
didn’t see men having the kind of thing.” (Former
Candidate)
“I
still think that we have a political system that’s based on
the premise that you’re likely to be a man with a wife at
home.” (Former AM)
Some interviewees felt that more needed to be done
by political parties at the selection stage.
“[…]
I think there’s the idea of leadership tends to be the male
idea of leadership, which is they stand up and inspires everybody
but that’s not necessarily what leadership is all about and
women bring another type of leadership.” (Current
Candidate)
Although
in the past the Assembly has had a good reputation for gender
equality, interviewees were concerned that this was
diminishing.
“It’s
one of my greatest disappointments that we’ve been from a
ground-breaking first in the western world 50-50 parliamentary body
to… well it’s now, we’ve dropped back to 40-60
and looking at the candidates already selected for the next
elections, it looks like it’s going to be worse.”
(Former AM)
Interviewees felt that having a disability could
be a barrier, particularly during campaigning and due to the
physical aspects of the role.
“I know very few disabled candidates and yet
I think the Assembly itself is quite disabled people friendly if
they actually got there.” (Electoral Officer)
‘There’s no one disabled that’s
obvious in the Assembly. One of the things that is a barrier with
that is physical disability, the transport element in respect of
being able to do the job because it depends what constituency you
represent. […] Obviously if someone has a disability that
doesn’t allow them to be able to drive a car, then that is a
huge barrier for them to even consider standing for
election.” (Former AM)
There
were mixed opinions on whether being LGBT was a barrier to entering
the Welsh Assembly. A number of interviewees noted in the final
part of the interview, the fixed-response questionnaire, that they
did not see this as a barrier to being elected. However some
interviewees agreed that it could be a barrier to standing due to
public and party perceptions:
“In
my experience in some of the less diverse areas of Wales, in the
public and the party may not be what it should be.”
(AM)
“No
Members that I am aware of have come out. There are a number that I
am aware of who consider themselves homosexual, and perhaps might
have liked to come out, but didn’t want to because of perhaps
fears of changing their image, or the way they will be perceived by
their constituents.” (AM)
Some
interviewees felt that being from a minority ethnic background
could be a barrier to standing for election or to entering the
Welsh Assembly. However, it was generally felt that this was not
about the Assembly systems per se, but rather down to general
attitudes. Interviewees thought that this should not be a barrier,
but acknowledged that it was.
“I
have a friend who is from an ethnic minority background who faced
quite a lot of racial abuse during the process, and so it is very
difficult.” (AM)
“In
some areas attitudes are not what they should be towards ethnic
minorities.” (Former Candidate)
The
process of nomination was described as straightforward and
uncomplicated and not seen as a barrier, although there were some
particular challenges for those outside the main political parties
and the need for support was recognised.
“[...]
comparing the process for standing for election for the Assembly,
it’s easier than for some other institutions… you can
self-nominate and need one other signature, so it’s not even
as difficult as standing in local elections where you need ten
signatories. It’s not too bad, providing people can obviously
get their requisite £500 deposit” (Electoral
Officer)
“So
you don’t have any party support, financial support for
actually running your election campaign is a major, major issue for
any independent I think that’s really the main one, and then
obviously as an area (..)financial, support, being unable to cover
such a long site as an individual as opposed to a party member, is
one of the major barriers to it I think” (Former Independent
Councillor)
Some
respondents highlighted the financial burden of standing and
running an election campaign. This was considered less of a problem
for those with the necessary financial resources or party
support.
“The
primary barrier though was the cost of running. As a regional AM,
[the] constituency is the whole [...] region. This meant having to
spend a lot of time and money travelling around the area,
canvassing and campaigning to simply be selected.”
(AM)
“I
would say there are barriers to people who are less wealthy as
well, as there are financial implications. There is the cost for
childcare. There is the cost of going around during
selection” (AM)
There
were a number of issues raised that are difficult to disentangle,
such as making a living and future career prospects. Many
respondents discussed their experiences in terms of the risks of
standing, of being elected or of losing an
election.
“There
is also a nervousness surrounding risk. Going in to politics is an
incredibly risky thing to do. I had a nice, stable, normal job with
good career prospects. Now I have a job where people think the
worst of you. The public perception of what I do is terrible. So
there is a lack of respect going with the job, which is
demoralising.” (AM)
“There
is a HUGE workload, it is very, very insecure and the risks
associated with the steps I have taken are HUGE, really, really
BIG. Even now I sometimes I get very nervous about it. And even
before I took the decision, I mean I pondered over it for a very
long time, where I think most other people would come to the
conclusion that it was a bad idea.” (AM)
Risk
appeared mainly to be linked to income security and this was
thought to have a considerable influence on the decision to stand
for election. Some of the people we interviewed reflected on
this risk being a deterrent for others but not necessarily
themselves. The idea of jeopardising existing employment for one
with uncertain outcomes was noted as a key factor. Some
participants reflected on the salary levels.
“We
have to have the calibre of people there who are good enough to be
ministers, and party leaders, and speakers on different subjects,
and it’s quite obvious, MPs make around 30% more than AMs,
[...] the calibre of people aren’t going to go there for that
wage because it’s much easier to get a similar wage in other
places.” (AM)
“A
lot of able people who have achieved a great deal and have
prosperous careers, however for them, choosing to go in to politics
would mean a pay reduction. I mean, that wasn’t the case for
me, but I know that to be the case for a lot of people”
(Former AM)
One
of the most notable issues was the perceived impact on current
employment in considering running for election, as well as the
implications thereafter, successful or otherwise. Combining a
burgeoning political role with an existing career was perceived as
difficult.
“From
a political party perspective, there’s a dearth of people
putting themselves forward as councillors, and I think the barriers
are more to do with what roles can you combine it with the idea
with politics is that they are paid too much is not true at that
level” (Former Candidate)
“If
I had a full time job it would have been impossible to stand. So if
you’re a full time person under employment, it’s very
difficult to stand.” (Former Independent
Councillor)
There
were suggestions made by some participants that the nature of an
individual’s current employment was a factor in deciding
about whether to run. Most participants referred to a precarious
balancing of employment and running. Many spoke of needing to leave
their current employment altogether, which presented a financial
risk and immediate burden.
“It
is quite difficult to envisage giving up your job potentially to
stand for election, [...], and whether or not you can stand for
election whilst still being employed. I think in the private sector
you need a fairly tolerant employer to enable you to have time off
to stand for election, and then of course in Wales, [...] the
public sector is really the main employer, difficult for people
working for local authorities, especially if they want to stand for
election in the area that they’re actually working in then
they’ve got to resign from their job” (Electoral
Officer)
“[…]part
of my agreement with work so that I could stand, I had to take a
period of unpaid leave from work, so I went without pay for 7 weeks
so that I could be a candidate, and that is difficult when someone
is young, when someone doesn’t have a lot of money behind
them. It was difficult financially and I had to borrow money from
the bank just to be able to stand for election.” (Former
Party Officer)
Some
participants with direct experience of standing for election spoke
about the impact of declaring their political allegiances in their
work environment. Others spoke about standing for election being
incompatible with their work and giving them no choice but to
resign.
“Once
I got into politics and showed my political colours, that was it.
There wasn’t a job for me to go back to, so it was absolute.
I had to give everything up.[...], I had to give up my job to be
able to try and get chosen as a candidate, if I hadn’t been
chosen as a candidate, I would have thrown everything away and not
even been able to stand [...].” (AM)
“I
had to resign to stand […] so I resigned at the best
possible moment and put my nomination in the next day, so if I
hadn’t been elected, I wouldn’t have had a job. That
was obviously an issue, so there are obviously exclusions in
standing for parliament and standing for the assembly, in terms of
your job which does inhibit your ability to stand unless
you’re prepared to take that sacrifice and take that
chance” (AM)
“If
you have to abandon a successful career to stand in an election
that you might not win, why would you do it?” (Former
Candidate)
Combining
paid employment with campaigning was described by many that had
experienced this as challenging and detrimental to their
employment. The need to balance work and other responsibilities
with campaigning was described by some as exhausting.
“Sometimes
that’s about perception, other times it’s about energy
levels. You may think that’s fine, I can do 30 hours in this
job and 20 hours a week campaigning, well you are going to be
tired. And an employer might think, well you’re not really
committed to this are you. They would have a point, and
that’s quite difficult, so you have to be in a fairly secure
position to say I will step down, or go part time, and if you have
family commitments […] that’s just about being a
candidate” (Former Candidate)
“I
would recommend standing, but I would recommend they treat it as
temporary employment. Because you cannot treat it as permanent
employment, as there is such a thing as electorates having their
vote every 3-4 years. They need to remember that it could end
anytime at any election.” (Party Official)
There
was a general consensus among participants that the salary is
reasonable and fair. Participants noted that they did not have a
problem with the current pay and that it was very good wage
compared to the average salary in Wales. Some commented that it is
‘not far away’ from someone who is doing well in
business or something similar.
“Well
as an Assembly Member, I’m being paid more than I’ve
been paid for any other job in my life.” (AM)
“I
think the level of pay which at the moment is adequate, I
don’t particularly favour politicians pay being way above the
rest of society. I am a person trying to close the gap between way
at the bottom and way at the top in society actually, I think
it’s about right where it is now”
(Candidate)
Many
of the people we interviewed wanted to emphasise that the salary
was not the main motivation to stand for election and wanted to
convey that for them salary levels were not a major concern,
although they noted the potential impact for others.
“Pay
and conditions was never a subject that excited me. […]
Maybe I just thought my job was what it was, and I was hugely
privileged to do what I did. So it never really concerned
me.” (Former AM)
“[..]
take a six thousand cut in my salary, and I think that was a
situation facing a significant minority of assembly members.
For many people it was a substantial pay rise, for many people it
was a colossal pay rise […] but there were a few of us who
were doctors, senior education managers, lawyers and we were
earning significantly more” (Former AM)
Even
though participants considered the salary to be good, several
current AMs expressed concerns that the salary was not commensurate
with the amount of work required.
“I’m
very aware that when I’m talking about the pay side
especially, it’s a very good wage for a lot of people,
that’s not what the question is. But what the person has to
put in and give up for it, if they want to do the job, it’s
not great.” (AM)
“[…]
But the truth of the matter is, per hour, for the amount of hours
that I work, I earn a lot less than I used to per hour. In my old
job, I was a respectable member of society, and I am not now, and
that does irritate me somewhat.” (AM)
It
was mentioned by several participants that the salary should be
enough to attract the most senior and talented people in society,
in order to recognise the risks they undertake in being an elected
representative. A small number of interviewees did not agree
that the current levels met this requirement and some were
concerned that the difference between AM and MP salaries would be a
deterrent.
“I
think if we want the most senior people and if we want the most
talented people, we have to pay them in a way that reflects that
we’re asking them to stick their necks out and take a risk.
It should be good enough to attract the right people, and has to be
good enough to recognise that those people will be giving up a
career, and if they lose an election, will not just be able to walk
back into a career at the same level.” (Former AM)
“One
thing I think is a barrier, in terms of going in to politics
generally, and this is true of Assembly Members and Members of
Parliament, that a lot of abled people who have achieved a great
deal and have prosperous careers, however for them, choosing to go
in to politics would mean a pay reduction. I mean, that
wasn’t the case for me, but I know that to be the case for a
lot of people. I know a lot of people who have thought about going
into politics but the pay is inadequate; particularly alongside the
perceptions of politicians.” (Former AM)
“if
someone is content to make the sacrifice, fine, and that is a
situation that I don’t think people should be in, feeling
that they are willing to sacrifice in order to go to the Assembly.
[…] lawyers and GPs and secondary school head teachers are
less likely to go into the Assembly because it’s just too big
a [difference] in salary. Whilst I decided to make the sacrifice,
it’s not fair on others to ask if they’ll make that
sacrifice in all honesty.” (AM)
Most
participants agreed that a 1% pay rise would be fair and acceptable
but also raised the need to be consistent with other public sector
workers in Wales. Some interviewees suggested that the freeze
remain until the election and that this was what they had expected
to happen when they were elected.
“I
think it’s in line with the public sector pay rise
isn’t it […] I think that’s reasonable. Assembly
members don’t get paid a huge amount of money anyway,
compared to someone like MPs or senior civil servants within Wales,
so, I think it’s fair, I think it’s reasonable.”
(Former Candidate)
“As
far as I am aware, I signed up to an Assembly that was four years
long, and had a pay freeze for four years. I knew that before I
took it on. I expected the pay to be consistent for my whole period
of office so, whilst I can understand why they would recommend a 1%
pay rise, because obviously over a period of four years, the value
of that salary has fallen in real terms. […] As far as I am
concerned I did sign up to a deal that did not have the pay rise in
it. I am content with that as that is the agreement I signed up
to.” (AM)
However,
one current AM noted that there should be a higher increase than 1%
to be consistent with other average public sector increases over
this period. In particular, this AM made the point that situations
were different for AMs who could not supplement their basic salary
with allowances for other responsibilities.
“Those
of us who have high commitments, family and mortgage etc. after
four years, it hurts. Taking pay sacrifices to get by. Whereas
those who say 1% is fine, tends to be those with extra
responsibilities, such as through holding Ministerial office, and
consequently take home a lot more than I do, and have other income
as well. Some Members also have pension income to supplement their
earnings. I do not have such luxuries; that has been difficult. It
is not because we are not well paid. It is because I came in to the
Assembly like most mature people with existing commitments.”
(AM)
Concerns were raised by some respondents that the previous
commissioned bodies that have looked at Assembly Member’s
expenses have been unrealistic in adopting a punitive approach.
Several were of the opinion that the allowances were unfairly
restrictive as a result of the controversies surrounding MPs
expenses. Remarks were made as to how the Assembly had not
experienced the same scandals as witnessed in Westminster; yet the
allowances afforded to Members have always, and continue to be, a
lot less generous than those in London.
“Politicians
and expenses have become a toxic combination, despite massive
increases in transparency in Wales” (Former
Candidate)
Current
Assembly Members and Party Officials remarked on how they felt the
expenses system should be sufficient to enable a wide cross-section
of society to enter the Welsh Assembly by removing personal out of
pocket expenses. Some however felt that the balance was
adequate.
“We
need to be very careful to make sure […] that I
couldn’t pay for a hotel on expenses that I would not be
prepared to pay for myself […] Treating the public money no
differently to how you would your own. There are no reasons why we
need to be travelling first class; there is no reason why we would
need to stay in a top hotel if we were obliged to stay away
elsewhere.” (AM)
While
the majority of respondents remarked that the current system is
very open and more transparent than Westminster, it was felt by
some that more could be done to improve the public awareness of how
Assembly Members’ allowances are used. One suggestion by a
current AM was to provide a breakdown of individual expenses, such
as office allowance and staff costs, whilst also providing some
form of explanatory document, rather than just publishing figures
alone. Other suggestions included publishing expenses as part of an
AM’s monthly newsletter, so as to inform the electorate of
how their money is being spent. It was remarked that doing so may
also improve the public perception of AMs’ expenses in
Wales.
“[…]
we need to be more transparent, more straightforward in the way we
communicate with the electors, and part and parcel of that is
expenses.” (AM)
Nevertheless,
several interviewees remarked that the current system often left
them out of pocket and under social pressure to take the burden of
additional financial costs, such as those pertaining to subsistence
while travelling, attending party meetings, conferences,
constituency dinners and gala events.
“I
think in the first year my office budget went over by about
£2,000 which I had to pay for out of my own pocket.”
(AM)
“[…]
going to events that you are invited to […] there is always
a raffle, there is always a ticket price, there are no allowances
for these things and my pay is expected to cover that also. I am
under pressure to do so.” (AM)
Particular
attention was brought to three areas of concern; namely travel
allowances, childcare costs, and hotel costs. In relation to travel
allowances, current AMs referred to how outer-region AMs or those
living on the border of a region, could often be left out of
pocket, with much higher and frequent travel expenses, which the
current system does not fully cover, leaving individual members to
cover the deficit.
[There
is a need to be] “honest in how we speak to the public about
travel expenses.” (AM)
“Things
focus on who’s spent the most […] often it’s the
ones in the North that come out the most expensive, and there are
others that don’t claim at all because they can afford not to
claim, because they have their own money. Then that’s hard
because then if you can afford not to claim, and choose not to,
then it’s not fair on the people […] that depend on
getting those expenses back to be able to fulfil their role. I
think then there is too much game playing in regard to
expenses.” (Party Official)
With
regards to childcare costs four respondents referred to the
additional out of pocket expenses a single parent incurs as a
result of being an Assembly Member. It was felt by these
respondents that this was a significant barrier that the current
system does not acknowledge. Suggestions as to how this situation
could be remedied included the introduction of a childcare voucher
allowance.
In
relation to housing, there were consistent concerns from both
current and previous AMs, as well as Party Officials and Electoral
Officers, that the current allowances were insufficient for an
Assembly Member from the outer regions trying to find suitable
accommodation close to Cardiff Bay. One respondent remarked
that it was unfortunate that Wales had not copied the Westminster
system. Suggestions as to how the current system could be improved
included Welsh Government owned properties, or a Welsh Government
owned hotel close to Cardiff Bay.
A
minority of participants noted that uncertainty is simply a part of
the job. Most however suggested that a resettlement grant was
essential, noting the need to allow a time for transition.
For example, to give time to assist their staff, settle
arrangements regarding leases on offices and to make arrangements
to pass forward ongoing casework.
“If
the public have spoken, and you have lost the election, there needs
to be some form of compensation for helping you with the transition
from public office to finding alternative employment.” (Party
Official)
“I
had a well-established career […] but it was very difficult
to get back into that, because on one level, […] when
you’ve then had […] years as an AM, your profile is
too high, you don’t fit as anyone’s deputy, but on the
other hand, someone who’s recently come out of party
political life, a voluntary organisation or indeed a business might
be very wary of taking you on until you’ve had a period to
detoxify if you see what I mean. […] I lost the election in
May, it took me 3 months until about August to do all that writing
to people and getting all of that sorted out, it then took me
another 3 months to find a job.” (Former AM)
There
were differing levels of awareness of the resettlement
arrangements, especially amongst candidates. This was not seen as a
major issue of concern for prospective candidates and the level of
awareness at this stage was generally low among relevant
participants.
“The
thing is when people are seeking to stand for public office, I
doubt very much whether anyone is even thinking about the end of
their career. Then when you are talking about resettlement grants
you are talking about the end of someone’s political career,
or that part of their career. I do not feel it would be perceived
as a barrier at the beginning.” (Former AM)
“No,
I’ve got no views on that…I’m not really into
being an Assembly Member for financial gain so I haven’t
really looked into any of these aspects to be honest with
you…my focus is on policy, my focus is on improving the
lives of my electors in this area rather than improving my own
life, so I haven’t really looked at all of that, I will
become aware of that and form a view on that but I haven’t
really looked into it.” (Candidate)
There
was also some lack of awareness amongst current AMs about the
technicalities of the reform to the resettlement grants.
“After
losing an election? I haven’t looked at it in detail, but if
I understand correctly […] it’s going to be lost for
people who resign, yes? And only being offered to people who lost
an election, is that how it’s going to work? I’m
thinking of my situation for example, I’m just crossing my
fingers that I’m not going to need a resettlement grant for a
little while, but if I lose my seat in an election, I don’t
have a job to go to.” (AM)
There
were mixed views on reforming the current resettlement grant
system. Some expressed concern that resettlement grants would not
be available for those who voluntarily step down and chose not to
seek re-election. They highlighted that this could lead to
stagnation in the pool of AMs and, in more cynical examples, could
lead to AMs standing again with the intention of losing.
Others suggested that if an AM chose to stand down then the levels
of resettlement should not be as high as those who lose an
election. One current AM saw the need for greater flexibility to
take into account personal circumstances.
“Personal
circumstances need to have a role to play here, for example they
may be standing down because of ill health, or may have a relative
to care for […] this is a very difficult situation, and
there needs to be a greater degree of flexibility in considering
these circumstances as part of the resettlement allowance.”
(AM)
This
is echoed by other participants who saw the value of a
‘case-by-case’ approach. For example, it was noted that
someone stepping down who is close to retirement, or who could
return to employment, may not require the same level of support as
an AM who has a young family and a mortgage.
There
were concerns expressed that removing the Resettlement Grant
completely would be a barrier and would restrict prospective
candidates. There was particular concern that only people with
sufficient resources, or other sources of support, could afford to
take the risk.
“I
think it’ll put people off. It’ll put off business
people outside of the normal political parties standing […]
it means in the last year as an Assembly member, you’ll be
more concentrating on what’s next than concentrating on what
you should be doing. So I suppose that’s the key one.”
(Former Candidate)
Most
participants considered the risks entailed in standing for election
as sufficient justification for a redundancy package. Some
participants saw this as a very different situation to being in
private employment.
“If
we want people to be able to take that risk, we’ve got to
give them a safety net, and again this is where I have had concerns
in the past about, does the board understand the difference between
being an AM and being a senior person in the private sector,
I’m not sure that they do” (Former AM)
One
former candidate, although considering a resettlement grant to be
reasonable, could see an argument for removing it and did not
believe removal would be a barrier to standing for
election.
“
[…] don’t think it would stop people willing to stand
in the first place, if they’re that hard up, they’ll be
claiming benefits. I said goodbye to a [salary amount] job
[…] did I get any redundancy […] no of course not, I
quit my job, I didn’t get any money […] I think if you
were an AM and thought you were going to lose your seat, then
you’d be saving wouldn’t you. I can see an argument for
getting rid of it.” (Former
Candidate)
Capacity and Running an Office
Several interviewees were concerned that new Assembly Members did
not fully appreciate the additional ‘behind the scenes’
responsibilities the role carries.
“When
you stand for election you do not realise you are going to be
taking on responsibility for another property, become an employer
to a number of staff, and then you have a base over in Cardiff,
which again you’re responsible for. There needs to be more
awareness out there.” (AM)
Across the responses there was an emerging theme that the systems
need to evolve to reflect the public’s expectations of
relying on a modern service. Several respondents referred to the
growing workload in terms of running an effective constituency
office, dealing with casework, research, the need to draft press
releases, and the growing demand to communicate more frequently and
innovatively with constituents via electronic and social media
channels. It was felt that the allowances in terms of staffing had
not evolved to mirror the new modern expectations of officials in
public office. Nevertheless both Party Officials and Electoral
Officers spoke favourably of Assembly Members’ abilities to
manage their staff efficiently, and develop good working
relationships with their employees. Some participants raised issues
concerning a perceived inadequacy of staff allowances and
disproportionate office allowances that do not recognise the
differences in rent prices in South Wales compared to the North,
Mid and West of the country.
In our investigations several respondents drew comparisons with
Westminster in discussing Assembly Member’s office
allowances. Objections were raised about the more limited office
capacities and fewer resources compared with MPs offices. This was
heightened by the perception that Assembly Members have a
comparatively higher presence in their local community.
Several respondents noted the lack of flexibility in terms of
office allowances, and in particular referred to the inadequate
universal budgets for office space, particularly if you are in
Cardiff. One Assembly Member holding a Central seat referred to the
significant differences in the office space you can rent in the
centre of Cardiff compared to the office space you could rent in
the outer regions for the same amount of money. By contrast, a
North Wales Assembly Member referred to how the office allowances
were adequate. Others interviewees referred to a lack of
appreciation at the time of standing for election that they would
thereafter be expected to manage their public office commitments
alongside expectations of organising their physical
office.
“The
first couple of months of having an office were worrying times for
me trying to run a constituency, at the same time as trying to
organise decorators and so on.” (AM)
Some
felt these barriers could be overcome by offering training in time
management. Furthermore one notable comment was made about
additional sessions for those candidates who lost an election but
want to stand again in the next election, so as to “learn
lessons as to what you can do better next time.” (Party
Official)
Concerns
were also raised as to how reliant new Assembly Members are on the
experience within their party group. It was felt this presents
barriers for independent candidates, in having no party support, as
well as feeling less comfortable in asking for assistance from more
experienced colleagues.
Solutions offered by the interviewees included more formal briefing
sessions, whereby current AMs could meet with potential candidates
from all parties who are standing for election, to make them feel
more familiar with the establishment. It was also suggested that
these briefing sessions could include guidance on the stresses and
challenges presented by election campaigns.
Many
barriers were identified over the course of the research that
centred on the geographical location of a candidate’s
constituency or region, or on the geographical composition of Wales
itself. It was clear from interview findings that distance has a
direct impact on family life and could be a significant barrier to
individuals standing for election.
Unsurprisingly,
this was seen to be more of a problem in the areas that were the
furthest away from Cardiff. Some interviewees also felt that voters
in North Wales felt disengaged and disconnected from the Assembly
and that this in turn might impact on the number of candidates
standing for election in those areas.
Almost
all interviewees identified the impact on family life as a
significant barrier, particularly where young children were
involved. Many identified the distance and travel as a strain on
the family and their marriage or partnership.
“The
impact on my family now is huge […] I think that this is a
very serious problem. It is a pressure for people if they have huge
amounts of travel, or if they are a long way from their
families.” (AM)
“You
can have a timetable that’s a bit more supportive, but with
the best will in the world, if you have a job which requires you to
be in Cardiff […] its inevitably going to be difficult for
people with child or other caring responsibilities, it’s not
particularly great on marriages, marriages do fail where
relationships are under that long distance stress.” (Former
AM)
Interviewees also identified other issues in relation to how being
an Assembly Member impacts on family life, particularly if they
have childcare or caring responsibilities, or if they are a single
parent.
One interviewee commented that the Assembly is missing a huge
amount of potential candidates, suggesting that the lack of support
for single parents is a significant barrier.
Many
felt that the Assembly did not give due consideration to family or
caring responsibilities, and did not appreciate the difficulties of
keeping up with these responsibilities in line with trying to
campaign or fulfil their role as an AM.
“I
know people […] who’ve been having to look after
spouses who've been very ill and dying, and then there are issues
of paying for the additional care you have to provide for that
person to enable you to carry on doing your job, and […]
there is support to enable you to do that from the public
authorities, but that support won’t cover you to go to
charitable events in evenings or to attend evening meetings.”
(Former AM)
“[…]
I do not understand how someone who is a single parent from North
Wales would ever be able to be an AM. Because what would they do?
Would they send their children to boarding school? Would they hire
a nanny? Would they take their children around and have someone
teach them on the go?” (AM)
There was also some debate about the meaning of ‘family
friendly’ and what might be family friendly to one person may
not be so to another.
“Some of my colleagues used to say ‘family
friendly.’ It depends on what you mean by ‘family
friendly’, because if you are representing a North Wales
constituency, or indeed a Mid-Wales or West-Wales constituency, you
can’t commute to the National Assembly on a daily
basis.” (Former AM)
‘I would certainly not have stood for the Assembly if the
Assembly’s working practices as they are now. Where
they’re regularly sitting until 8pm, 9pm at night. I could
not as a single parent have considered that under any
circumstances.’ (Former AM)
Many
interviewees felt that travel could be a barrier to many people,
particularly to potential candidates from the North or Mid and West
Wales. Many interviewees also felt that not much could be
done about this issue.
“Regional
members, especially the North and Mid regions, have much higher
travel expenses than the constituency members. Why is there no
recognition of this in the mileage cost allowances?” (Former
AM)
“In fact from North Wales, it seems to be
quicker, easier to get to London.” (Councillor)
“The train service is awful. Not in
terms of frequency, the frequency’s very good but the rolling
stock is awful, the on-train facilities are awful and […]
you’ve got the poor rail services, both in terms of capacity,
comfort and on-train facilities.” (Councillor)
“I
spend at least 15 hours a week in my car, not including
appointments. That’s two full working days in my car.
I’d take trains, but they don’t have Wi-Fi and take
longer.” (AM)
There were mixed responses in regards to the
amount of housing allowance that Assembly Members could claim. Some
interviewees felt that it was fine, but a greater number felt that
it was simply insufficient to be able to rent a property in
Cardiff.
“In
relation to the housing allowance in Cardiff, I think that’s
completely reasonable too, obviously it doesn’t meet with all
the costs but it seems that it shouldn’t in reality.
It’s fair enough; I have no complaint with it.”
(AM)
“I
really struggled with the amount that they do give you; you cannot
buy or rent much with the amount that they do allow. That should,
and does need to be increased.” (AM)
The housing allowance and the constraints on
housing were seen to be a significant problem if you had a young
family. The allowance was seen as barely enough for a one-bedroom
flat, which was unrealistic if you were going to be travelling with
a young family. In that respect, staying at hotels with a young
family was also seen as unsuitable, having no facilities in the
room and having to check out every three days.
“If I had been elected […] my son
would have been 6 weeks old when I was an AM, and the fact that I
wouldn’t have had room to bring him and someone like my
mother or husband to stay with me when I was in Cardiff, well that
would have stopped me being able to do my job as an AM.”
(Former Candidate)
“The
situation we’ve got now assumes that the AM is a man with a
wife and children at home in the constituency, and so it’s
perfectly acceptable for him to be renting a little flat in Cardiff
because that’s not their home.” (Former AM)
“I’ve
given up trying to fight. It’s so depressing from an
unelected body, to get no help. I feel like I’m a real asset
and yet I’m likely to not stand again.” (AM)
Some interviewees felt that they should be able to
decide whether their main home was in Cardiff or the
constituency.
“I
think some consideration needs to be given to the fact that some
AMs may wish to have their children with them, or indeed elderly
relatives, but particularly children, and that therefore you should
be allowed to decide at the beginning of your term whether your
main home is in Cardiff or your constituency.” (Former
AM)
Some interviewees suggested that there should be
some kind of central accommodation for AMs:
“So you could say, well we’ll buy
[…] a reasonable hotel, give them a sitting room and a
bedroom and they can all have their meals at the Cynulliad, they
don’t need to go out. That might be a way of doing it, and
that actually would be more transparent.”
(Councillor)
However,
others saw this as a potential barrier:
“I’ve
heard of you know, the Assembly buying a block of flats and all AMs
in Cardiff being expected to stay there, I mean that’s just
outrageous nonsense and in terms of barriers to stand I most
certainly wouldn’t have been able to do that, and I
don’t think anybody with a family would have been able to do
that.” (Former AM)
One
interviewee also suggested that there should be some support for
AMs in making a flat habitable.
“I
was scratching my head thinking, well why should I pay hundreds and
hundreds of pounds to kit out a flat, and the only reason I need a
flat is because I live down in Cardiff. It doesn’t make
sense.” (AM)
There
was also seen to be an issue with expenses for food if you did rent
accommodation.
“Members
who have a flat don't get any allowance by now for food in the
evening. I know as an AM I don’t have time to shop down in
Cardiff, I can’t carry my food down if I’m going on a
plane or train or whatever, I certainly don’t have time to
cook and clean and things like that.” (AM)
The
aim of this section of the project was to attempt to quantify and
rank the barriers as perceived by the respondents. It should be
noted that as the majority of respondents are or were Assembly
Members, some of the responses will be based on their experiences
of barriers as well as their perceptions of barriers that may exist
for other people.
The
first section was a series of 16 fixed-end questions, asking
respondents to quantify (on a scale of 1 to 4, 1 being
‘strongly disagree’) a series of barriers the
researchers believed could exist, in light of the literature review
and their own understanding and experience. A full list of the
questions can be seen in Appendix one. The responses were analysed,
and ranked by their average score.
Graph
1 shows the average scores for each question. This shows that the
respondents perceived the work-life imbalance (3.35) to be the
biggest barrier to being an AM, followed by impact it would have on
their previous career (3) and living a public life (2.89). The
lowest scores were legal barriers during term (1.83), being
LGBT[76]
(1.83) and not having a university degree (1.76).
It
should be noted that statistical tests (namely ANOVA and post-hoc
Tukey) showed that some questions demonstrated statistically
significant differences, and we are thus confident in stating that
the most important barriers are (in descending order of importance)
questions 3 (work-life imbalance), 5 (unable to continue previous
profession), 9 (living a public life), 13 (minority ethnic
background), 16 (constituency far from Cardiff), 14 (having a
disability), 8 (press scrutiny) and 1 (salary). There we can say
that everything from salary to work-life imbalance on graph 1 is
viewed as a barrier by the respondents. This means that the data
has been shown to be statistically sound. However, we are still
able to utilise the ranking of the means from the other questions
to draw some insights. We recommend strongly that further work on
this is done so as to allow for a wider pool of respondents to be
included to allow for even stronger data.
The
questions were then arranged into high-level groupings where
questions shared some common features. These groupings were
social (Q’s 3, 4, 8 and 9), financial
(Q’s 1, 2 and 5), geographical (Q’s 12 and 16),
equality (Q’s 10, 11, 13, 14 and 15) and legal
(Q’s 6 and 7). These were then arranged into a hierarchy,
with those scoring highest on the scale closest to the start, and
then following in decreasing importance. This resulted in the
hierarchical model in figure 1 (figures in brackets are mean
scores).
Figure
1 – Quantifiable barriers hierarchy
This
model allows us to more simply understand and graphically
illustrate the barriers that the respondents experienced and
perceived. The biggest barrier was therefore the social grouping,
followed by financial. Within these groups the highest ranking
barriers are closest to the top.
The
responses for the open ended questions showed a slightly different
picture however. The respondents were asked for to rank in order of
importance the three biggest barriers in their own words. These
were then arranged into high-level groupings and the responses were
weighted. Table 1 shows the groupings and graph 2 shows the
results.
|
Pre-election
issues
|
Problems involved
with running in the first place, including financial costs, being
part of a party system, selection issues,
self-confidence
|
|
Work/life
balance
|
Problems caused by
high work load, lack of time outside of work, problems for family
and stress of job
|
|
Geography
|
Problems caused by
distance from constituency to Cardiff, size of constituency and
perceived disconnection of Cardiff from rest of Wales
|
|
Public
life
|
Problems caused by
press scrutiny and being a public figure as well as scrutiny of
family, perception of politicians
|
|
Finances/career
|
Problems caused by
potential damage to career, wage changes, costs of being an
AM
|
|
Discrimination
|
Problems caused by
being a member of a minority or women, both when seeking candidacy
and as candidate and AM
|
Table
1 – High-level groupings
Whilst
the data largely mirrors the data found in the fixed-end questions,
there was one notable finding. That is, that the largest grouping
here, pre-election issues (which includes barriers such as
financial and social capacity to run, party involvement etc.) was
not considered in the fixed-end questions. As well as this, whilst
financial issues (including pay, expenses and career risk) were
fairly common responses, it was generally a focus on potential
damage to career prospects as opposed to salary or
expenses.
Salary
was mentioned by only three respondents as opposed to the six times
career damage was mentioned. Expenses was referred to only in
relation to the difficulties that arose when claiming them, or the
perceived inequalities between AM’s of different types and
from different locations.
The
responses were again arranged into a hierarchical model as above,
which can be seen in figure 2 below.
Figure
2 – Non-quantifiable barriers hierarchy
One
important similarity to note is that respondents at both points
strongly noted the work-life imbalance as a potential barrier, with
respondents discussing both the stress of the role itself as well
as the impact it has on their family and social lives. A further
similarity at the other end of the scale is that respondents were
generally in disagreement with the idea that the legal barriers
during and after their terms were barrier. It wasn’t
mentioned at all during the open-ended questions discussed here and
only three people agreed with the idea that it could be barrier
after their term, with no respondents agreeing that it was a
barrier during their term. Respondents were, as noted, generally
far more concerned with their careers prior to being an AM than
during or afterwards.
There
are two main conclusions that we can draw from this data. Firstly,
as noted, owing to the small size we cannot say for certain that
all the data is statistically significant. We do not believe that
this negates our finding in any way, but do strongly recommend
further work is done to establish absolute certainty with the
data.
Secondly,
it is clear that respondents primarily viewed two issues as being
the biggest barriers; firstly, the issue of the work-life balance
and secondly the pre-election issues. It can be argued that these
two responses reflect different periods in the respondents’
lives. In the case of the former the respondents’ experiences
as an AM and in the latter their experiences as a
candidate.
With
regards to the data relating to issues of equality and
discrimination, it is somewhat encouraging to see that only 4
respondents viewed the issue within the top three biggest barriers.
However, when we look at the fixed-end questions, the data suggests
that whilst discrimination is less of an issue for LGBT, non-Welsh
speaking and those without degrees, it was highly rated as a
potential barrier in the case of those from minority ethnic
barriers and those with disabilities. Gender was raised by one
respondent in relation to attempting to have the Assembly reflect a
cross-section of Welsh society.
Most
interviewees felt that the salary is generally reasonable in
comparison to the average salary in Wales. Many interviewees
emphasised that salary was not one of their motivations in standing
for election. Although there was recognition that the salary is
comparable to the private sector, many interviewees also expressed
that the salary was not commensurate to the risk involved in terms
of job instability, and did not respect the sacrifices that must be
made to fulfil their duties as Assembly Members. In this respect, a
number of interviewees felt that the salary could be a barrier to
attracting the most senior and talented people in society to stand
for election. One interviewee commented quite frankly, ‘if
you pay peanuts, you get monkeys.’ There were worries that if
the salary was not commensurate to the job, then this would affect
the variety of candidates standing for election. This could then
leave only those who can supplement their income through other
means and are supported by vested interests.
The
1% rise in salary goes some way to alleviate this barrier, and most
interviewees agreed that it would be fair and reasonable if that
raise is consistent with the majority of the public sector. Only
one interviewee felt that the increase should be greater than 1% in
order to be consistent with other average public sector increases
over this period.
Potential Actions
Salary
level and percentage rise is something that needs to be kept under
review to ensure that the salary remains competitive and attractive
in light of the potential barriers highlighted in this
report.
Several
interviewees mentioned the MPs expenses controversy in late 2009 as
being a catalyst in restricting allowances, and affecting public
confidence in politicians generally. Interviewees were much more
critical of the expenses than the salary, many commenting that it
is costing them money to be an Assembly Member and that they often
have to use personal resources to meet the shortfall in
expenses.
A
number of interviewees expressed the sense that the expenses system
should be sufficient to enable a greater cross-section of society
to enter the Assembly. Several participants noted the financial and
social pressure of having to attend various events and party
meetings, all of which came out of their own pocket. Although it
was recognized that expenses could not cover all of these things,
it was still seen as a concern.
The
majority of interviewees stated that the system is transparent
enough, as the expenses are all published online. However, many
felt that more could be done to improve public awareness of how
Assembly Members utilise their allowances. A number of interviewees
noted that some constituencies and regions are enormous, or very
rural, and so naturally their travel costs will be higher. Assembly
Members in North Wales will have greater travel costs than those in
Cardiff, and so a greater effort needs to be made to explain to the
public why these are higher.
A
significant worry for interviewees in relation to expenses were
childcare costs, and it was felt that this could be a substantial
barrier for many people in entering the Assembly, particularly for
single parents. Similar concerns were made in relation to caring
for elderly, disabled or ill relatives.
Potential Actions
Publishing
more detail, for example, the number of miles an Assembly Member
has covered instead of simply quoting the expenses claimed for
travel, would better illustrate to the public where that money has
gone.
Differentiating
more clearly between money that is paid to the Assembly Member as
salary and money that the Assembly Member uses on such things as
office expenses and staff salaries.
Publish
a monthly newsletter (as suggested by an Assembly Member) to
include a breakdown of expenses to inform the electorate how the
money is being spent.
Consider
the introduction of a childcare voucher allowance, and increased
support at evenings and weekends to enable parents of young
children to attend necessary events and meetings.
Most
interviewees saw resettlement grants as essential due to the
precarious nature of the role, and viewed the risks of standing for
election as sufficient justification for such a package. The grant
allows for a short period of transition from political life, and
affords the Member time to settle office affairs, assist their
staff in finding employment, and in many cases finding new
employment themselves. Many interviewees made the comparison with a
job in the public sector, and that anyone losing their job within
that sector would be afforded a redundancy payment.
There
were very mixed views in relation to how the grants should operate
in practice. Some believed they should not be available for those
retiring or stepping down, whilst others felt that creating this
divide might encourage Members to stand for re-election with the
intention of losing, in order to get this payment. Some
interviewees suggested that those who stand down should get a
lesser payment than those who lose, however this could contribute
to the cynical notion of losing an election on purpose. Finally,
other interviewees suggested the value of a case-by-case
approach.
The
majority of interviewees were in agreement that removing the grant
completely would be a significant barrier for many individuals
wishing to stand, as it would remove that counterbalance to the
risk involved.
Potential Actions
Explore
approaches for best practice in relation to resettlement
grants.
Increase
the awareness of resettlement grants amongst Assembly Members,
candidates, and potential candidates.
It
was clear from the research that most interviewees felt that
geographical location was a barrier to many standing for election.
Most interviewees concurred that moving the location of the
Assembly, drastic a recommendation as that would be, would not
remove the barrier, but rather it would make it difficult for
another group of people. As one former candidate noted, ‘I
think it makes sense that the Assembly is in Cardiff as the capital
city of Wales.’
The
impact on family life consistently seemed to be the greatest
concern in relation to geographical location and distance from
Cardiff of those interviewed. Interviewees suggested that the
Assembly should do more to support those with childcare and caring
responsibilities, and by doing so would remove some of the barriers
relating to distance, as Members could have their families with
them. Worryingly, one current AM commented, ‘I’ve given
up trying to fight. It’s so depressing from an unelected
body, to get no help. I feel like I’m a real asset and yet
I’m likely to not stand again.’ Not only is the issue
surrounding support with family life seemingly a barrier to people
standing for election, but also is causing elected Members not to
want to return to the Assembly. One current AM with a family also
commented, ‘it feels like they don’t want people like
me.’
There
was also some debate surrounding the term ‘family
friendly’ and the fact that what is family friendly for one
Member may not be for another. For example, a Member in Cardiff may
want to work a 9am – 5pm day and be home with their family in
the evening. A Member from the North may prefer to work until 10pm
at night in order to lessen the number of days spent in Cardiff to
go home and see their family. This is something that the Assembly
might wish to consider.
Travel
appeared to be another issue, and many interviewees demonstrated
their discontent with the transport options in Wales. It was felt
that roads need considerably more work; particularly in the North,
and rail links should be better and offer better on-board services
such as Wi-Fi to enable Members to work on the go. A large number
of interviewees expressed that it was easier to get to London than
Cardiff. On the other hand, Members praised the airport and flights
available from Anglesey to Cardiff and found this had improved
transport options from North to South
Potential Actions
Consider
the support offered to individuals with caring
responsibilities.
Take
into account the increased mileage that is incurred by Members from
some regions in Wales.
For
many interviewees, the impact on family life clearly tied in with
the housing allowance available to them, and some felt that this in
itself was a barrier. Interviewees commented that the system seemed
to have been set up to allow a male Assembly Member to rent a
little flat in Cardiff, and that this was no longer an adequate
reflection of a modern Member. Some Members saw commuting to the
constituency as being easier than commuting to Cardiff. Although
this would not be suitable for everyone, it was felt that the
option should be given.
Other
issues in relation to the housing allowance included support in
making rented property habitable, as there is currently no
allowance for furnishing a property. Similarly, there is no longer
an allowance for food for overnight stays in rented accommodation.
A small number of members suggested that this should be looked at
again. These could be barriers as they cause an Assembly Member to
go into their own pocket as a result of having to be in
Cardiff.
Potential Actions
Consider
adjustments to housing allowances to enable those Members with
young families to have their family with them, should they choose
to.
Enable
choice about where the AM’s main home is.
Some
interviewees commented that political disengagement within the
public might be a barrier for individuals in some areas, as they
might think it pointless or not a worthwhile job. It was felt that
some areas of Wales were far removed from Cardiff, both
geographically and democratically. Minister visits were seen to be
‘Royal Visits’ in North Wales, rather than being seen
to come here to discuss local issues. Again, although there were no
radical suggestions for the Assembly itself to be physically moved,
a number of interviewees did note that there should be a greater
devolution to the regions of Wales to improve confidence and
engagement with the electorate, so that the public may see local
issues being discussed locally.
It
was generally felt that not enough use was being made of regional
Welsh Government buildings to hold such meetings, for example,
Llandudno Junction, Aberystwyth and Carmarthen. This would give the
public in regions far from Cardiff a greater connect with the
Assembly.
Potential Actions
Investigate
ways in which the Assembly can be seen to engage more with the
public generally.
The
primary issue that most interviewees of both genders identified in
relation to political culture was how being female was a barrier to
entering the Assembly. Women are still seen to be the main carer
for children, even in a two-person household, and many interviewees
felt there was a perception that they should be at home with their
children instead of entering politics. This was a viewpoint often
shared by the public, and members of – often their own
– political parties.
Interviewees
suggested that the candidate selection process within political
parties was often a problem, and it was thought that some parties
had a culture that discriminated if you are a woman. It was
generally recognised that political parties should be doing more to
dissipate this barrier.
Interviewees
generally believed there were barriers for people with disabilities
in entering the Assembly. Many commented that the Assembly was very
disability-friendly, however one current Assembly Member noted
that, ‘as a disabled AM we are not consulted when devising
assisted interventions.’ This seems to be counter-productive.
A number of interviewees felt that the physical demands of the role
– travel, campaigning and day-to-day work – could be
very off-putting for candidates with disabilities and may deter
them from standing. There was a general consensus that more needed
to be done to remove or reduce barriers for those with disabilities
who wish to stand.
Most
interviewees did not think that being LGBT was a barrier to
entering the Assembly, although some did think that it could be an
issue for the public or the political party. Similarly, many
interviewees believed that being of an ethnic minority background
was a barrier, particularly in certain areas of Wales where they
might face prejudice. One interviewee noted that, ‘I have a
friend who is from an ethnic minority background who faced quite a
lot of racial abuse during the process’ so clearly there is
work still to be done here.
Potential Actions
Consult
disabled Members about their individual needs.
Many
participants referred to their personal experiences and the
barriers they faced in taking the decision to stand. Difficulties
were perceived pertaining to financial and professional risks.
Examples of such concerns included the personal cost of running an
election campaign, as well as concerns in publically declaring
their political aspirations to their employers. Other referred to
their salaries in elected office being significantly less than
their previous profession, as well as a potential inability to go
back to return to your previous employment. Some respondents also
referred to how they were thousands of pounds in debt as a result
of taking the decision to stand.
These
significant financial and professional scarifies suggest that a
significant degree of financial, social and cultural capital is
required to even consider standing for election.
Potential Actions
Undertake
further more detailed research with a greater number and broader
range of stakeholders.
Explore
how the barriers identified can be best addressed.
