National Assembly for Wales

Llywydd, I move amendments 10 and 18, tabled in my own name. We'll be supporting the Government's amendment 3 and Plaid Cymru's amendments 26 and 29. The Welsh Conservatives believe the Senedd elections should take place on Thursday 6 May. Elections should only be delayed for exceptional reasons. While this pandemic is undoubtedly exceptional, many countries, including Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Israel, the United States, Spain, France, Canada, New Zealand and South Korea, have succeeded in holding free and fair democratic elections. A further range of elections are also due to be held internationally between March and May this year.

The UK Government has announced that local police and crime commissioner and mayoral elections will take place in England, and police and crime commissioner elections in Wales on 6 May, and have published a robust delivery plan to ensure these go ahead smoothly and in a way that minimises the risk of spreading coronavirus. This includes an estimated £92 million of Government grant funding to local authorities for the elections, incorporating a £31 million uplift to directly address costs associated with making the elections COVID-19 secure. Delaying the election unnecessarily would undermine our democracy and damage the credibility of our still young Senedd. All the current evidence shows a definite and sustained decline in the incidence of coronavirus in Wales. The rolling case rate in the past seven days was 115.4 per 100,000 on 3 February, down from 592 on 19 December, and the positivity rate for tests was 9.77 per cent—both criteria below the thresholds for the alert level 4 lockdown. And the most vulnerable in our society continue to be vaccinated against COVID-19, giving greater confidence that a safe election should be able to go ahead on Thursday 6 May. However, we have proposed a number of amendments to ensure that if this Bill is approved, there are safeguards in place to protect both the integrity of the ballot and our democratic process.

Our amendments 10 and 18 seek to ensure that the Llywydd's power is not triggered any later than 11 working days prior to polling day. This is to minimise the risk of the election being delayed after the dispatch of postal votes or after voting has begun—and when I said the 'Llywydd's power', the Llywydd's power to delay. Throughout the entire debate around the Senedd elections, we have been clear that the election should go ahead but that if it must be delayed, that delay should be as minimal as possible.

Thank you, Llywydd, I move amendment 3, tabled in my name. The Government has been very clear that we wish the election to go ahead on 6 May, and that all preparations should be taken with that in mind. However, what this pandemic has shown us is that we can never know what is around the corner, and the rapidity with which events changed in the run up to Christmas Members will be very familiar with. And so I think it's very sensible to put a Bill in place that will allow us to react correctly in the cause of public safety to the running of the elections, but obviously the Government would like the elections to go ahead on 6 May, as would everybody else who’s contributed. 

My amendment 3 gives effect to recommendation 6 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's Stage 1 report. It places a duty on the Llywydd to make a statement confirming the day fixed for the holding of the poll and explain why it is necessary to further vary the date of the poll in the election that has been fixed under section 6 of the Bill. This amendment will increase the transparency around the execution of the power.

The power in section 6 serves a different purpose to that in section 5. It is intended to replicate the existing power in section 4 of the Government of Wales Act. It serves the purpose of allowing the Llywydd to postpone the election at short notice for a reason not relating to coronavirus. Such a reason could be the occurrence of an unforeseeable event that would have a drastic impact upon the country and our election. Amendments 10, 18, 26 and 29 all place restrictions on this power. As it would be irresponsible in our view to fetter the Llywydd's powers in this way, we oppose those amendments.

If agreed, amendments 26 and 29 would mean that the Llywydd could not exercise this power after 28 April. These amendments propose to align the Llywydd's existing power under GoWA with the shorter dissolution period and the power to postpone the election for a reason relating to coronavirus under sections 3 and 5 of the Bill. But it creates a gap—after 28 April and up to the day of the poll—when the poll could not be postponed for any reason. This approach carries significant risk. It is entirely conceivable that an event or an emergency could arise in the period after the Senedd's dissolution that would make the poll impossible to hold on 6 May, but possible to hold in the period immediately beforehand or in the month thereafter. The effect of the amendment would be that it would not be legally possible to postpone the poll after 28 April, even if that was the right thing to do. This is why GoWA provides the Llywydd can exercise the power in the period when the Senedd is dissolved and why this must continue to be the case.

We oppose amendments 10 and 18 for similar reasons. These amendments seek to prevent the powers to postpone in section 6 of this Bill and in section 4 of GoWA being used in the 11 working days prior to the date of the poll. An 11-working-day period, as proposed in these amendments, could be over 14 calendar days. Although a two-week period provides a longer notice of postponement for administrators, in our view it does not provide sufficient flexibility to respond to events, especially for the Llywydd's emergency powers. For that reason, Llywydd, I urge Members to therefore oppose amendments 26, 10, 29 and 18, and to support amendment 3. Diolch.

Formally, Mark Isherwood, is that being moved?

Moved.

Llywydd, I move amendment 11 in my name, and indicate that the Welsh Conservative group will be supporting Plaid Cymru's amendments 27, 28 and 34, which seek to address provision during the pre-dissolution period.

Our amendment 11 seeks to ensure that there is equality of opportunity specifically for all candidates seeking election, and only in that capacity or context, regardless of whether they're incumbent Members of the Senedd or not. I understand that the Welsh Government's concern that the language used in the amendment might be confused with broader policy on equalities. However, this amendment has been drafted with Senedd lawyers, and the wording is legally watertight. This amendment is clearly within the scope of the Bill and refers specifically to equality for candidates, so the intent and effect of the amendment are clear.

While Members of the Senedd, the First Minister, Welsh Ministers and the Counsel General will continue to fulfil their obligations in those rules, they must recognise the principle of a level playing field for all candidates. It would be unfair, unequal and undemocratic if Welsh Government Members were given a bigger profile than incumbent opposition Members, and if both were given a bigger profile than candidates who are not current Members of the Senedd. I therefore hope that Members will support this and that Welsh Government will consider this.

Y Gweinidog, Julie James.

Diolch, Llywydd. Although I agree with what I understand to be the principle behind amendment 11, I do have some concerns regarding the practicality of this amendment. We support the principle that sitting Members should have no advantage over other candidates. Within the standard dissolution period, it is clear how Members can be mindful of this principle, as there is no Senedd business taking place in which a Member could gain an advantage by simply participating. It is not clear what the effect of this amendment would be, other than to expose the Government and Members to politically motivated and unmeritorious legal challenge over action taken during a national crisis.

The amendment does not make it clear how a Member is to approach this principle in the event that the Senedd is recalled and they are required to scrutinise essential legislation in a pre-dissolution period. Could this be seen as having a platform available that other candidates do not have access to, and could this put Members at risk of a challenge if they participate in such proceedings? In such a situation, where should a Member draw a line between an activity that is essential in carrying out their role as a Member and an activity that provides an unfair advantage? I appreciate that this is the very challenge we will face as elected Members during the pre-dissolution period. However, this amendment will not help us tackle that challenge. Instead, we need to agree between ourselves how to manage that period, as we are already doing through discussions at the Business Committee. Enforcement would also be problematic. It is unclear what remedy could be sought by a candidate who believed that due regard to the principle had not been had. When and how could such a claim be heard, and what would the appropriate sanction be? Though we agree with the principle of the amendment, the lack of clarity and the practical implications of the duty it proposes mean we must oppose it.

We agree with the principles behind amendments 27 and 28, and support the guidance being published for Members and for the Welsh Government, covering the pre-election period. We've written to the Business Committee about how the Welsh Government envisages that Senedd business should proceed during the pre-election period, and Business Committee has agreed that the Senedd should only be recalled for business relating to urgent and significant coronavirus-related decisions or postponement of the Senedd election. However, we would not want the Bill to interfere unhelpfully with activity that is already planned and under way, for example, the pre-election period guidance that the First Minister will publish as soon as possible. We are very happy, though, to have had the discussion with Rhun ap Iorwerth earlier today, and we are happy to revisit amendments 27 and 28 at Stage 3, as he has indicated.

Amendment 34 seeks to place a duty on the Welsh Ministers to provide guidance on the conduct of campaigning. We've already provided guidance in relation to the election and permitted activity relating to it as part of our comprehensive suite of guidance on the coronavirus restrictions in place that affects all aspects of our daily lives. We are working on guidance about the election, including campaigning, for all alert levels, in consultation with the electoral community in Wales and the UK and Scottish Governments. We will publish that guidance as soon as possible. I therefore support the principle of this amendment, as it puts on the face of the Bill that which the Government is already doing. We have some concern about the drafting of the amendment, particularly regarding the reliance placed on definitions contained in secondary legislation. We are very happy to work with Rhun to prepare amendments for Stage 3 that cover those concerns but preserve the spirit of the amendment as he has indicated. Diolch.

I restate that it would be unfair, unequal and undemocratic if the purpose of this amendment was not incorporated within the legislation, because there is danger that non-incumbent candidates will be penalised, and the greater the profile of the Senedd Member, particularly if they're in Government, the greater the disadvantage might be. 'Equality' is defined as the state of being equal, especially in status, rights or opportunities, and must therefore be the bedrock of our representative democracy. Contrary to the Minister's statement, this amendment would help us to address this challenge. I therefore urge Members to support it.

In this group, Llywydd, I move amendments 12, 1A, 15, 14 and 16, tabled in my name. I previously expressed concern that the Welsh Government has not said what situation the pandemic needs to be in before the First Minister formally requests a delay to the Welsh general election in May. Amendment 12 seeks to commit the Welsh Government to giving a specific reason for delaying the election, beyond simply saying that it is due to the coronavirus. The people of Wales need to have confidence that, if their democratic will is to be temporarily delayed, they will be entitled to know why. We know that there is an improving picture of case rates and test positivity in Wales, including Wrexham and Flintshire, where I am currently sitting, where rates were high last month. This amendment therefore proposes criteria for delaying the election, whereby at the time of making a proposal to delay the election, Wales is subject to alert level 4 restrictions, the rate of coronavirus reproduction for Wales is above 1.2, and the rolling seven-day case rate of coronavirus per 100,000 people in Wales has increased in the two-week period immediately beforehand. Amendment 16 simply clarifies some of the terms in these exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 1A seeks to amend the Government's amendment 1, which states that, prior to initiating a delay, the First Minister should consult the chief medical officer. I would hope that if the First Minister intended to do something as serious as delaying an election—something used on few occasions in British history, and then only for exceptional reasons such as war—he would wish to consult more widely than simply with the chief medical officer. Our amendment 1A also adds reference to the Electoral Commission, which, presumably, the First Minister would wish to consult with, and such other persons as the First Minister considers appropriate.

Amendment 15 seeks to ensure that the risk of the election being delayed beyond the issuing of postal votes is minimised, where this Senedd should not countenance an election delay after ballot papers have gone live. Amendment 14 seeks to ensure that the elections are not delayed multiple times. We don't support a delay at all, but if the Senedd elections are delayed, they should only be delayed once and in exceptional circumstances.

We will be supporting Plaid Cymru's amendments 30, 31 and 33, but not 32. In our preferred outcome, with the election proceeding on Thursday 6 May, amendment 32 would still force the First Minister to give an explanation by 7 April as to why the election is going to proceed as planned. It would seem very bizarre to compel the First Minister to explain his reasons for not doing something. It is completely without precedent, and not something that I believe anyone is intentionally calling for. We believe that the election should go ahead, and we do not think that the First Minister should be dragged into Plenary to explain why he isn't going to interrupt the democratic process. Diolch.   

I move amendment 1 tabled in my name. This amendment places a duty on the First Minister to consult with the chief medical officer before making a proposal under section 5 of the Bill that the election should be delayed for reasons relating to coronavirus. This amendment gives effect in part to recommendation 4 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's Stage 1 report, which made recommendations on who the First Minister should consult with before exercising the power in section 5(1) of the Bill. The committee advised that the First Minister should consult with the chief medical officer, the Electoral Commission and other stakeholders.

Although we understand the intent of the committee's recommendation, we did not feel it was necessary to include a further duty to consult with the Electoral Commission. The Bill already contains a duty for the Electoral Commission to provide advice to the First Minister or Llywydd on a postponement when requested. Additionally, the Welsh Government is in continuous dialogue with partners about this election. We do not want to create any ambiguity about who must be consulted, and so have not included a general duty to consult other persons. Amendment 1A attempts to give effect to the parts of recommendation 4 that we did not feel were necessary—the duty to consult with the Electoral Commission and other persons that are deemed appropriate. We oppose this amendment for the reasons that I've just outlined. The additional duty is unnecessary.

Amendments 12 and 16 provide criteria under which the First Minister could propose a postponement to the Llywydd. The criteria listed are very narrow and do not provide the practicality or flexibility that a response to the pandemic requires. It has been our experience thus far in dealing with the pandemic not to take things for granted, and not to make decisions based on prior assumptions that may not be suitable when applied at a later date in different circumstances. Equally, the criteria listed in the amendment are not the only elements that will factor into a decision regarding a postponement. The First Minister will also need to consider the impact on voters and the democratic process and gain a level of assurance from returning officers before making any proposal. The amendments are also problematic because they reference secondary legislation. We try to avoid doing this in primary legislation because secondary legislation might change and render references incorrect or redundant. For these reasons, we oppose these amendments. 

We also oppose amendment 14 as it reduces the flexibility available to the Llywydd in responding to the pandemic by providing that the power to postpone the Senedd general election can only be exercised once. We need the flexibility for this to happen more than once as we cannot predict the path of the pandemic with certainty. If we did not have the flexibility, we face the possibility of another emergency Bill in challenging circumstances and, potentially, to even more challenging timescales.

We also oppose amendment 15, which prevents the section 5 power to postpone the election being used in the 11 working days prior to the day of the poll. We consider that seven calendar days strikes the right balance between being able to respond to the vagaries of the pandemic whilst ensuring all those involved in the election could respond to any postponement. Amending this period to 11 working days would appear to take us to 19 April, which is the registration deadline for the election. This is a key election milestone, but seems relatively arbitrary to me.

Amendments 30, 31 and 33 would prevent the First Minister, on any date after 6 April, from proposing postponing the Senedd election for a reason relating to coronavirus. We are all, unfortunately, familiar with the unpredictable path of the pandemic. If we limit the time in which a postponement can be proposed and agreed by the Senedd, we limit our ability to respond to the impacts of the pandemic. We therefore are not happy with amendments 30, 31 and 33, as they reduce the flexibility needed in responding to the pandemic appropriately.

It is, of course, the Government’s intention to regularly update the Senedd on the unfolding public health situation ahead of the election, and amendment 32 seeks to place a requirement to this effect on the Bill. We would anticipate providing regular updates to the Senedd in any case, and though we feel this duty is not necessary, we support the principle of it.

However, if the First Minister waits until 7 April before laying his statement, then the Senedd will not be sitting to hold him to account for that. So we would suggest the duty should apply before the pre-election period starts, and in line with our three-week review process. I have already been in discussion with the Member regarding this amendment and what changes could be made to improve the current drafting.

I am grateful to Rhun for indicating he will withdraw amendment 32, and I will work with him very happily to prepare amendments for Stage 3. I urge Members to support amendment 1 and to vote against all the other amendments that are moved to a vote in this group. Diolch, Llywydd. 

Diolch, Llywydd. If the First Minister intended to do something as serious as delaying an election, consultation with the chief medical officer would be necessary, but not sufficient. More widely, the criteria for delaying the election, we propose, are most certainly not playful. They were considered in depth and discussed with lawyers to ensure their applicability and measurability. They also, ironically, represent the key measures by which governments decide whether nations should go into lockdown at any level and, therefore, are clearly not playful or frivolous. 

Our key desire here is to have a threshold below which the First Minister could not seek the Senedd's consent for a delay, but above which he could. This is not only beneficial for the concept of devolved democracy, but also, ironically, would help protect the First Minister from any perception that he was acting for political advantage, or that there was a conflict of interest that hadn't been addressed in the decisions that might be taken. 

We urge Members to support this amendment, but if they don't, to indicate whether they nonetheless agree with the principle of a threshold—an agreed threshold—being put in place as criteria for delaying the election, which we consider to be critical to the passage of this legislation, which we would struggle to vote for if it wasn't present. 

Being moved?

Yes, Llywydd, I move amendment 1.

Mark Isherwood, is amendment 1A being moved?

Moved.

Llywydd, I move, in my name, amendments 13, 17, 20, 21, 22 and 23. These six amendments are, or should be, clear in their intent. We believe that a six-month delay to the scheduled election on 6 May would be too long. The Senedd, the National Assembly for Wales, as was, usually sat for four-year terms. Now, the Senedd is sitting for five. A delay to 5 November, bonfire night, would takes us halfway through a sixth year. There is no mandate for the people of Wales for that. Indeed, I'm already receiving emails from concerned members of the public, anxious that their right to vote on 6 May might be taken away from them.

We know that the risks presented by coronavirus, and its variants, are highest in the winter months and that the annual risks to the NHS are greatest in the winter months. I can understand that if there was a sharp rise in cases and the weekly incidence rate per 100,000 rose to the level we saw, for example, last December, there would be a case for delaying the election until the summer. But, surely, we would not seek to delay it until the winter when risks are greater. In fact, the Minister herself made this point when we met online to discuss these matters. We wouldn't support an election on Guy Fawkes night and propose the possible extension be reduced so that 9 September is the last possible date for the Senedd elections, if delayed, although, clearly, the summer months of June or July would be preferable if there had to be any delay at all.

The position of the Welsh Conservatives is clear: we want to see the scheduled election on 6 May go ahead, just as elections have taken place in many other parts of the world during this pandemic. If the election must be delayed because, for instance, we're in an alert level 4 lockdown, that delay should be as short as possible so the people of Wales can elect a new Welsh Government of their choosing. Diolch.

Diolch, Llywydd. Amendments 13 and 17 provide that the last possible date for holding the Senedd general election, postponed under sections 5 and 6 of the Bill, is reduced from 5 November to 9 September. Amendments 21 to 23 make similar provision for Senedd and local authority by-elections by amending section 7 and 8 of the Bill. All these amendments reduce the maximum period of postponement for an election within the scope of this Bill from six months to four months. They reduce the flexibility to set out a Bill and we therefore oppose them. I do not see any merit in changing the last possible date of a postponed election from 5 November to 9 September.

The Bill, as introduced, provides a balance between the flexibility that may be needed in deciding a new date for the poll while also providing a backstop to prevent elections being postponed indefinitely. It would not be our preference for the election to be postponed as late as November, but it's important that such a contingency is available. An election held in the week of 9 September could interfere with the academic year. Schools are due to return from their summer holidays a week prior to this date, meaning that campaigning would be held in the school holidays when many families would be away from home taking their summer vacation. Where schools are used as election venues, this could cause disruption if schools have to close only a week into the autumn term. There is also a risk of disenfranchising students, many of whom will be in the midst of preparing for the start of a new term, including registering to vote at a new address.

I do of course recognise that shortened days and colder weather are often regarded as having negative impacts upon campaigning and turnout, but there is, of course, a precedent for successfully holding elections during the winter months, albeit not during a pandemic, as recently with the UK general election of December 2019, in which turnout was 67.3 per cent across the UK. I do not therefore think this is a driver for limiting the flexibility in the Bill to enable our elections to be held safely in the context of the evolving pandemic, and I urge Members to vote against the amendments in this group. Diolch.

Mark Isherwood, do you wish to respond to the debate?

Briefly. We not only do consider there's merit in these proposals, we know there is merit in these proposals. We're not proposing that elections should be held on 9 September, simply that that should be the last date on which an election, a delayed election, could be held, ensuring that it would have to be held during the summer months before the autumn weather, falling temperatures and the risk—and we hope it won't happen, but the risk—that infection rates might increase again at that point.

There is merit, it is clear, and we urge Members therefore to support this and not allow in any way the possibility that this election could be held, avoidably, during the winter months.

Yes, I see an objection.

Mark Isherwood, is it being moved?

Moved.

Amendment 14.

Moved.

Is that being moved, amendment 16?

Moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 2, tabled in my name, which inserts a new section that provides an enabling power for Welsh Ministers, by regulations, to provide for additional polling days to take place in the period preceding the day of the election. The Scottish Ministers now have a similar power to arrange for additional days of voting, although theirs is for days after the day of the poll.

This power can only be used where the 2021 election has been postponed under section 5 of the Bill. We would have preferred to put in place early voting for 6 May too, but this proved impossible, given the fact that, on current plans, the Senedd election and the PCC elections will take place on the same day and the UK Government, which is responsible for the PCC elections, opposes early voting. Any regulations made under this power will have no effect if the Senedd general election and the police and crime commissioner election are taken on the same day.

These are exceptional times, and I have made it clear that we must consider all options to maximise opportunities for people to participate in the election. We wish to encourage as many people as possible to consider voting by post, particularly those who are shielding. The Electoral Commission’s recent research on public attitudes towards voting in Wales in the context of COVID-19 saw indications of a potential increase in the use of postal voting from previous elections. But we also understand that many people, including some of those newly enfranchised who are voting for the first time, are likely to want to vote in person. The Electoral Commission’s recent research also found that 66 per cent of those who generally vote at a polling station would prefer to continue to do so. Voters aged 16 to 24 were more likely than other age groups to say they would prefer to vote at a polling station. We want to enable in-person voters to do so with as much confidence as possible.

Let me be very clear that polling stations will be safe. Public Health Wales has done detailed work with the Electoral Commission on guidance for polling stations and we are working closely with returning officers to ensure that they have the additional resources they need. But we appreciate that people may still be apprehensive about attending a polling station. By providing for additional voting days, we can help ease congestion at polling stations as well as giving more options for people who are facing a range of pressures in their lives and calls on their time. Of the respondents to the Electoral Commission survey, 46 per cent said they would be very likely to use early voting centres. The reasons we are proposing an enabling power here rather than a system for early voting is that we are still discussing the arrangements with the electoral community. Regulations would be subject to the made affirmative procedure to enable administrators to proceed quickly with the arrangements whilst also giving the Senedd an affirmative vote, and it will be obvious by now to Members that we cannot accept amendment 25, as that is seeking specifically to prevent early voting. Diolch.

I move amendment 25 in my name, and, in consequence, will be voting against the Welsh Government's amendment 2. We recognise the need for voting to take place on a single day and not to be spread over multiple days. An election held over multiple days raises security concerns over the integrity of the election: where will ballot boxes be stored and how will their security be protected and guaranteed? What role will there be for the police or security staff? How will that be paid for, et cetera? What will be the impact on those community venues that have to close to become a polling station, usually for just a day? This raises the spectre of some voters being unduly influenced by how others have voted, and sets an unfavourable precedent we cannot support.

I hope the Welsh Government will be reading with interest the delivery plan published by the UK Government Cabinet office last week, which sets out how elections can be safely run on 6 May 2021 in England and Wales. Given that polling stations in Wales will already be operating an election on 6 May, and 6 May only, to elect police and crime commissioners, it would seem—it would be—bizarre to extend voting by multiple days for another franchise. The Senedd elections must take place on a single day, and in our view that single day should be Thursday, 6 May. Again, I urge Members to think hard and vote the right way to support this amendment.

Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Diolch, Llywydd. I thank Members for their comments. We are, of course, working already with returning officers to establish security arrangements before making any regulations, and, indeed, as Rhun has said, we would be looking to make sure that we delivered a fair, reasonable system of early voting across the length and breadth of Wales that did not favour any particular group of voters, very much with equalities in mind. So, these are matters that are ongoing discussions with our returning officers and our community, and I'm more than happy to discuss it with Members of the Senedd also.

However, at this point in time we are still, of course, aiming to deliver a safe and fair election on 6 May, but as we have said time and time again over the course of the pandemic, we must be prepared for all eventualities. If the election has to be postponed due to the pandemic, we do believe the ability to vote early will not only encourage more voters to participate, but also make the election safer by spreading footfall from one day to several, and we do believe it's prudent and necessary to consider all opportunities to maximise participation for the people of Wales. Therefore, I do urge Members to support the Government amendment 2 and oppose amendment 25. Diolch, Llywydd. 

Mark Isherwood, are you moving amendment 17?

Move.

Mark Isherwood, are you moving amendment 18?

Move. 

Close the vote.

Julie James, are you moving amendment 3? 

Yes, moved. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendments 19 and 24 tabled in my name. These amendments will ensure that the Senedd elections are not repeatedly delayed. In this country, we have a proud history of trying to avoid political interference in our democracy wherever possible. General elections were delayed during the first and second world wards, but between 1945 and 2001, no elections were postponed anywhere in the United Kingdom. I'm sure we all recall the delay to the UK general election from 3 May to 7 June 2001 by Tony Blair, due to a devastating outbreak of foot and mouth disease. We want these elections to go ahead on Thursday 6 May, but if they must be delayed due to unprecedented and exceptional circumstances, and there are to be measures to provide a delay, the election should only be delayed once. We cannot keep holding back democracy. Diolch. 

Diolch, Llywydd. We oppose these amendments, as they reduce the flexibility available to the Llywydd and to the Welsh Government in responding to the pandemic by providing that the powers in sections 7 and 8, to postpone the Senedd and local government by-elections respectively, can only be exercised once. We need the flexibility to do so more than once, as we cannot predict the path of the pandemic with any certainty. Whilst we can take great heart in all we are doing to push down the rates of infection and to roll out the vaccine, it would be irresponsible of us to assume that these efforts remove all public health concerns in the coming months. We are all too familiar, unfortunately, with how unpredictable the path of the pandemic has been. It remains unpredictable and its impacts have been profound. If we did not have the flexibility, we face the possibility of another emergency Bill in challenging circumstances and, potentially, even more challenging timescales. I therefore urge Members to oppose these amendments.

Mark Isherwood to respond to the debate. 

Again, I simply urge Members to listen to the points I made in my opening comments, which have merit and justification; I don't wish to re-rehearse them. To delay any longer than once would be deleterious and should be avoided in all circumstances. We urge Members to support accordingly. 

Move. 

Amendment 21, Mark Isherwood.

Move.

Mark Isherwood, amendment 22.

Move.

Close the vote. 

Mark Isherwood, is 23 being moved?

Moved.

Mark Isherwood, amendment 24, is it being moved?

Move.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendments 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, tabled in my name. Our amendments in this group give effect to recommendations 8 and 9 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's report at Stage 1, which the Welsh Government accepted. The amendments provide that regulations made under sections 8 and 12 will be subject to the made affirmative procedure when they are used to amend primary legislation. Regulations made under sections 8 and 12 that do not amend primary legislation will remain subject to the negative procedure. The section 8 regulation-making power relates to the postponement of local government by-elections, and the section 12 power relates to consequential and transitional and other provisions to give full effect to the Act. The effect of the amendments is that statutory instruments made under these powers will come into force on the day on which they are made, and must be approved by the Senedd within 28 days of being made. Diolch.

Amendment 5, Julie James, is it being moved?

I lipread that. I assume it was moved, yes.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 6, tabled in my name. The amendment is related to the drafting in section 10(4) of the Bill, which modifies paragraph 7 of Schedule 1 to the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007. This makes provision in relation to the closing date for applications for absent voting at Senedd elections. Our policy intention in this section is to extend the categories of people who can apply for an emergency proxy vote. We want to include those who cannot vote in person because they are complying with an enactment relating to coronavirus or following guidance relating to coronavirus issued by the Welsh Ministers, and without the need for medical attestation in support of the application.

Furthermore, we want to help people who already have a proxy vote, which might be for the 2021 election only, for a particular period or indeed for an indefinite period. It is possible that a person with a proxy vote might discover that the individual acting as their proxy can no longer do so because they are complying with an enactment or following guidance relating to coronavirus. In this situation, the Bill provides that the person can apply to change their nominated proxy up to 5 p.m. on polling day. However, the Bill as currently drafted also enables, in the emergency period, a proxy voter to cancel their proxy vote and a person voting as proxy by post to cancel their postal proxy vote. This was not our intention, and so amendment 6 removes this ability to cancel such proxy votes and postal proxy votes. Diolch.

Llywydd, we have some concerns about the Welsh Government's amendment 6. Under normal circumstances, an emergency proxy vote is only permitted until 5 p.m. on polling day in the event of a medical emergency or in cases where people are working away. This amendment gives licence to absolutely anyone to have a proxy vote for almost any reason, setting a dangerous precedent and one that could be open to abuse. We feel very uncomfortable with such a significant change being made in this Bill with such minimal consideration and scrutiny. We'll therefore be voting against the proposal and I encourage others to do the same.

Minister, do you wish to respond?

No, thank you, Llywydd. I have nothing further to add.

Yes. [Objection.] There was an objection—yes. So, we'll move to a vote. 

Llywydd, we will support Plaid Cymru's amendment 35, which seeks to enshrine in legislation the duty on Welsh Government to include in its three-weekly coronavirus review cycle an update on preparations for polling day. We can't see any grounds for the Welsh Government to oppose this amendment, as these are preparations that they will no doubt be making in any event. I therefore hope that they will support this, as we will. Diolch.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Welsh Ministers are under a statutory duty to review the coronavirus regulations in force in Wales and the level of restrictions that are in place. This established cycle of review, which is required at least every 21 days, enables the Government to consider and evaluate the public health position at that time, and to engage with stakeholders and partners before determining the appropriate restrictions that are needed, going forward, to respond to the evolving pandemic.

We have built the forthcoming election into our cycle of reviews, and it will be key to assessing the conditions for the election and the likelihood of postponement. We are therefore very happy to support this amendment. I would also like to reiterate that it is our firm intention that the election will proceed as scheduled on 6 May. Everyone must prepare on that basis. The provisions in this Bill are prudent measures to ensure that we can respond to the impact of the pandemic, and we hope that we never have to use them. Diolch, Llywydd.

Is it being moved, Julie James—amendment 7?

Moved.

Julie James, is it being moved?

Moved. 

Is it being moved?

Moved. 

Is it being moved, Mark Isherwood?

Move.