We now move on to group 4, which is a group of amendments relating to the extension of the right to vote to foreign nationals and associated electoral registration. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 5, and I call on David Melding to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group. David.

Amendment 5 (David Melding) moved.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I move all of the amendments in this group, which are the only amendments. My intention here, Dirprwy Lywydd, is to reverse the amendments made by the Welsh Government at Stage 2, which extend the voting franchise to qualifying foreign citizens. I remain extremely frustrated by the ramshackle way in which the Welsh Government is forcing through such substantial changes to our electoral system in Wales. As I said at Stage 2, piggybacking this particular reform on this piece of legislation is not satisfactory. In fact, it's a very poor form of legislating, to put it mildly, and sets a more general poor precedent for the development of legislative proposals and their scrutiny at the relevant stages.

I have to say, if I was unsure of this at Stage 2, the presence of flip-flopping amendments at Stage 3 have just confirmed that some of the significant electoral changes have not been thought through, and I think the Government has quite a lot to answer for in this respect. This is ultimately—this section—half-baked legislation, and it flies in the face of everything that this institution has achieved over the last eight years in improving the clarity and transparency of law making.

I would have no objection to the Minister bringing forward proposals in his own Bill, which then could be thoroughly scrutinised. At the moment, as I understand it, Irish citizens and Commonwealth citizens will still qualify to vote in Senedd elections. What happens to European citizens who currently are qualified to vote is an important issue, and it's one I think I would probably support in terms of ensuring that they retain their right to the franchise.

I have real difficulties, however, with those citizens who have been welcomed to Wales and are working here and are settled here, but who have not got any firm citizenship and are not in the categories of Commonwealth or current European citizens, receiving the vote without serious consideration. I think we need to look at the grounds on which we think that would be appropriate, and if it is or not. So, that's the sort of examination that we've not had. Therefore, I do think it makes this part of the Bill, as now amended, dysfunctional.

I have to say as well, Llywydd—and your heart will probably sink—that if this remains in the Bill, then our group is probably going to be whipped at Stage 4 to vote against the Bill. I have to say that that is a matter of profound regret to me, and I do not think that a Commission Bill should be lost—if that was a consequence; obviously, it would be up to the Assembly—as a consequence of a major reform not brought by the Member in charge, but sort of hijacked and brought in by the Government. I really think it's a very, very poor show.

So, let's keep this Bill focused on the elements that have been scrutinised. Surely we should agree to that principle. The renaming of the Assembly, the extension of the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds and the reforms to the disqualification criteria: these are really substantial gains. They strengthen our democracy. I really think that bringing in this proposal to allow people who are not citizens or have any citizenship-like relationship currently should not simply occur without serious examination and scrutiny. So, I do hope that Members will agree to reverse the amendments made at Stage 2 and remove this provision from the Bill, and I so move.

Plaid Cymru believes that everyone who lives in Wales has a stake in our nation's future and has the right to help shape it. That's why we support the Government's amendments to extend the right to vote. We do, however, have some questions about the Government's interpretation of its own amendments on extending the franchise to foreign citizens living in Wales. Specifically, we would like clarity from the Government as to whether these amendments are intended to extend the franchise to people seeking asylum, as I understand that the Government does not believe that they do. We believe that these amendments can and should be interpreted to include people who are seeking asylum. The amendments extend the right to vote to 'qualifying foreign citizens', which is defined as including a person who requires leave to remain,

'but for the time being has (or is, by virtue of any enactment, to be treated as having) any description of such leave'.

People seeking asylum should be included in the franchise as they can be understood to fall into this category. This is because while people have an outstanding claim to asylum it's clear that, in many ways, they are treated as having some form of leave to remain. People seeking asylum are on immigration bail, which means that they are permitted to live in the UK while they await a decision on their claim. Their permission to stay may be conditional, but they are here legally, and there's no inherent reason why they cannot, therefore, be given the right to vote.

We know that there's a precedent in Ireland, where people seeking asylum can vote and stand in local elections. Therefore, I would ask the Government to explain why is it that they believe that these amendments do not include people seeking asylum and what is the justification for that. As this is a move towards residency-based, rather than citizenship-based, franchise, why are some people who are legally resident in Wales intended to be excluded from it, and how is this intention compatible with the Welsh Government's stated aim to make Wales the first world nation of sanctuary for refugees and asylum seekers?

Some people live in Wales for years while waiting for a decision on their asylum claim, due to the poor processes and hostile attitudes of the UK Government. How can we say that they are not also residents of this country? They are affected by the decisions that we are making as politicians just as much as anyone else who lives in Wales, and they have an equal right to influence those decisions. If we recognise this principle with regard to other migrants and refugees living in Wales, then it applies equally well to people who are still waiting for a decision on their claim for protection. Immigration status should not be a barrier to political participation.

On the understanding that these amendments are seeking to ensure that everyone who lives in Wales can participate politically, there is no moral or practical argument in my view for excluding people who are seeking asylum. There will be a gap between the intent of these amendments and their effect unless we take them in their most expansive sense to truly include all people living in Wales. I fully support the vision of making Wales the world's first nation of sanctuary, but, if we're going to achieve that, we must embed it in all of our actions. We must say to people seeking asylum that they are welcome, that they are included, and that they too will be able to exercise our most fundamental democratic right.

Dirprwy Lywydd, of course I accept that you received legal advice permitting the Stage 2 amendments that now prompt these Stage 3 amendments. I'm not challenging that, but I do think it's worth reinforcing the points why the Commission, representing the four largest parties in this Chamber, of course, agreed that this particular extension to the franchise should not be included in the Bill as laid.

Like on a number of other controversial issues—the increase in the number of Members being perhaps being the most well aired—Commissioners agreed that this should be a matter for further examination prior to the introduction of a second Bill. And the first reason for that position was the lack of political consensus. There has been no attempt to reach political consensus since then, and this matters. And this matters because of the Llywydd's stated aim of ensuring that this Bill, a Commission Bill, had support from across the political spectrum—a very noble aim, and an important one, as this is not a Government Bill; it was given birth by this Assembly.

And the second reason we didn't include it is because, unlike votes for 16-year-olds or an increase in the number of Members, the introduction of votes for a new category of resident foreign nationals was not the subject of public discourse or any Assembly scrutiny at that point. And it has not been the subject of public discourse or Assembly scrutiny since then.

If an amendment had been tabled in favour of votes for prisoners, at least supporters could have pointed to the work of an Assembly committee and a debate on its findings. Votes for resident foreign nationals would have been a perfectly appropriate addition to the agenda of the committee for Assembly reform or—as was initially anticipated by the Commission—the next Assembly. 

While I accept that Welsh Government has been looking at this question in the context of local government, the content of these amendments was not in any party's Assembly manifesto in 2016 and really has only come to public attention very recently, following announcements made at this year's UK Labour Party conference. Now, instead of bringing forward its own Bill, Welsh Government has hijacked this one—I reinforce the word that David Melding has used, and strangely on this occasion is supported by Plaid, who were making arguments precisely this hijacking when we were talking about the name of this Bill.

So, we've got this in front of us now without anything like scrutinised evidence in favour of extending the franchise to resident foreign nationals. I would have liked to hear that evidence, as we did in favour of votes for prisoners, but none has been presented to this Assembly—no questions of how to reach these new voters, how to ensure that they understand their new rights, the whole issue of refugees and asylum seekers, as raised by Leanne there, no consideration of an appropriate period of residency, no examination of this in the context of citizenship, and certainly no consideration of any new cost to the Commission of the awareness-raising work needed to reach an estimated 30,000 new voters. There is no new provision for this in the budget on which you've just voted. 

We should not be passing laws in this way. When I went campaigning for a Welsh Parliament 40 years ago, I could not have foreseen how little regard it would have from time to time for the thoroughness of legislative process. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee complained about the lack of scrutiny that the Electoral Commission proposals have received in this, but at least it had some. Imagine what they would say about this?

Yesterday, we were filling in the gaps on the minimum alcohol pricing legislation, a law we passed without evidence on what an effective minimum alcohol price would be. We're in the process of passing a smacking ban Bill, without any certainty as to how the police and the CPS intend to deal with parents. And now we have these amendments passing in a vacuum, which will become law on the back of no public mandate. Why on earth did you just not go the whole hog and table amendments on additional Members or the voting system?

I want to know an answer to this: why now? What is the rush? What's the advantage and to whom? This Bill doesn't create a common franchise for Welsh elections. These amendments presume that Welsh Government will succeed in introducing the equivalent rights in local government elections at some point. And at least that twinkle in the Government's eye has seen some preliminary work and will prompt full consultation and scrutiny. Yes, the prospect of resident foreign nationals voting in local and municipal elections will get full scrutiny, as it will have done in several other countries that have permitted this. But, in creating a right to vote in elections to a national legislature, a global rarity is happening on the back of pre-determined cuckooing of this Bill. 

This Bill is a novel and exciting way of legislating, but I'm afraid it's become a crushing disappointment. It will take a lot now to persuade me of the merits of a Commission bringing forward Bills in future. And for someone who really feels the privilege of being a parliamentarian, I am saddened more than I can say.

Can I call on the Counsel General?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. David Melding's amendments deal with both the potential voting rights and the potential candidacy for election to and membership of the Senedd of qualifying foreign citizens.

And I think, in dealing with the amendments, I will just reflect on how we are in our present position. As David and Suzy's remarks have of course indicated, the Bill as introduced made no provision for the extension, but at Stage 2 the Assembly has supported that principle, as it did the principle of extending the rights of candidacy and membership of the Senedd.

David's amendments in this group obviously invite us to reverse that Stage 2 set of decisions by removing all the new references inserted at that stage—amendment 5 would take out section 11, which confers the voting rights, and amendment 61 would omit the provision in Schedule 3 to the Bill that effectively permits qualifying foreign citizens to stand for and be Members. The other amendments are consequential on that.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Thank you for that, Counsel General. In amendment 160 in the previous group, you've committed to allowing post-legislative scrutiny on a range of factors relating to this Bill. Would you commit here to include the review on the effectiveness of this legislation in connection with foreign nationals as well?

I thank the Member for that intervention. The scrutiny provisions already encompass provision to report on the effectiveness of these provisions in relation to the extension of the franchise to qualifying foreign citizens and also the candidacy provisions and the membership provisions. So, I wanted to encompass within that broader review mechanism the full spectrum of the changes to the Bill that we hope will prevail into Stage 4, for the reason that her question implies.

In the Government's view, amendments 5 and 61, and those consequentials, should be rejected. The practical effect of restoring the position to the position before these amendments were introduced in the Bill means that there are distinctions that none of us, I think, would regard as particularly sensible. So, a Swedish citizen resident in Wales can be registered to vote, but a Norwegian citizen likewise resident here cannot be registered to vote, because Norway happens to be a member of the EEA and not the EU. I would contend that, in our globalised world, those distinctions aren't defensible. And, in these particular times, we should be reminding everyone that Wales remains open to the world and values the contribution of all who have made their home here in Wales. 

And to the point in relation to public engagement with this question, the Assembly Commission's own consultation on creating a Parliament for Wales asked whether all those legally resident in Wales should be allowed to vote in Assembly elections, irrespective of their nationality or citizenship, and 66 per cent of those respondents agreed that they should. So, the test of whether someone should be able to vote for, stand for, or be a member of, the Senedd should be whether they are lawfully resident here in Wales—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

You've just made the argument that there was some consultation on this by the Commission itself in relation to this matter, and yet you completely ignored the outcome of the consultation in relation to the issue of the name of the Senedd—or some people have. What would you say to the inconsistency of arguments? I appreciate that you've supported a bilingual name for this institution, but you certainly haven't for the Members of this institution. 

Well, the response to the consultation on the name of the institution obviously has weighed in our considerations in relation to that, for the reason that he gives. So, I think the consultation response has been an important contribution to the development of the position in relation to this and in relation to the name of the institution. 

So, in conclusion, I want to invite the Senedd to reject those of David's amendments that would preclude qualifying foreign citizens from voting in or being candidates in Senedd elections, or from membership here. 

In response to the points that Leanne Wood raised in her contribution in the debate, individuals whose claim for asylum has been granted will have refugee status and leave to remain in the UK and will be able to register and to vote. And the same can be said for those who've been granted temporary protection or humanitarian protection or other forms of leave to remain in the UK. And, under the definition in the Act, any period of leave to remain entitles a person to register to vote. 

Can I call the Llywydd?

Can I ask—? I'm sorry, I couldn't understand the Counsel General's explanation on that last point. I'd be grateful if—

Are you asking for a point of clarification?

Yes, I am.

Right. A point of clarification, Counsel General. 

Where a claim for asylum has been granted, and leave to remain comes with that, then individuals will be able to register and to vote. I hope that provides the clarification. 

So, the extension of—. Sorry—[Interruption.] This is an important point, and it reflects some of what we've heard this afternoon. So, the franchise is being extended far more widely than perhaps some of us realised when we first voted on these matters. 

Well, the definition of 'qualifying foreign citizen' that is used in the Bill is the same definition that is used in immigration law generally, and it ties the right to vote to leave to remain, or not requiring leave to remain. And there are some examples that are subsets of that, which are examples that I've just given. But the test is whether someone has leave to remain or doesn't require leave to remain, and the definition in the Bill reflects that test.

Okay. Thank you. I call the Llywydd.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The explanatory memorandum of the Bill notes the rationale of the Assembly Commission in deliberately choosing not to include the enfranchisement of foreign nationals in the Bill on introduction. The Assembly Commission determined that there was no clear cross-party consensus on this issue due to the complexity of the arguments around it. In the absence of such consensus, the Commission wasn't of the view that it was appropriate to make changes to the law on the current franchise to include foreign nationals in this particular Bill. However, I do want to offer a few contextual comments for Members to consider before they vote this afternoon.

First, it's important to remind ourselves of the report of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, which noted in its Stage 1 report that extending voting rights to foreign nationals would represent a significant change to the electoral franchise. The committee believed that provisions of this nature should be included in a Bill on introduction, rather than amend the Senedd and elections Bill later in the legislative process. These points were at the heart of David Melding's comments. And as David Melding reminded me specifically, as the Llywydd in being the Member in charge of this Bill, a two-thirds majority of Members will be required for this Bill to pass at Stage 4. Therefore, maintaining cross-party consensus is important to the success of this legislation in its entirety, and it does concern me that one aspect could put at risk that majority necessary for Stage 4.

On the other hand, it's also important, as the Counsel General stated, Members will recall that 66 per cent of respondents to the Assembly Commission's consultation did support the statement that all Welsh residents should be able to vote in Assembly elections irrespective of nationality. Of course, we are aware that that consultation also noted the administrative advantages of the Assembly franchise being joined up with the local government franchise. We are aware of the changes proposed by the Government in due course in that particular area.

Amendments 61 to 63 in the name of David Melding would also disqualify qualifying foreign citizens from standing for election to the Assembly, removing provisions that were inserted into the Bill at Stage 2. Again, this is not an issue that the Assembly Commission has a position on. The Commission did not consult on this issue at all and, therefore, this was not in the original Bill. Having said that, some Members may believe that allowing qualifying foreign citizens to stand for election would be consistent with the policy proposals on disqualification that are included in the Bill, namely to allow as many people as possible to stand for election to the Assembly.

It won't be me, as the Member in charge of the Bill, who takes ownership of this policy, neither, as Suzy Davies noted very clearly, is it the policy of the Assembly Commission. But it's the Assembly as a whole that will take ownership of this Bill at the end of voting today, and it's important that we bear that in mind as we move to Stage 4.

Thank you. Can I call on David Melding to reply to the debate? 

Diolch i chi, Llywydd. These issues have now been fully aired, but one fact remains: this momentous change in the franchise has not been fully scrutinised. In fact, it's not received any primary legislative scrutiny at the appropriate stages, when committees are able to look at the principle, call witnesses, ask for an explanation of how these changes may be applied in practice. There are all sorts of issues involved in moving away from, at the moment, the principle of some basis on citizenship being recognised. That is, at the minute, how we permit Irish citizens, European citizens and citizens of the Commonwealth to vote. We've not been able to examine anything like how long would they have to reside, if they have the right to reside. What happens when very rich people who have settled here, bringing large sums of money, then want to campaign and stand as candidates? Now, there are all sorts of things happening out there in the world that are difficult to anticipate. Do people who have retained a citizenship of another country then have the right to vote in the equivalent level elections in that country whilst also voting in this country? We abolished double voting in local government, I think, in the mid 1940s, if I recall. Now, these are fundamental issues. They may not be substantial enough to stop progress on this matter. I mean, I don't know the answers to those questions I've just raised. But the problem is that none of us have had the opportunity to put them or have them appropriately examined. And if you really thought this was a profound principle, you would do it in your own legislation in the full sight of Assembly Members. You are not doing that. This is slipshod or worse. You should know better. 

Thank you. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to a vote. Open the vote. Has everybody who wants to vote voted? No, you haven't. [Interruption.] Excuse me, I'll close the vote when I'm ready, thank you. Close the vote. For the motion 17, no abstentions, 38 against. Therefore, amendment 5 is not agreed.

Amendment 5: For: 17, Against: 38, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

David Melding, amendment 6. 

Not moved. 

Not moved. Thank you.

Amendment 6 (David Melding) not moved.

Darren Millar, amendment 103. 

Amendment 103 (Darren Millar) moved.

Moved.

The question is amendment 103 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Okay, we go to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 44 against. Therefore, amendment 103 is not agreed.

Amendment 103: For: 10, Against: 44, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

David Melding, amendment 7. 

Not moved. 

Not moved. Thank you.

Amendment 7 (David Melding) not moved.

Darren Millar, amendment 104. Move? 

Amendment 104 (Darren Millar) moved.

Moved.

The question is amendment 104 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we will proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, one abstention, 44 against. Therefore, 104 is not agreed. 

Amendment 104: For: 10, Against: 44, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, 105. 

Amendment 105 (Darren Millar) moved.

Moved. 

The question is amendment 105 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. So, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, one abstention, 44 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. 

Amendment 105: For: 10, Against: 44, Abstain: 1

Amendment has been rejected

David Melding, amendment 8.

Not moved. 

Not moved. Thank you.

Amendment 8 (David Melding) not moved.

Darren Millar, amendment 106. 

Can I propose, Deputy Presiding Officer, that 106 to 109 be taken en bloc? 

No, you can't, because we've been through it.

Can't I? Even though I move. Just trying to make things more efficient. 

No, no. So, Darren Millar, amendment 106.

Amendment 106 (Darren Millar) moved.

Yes, move. 

Moved. The question is amendment 106 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, 106 is not agreed.

Amendment 106: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, amendment 107. 

Amendment 107 (Darren Millar) moved.

Moved. 

Moved. The question is amendment 107 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we go to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 107 is not agreed. 

Amendment 107: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, amendment 108.

Amendment 108 (Darren Millar) moved.

Moved.

The question is amendment 108 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. And open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 108 is not agreed.

Amendment 108: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, amendment 109.

Amendment 109 (Darren Millar) moved.

Moved.

If amendment 109 is agreed, amendments 9 and 10 will fall. The question is amendment 109 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. And open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 109 is not agreed.

Amendment 109: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

David Melding, amendment 9.

Not moved.

Not moved. Thank you.

Amendment 9 (David Melding) not moved.

David Melding, amendment 10.

Not moved.

Not moved. 

Amendment 10 (David Melding) not moved.

Darren Millar, amendment 110.

Amendment 110 (Darren Millar) moved.

Moved.

Thank you. The question is amendment 110 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. And open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 110 is not agreed.

Amendment 110: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, amendment 111.

Amendment 111 (Darren Millar) moved.

Moved.

The question is amendment 111 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we will proceed to an electronic vote. And open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 111 is not agreed.

Amendment 111: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, 112.

Amendment 112 (Darren Millar) moved.

Moved.

Moved. If amendment 112 is agreed, amendments 11 and 12 fall. The question is amendment 112 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, proceed to an electronic vote. And open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 112 is not agreed.

Amendment 112: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

David Melding, amendment 11.

Not moved.

Not moved.

Amendment 11 (David Melding) not moved.

David Melding, amendment 12.

Not moved.

Not moved.

Amendment 12 (David Melding) not moved.

Darren Millar, amendment 113.

Amendment 113 (Darren Millar) moved.

Moved.

If amendment 113 is agreed, amendments 13, 14 and 15 will fall. The question is amendment 113 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. And open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 113 is not agreed.

Amendment 113: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

David Melding, amendment 13.

Not moved.

Not moved. Thank you.

Amendment 13 (David Melding) not moved.

David Melding, amendment 14.

Not moved.

Thank you.

Amendment 14 (David Melding) not moved.

David Melding, amendment 15.

Not moved.

Amendment 15 (David Melding) not moved.

Darren Millar, amendment 114.

Yes, I'm prepared to move them right down to 118 and vote en bloc, if it was possible.

No. Darren Millar, amendment 114.

Amendment 114 (Darren Millar) moved.

I move. I move.

Have you moved amendment 114?

I have moved it. Yes.

Sorry.

I'll insist on moving every single one. Just to warn everybody.

The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 114. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 114 is not agreed.

Amendment 114: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, amendment 115.

Amendment 115 (Darren Millar) moved.

Move.

The question is amendment 115 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. And open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 115: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, amendment 116.

Amendment 116 (Darren Millar) moved.

Move.

The question is that amendment 116 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. And open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, no abstentions, 44 against. Therefore amendment 116 is not agreed.

Amendment 116: For: 10, Against: 44, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, amendment 117.

Amendment 117 (Darren Millar) moved.

I move. 

The question is amendment 117 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 44 against. Therefore, amendment 117 is not agreed. 

Amendment 117: For: 10, Against: 44, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Darren Millar, 118.

Amendment 118 (Darren Millar) moved.

I move. 

If amendment 118 is agreed, amendment 16 falls. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 10, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 118 is not agreed. 

Amendment 118: For: 10, Against: 45, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected