The first group of amendments relates to local government elections. The lead amendment is amendment 84, and I call on Mark Isherwood to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Mark Isherwood.

Amendment 84 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Good afternoon. Amendments 84, 85 and 103 seek to remove the current provision that extends the right to vote in local government elections for all foreign citizens, regardless of citizenship. Most countries and nations that allow non-citizens to vote have a minimum residency requirement. For example, to be eligible to vote in New Zealand, the person has to have lived continuously in the country for 12 months, whilst to vote in regional and municipal elections in Denmark, for example, a person has to have had permanent residence in the country for three years before the date of the election. However, if these amendments fall, our belief that voting rights should be attached to a person's citizenship is reflected in our amendment 104, which is a compromise amendment to introduce a minimum residency requirement of three years, reflecting the pretty much average norm across the world, for qualifying foreign citizens to be eligible to vote in local government elections.

As I stated in the Stage 1 debate, currently Irish and Commonwealth citizens and relevant EU citizens can vote in local government and devolved elections, but this Bill would enable all foreign citizens legally resident in Wales to vote in local government elections. There's a long-standing reciprocal agreement between the UK and the Republic of Ireland as a consequence of the historic relationship between both countries, and the ability of Commonwealth citizens to vote at UK elections is a legacy of the Representation of the People Act 1918. However, this Bill, we believe, proposes a step too far. At least most of the few countries that allow foreign citizens to vote have a minimum residency requirement, but even that is missing here. As David Melding said when scrutinising similar provisions in this Senedd and elections Bill,

'their citizenship should determine where they principally vote, and if they make the choice not to pursue citizenship here, then it's their choice not to have political rights to the extent of voting in our elections'.

Amendments 86 and 87 place a specific duty on Welsh Ministers to introduce a national framework to promote awareness of the extension of the franchise for 16 and 17-year-olds and to develop a national framework on promoting awareness on political education. These amendments respond to the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee's recommendation 2, which argued that the Bill should be amended to include specific provision that will add some adequate level of education on politics and democracy in Wales across all schools.

The Electoral Reform Society, or ERS, recommends that the Bill should be amended to include specific provision to roll out an adequate level of education on politics and democracy in Wales across all schools. In particular, they say, young people from the ages of 14 and 15 should receive this education to prepare them for voting at 16 years old. This programme of political awareness should be accompanied by clear lesson plans, they said, to empower teachers to deliver the lessons.

During Stage 2 of this Bill, the Minister argued against this amendment, stating that the new Curriculum for Wales will allow teachers to decide how to deliver education tailored to the specific needs of their pupils. This includes political education, which will come under the core purpose of supporting learners to become ethical and informed citizens of Wales and the world, highlighting opportunities to explore politics within the curriculum through the Welsh baccalaureate as part of the global citizenship challenge. As the Electoral Reform Society states, however, the reality is that, both at present and even in the context of the new curriculum, the teaching of political education will be at the discretion of teachers, and that is regardless of the amount of resources available. In the future, like now, there will therefore be pupils with different tiers of understanding of how decisions in Wales are made, and those on the lowest tier will struggle to better know how they can make their voices heard within their society. As the Electoral Reform Society said to me just 11 days ago, 'We worry about not including an implicit requirement that all pupils are taught politics as part of the curriculum. Having read and listened to Welsh Government on the matter', they said, 'they place a heavy emphasis that there will be first-class resources available but, again, there would be no guarantee that, in a purpose-led curriculum, they would be used.' Our amendment, therefore, seeks to ensure that there is consistency of political education and awareness across Wales. This issue is too important to do otherwise in a nation struggling with a democratic deficit already.

Amendment 99 seeks to ensure that Welsh Government fully involves stakeholders before making rules on the conduct of local elections in Wales. In its Stage 1 report, the Equality, Local Government and Communities Committee suggested that the Welsh Government engages with principal councils and communities before reforming the electoral arrangements. Our amendment seeks to go further than the committee's suggestion by making it a requirement to actively involve principal and community councils as well as local communities to ensure that any changes to electoral arrangements are co-produced by the communities that they affect, rather than them being imposed upon them. Our amendment would also bring this Bill in line with the seven well-being goals and five ways of working required of public bodies in order to meet their duties under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, too often ignored in practice.

As I argued in the Stage 1 committee debate, it is therefore deeply concerning that the Minister rejected the committee recommendation that the Welsh Government undertakes an engagement programme with the Welsh Local Government Association. During Stage 2 proceedings, the Minister stated that the Welsh Government believes that the Welsh Ministers should consult those they deem appropriate, and this would include those listed in this amendment when developing the rules for local government elections in Wales. However, our amendment will ensure that stakeholders are fully involved in the co-production of rules for local government elections, by being included on the face of the Bill, turning rhetoric into reality about empowering local communities.

Amendments 101, 102 and 147 seek to amend the provisions relating to registration without application to ensure that individuals registered in this way are placed on the closed full electoral register rather than the open full register—I should say the 'closed register' rather than the 'open full register'. These amendments seek to respond to concerns about the current provision included within the Bill that means that people who are registered without application are automatically placed on the open register. Academics Toby James and Paul Bernal from the University of East Anglia argue that the edited register is made freely available for purchase to companies and third parties with no restrictions on its use. It serves no purpose for the running of the election. It is likely that citizens will know little that their data is being used in this way. Information about the Welsh electorate would therefore be for sale without their active consent. We therefore propose that the Bill is amended so that automatically registered citizens are not added to the edited register by default. Cytûn, Churches Together in Wales, stated that the current requirement to write to individuals notifying them of automatic registration is not sufficient, as many people in certain circumstances do not respond to official correspondence. Furthermore, Cytûn raised a specific concern about the current registration provision. They state that, by placing people on the open register, this may impact on some individuals who have purposely chosen not to register for fear of being identified by a violent former partner or others who may wish to harm them. As such, our amendment gives people the option of being placed on the open register, rather than being automatically placed on the open register.

At Stage 2, the Minister argued that, quote,

'I believe voters should be given a choice about how their information is used.... As such, the provisions as drafted will allow a person to make their wishes known to the ERO', the electoral registration officer. However, this misses the point of our amendment. Our amendment seeks to ensure that people placed on the electoral register without application are automatically placed on the closed register and given the choice to be placed on the open register, rather than vice versa. This is to ensure that people who have purposely not chosen to be on the electoral register continue to be protected, whilst fulfilling the aim of the Bill of improving voter registration.

Amendment 105 seeks to expand the definition of politically restricted posts that are disqualified from becoming a member of a local authority. The amendment modifies the definition of politically restricted posts in section 2 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 by including any council employee who provides advice and support on a regular basis to an elected member or elected members of the authority. This broadens the current scope of the provision, which refers to giving advice on a regular basis to any member of the executive who is also a member of the authority. The Bill as drafted will allow council staff to stand for their own council without having to resign first. We support this. However, our amendment clarifies and ensures that any officer who has regular contact with and provides advice for and support for elected members, and who may have a significant conflict of interest should they stand for the council that they are an employee of, is not able to stand for election without resigning first.

In Stage 2, the Minister argued that she would not accept our amendment, as she said:

'I want more people to stand for election to councils in Wales, so I could not without good reason support a provision that sought to bar more people from standing for election.'

Our intention is not to reduce the number of people who stand for election. Our provision would still allow more people to stand for election. And whilst we agree that most council staff should be able to stand for their own council without having to resign first, the purpose of our amendment is to broaden the definition of politically restricted posts, which currently is very narrowly defined, reflecting the fact that there is not a formal separation of power between the executive and legislature within a principal council, and the same council officers, therefore, support both cabinet and backbenchers, unlike the separation between the staff supporting parliaments and the civil servants supporting Government in this place and elsewhere. In other words, we seek to avoid inevitable conflicts of interest that would otherwise arise.

Amendment 106 seeks to bring the regulations for online paid-for political advertisements—

Mark Isherwood, if I can just cut across you for one second, you have 10 minutes to introduce your amendments, and you're now on 12 minutes. You will have time to close this group as well, so can you conclude your introductory comments? I'll call you at the end of the group again to return to any issues you need to address.

Okay. Well, I will conclude at that point, then, and pick up, as you say, the remaining points in my conclusion. Thank you.

I oppose the granting of rights to vote on the basis of being a foreigner in this country who is not prepared to take the ultimate step of taking out citizenship. In medieval times, all citizens' rights ultimately derived from the concept of allegiance to the monarch. Well, we've moved on, in democratic terms, from that, but, ultimately, this is all about allegiance to one's country. And it is a fundamental doing of damage, in my view, to that concept of national cohesion that that represents.

After all, the right to vote is one of the most important of the rights of citizenship, and I think you've got to have a long-term commitment to this country in order to be worthy of it. If you're only resident in this country for a relatively short period of time and you have no intention, possibly, of making your residence in this country permanent, I, personally, do not see why you should be given the right to determine the country's long-term interests.

This is an unusual provision internationally as well. Most EU countries do not grant rights such as we're being asked to grant this afternoon. Certainly, the bigger countries—France, Germany, Italy, Poland—none of them grants the right to vote in their elections to foreigners. I believe it's a fundamental devaluing of citizenship and, indeed, of the concept of naturalisation, which, of course, changes the legal circumstances in which one lives.

I think that, ultimately, this is all about your commitment to the country in which you live; it's not simply a transaction that you get in exchange for paying taxes. After all, all sorts of people pay taxes simply by the fact of purchasing something in a shop and paying value added tax on it, but that, in itself, shouldn't be a justification for granting them a vote. I believe that this is a very solemn issue, which we are treating in a relatively trivial way.

Of course, we all know why this is being done, because, as a result of the shock that Brexit gave to the metropolitan elites, this was one of the things that they decided to do in order, perhaps, to make a second referendum produce a different result. This is a relic of two years ago, when it was developed as part of the Labour Party's policy. I believe that that is a reprehensible reason for making a change of this kind, which has very wide repercussions indeed. But Labour's dwindling voter base, of course, has had to be shored up in various ways. Mass migration under the Blair Government was almost explicitly brought in in order to, as Andrew Neather, who was an adviser to the Blair Government, wrote in a moment of candour in an article, I think, in the Evening Standard—he said that mass migration was intended, even if it wasn't its main purpose, to

'rub the right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.'

I believe that this notion of extending voting rights to those who fundamentally do not have allegiance to our country is part of that agenda. It is to bolster the potential for those whom the Labour Party think are going to choose them, or other parties of the left, rather than parties of the right. So, fundamentally, I think that this strikes at the very heart of British democracy. For that reason, I hope that it will be defeated. Thank you.

I welcome the opportunity to consider amendments to the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Bill today. Turning to the amendments, I'm afraid I reject amendments 84 and 85 and call on Members to do the same. The Welsh Government has made it very clear over the last four years that the franchise for devolved elections should include those legally resident in Wales. We believe that anyone contributing to our social or economic life should have the right to vote in devolved elections on the issues that affect their daily lives.

Last year, the Senedd voted to extend the franchise for its elections to qualifying foreign citizens, and I believe this should be replicated for local government. Two different franchises for devolved elections in Wales would be unfair to voters, a fact Members have raised previously in this Siambr. I do not believe there is any reason why someone voting in a Senedd election should not be able to vote in a local government election. Those who are affected by the decisions of local government should be able to elect their representatives. In addition, when we consulted on this matter in 2017, 73 per cent of respondents agreed that everyone living in Wales should be able to vote, irrespective of where they were born.

I also reject amendment 103. The extension of the franchise to qualifying foreign citizens should extend to those citizens being able to stand for office. We recognise that standing for office requires a person to have a strong connection with and commitment to the community they serve. Such a connection is an inherent part of the qualification to stand for office set out in the Local Government Act 1972. In addition, any qualifying foreign citizen standing for local government office must either not require leave to enter or remain in the UK, or have been granted leave to enter or remain as set out in the Immigration Act 1971, or are treated as such by law.

I also cannot support amendment 104. There are no UK residency requirements placed on any other category of candidate for local elections in Wales. I do not believe that it is appropriate to require a qualifying foreign citizen to meet additional requirements when, for example, a Commonwealth citizen may, provided they meet the eligibility criteria, stand regardless of how long they have been in the UK.

Section 22 of the Bill, as introduced, restates existing provision in respect of expenditure by returning officers at local elections in Wales, applying the provision specifically to Wales by inserting new section 36C into the Representation of the People Act 1983. As this provision is a restatement of existing legislation, it is more appropriate for inclusion in a Schedule, and as such amendment 62 moves this provision to Schedule 2 to the Bill, whilst amendment 2 removes section 22. This is consistent with other provisions in the Bill. Amendment 79 is consequential to these amendments and removes existing provisions in respect of the coming into force of section 22.

I also call on Members to reject amendment 86. Helping young people to develop a good understanding of democratic processes is a vital part of extending the franchise, and this Bill already makes provisions in this respect, placing a duty upon principal councils to promote awareness and provide assistance among relevant young people of the arrangements to register and to vote. In tabling this amendment, the Member has not taken into account the new arrangements set out in the Curriculum and Assessment (Wales) Bill.

Amendment 87 does also not take into account the curriculum and assessment Bill, as it includes a duty on local authorities, whereas the new curriculum is being designed, adopted and implemented at a school level, not at a local authority level. We have been clear in our intention that the new curriculum will allow teachers to decide how to deliver education tailored to the specific needs of their pupils. One of the four purposes of the new curriculum is to support learners in becoming

'ethical, informed citizens of Wales and the world'.

Good education on politics and democracy would be an essential part of the delivery of this core purpose. Preparing young people for active engagement in society is an important aspect of our education system, and we want to see all our young people develop as ethical, informed citizens who understand and exercise their human and democratic responsibilities and rights. Young people, as they begin their democratic journey, will learn through the humanities area of learning and experience in the new curriculum, where learners from the ages of three to 16 will have an understanding of the different structures and systems for governance that exist in Wales, their democratic rights and responsibilities, including their voting rights, as well as learning about historical, geographical, economic and societal topics in this area.

In order to help support the delivery of political education, not only in schools but also in settings such as youth clubs and so on, a resource pack, Vote2Voice, has been made available on Hwb. Further resources for professional learning support and the Welsh baccalaureate are also planned from next April. In addition, we are working with regional education consortia to provide professional support for teachers, including guidelines to enable them to confidently deal with situations that may arise in lessons, such as how to deal with controversial political issues. I therefore do not consider amendment 86 and amendment 87 to be appropriate or necessary and ask Members to reject them.

Whilst I understand the broad principles that underpin amendment 99, I do reject it, as I do not consider it appropriate or necessary. The Bill as amended at Stage 2 already requires the Welsh Ministers to consult with appropriate persons before making rules in respect of the conduct of local elections. I would anticipate such a consultation capturing persons such as the Electoral Commission, electoral administrators, returning officers, members of local authorities and other groups with an interest in the changes being made, as appropriate. In addition, the amendment as drafted refers to 'involve', and whilst I entirely understand what the Member is aiming to achieve, 'involve' is not consistent with terms used elsewhere in Welsh legislation, and I do not believe it is appropriate here. I consider that the provision as drafted already delivers what amendment 99 is seeking to achieve.

I also cannot support amendments 102 and 147, and, by extension, amendment 101. I believe voters should be given a choice about how their information is used. Some may wish their details to be excluded from the edited register and the provisions as drafted will allow a person to make their wishes known to the ERO. Amendments 101, 102 and 147 would result in a person being prevented from being included on the edited register, even if they gave consent, thereby removing a person's choice. It should be noted that the provisions around registration of local government electors without application will be commenced by Order at a future date. Ahead of bringing these provisions into force, we will work with electoral administrators and key stakeholders to ensure that they and voters understand the changes and are aware of the safeguards in the provision. 

Turning to amendment 105, I want more people to stand for elections to councils in Wales so I could not, without good reason, support a provision that sought to bar more people from standing for election. This amendment was debated at Stage 2, as Mark Isherwood acknowledged, and, in my view, a good reason has not been given as to why it is needed. 

The Local Government and Housing Act 1989 is already very clear in capturing far more than just those officers who provide advice on a regular basis to the executive, or to any member of the executive. In addition to those officers, any officer who gives advice on a regular basis to the full council, any committee or sub-committee of the council, or to any joint committee of the council, must also be included in the list. It is highly unlikely that any council officer will be called upon to give advice on a regular basis to an individual councillor outside the mechanisms of full council or committee meetings. I therefore reject amendment 105 as I do not consider that it would achieve anything and I fear that it would only create more bureaucracy. 

Whilst understanding the principle behind amendment 106, I do not agree with the amendment itself. We are committed to improving the quality of information presented to voters and to making clear who is responsible for the information provided.  However, as social media companies are based across the world, and as social media advertisements cross over the England and Wales border, the most effective way to tackle this is on a pan-UK basis, while we are not restricted by the Senedd's legislative competence. As such, we will continue to work closely with the UK Government to develop a consistent regime across the all administrations that supports voters with clear information around the origins of political messaging.

Amendment 66 entitles candidates at principal and community council elections, and certain local government elected office holders, to access young persons’ information. This relates to specified details of electors and attainers under the age of 16, as contained on the local government electoral register. The amendment also extends a regulation-making power in section 26 of the Senedd Act, enabling the Welsh Ministers to make further provision about who is entitled to access this information in relation to local government elections and referendums.

Amendment 56 provides for the coming into force of the provisions inserted by amendment 66, whilst amendments 1, 64, 65 and 67 are consequential to amendment 66 and make minor technical amendments to the Bill. Amendments 58 to 61 are all technical amendments that ensure consistency and clarity across the Bill in relation to references to documents and to information. 

These amendments refine existing provision to provide that Welsh Ministers may, in relation to an initial review undertaken under Schedule 1, direct principal councils to provide the boundary commission with documents or information, or direct the commission to provide documents or information. Diolch.

Mark Isherwood to respond to the debate.

A disappointing but predictable response, I suppose. I think the Minister began by referring to a 2017 survey and the percentage of respondents. Those were unrepresentative samples and she knows as well as I do that our amendments seek to reflect, through public opinion on this matter, across the political spectrum, where voting and citizenship are important matters. They're part of a rite of passage, a new commitment, a new identity, and something that is acknowledged globally in western liberal democracies as something that should not be granted automatically. Our proposals are not radical, they're simply seeking to implement the national good practice by having a minimum residency period as a compromise.

In terms of education on politics, apparently you would not take account of curriculum reforms and the Bill already provides for the concern to be raised. No, it doesn't. And, yes, we have already taken account of curriculum reforms. My amendments reflect, as I said, concerns highlighted by the Electoral Reform Society, because as the Bill is drafted and as the Minister seems intent on pursuing, this will lead to some young people in Wales being very well informed, but a tiered process, with many others not understanding as well as they should how the system in their nation operates.

We hear a lot of rhetoric about citizen empowerment, community voice and community engagement, but again, Welsh Government seeks to remove amendments that would actually put teeth upon such concepts and turn them into a living reality in our communities. The word 'involve' is a key word within a huge international sector working on community empowerment, community engagement and what's commonly become referred to as a 'co-production'. It goes massively beyond the less—[Inaudible.]—words that mean other things, such as 'consultation' or 'working together'. 'Involvement' means equality of voice. It means mutual respect. It means having to do things together for common good and with true commitment.

The electoral register comments, again, failed to acknowledge the need to protect certain vulnerable people who, under the proposals, will still risk being exposed when they've chosen not to be.

Our proposals will still enable far more local government officers to stand for election. I know the Minister had an extensive career in local government and knows far more than I how the practicalities work, but I do know, as somebody who was married to a county councillor and knows personally dozens of county councillors across all the parties, every single day an effective councillor is working closely with officers, seeking advice and support. It's not every officer, all day, and therefore it's a small cohort we're talking about, but those people would be put in a very difficult situation, as would the councillors, as the Bill is currently proposed.

Finally, I'd like to support our proposal to bring regulations for online paid-for political advertisements in line with printed paid-for political advertisements. This should be a no-brainer. Because, currently, printed literature, such as leaflets, require an imprint detailing information regarding who paid for the material to be promoted. The Electoral Commission said that imprints on digital election material would help them to enforce the spending rules, to have a clearer picture of whom they need to register in order to submit a spending plan afterwards. The Scottish Government has recently made digital imprints a requirement for parliamentary and local elections. The UK Government is also in the process of introducing comprehensive digital imprints legislation. The Minister did say at Stage 2 that she was sympathetic to this principle, but the Welsh Government will work with the UK Government to develop a consistent regime across the jurisdiction. Normally, I'd strongly support that joined-up approach. We understand her view, but we believe that Wales should lead the way, enhancing accountability and transparency in digital political advertising and should use its powers to improve political advertising standards to enhance Welsh democracy.

In order to enhance Welsh democracy, I will be moving all these amendments, appealing to Members to consider what's actually behind them, rather than some of the party political rhetoric we've heard.

The question is that amendment 84 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, in accordance with Standing Order 12.18 I will suspend the meeting temporarily in order to prepare for the vote on these first amendments. So, I will suspend the session temporarily.

Plenary was suspended at 16:38.

The Senedd reconvened at 16:46, with the Llywydd in the Chair.

The first vote is on amendment 84 in the name of Mark Isherwood. I call for a vote on that amendment in the name of Mark Isherwood. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, two abstentions, 36 against. 

Amendment 84: For: 13, Against: 36, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 85 is the next amendment. 

Mark Isherwood, is it moved?

Amendment 85 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Moved.

Okay. The next vote, then, is on amendment 85. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, two abstentions, 36 against, and therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

Amendment 85: For: 13, Against: 36, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

The next amendment is amendment 1. 

Julie James, is that moved?

Amendment 1 (Julie James) moved.

Move.

A vote on amendment 1, therefore, in the name of Julie James. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 44, four abstentions, three against, and therefore the amendment is agreed. 

Amendment 1 : For: 44, Against: 3, Abstain: 4

Amendment has been agreed

Mark Isherwood, is amendment 86 moved? Mark Isherwood, is amendment 86 moved?

Amendment 86 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 86 be agreed. Is there any objection? [Objection.]

There is an objection.

So we move to a vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour, 19, two abstentions, 30 against, and therefore amendment 86 is not agreed. 

Amendment 86: For: 19, Against: 30, Abstain: 2

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 87. Is it moved, Mark Isherwood?

Amendment 87 (Mark Isherwood) moved.

Moved.

The question is that amendment 87 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. I call for a vote on amendment 87. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 19, four abstentions, 28 against. Therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

Amendment 87: For: 19, Against: 28, Abstain: 4

Amendment has been rejected

And that concludes the votes on the first group.