I will be supporting the Government this afternoon, and also supporting the Government when the substantive legislation comes before us next week. As one of the Ministers who did introduce emergency legislation, I've given this some serious consideration, because it is a mechanism that should only be used when the circumstances demand it. We learned today that we've lost more people to COVID in the last week than we have at any other point in the pandemic. It would have been irresponsible had the Government not taken this action, not introduced this legislation and not conducted the legislation in the way that it is proposing to do.

Like others, I want to see the election take place on 6 May. I've made this point a number of times in different debates and in questions. I think it's important that this Parliament is refreshed and renewed. Each Government needs a mandate, but we all need a new mandate, and, like Mike Hedges, I would like to see the Government introduce an amendment at Stage 2 going back to four-year terms, rather than continuing the current five-year term.

But I've got three questions I'd like to ask the Minister in supporting the Government this afternoon. The first point is that about transparency and openness. It is right and proper that all Members are aware of the criteria that the Government will use in reaching conclusions on this. Will the Government be looking across Wales at the R number, at the number of cases? Will there be issues around the growth or the decline of the pandemic in different parts of the country? For example, in Blaenau Gwent, numbers have been reducing over the last few weeks, but that's not the same as Flintshire or Wrexham, where they've been increasing in relative terms. So, what are the criteria that the Government will use in order to determine whether an election can be held safely?

The points that Rhun ap Iorwerth made were also absolutely essential, because the Government has a duty to ensure that an election takes place safely, but it also has a duty to ensure that the election is democratic and fair. We all know and we all recognise, I think, as Members, that we have an advantage through incumbency, and that the major parties will have further advantages of resources that will enable them to fight an electronic, online election, in a way that smaller parties cannot, and individual candidates would find more difficult. It is important that the election is not only safe, but is fair, free and democratic, and we need to understand what the criteria are for the Government in reaching its conclusions in terms of democracy, in terms of fairness, as well as in terms of safety.

I would also, then—. The second question is in terms of timescale. A number of Members have suggested that we need to leave this decision as long as possible, and I've got sympathy for that. But I also believe that we need to understand what the next few months hold for people. And I'd like to understand from the Government when they intend or when they believe they will be able to take some decisions on these matters. What is the timescale for reaching a decision on these issues? How will they determine that timescale, and when can we expect to be a part of that consultation and conversation?

And the final question is this, Minister: in a safe election, in a fair election and in a democratic election, it is possible to do things differently. For example, we've heard the election planning group say that they would prefer to count the day after rather than overnight, and I agree with that. But were we to use election ballot counting machines, as have been used in Scotland and are used elsewhere, then we could go through these matters in a more timely way but also using less resource. And I do believe also that we need to look at voting on a Sunday or a weekend, multiday elections, and look at different ways of conducting our democracy. Our democracy is a great and precious thing. We saw how democracy was delayed in 2001 as a consequence of foot and mouth, and that was necessary and the right decision. We will support, I think—two-thirds of Members here would support a delay, if we were able to understand why that delay was taking place, and if we were to explain to the people we seek to represent why that delay is taking place. But we also need to do so in a way that is transparent, that is open and is accountable, and where we can ensure that our precious democracy is protected and deepened. Thank you.