Therefore, I call on the Minister for Housing and Local Government to move the motions—Julie James.

Motion NDM7579 Julie James

To propose that the Senedd accordance with Standing Order 26.102:

Agrees to the general principles of the Welsh Elections (Coronavirus) Bill.

Motion NDM7578 Rebecca Evans

To propose that the Senedd, for the purposes of any provisions resulting from the Welsh Elections (Coronavirus) Bill, agrees to any increase in expenditure of a kind referred to in Standing Order 26.69, arising in consequence of the Bill.

Motions moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The pandemic has had a dramatic effect upon our lives, bringing with it restrictions on many of the rights and freedoms we cherish. In May, the people of Wales will be exercising their right to voice their opinions on their elected representatives when they head to the polls in the Senedd election. It is the Government's firm view that the election should take place as planned on 6 May. We believe that we need a Senedd and a Welsh Government with a fresh mandate. However, it would be irresponsible of us not to prepare for a scenario where it is unsafe for the election to run as planned due to the impact of the pandemic. This Bill enables contingency plans to be agreed for the postponement of the election only as a last resort, should the pandemic pose a serious threat to the safe and fair running of the election.

The Bill we are debating today seeks to protect one of our most fundamental rights—the right to vote—by enabling the people of Wales to participate in the Senedd election. If the election does indeed take place on 6 May as planned, then it will be safe to vote at polling stations, with all the measures you would expect around hygiene and physical distancing. If the election can't take place, then we need this Bill. This Bill's provisions are prudent contingency measures to ensure that the election can be delivered by returning officers in the context of the unfolding pandemic. There is a risk that voters may be prevented from voting, not only for reasons of ill health or the need to comply with requirements to self-isolate, but also due to fears that they may have about the safety of voting in person at a polling station. Equally, high levels of sickness also bring the risk of not having enough staff available to administer the poll, with a consequential risk to the integrity of the election itself.

Firstly, section 3 of the Bill shortens the dissolution period from 21 working days to seven calendar days. This will allow additional time for the Senedd to consider vital coronavirus legislation in the lead-up to the election. Were dissolution to take place as set out in legislation, Members would cease to be Members from 7 April, and our Senedd would be dissolved. It would be irresponsible to dissolve this Senedd for a whole month during a period of national crisis, when its scrutiny has been a crucial element of the response to the pandemic. It is at times of national crisis when the scrutiny of the work of the Government by the legislature is most vital.

The shortening of the dissolution period also provides that this Senedd is available to take a decision on any postponement of the election. It would be wrong to legislate on changes to the date of the election without guaranteeing that the Senedd itself would be able to make the final decision. Consequently, section 10 also modifies the time at which a person becomes a candidate in the election. This is currently tied to the dissolution period. The Bill decouples the two, so that a person will become a candidate at the Senedd election at the same time as they would have done had the Bill not proposed to shorten the dissolution period to seven calendar days. To mitigate for any delays to the count itself, section 4 makes changes to the post-election timetable, allowing an extra day for the first meeting to take place if there is any delay because of coronavirus.

The elections planning group made a number of recommendations to increase flexibility in the conduct of the election, and we have included these in section 10. Emergency proxy votes will be available to voters for a reason relating to coronavirus, meaning that voters will have additional options in the event that self-isolation prevents them from attending a polling station in person. The Bill also introduces more flexibility with regard to the delivery of nomination papers, and how a candidate can consent to nomination.

The most talked-about provision in this Bill is also the provision that we hope never to have to use. That is the new power for the Llywydd to postpone the date of the poll to a date no later than 5 November 2021, for a reason relating to coronavirus, as set out in section 5. In section 6, the Bill also prefers the Llywydd's existing power to postpone the election for up to a month for reasons not relating to coronavirus. Again, I would like to emphasise that it is our firm intention that the election should go ahead as planned on 6 May, and this provision is included only as a contingency option in the event that it is not safe to hold the election on the grounds of the risk to public health.

The Bill does not, in itself, make any changes to the date of the election. It only provides the ability to do so should it be needed. A postponement would be initiated by a proposal made by the First Minister to the Llywydd, who in turn proposes a new date to be put before the Senedd. A motion to postpone the election must have the agreement of the Senedd by a majority of two thirds of the total number of Senedd seats.

As a further safeguard, the Bill proposes a role for the Electoral Commission in relation to postponement. If the Llywydd or the First Minister requests, the Electoral Commission must provide them with advice on the matter of postponement. Similarly, sections 7 and 8 also address the issue of by-elections for the Senedd and for local government. They provide a power for the Llywydd to postpone Senedd by-elections, and a regulation-making power for Welsh Ministers to postpone local government by-elections.

Finally, section 12 confers a regulation-making power on the Welsh Ministers to make any incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory, or saving provisions that they consider appropriate for the purposes of, or in connection with, giving full effect to the Act. This is necessary to ensure that, in the event of a postponement of the election, Welsh Ministers have the capability to make necessary arrangements for impacts that could not have been foreseen during the Bill's development. This power will also provide for practical arrangements such as dealing with candidates' deposits, the destruction of postal votes, and so forth, which can be dealt with by way of secondary legislation.

I was pleased to give evidence yesterday to the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee about the Bill, and I'm extremely grateful to the Members and officials, who managed to produce a report by lunch time today. I have considered the recommendations of the committee this afternoon, and I am pleased to accept the majority of them.

In particular, I can accept recommendations 8 and 9 on using the made alternative procedure, rather than the negative procedure, in respect of the regulations; and part of recommendation 4, which would place a requirement on the First Minister to consult the chief medical officer before making a recommendation for postponement. We believe that the provision with regard to the Electoral Commission is already sufficient.

Recommendation 6, which requires the Llywydd to make a statement explaining her decision in the event that she uses her existing power to vary the poll by up to a month, we accept this in the interests of transparency, even though there is not an equivalent duty on the Llywydd in a normal election. We will bring forward amendments to deal with these issues.

I'm sorry to say that there are a few recommendations that we are not in a position to accept at this time. In relation to recommendation 1, the Welsh Government does not publish its assessments of compatibility with human rights legislation, but we are satisfied that the Bill is within competence and does not breach the Human Rights Act 1998. I do not believe the sunset clause, as suggested in recommendation 2 is necessary. To the extent that the Bill requires time limits, they are already built into the text of the Bill.

And in terms of recommendation 3, the term 'appropriate' adds flexibility, and removing it would reduce flexibility. It is worth noting that the term 'appropriate' is also used in the Scottish Act. I consider that we should retain that flexibility in the Bill, given the unpredictable nature of the pandemic and its impacts.

In respect of recommendation 5, the committee's understanding, as set out in paragraph 65 of the report, is broadly correct. The Llywydd does have discretion to propose a date. However, it is the Llywydd who fixes the date, but only if the date is agreed by a supermajority.

In response to the committee's specific questions, the Bill does not make provision for whether or not a motion can be amended. Such provisions could be made in Standing Orders, and we have initiated a discussion with Business Committee about the procedures that may be appropriate. In the absence of specific provision in Standing Orders, the tabling and selection of amendments would be a matter for the Llywydd. If the Senedd does not vote in favour of a date proposed by the Llywydd, the Llywydd can, in principle, propose an alternative date. Again, provision about this can be made in Standing Orders. Proposing a new date would not require a fresh proposal by the First Minister. The First Minister's power relates to proposing that the election be postponed, not to the date. The Llywydd cannot fix a date for a postponed election under section 5, other than one expressly approved by a supermajority of the Senedd.

In response to recommendation 7, a section 116 order has been prepared—the Senedd Cymru letters patent and proclamations Order 2021—which is due to be made by Her Majesty in Council on 10 February. The Order includes a form of wording for a proclamation under section 4(2) and section 5(4) of the Government of Wales Act 2006. We propose that the form of wording can be used as a precedent or template for a proclamation under section 6 of the Bill. We would arrange for the proclamation to be published in the gazettes, and we would, of course, work with the Llywydd to draw the attention of everyone involved in the election to a change in the date immediately. My officials are in touch with the palace about this.

On recommendation 10, I cannot confirm the precise details at present, but the type of amendments I'm exploring relate to adjustments to how postal-vote applications are processed to minimise the rejection of such applications.

And finally, in response to recommendation 11, I can confirm that I intend to table an amendment at Stage 2 that would confer power on the Welsh Ministers to provide for additional voting days in the week before polling of the Senedd election, if the poll is postponed, and as long as the poll is not combined with the police and crime commissioner elections.

Also under consideration today is the financial resolution motion that has been tabled. The main costs in this Bill would arise in the event that the election is postponed. Our estimation of the costs are set out within the regulatory impact assessment, which is being laid before the Senedd alongside the text of the Bill. These estimations are sourced from figures for the election in 2016, published by the Welsh Government, and have been updated to current prices using the gross domestic product deflator series to arrive at the cost of 2021. The assumption in the estimate of these costs is a worst-case scenario.

Deputy Presiding Officer, I urge Members to vote in favour of both the Bill and the financial resolution to ensure that we all have options available to us in responding to the pandemic. Diolch.

I now call on the Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, Mick Antoniw.

Diolch, Llywydd. We took evidence on the Bill yesterday from the Minister, as has been mentioned. I'm very grateful to the staff of the Commission and the committee for the work they have undertaken to prepare what I think is a very thorough and detailed report on what is a very important piece of electoral, and therefore constitutional, legislation. So, we've paid very close attention to it in a very, very short space of time, and we're grateful very much to the Minister for giving evidence yesterday, but also for the detailed comments you've made today in respect of the various recommendations.

I will run through some of the key recommendations. Of course, we raised the issue again of human rights, and the lack of reference to it in the explanatory memorandum. The Minister will be aware that this is a matter that we significantly focus on. I note the Minister's comments, and I just refer Members to the recommendation in the report. The issue of convention rights equally applies.

Moving on to section 1. The Minister told us that the Bill can only relate to the 2021 election. It is effectively spent after 5 November 2021. We weren't able to come to agreement in that way. For example, the power in section 12 could potentially allow the Welsh Ministers to amend the date of 5 November 2021, set out in section 5, by regulations, and that is why we made the recommendation 2, which was with regard to sunset clause.

Referring to section 5, this enables the First Minister to propose to the Llywydd that the 2021 election is postponed for a reason relating to coronavirus, if the First Minister considers it necessary or appropriate. Members will be well aware of the concerns the committee has about the use of the term 'appropriate', whether it is included in Welsh legislation, Scottish legislation or any other legislation. So, our position remains on that, that we do not think it is something that should be in legislation, although we do recognise the detailed explanation for it that the Minster gave to the committee.

In respect of the exercise of the power in section 5(1), our fourth recommendation is that the Bill is amended to require the First Minister to consult the Electoral Commission, the chief medical officer and other appropriate persons. And I'm grateful for the comments from the Minister on that.

Moving on to the other provisions in section 5, overall, we do not consider the wording of sections 5(2), 5(3) or 5(4) to be as clear as could be. The precise sequence of events involved in the postponement of an election is not easily discernible, particularly because of the use of 'may' in section 5(2). Our understanding is that, under section 5, the Llywydd essentially has discretion to propose a date for a postponed poll, but that such date only became fixed once a supermajority of the Senedd votes in favour of it. I think that's what the Minister  confirmed. But predicated on that basis, recommendation 5 asked the Minister to confirm that understanding. I think that confirmation has been given, and I'm grateful for that. 

Turning now to section 6, which gives the Llywydd the power to vary the date of an election postponed under section 5 by one month before or after the newly fixed date, given that this power is not directly linked to the pandemic and would override the date of the poll, as agreed by at least 40 Members, recommendation 6 says that the Llywydd should have to issue a statement on the reasons, and I'm grateful the Minister has confirmed that that is the case. We did think that that was a reasonable step.

If the Llywydd proposes to further vary the election date under section 6(2) of the Bill, section 6(4) provides for Her Majesty, by royal proclamation, to dissolve the Senedd and require the poll to be held on the day proposed by the Llywydd. The Bill didn't set out how this would work in practice, but I'm grateful for the additional comments the Minister has made to clarify that situation. Recommendation 7, therefore, said the Minister should explain to Members those measures, with regard to the proclamation, so we're grateful for that.

Turning now to the regulation-making powers in sections 8 and 12 of the Bill. Both sections contain Henry VIII powers, enabling regulations to be made by Welsh Ministers that modify, repeal or revoke any enactment. Such regulation will be subject to the negative procedure. Further, the regulation-making power in section 8 is not directly linked to coronavirus. So, as a general principle, we don't consider it appropriate to amend primary legislation by means of the negative procedure, and we were not persuaded by the Minister's reason for departing from this principle. We do recognise, however, that it may be necessary to act quickly. However, regulations already made in response to coronavirus have been made quickly, but that has not necessitated the use of the negative procedure. My apologies if I've missed the Minister's comments on that. Recommendations 8 and 9 state that the Bill should be amended so that regulations made under sections 8 and 12 that amend primary legislation are subject to the made affirmative procedure, and I'm grateful for the comments from the Minister in acceptance of that point.

Turning finally to postal and early voting. We asked the Minister to provide Members with further clarity on the Welsh Government's intentions regarding postal and early voting. Dealing with the Bill as an emergency Bill limits the time available to fully understand its provisions. We have however concluded that making legislative provision that will enable the 2021 election, and Senedd and local government by-elections, to be postponed for a short period represents a pragmatic solution, given the ongoing coronavirus public health emergency.

Should the general principles be agreed today, our report aims to provide Members with further information that may inform scrutiny and debates during the subsequent stages. Diolch, Llywydd.

Well, in seeking this Senedd's agreement to the General Principles of the Welsh Elections (Coronavirus) Bill, the Welsh Government is essentially asking us to recycle the points and arguments made when we debated and agreed for the introduction of this Government emergency Bill just one week ago. As I then stated, an emergency Bill,

'streamlines the Senedd's law-making and accountability processes'— and should, therefore,

'only be used when there's a real and unforeseen emergency.'

As I also noted then,

'The Scottish General Election (Coronavirus) Bill, enabling Scottish Government Ministers to delay the Scottish general election beyond 6 May, subject to a vote of the whole Scottish Parliament, was first introduced in the Scottish Parliament'— last November, and

'although it passed through an accelerated timescale, Members of the Scottish Parliament still had over five weeks to consider the Bill.'

The proposed Welsh Government timetable for this Bill, in contrast, gives us just two weeks' scrutiny until Stage 3 next week. Although the pandemic crisis has been here since March 2020 and we've known the date for the next Welsh Parliament election for five years, the First Minister didn't suggest a change in regulations until last November. We must therefore again ask why the Welsh Government has put itself in a situation where it needs to be using such emergency procedures, when it was evident that the pandemic would still be dominating the agenda? Understandably, there is concern about creation of a conflict of interest where the First Minister, empowered by this legislation to formally request an election delay will be the same person leading the election campaign for one of the parties in these elections—Welsh Labour. 

We voted last week to agree that the Welsh Government can introduce this Bill as an emergency Bill in the Senedd, recognising the potential need for a delay based on the badly deteriorating public health situation. However, as I then stated, 'We are only lending you our vote.' The Welsh Government has not said what situation the pandemic needs to be in to require an election delay, and our continued support would require the Welsh Government to specify what the bar will need to be before the First Minister formally requests the delay. We're concerned that they're still finding reasons not to do this, and therefore urge them to note the seriousness of our position on this.

We do recognise that much of the Bill's content has merit. However, we remain concerned that some proposed content may only be introduced as Welsh Government amendments at a later date. We took part in the Welsh Government's election planning group, and there are a number of concerns that we still have from the planning group, including extending voting over multiple days, where, for example, voters would be disenfranchised if they thought that voting on another day for the Welsh Parliament would still allow them to vote for their police and crime commissioner. Excepting absentee voting, we'll therefore be seeking the Senedd support to stop the multiple days in-person voting. We will also be seeking the Senedd's support to ensure that Members are prevented from using their office allowance or their communication allowance to promote themselves in what would have been the dissolution period; to reduce from 21 the period of days the next Senedd needs before having it's first meeting where swearing in can be done online, and photo days can be put in place for new Members to have their photo taken in the Chamber if permissible under the COVID rules then applying; to reduce the period to which the power to delay the election applies from six to four months, when we need to have the election done before any potential rise in COVID-19 cases during the colder months; and to stop the situation in which the election could be delayed more than once. Clarity is also needed over what would happen to postal votes cast prior to an election delay being agreed. The pandemic has shone a bright light on devolved Government in Wales, and delaying the Welsh general election due to take place on 6 May should only be considered in exceptional emergency circumstances. Diolch.

I will emphasise the obvious first of all: the timetable for this Bill is very tight indeed. This should have happened sooner, and there is concern that there is a lack of opportunity now to give proper consideration to the issues arising from the explanatory memorandum and the legislation committee's report too—and I congratulate them for turning that report around over night, as I understand it. But we will be supporting the Bill in Stage 1 today to allow it to progress to the next stage, where we're able to table our own amendments to strengthen the Bill and to insist on some assurances on certain aspects, and I'll mention some of those and ask the Minister whether she could provide a full response to the points, either in her response to the debate today or in writing as soon as possible after today's debate so that we can table meaningful amendments at Stage 2 within a very tight timetable.

A few comments on dissolution, first of all, which is intended to give fairness to all candidates to ensure that public resources can't be abused. It's a mechanism too to ensure fairness and balance between the Government of the day and the opposition parties through the purdah convention, and the aim, of course, is to ensure the integrity of the election. It has to be there. The risk of losing it because of the pandemic was a cause for concern, I have to say. I do understand that the Business Committee has agreed in principle that there will be a pre-dissolution period that will be similar to a conventional dissolution but which will also provide flexibility to recall the Senedd for reasons related to the pandemic. That goes some of the way in allaying fears. I understand that  the Government has proposed how activity could be reduced—stopping written questions, for example, and thereby not favouring current Members—but we haven't seen the guidance on the implications of that pre-dissolution period on Government activity. I understand that such guidance was published as early as December 2015 for the 2016 election under normal arrangements. We need that clarity on the guidance that will relate to the Senedd and the Government in order to deal with this Bill appropriately.

I'm going to make a few comments on the need to ensure that public health and democratic health are part of the equation in the decisions facing us. As I said last week, the challenge we face is looking at that big picture and balancing the various risks. The process of allowing an individual to cast a vote safely and the process of counting those votes safely are crucially important, but just as important is the need to allow meaningful debate with the people of Wales as they elect a government for the next five years. The risk to the integrity of the election of holding that election without having had that meaningful engagement and debate for me is still missing in looking at the explanatory memorandum.

We are hardly any the wiser in terms of distributing leaflets and other campaign materials. Is it only through the Royal Mail that one can distribute leaflets at present? Will it be possible to pay other individuals or agencies to do that? We need to look at how distributing leaflets for profit is acceptable but voluntary distribution is not allowed. There is some information for political parties on campaign methods in the Government's alert level 4 FAQs section. We encourage political parties, candidates and campaigners to consider the full range of campaigning methods, including social media, to provide information to voters. I'm afraid that this is entirely inadequate and misses the fundamental point that I and others have raised, which is that not everyone uses social media and not every candidate will be wealthy enough to pay to distribute that information. So, when will there be comprehensive guidance available to political parties showing clearly what they can do under each of the alert levels in the Welsh Government's COVID plan?

Finally, Llywydd, I turn to the need for clarity on the timetable for decision making and the need for regular updates on the status of the election. In terms of the timetable for decisions, should we need to postpone the election, then I do think that the suggestion of seven days before polling day is very tight indeed. It's not clear that the Government's powers could be used as late as 3 May, the week of the election itself. Many people would have already cast their vote through the post, so what would happen to their vote? As it's not clear what the conditions or the public health threshold used in deciding whether it is safe to hold an election or not is and that the Bill as it's currently drafted provides for postponement very late in the day, we will consider an amendment at Stage 2, to make it a requirement for Welsh Ministers to provide regular updates to us on the status of the preparations for the elections and the ability to hold that election safely to run along with the three-weekly reviews of the COVID regulations. I think that's a minimum requirement. I wonder what the scientific advice on allowing the election to proceed would be if it were to be held tomorrow, for example. Many questions to be asked and the timetable is very tight, and we do need clarity as a matter of urgency from the Government on many of these issues.  

I'm grateful to the Minister for the way in which she introduced this legislation this afternoon. I would say very gently to the Conservatives they need to learn not to oppose absolutely everything that the Government is seeking to do in dealing with this pandemic. These are very, very difficult days, and I do sympathise greatly with the Minister in taking the decisions that she has outlined to us, and I think it's incumbent on all of us who are sitting here, whatever part of the Chamber we represent, that we actually do seek to put our democracy ahead of any other consideration. 

I said last week in my contribution that I supported the introduction of this Bill, that I supported the process of an emergency Bill and that I thought that was a fair and good exercise of these powers, and I also support the exercising of the powers that it provides for Ministers. But I do believe that, in exercising these powers and seeking these powers, Ministers should also outline to us the circumstances in which they foresee these powers being exercised. I'm happy with the processes and the safeguards that are built into the Bill. I think it provides for good democratic scrutiny and a broad democratic agreement on these matters, which goes beyond an individual political party. I think that's important, and I think it's important to have that sense of joint venture across the Chamber. But it is important, in seeking powers, that whoever that happens to be, whether it's the First Minister, the Minister or even the Llywydd, that those people do outline the circumstances in which those powers would be exercised. I'm interested in understanding what the timescale is for such decisions. We have an election some weeks away, potentially. At what point is that not sustainable? At what point does the Minister foresee her coming to this place with a proposal or seeking the authority to make such a proposal? At what point does an election on 6 May not become a sustainable option? 

And then, as well as understanding the timescale, what are the criteria, the processes and the circumstances that would drive a decision? The rate of coronavirus in Blaenau Gwent has fallen more greatly than in almost any other part of Wales, and is now one of the lowest parts of Wales. It would be interesting, I think, for us to understand how the different numbers that we see reported every day would influence and shape a decision. Is it the case rate per 100,000? Is that what's going to drive a decision? It is a national figure, or one that takes account of locality? So, for example, if there is a really serious problem in one part of Wales, would that mean that the election for the whole of Wales needs to be postponed for a period of time? We need to understand what these criteria are.

And, finally, I thought the points made by Rhun ap Iorwerth were very powerful and very well made. This needs to be a safe election, certainly, but it also needs to be a fair election, and it needs to be seen to be fair as well, and that means particularly fair to those organisations, political parties an candidates who will not have the resources that most of the parties represented here this afternoon will have. For many of us, we have structured constituency parties, we have structured national parties able to run a campaign, but we must not abuse the privilege of incumbency, and that means enabling and allowing and creating the space to be challenged and to be challenged fairly for our seats. So, I hope that, in May or whenever it happens to be, we will have not only a safe election but a fair election. Thank you very much, Presiding Officer. 

Thanks to the Minister for bringing today's debate. I do take on board her assurance that this is a contingency measure, however, we in the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party do not see the need to enact legislation to delay the election and we think we should focus on ensuring that the election does go ahead as planned on Thursday 6 May. I note again that the Llywydd does have the authority to delay an election by up to a month if the public health situation truly warrants that. But we do need to be careful here. The voters only elected us for five years and they may not be too delighted with Members of this place—including myself, of course—carrying on beyond their mandated term. Labour Members have been vociferous in making this point in the recent past, notably Alun Davies, who we just heard from. I know he is saying something slightly different now, but not so long ago, he was telling us that this Assembly term—the fifth Assembly—had already outstayed its welcome.

Delaying an election beyond 6 May would effectively be suspending democracy. So, we do have to be careful about going down this line. I think, although Alun supported the legislation today, he did actually just did raise some very pertinent questions, which the Minister still has to answer; for instance on what particular grounds the election may be delayed if we do get this legislation through. Because clearly, as the Minister was clear about when she opened the debate, this legislation does not itself delay an election; it on only gives contingency for doing so. So, she does need to explain to us on what particular and specific grounds the election might be delayed. I think we do need to know that.

There are other issues. This matter isn't completely within the control of the Welsh Government, because of the issue of the PCC elections going on at presumably the same time. The date for these is set by the UK Government, so we could be heading for a situation where the UK Government decide that we're going to have an election in Wales on 6 May, namely the PCC election. If that were the case, it would be ludicrous in my opinion if the Welsh Government then said we couldn't have the Senedd election on the same day, because to do that would be to have two different elections instead of one. It would also raise the cost of holding these elections, thereby wasting taxpayers' money. I know the Welsh Government is very good at doing that, but I don't think they should be doing it habitually. So, I think we have to take any decision in the context of what is happening with the PCC election, and that is a matter for the UK Government.

To make a more positive case, vaccination rates are improving in Wales, so it does look as though the worst of the pandemic may well be behind us by the time we get to May. So, to go down the route of deciding to delay may be interpreted as an admission of failure over the public health situation, which in reality is actually getting better. Can I also point out, adding to points Mark Isherwood made, that we have had this pandemic and various lockdown restrictions for many months now? So, the relevant authorities in Wales have had plenty of time to plan for this election. To conclude, we need to have this election on 6 May, and so, with respect, Abolish the Welsh Assembly will not be supporting this legislation. Diolch yn fawr.

I again say that an election on 6 May must happen if at all possible, as my friend Alun Davies has said on several occasions. What I would say is, for those who oppose the possible extension, how would you deal with postal votes that cannot be collected, large-scale breakout of COVID-19 where people were told to stay at home, or where it's not possible to staff polling stations? For those who say that's not possible, can I take you back to 2001, when we postponed the general election and postponed council elections because of foot and mouth? So, it can happen.

I have one concern about the legislation. As anyone who's been an election agent will tell you, a large number of postal votes are disqualified because the date of return, not the date of birth, is entered, or the signature doesn't match. That is often due to a stroke or Parkinson's disease that has occurred since the person applied for a postal vote and their signature has changed, and changed dramatically. I understand that our partners in the UK have either written to the Minister or are intending to write to the Minister to raise exactly that point. Can I ask that we follow America, and allow people to correct the form by sending their date of birth, and also allowing them to explain why the signature does not match?

On leafleting, I've got leaflets at the printers waiting to go out, I've got leaflets ready to go to the printers ready to go out, but I think public safety must come first. As much as I would like to be wandering around the streets delivering leaflets—if only to help me lose some weight—I think it really is important that we look after the health of our constituents and our campaigners, and engage only when it's safe.

The Minister for Housing and Local Government to reply to the debate—Julie James.

As I've previously stated, it is not the Welsh Government's intention to delay the Senedd election. This is a fail-safe to be used only where it is deemed absolutely necessary to protect public health from the risks posed by the coronavirus—a fail-safe we hope never to have to use. However, as a responsible Government we have to make preparations that allow us to respond to the risks posed by the pandemic to the safety and fairness of the election. I thank Members for their contributions in this debate and I will try and address as many of them as I can.

Starting with Mark Isherwood, I'm afraid I think it's a bit rich to be saying, 'Why are we in this position?' given the previous opposition of his party, before Christmas, to any suggestion whatsoever of a postponement. I also would like to point out that the UK pushes through legislation to postpone elections in England in a day if necessary. They did exactly that with the future relationship Act, which dealt with the little matter of the most important international treaty the UK has ever signed in nearly 50 years—in a single day. So, I will not be taking any lessons from him about the need to be respectful of the need for scrutiny in a legislature. The issue he raised about a potential conflict of interest from the First Minister is of course addressed by the primacy of the Llywydd and the role of the Senedd in this Bill, which is what I pointed out in my opening remarks. We need the regulation-making powers to deal with the postal votes already cast and other matters of that sort, which a number of Members have raised.

In response to a number of people, including Rhun ap Iorwerth, who asked, we will of course lay our formal response to the committee's report tomorrow, but I was pleased to be able to address some of the issues in my opening remarks. Also, on the pre-election guidance, we appreciate that this is a very different situation to usual, but we will be publishing it as soon as possible for Members to be able to see that. We are working very closely with the Business Committee, because we will want to make sure that the Senedd Commission side and the Government side rules match up and are as clear and as user-friendly as possible. I'm also very happy to accede to Rhun's suggestion that we give regular updates on the progression of our work on this matter.

This Bill acts as a vital contingency measure in our preparation for May's elections. It's our sincere hope and aim that the election goes ahead as planned, and that the people of Wales are able to vote freely and safely on 6 May. We're preparing on that basis and our partners are, too. But of course we would be remiss not to recognise that the course of this pandemic has not been smooth, and it is right that we, as a responsible Government, should put in place a contingency plan, even if it is one that we hope never to use.

In terms of the number of people who asked me what circumstances we would expect to weigh up in terms of making that decision, there are an enormous range of factors to be taken into account. A number of Members have mentioned them, in fact—the public health situation, the confidence of the administration of the election, its effect on voters. We're not specifying those metrics, because the situation continues to be as fast-moving as it ever has been in this pandemic. Clearly, the closer we get to the election, the greater the risks in terms of costs, practical implications, voter confusion and so on, and so ideally we would want to make a timely decision.

It is important that the Senedd can respond close to the date of the poll too, if necessary, given how quickly the pandemic situation can change. All of us here have lived through rapid changes over a number of days, sometimes, in the course of the pandemic. A number of Members have mentioned, for example, that the figures are dropping all over Wales, and that we're very grateful to see that, but Members will have remembered other times in the pandemic where figures appeared to be dropping, and then suddenly reverse overnight because a new variant arises or some other factor that we have yet to think of. So, I think it would be very remiss to try and hedge that in. Llywydd, if I could quote it, and unfortunately I can't, I would pray in aid a certain Donald Rumsfeld, and talk about the unknown unknowns that we would have to deal with in this pandemic going forward.

I'm very grateful to Members for their contributions today. I do urge them to vote in favour of this Bill and, of course, of the financial resolution. Diolch yn fawr.

The question is that the motion under item 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see there is objection. As the vote on item 11 is deferred until voting time, the vote on the financial resolution will also be deferred until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.

Nawr dyma ni'n cyrraedd y cyfnod pleidleisio, ac felly fe fyddaf i'n atal y cyfarfod am gyfnod byr er mwyn paratoi ar gyfer y bleidlais.

Plenary was suspended at 18:24.

The Senedd reconvened at 18:28, with the Llywydd in the Chair.