So, the next group for discussion is group 2, and the group relates to the process for proposing a postponement under section 5. The lead amendment is amendment 3, and I call on Gareth Bennett to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Gareth Bennett.

Amendment 3 (Gareth Bennett, supported by Mark Reckless) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I will be brief, as the two amendments from my party—Abolish—are quite simple in their intent. Amendment 3 is the substantive amendment, while amendment 4 is consequential to amendment 3. So, if amendment 3 is not supported, then I won't be moving amendment 4. 

The amendments pertain to the police and crime commissioner elections, which are due to be held in Wales on 6 May. These elections are not within the remit of the Welsh Government or this Senedd, so the decision to hold them on 6 May is a decision that will be taken by the UK Government. Our latest information, which is quite recent, is that the stated intention of the UK Government is to go ahead with these elections on 6 May. Now, of course, we are in a fluid situation. The public health situation could worsen, and it is possible that the PCC elections will not, after all, take place, but as far as we know, as I say, these elections are going ahead. Given that, our amendment 3 seeks to prevent the Welsh Government from delaying the Senedd elections to a date beyond 6 May if the PCC elections do take place on that date. The aim is to save the public money of hard-paying taxpayers. Our thinking is that if an election is taking place on 6 May in any case, then what would be the justification for the Welsh Government in delaying the Senedd election? We feel that such an outcome would be a blatant waste of time and money, and worse, it would be extending the term of this Senedd for no viable reason. That is the sole intent of our amendment 3: to save public money and ensure that there is no delay to the Senedd election for no good reason. Now, if the PCC election is going ahead, then we can be assured that any delay to the Senedd election will be for no good reason.

As I said earlier, amendment 3 is merely technical, and is consequential—sorry, amendment 4 is merely technical and is consequential to amendment 3. The only thing I would like to add is Plaid's amendment in this group seems eminently sensible, and we're also supporting that. Thanks for listening, and I hope Members will support our sensible and constructive amendments. Diolch.

We will be supporting amendments 3 and 4, but we're not able to support Plaid Cymru's amendment 16. It would seem very bizarre to compel the First Minister to explain his reasons for not doing something. This is completely without precedent and not something I believe that anyone, as I said yesterday in a different context, is intentionally calling for. If you believe the election should go ahead, then we do not think the First Minister should be dragged in to the Plenary to explain why he isn't going to interrupt the democratic process, rather than explain, as we believe, why he should if the situation arises.

I therefore move amendments 6 and 7 in my name, and having listened to the debate during Stage 2 of this Bill yesterday, our amendment 6 is a compromise that will require the Welsh Government to bring forward regulations through the affirmative procedure to set out the criteria for triggering a request to the Senedd to delay the election within 14 days from the Act receiving Royal Assent. Amendment 7 is also a compromise amendment that would only require the Welsh Government to publish the criteria to be used by the First Minister for determining whether it is necessary or appropriate to postpone the election within 14 days from the Act receiving Royal Assent.

I've repeatedly expressed concern that the Welsh Government has not said what situation the pandemic needs to be in before the First Minister formally requests a delay to the Welsh general election. The people of Wales need to have confidence that if their democratic will is to be temporarily delayed, they'll be entitled to know why. Unless this legislation includes a clear, objective, quantifiable threshold for the First Minister to formally request a delay to the Welsh general election due on 6 May, it will be impossible for him to avoid allegations of political opportunism and conflict of interest were he to do so. Diolch.

I speak to amendment 16 in this group. Again, in the case of this amendment, as with the other two, there have been constructive discussions between Plaid Cymru and the Government, and the amendment before us is a very positive compromise, I believe. The intention of the amendment is to place a duty on the First Minister to make a proactive statement to the Senedd saying one way or the other by 24 March whether he intends to make a proposal to postpone the election or not.

Our amendments yesterday, calling for a point of no return, were defeated, and they would have meant that the First Minister would have had to start the process of making a request to postpone the election by the start of the pre-dissolution period at the latest—7 April in the case of an election on 6 May. As I mentioned yesterday, anything after that is too late in the day in our view, given that candidates will be legally in place as candidates by that point, and the electoral spending period will have begun and so on. Under this compromise, although we won't be told with complete certainty by 7 April, we will have greater assurance by 24 March and also a decision, unless a major unexpected event takes place, as to whether the election will take place on not.

In light of passing our amendment yesterday that placed a duty on the Government to carry out a review of preparations for holding an election during each of the three-weekly reviews of the COVID restrictions, and to communicate the findings of those reviews, then we should have a clear picture by 24 March of our direction of travel in terms of the pandemic and its likely impact on the ability to hold an election. The First Minister should therefore be in a position to make a decision by that date. The reason for choosing that date is that that is the last day on which the Senedd is expected to sit before the beginning of the Easter recess, which will lead into the pre-dissolution period. There are reasons why that statement should be made to the Senedd whilst it's still in situ so that we can scrutinise the decision.

To respond to the Conservatives' view that we heard, that they were to vote against this amendment, may I remind you that this is a Bill not only to allow the postponement of an election, but also to allow an election to be held in a safe way on 6 May? And we all very much hope that that will be the case. We are asking the First Minister to outline in his statement to the Senedd how we can be assured that continuing with an election under COVID restrictions would allow a full and fair election campaign for the benefit of all candidates, be they wealthy or not, but also for the benefit of everyone who is eligible to vote, so that they can have access despite restrictions to information, which is so important in making a decision on how they would wish to cast their vote. So, it is very important, I think, that this is included on the face of the amended Bill. 

In terms of amendments 3 and 4, we are opposed to these. They've been put forward by Gareth Bennett with the support of Mark Reckless and they're trying to restrict the ability of the First Minister to propose a postponement unless the UK Government has done the same for police and crime commissioner elections. Now, recognise that this is our general election here in Wales. The date that we set and the control that we have over that date is crucially important for Welsh democracy. 

Turning to amendments 6 and 7, we support the spirit of these amendments from the Conservatives. It's important that the Government does make it clear what the threshold for postponement should be. We can see the merit of amendment 7 particularly, which could reinforce the new section inserted with unanimous support yesterday in terms of the three-weekly reporting on postponing the election. These amendments would formalise the criteria that are the foundation for that, although I would place a caveat on it that we wouldn't want to see any restrictions on the kind of factors that would need to be weighed up in coming to a decision. 

The Minister to contribute to the debate—Julie James. 

I strongly oppose amendments 3 and 4, as the effect of these amendments would be to make our decision to postpone the Senedd election dependent upon the UK Government's decision regarding the PCC elections. Of course we are working closely with the UK Government to try to ensure the appropriate degree of consistency between the polls, but I would strongly reject the view that the Senedd election is somehow subordinate to the PCC elections. I note that these have already been postponed for a year, something that I think not only we but most Members of this Senedd would think was wholly unacceptable in the case of the Welsh general election.

While the decisions taken by the UK Government on the PCC elections and other elections in England will clearly carry weight in our consideration of whether we can safely conduct the Senedd election, it is quite possible that those decisions will be taken in the light of circumstances in respect of the pandemic that might pertain across parts of England but not here in Wales. We must be free to take action to protect that election should we face a situation in which the ability of voters to participate safely is under threat. This amendment could prevent the Senedd taking a decision that is in the best interest of voters in the middle of a national crisis. That is wholly unacceptable. Ultimately, decisions that affect the people of Wales should be made here in Wales.

I support amendment 16 and am grateful to the Member for the work we have done together on it. As currently drafted, the requirement is for the First Minister to make a statement by the day of the last Plenary before recess as to whether and why he takes the view that it is safe to proceed with the election.

Amendment 6 would impose a requirement on the Welsh Ministers to make regulations to specify the criteria to be used by the First Minister in exercising the power under section 5(1). This is an unnecessary step in a process that already requires a supermajority of Members to agree a postponement and could box us into a wholly unnecessary corner. So, I cannot support this amendment. However, I do recognise the strength of feeling among Members about the need for transparency about the criteria to be used by the First Minister in making his decision, so I will support the Member’s amendment 7, which requires those criteria to be published.

Gareth Bennet to reply to the debate. 

Thank you, everyone, for contributing to the debate on this group. Mark Isherwood, I think, made some constructive and practical comments. I think unfortunately Rhun and Julie have descended into party-political rhetoric. Their objections as stated to not being dictated to by the date of PCC elections are entirely bogus, because Rhun is saying that the decision on the date of the election has to be taken in Wales, in the Senedd, and Julie is saying something similar. She said that our elections shouldn't be subordinate to the PCC elections, and of course she's right, and I never suggested that they were in any way subordinate to the PCC elections. The whole reason why the PCC elections were delayed to 6 May was, surely, in part at least, because we were having an election here on 6 May and they would therefore correspond with our Senedd elections. The date of the elections on 6 May for the Senedd was already taken, and it was in no way subordinate to a decision on the PCC elections. So, I have to say their arguments seem somewhat bogus and somewhat tenuous. But anyway, I'll stop there, because obviously, everyone will have their opinions; the opinions were clearly expressed by everyone from the parties, and I thank them for their contributions. With your assistance, Llywydd, hopefully we will proceed to the vote on this group. 

The question, then, is whether amendment 3 should be accepted. Is there an objection? [Objection.] Yes, there is, so we will move to a vote on amendment 3. Before we do so, we need to take a break to prepare for this vote, as it's the first vote in this Stage 3 set of proceedings. So, we'll take a break.

Plenary was suspended at 16:51.

The Senedd reconvened at 16:53, with the Llywydd in the Chair. 

This is the vote on amendment 3 in the name of Gareth Bennett. Open the vote on amendment 3. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 37 against, and therefore amendment 3 is not agreed. 

Amendment 3: For: 14, Against: 37, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected