Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Will the Minister make a statement on the evaluation undertaken by the Electoral Commission into advance voter pilots in Wales?

Thank you for the question. I have already, actually, made a statement on that—a written statement has been issued. It was a statement that, I think, had quite a number of positives, because it showed that many of the technical issues and problems that would emerge from a digitised electoral system can be overcome and that they can be administered, and those lessons we will learn, I think, when we consider, as we develop the policy in respect of our own electoral reform, legislation. Just to say, on several occasions I've met with the Electoral Commission. We have discussed the report. I have met the new chair of the Electoral Commission as well to discuss that, and the outcome of those discussions, I think, has been very positive. 

Thank you for that response. I notice that you didn't refer to the actual impact on voter turnout, of course, which was the whole primary reason for having these advance voter pilots take place in the local authorities where they did. The Electoral Commission report makes it absolutely clear that the voter turnout in each of the four local authorities—Blaenau Gwent, Bridgend, Caerphilly and Torfaen—actually went down; there was no increase whatsoever. It didn't only just go down in line with the national average; it actually went down further than the national average in those local authority elections, which took place across Wales. Do you accept, therefore, that the best way to promote advance voting is, actually, through the existing system that we already have, which is postal votes—that we don't actually need these other so-called innovations, which you believe were necessary?

No I don't, and I think your premise is, actually, wrong, because the primary reason was not to suddenly show some significant turnaround in voter turnout, because there have been other, similar pilots around the country from time to time that have also been exploring technological options and so on. You do not change the culture of elections and people's perceptions—not without a massive publicity campaign and not without a whole series of educational processes in something that would be an across-the-board change to the electoral system.

These were pilots, and they were very technical pilots and they were pilots that had a very significant focus on (1) putting the legislation in place to enable them to take place; secondly, in terms of the technology and the challenges with regard to the electoral register and so on. The fact of the matter is, and it's shown in the report of the Electoral Commission, that those were very productive and very positive. For me, that was the main experience; there was no indication, in my view, that this was somehow going to result in some massive turnabout. There are important lessons to be learned, and those will feed into the policy discussions and work that is going on at the moment with regard to the reform of our electoral system.

The advance voter pilots, Minister, no matter how much gloss you try to put on this, were an unmitigated disaster. They cost over £1.5 million, and the cost of each voter, effectively, if you divide the number of voters who took the opportunity to vote in advance, through the new system that you piloted, was £845 per vote. I think that most people in Wales will think that that is frankly a huge waste of money and that you should therefore abandon any of the sorts of approaches to advance voting that you piloted earlier in the year. Given the excessive costs, the waste to the taxpayers' purse and the fact that it did not deliver the increased turnout that you set out when you made a statement about these advance voter pilots that you were looking for, don’t you accept again that the best way to promote advance voter turnout is through the postal vote system?

I think the postal vote system is certainly one system in a whole variety of ways. One of the advantages to digitisation of the electoral register and having different voting systems is of course that it makes voting more accessible. It makes it more accessible to those who have a particular disability—there are far more options there—and it is far more inclusive. And don't forget, at the same time as the pilots were being carried out, of course, there were normal voting systems—traditional voting systems—taking place as well.

I don’t accept your premise. It is the typical sort of Tory response to pilots that are aimed at modernising the electoral system, creating a twenty-first century robust, accessible and modern electoral system. It seems to me that the Conservative approach is to know the price of everything, but the value of absolutely nothing.

Our reform will continue. There will be further debates in this Chamber. You will have the opportunity at that stage to question and to query. But I tell you one thing we will not do: we will not seek to go down the road that the UK Government is going with its elections Bill, which has been to introduce mechanisms that are aimed at actually restricting people from voting, changing voting systems to make them more advantageous to the Conservative Party, as you did with the mayoralties. This is purely about us, taking, I believe, a leading role—an exemplar role—in modernising our electoral system and using technology to make sure that every opportunity is there for those who want to vote and to encourage participation in the voting system.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Rhys ab Owen.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. On 5 July, the First Minister said that the Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Wales) Bill would be used as a practical example with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020. It was for that reason that the Stage 1 process was bypassed. On Monday, in front of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee, the Minister for Climate Change said that it has now been expedited for us to catch up with England and Scotland, and that it wasn't going to be used as a practical example with the UK internal market Act. When I asked her when this reasoning changed, she suggested that I ask you, and now I have an opportunity to ask you, Cwnsler Cyffredinol. So, who is correct: the First Minister, back in July, or the environment Minister on Monday?

Well, thank you for the question. I’m glad you’ve had the opportunity to ask it, and the simple answer is: they’re both correct, because there are two aspects to this. One, of course, is that we want to expedite for all the reasons that have been outlined in terms of the importance of the single-use plastics Bill, getting that through, and of course in terms of the timescale within the World Trade Organization time limit that’s been set. So, all those things exist and are perfectly valid.

But there is also a very valid role that I’m still keeping under very close consideration in respect of our challenge to the internal market Act. One of the difficulties I have in terms of making a very clear position and a very clear decision as to precisely what steps we will take is that my option to refer doesn’t arise until the legislation has actually been passed. There may be the issue to consider as to whether, in fact, UK Government would choose to refer this. There may also be the alternative in fact that, within perhaps the not-too-distant future, there’ll be a change of Government and we’ll have the abolition of the internal market Act, which would save us an awful lot of trouble and inconvenience.

So, I suppose really what I’m saying is that all those options are there and the reasons for the expedition are there, but they are twofold. It’s just that, in terms of the precise step forward that we take once the legislation is passed, it is a matter for me to consider at that time and I will of course make a statement at that stage.

I'm very pleased to hear that answer, Cwnsler Cyffredinol, because that wasn't the impression given at the committee on Monday. I'm sure you'd agree with me there'll always be some policy importance for any legislation—we wouldn't pass any legislation in this place unless it was important. So, reasons could be used to bypass Stage 1, or whatever stage, at any point. But scrutiny is very important, and the removal of the Stage 1 process in this Bill will lead to less stakeholder engagement. The increased use of legislative consent motions in this place leads to less scrutiny. The behaviour of the Westminster Government, and the lack of inter-governmental relations, has also led to a lack of scrutiny. Now, it's correct that Welsh Bills, Bills affecting Welsh people, should be properly scrutinised here. We have seen time and time again knee-jerk legislation, legislation rushed through in Westminster, which is poor law. Less scrutiny leads to poor law. Do you agree with me, do you share with me the concern about a lack of scrutiny of Welsh law, law that affects Welsh people? And if you do share my concern, what are you going to do to address it?

Well, listen, I have said many times, and you've heard me say it as well, about the importance of scrutiny, the importance of the role of your committee, which I think does an incredibly important job in terms of the scrutiny of legislation. You heard me also comment on the constitutional anomalies and dysfunctions that exist in our constitutional relationship with the UK Government, in terms of their legislative programme and the impact that has, and the way in which legislation through the legislative consent process can often bypass, and does in fact bypass, what would be proper scrutiny of legislation. So, we're aware of those particular dysfunctions that exist.

Can I just say, if I firstly just go back to the single-use plastics Bill, that I read the transcript of the evidence given? I don't disagree with anything that is set there. I think the difficulty others have, of course, is that, ultimately, the decision on whether to refer the tactical and strategic issues that are around that, of course, will be within my domain, but don't really materialise in full until I've seen the final version of the Bill, and also until it has come to me for that consideration with regard to whether I exercise, or not, my powers to actually refer it.

And of course, irrespective of all of that at the moment, our position remains completely clear that we do not believe the internal market Act overrides our own devolved powers and responsibilities. We had hoped much, much earlier that that would have been clarified and that the Supreme Court would have taken the option, or the opportunity, to clarify that. It hasn't rejected our arguments; it just basically has said that it needs to consider them when it has a practical example for them. When that practical example comes, we need to be ready to actually do that and to deliver that. But that will be a consideration I'll make in due course, once the legislation has been passed. And I will, of course, make sure that there is a proper statement and debate in this Chamber.