Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

We reconvene as a committee of the whole house, and the purpose of this is Stage 2 of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill, and I intend to proceed now with the first group.

The first group of amendments relates to the name of the National Assembly for Wales. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 265, and I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group. Rhun.

Some words transcend language barriers. The Welsh language, needless to say, belongs to us all, but there are some words, in particular, that in practical and usage terms genuinely belong to us all. There are words that slip easily from one linguistic context to another, and 'senedd' is one of those words—a word that is of Wales, a word rooted in the Welsh language, that is bilingual in its application. What better application for such an inclusive word than as the official name of our national democratic and representative institution?

Owain Glyndŵr's Parliament was a 'senedd'. In the twenty-first century, our Parliament is a 'senedd'. That doesn't preclude anyone from referring to it as they wish. I'm perfectly comfortable that on the door, if you like, underneath the 'Senedd' title, could be a description of what we are: Senedd Genedlaethol Cymru/The National Parliament of Wales, or whatever else. We're talking here about our title. The Oireachtas is the name of the Irish Parliament. The Dáil is the lower house of the Irish Parliament. The Seanad is the upper house. Its website's 'Visit and Learn' section explains how Parliament works. In voting today for 'Senedd' as our name, those who want the choice of referring to it as a Parliament will clearly be able to, but we can make a statement about the uniqueness of our institution, as the Irish do theirs. A unique Welsh name for a unique Welsh Parliament.

But there's more to my argument today than an attempt to create an emotional attachment only. In many ways, the amendment put forward by myself, Mike Hedges and Hefin David, could be viewed as a technical amendment—an honest attempt to improve what is in the original Bill. The Bill, as laid, states in section 2, entitled 'Senedd', point 1:

'The Assembly for Wales constituted by the 2006 Act is to be known as the "Senedd".'

So far, so okay—stating that the Assembly is to be called the 'Senedd' is somewhat confusing. It goes on to point 2:

'The Senedd may also be known as the Welsh Parliament.'

Now, I understand and, as I signified earlier, I support the principle behind that point 2, namely in signifying the move from Assembly to Parliament. When the Assembly was established here in Wales, Scotland was granted a Parliament. Rightly or wrongly, it was widely perceived that that difference in title reflected a difference of status—rightly or wrongly. The Scottish Parliament was a primary law-making body; we were not. We can argue that a name doesn't matter—[Interruption.] I'm willing to give way to a Minister.

Of course it's got more powers.

No, carry on.

Okay. It's a heckle. I'll address the heckle. For the record, I shall state what the Deputy Minister said. He said that, in France, you have the Assemblée Nationale and he's quite right. What I said was that, rightly or wrongly, there is a perception that the creation of a National Assembly for Wales, as opposed to a Scottish Parliament, was due to a difference of status.

We can argue that a name doesn't matter. It's what we do that matters. But I do believe it makes a difference to perceptions, and that is why I support the inclusion of the word 'Parliament' in the legislation as a description of this institution. But to state that it's to be called a 'Senedd', and that in a different context it's also to be known as the 'Welsh Parliament', is rather confusing. Now, perhaps it's the possibility of confusion that led to the amendment laid in the name of Carwyn Jones, calling for the naming of the institution, and I quote,

'Senedd Cymru or Welsh Parliament'.

That may be well meaning in its attempt to provide clarity, but I believe strongly that what this succeeds in doing is, in fact, to confuse things further. It undermines the name 'Senedd', which is already in widespread use and which I believe Carwyn Jones and certainly the First Minister, from his comments this week and previously, have indicated is the name they'd choose to use for the institution anyway, whatever it says in legislation. What I say to Carwyn Jones and the First Minister and others: back yourselves and your instincts. There is no legal barrier to doing this. There is no linguistic barrier, unless we believe somehow that people aren't capable of embracing that word, 'Senedd', and, of course, we're not saying that, are we? The number of non-Welsh speakers who've been contacting me backing the name 'Senedd' far outnumber Welsh speakers who've been contacting me to say the same.

Now, what we are doing with our amendment, No. 265, is to offer a cleaner, a more effective way of cementing 'Senedd' as a title, whilst including the word 'Parliament' as a clear sign of our constitutional development. Our amendment attempts to introduce a new section, entitled 'A Parliament for Wales', immediately achieving that requirement regarding understanding the institution's status.

The next line reads:

'There is to be a parliament for Wales to be known as the “Senedd”.’

Transparent, clear and something we could all unite behind. The added benefit would be to clarify the issue of the title given to Members. We're asking you to vote against those amendments that suggest new titles for amendments different to that laid in the original Bill, because opting for an unambiguous 'Senedd' means we can easily adhere to what's laid in that original Bill—'Aelod o'r Senedd'/'Member of the Senedd', 'AS' or 'MS'.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I'd like to thank Members from across political parties for pledges of support to this amendment. You will know that I've contacted you all today asking you to consider your views on this particular amendment. I also contacted Carwyn Jones to ask him to consider withdrawing his amendment. It's not possible to withdraw, I guess, but you could choose not to move the motion. And, again, I appeal for you not to move the motion. If it is moved, I ask you to support our amendment today for its clarity, for its transparency, for its clear purpose. I ask Government not to whip its Members, in order that those who I know wish to support our amendment are able to do so, because this is not a matter for the Government of today—this is for our institution of the future.

We can unite behind 'Senedd', and I ask you all kindly, as a statement of confidence in our own nation, rather than more ambiguous conventions, to support the amendment.

Thank you. Carwyn Jones.

I'm pleased to make my first contribution in this important committee stage. Can I say that we, the Welsh Conservatives, will be supporting Carwyn Jones's amendments, which will give the Assembly the new bilingual title of 'Senedd Cymru' or the 'Welsh Parliament'?

I do commend the tone of the debate. I think it's very useful that we're discussing the two most obvious options in a very mature way and a respectful way, and that, I think, is to be welcomed. But, for us, Plaid Cymru and also the Brexit Party, their amendments would create a monolingual name—for Plaid, obviously, 'Senedd' in Welsh, or, for the Brexit Party, just an English title in 'Parliament'—and we do not think this is appropriate. We celebrate the fact that we are a bilingual nation and we aspire to be more fully one, and that bilingualism from the very start of devolution in Wales was at its heart. And I think it's been a wonderful achievement. Many of us 20 years ago had no experience of working in a genuinely bilingual environment. And the way we conduct debates, the outstanding translation we get—we get full and proper law-making through English and Welsh, and I think that should be reflected in the title of this institution. I think it celebrates both the magnificent worlds we live in in the English-speaking world and the Welsh-speaking world, and that combination makes Wales a most exceptional place. I will give way to Rhun.

Thank you. Would you agree with me—and this is a point I raised earlier this week—that, in pursuing a bilingual nation, which, surely, is something that we all aspire to, that needn't mean compartmentalising us into Welsh speakers and non-Welsh speakers, telling non-Welsh speakers, 'This is what you call this institution' and Welsh speakers, 'This is what you call it'. Do you understand my argument about those words that transcend linguistic barriers, from 'eisteddfod' to 'cwtsh' to 'hiraeth' to 'hwyl', and that 'Senedd' has already begun to become one of those transcending words and that, indeed, through our leadership, it can certainly be cemented in that way?

I completely accept there's merit on both sides here. We're choosing between two good options, I think, but I do believe our option, as advanced by Carwyn Jones, is the better of the two. But I do accept the force of your argument and the spirit in which it is made.

One thing that's not been mentioned yet and that's, in the consultation to this Bill, the public who were asked strongly favoured a bilingual name, and I think that ought to play some part in our discussion here. I also think, for the outside world, just as the Dáil is referred to as the 'Irish Parliament', or one of the houses of the Irish Parliament, I do think including the word 'parliament' in our title, in a bilingual title, sends that message to the rest of the world that we do have the full dignity of a law-making institution in Wales. And I know our most esteemed former Presiding Officer—and inaugural Presiding Officer, indeed—Dafydd Elis-Thomas, celebrates the word 'assembly', and he's quite right; it is used in many countries to mean parliament, but not in the English-speaking world, really, and that's why, I think, that we prefer 'parliament'.

I do, however, want to refer to what's likely to be the usage, because I think that's a reasonable point to make. I refer to the institution as the Senedd, I must say, because, at the minute, I think that's the best description, because 'senedd' is the word for it in Welsh, and we've still got the word 'assembly' in English, which we are trying, in a slightly clumsy way through our legislative competence, to do. Okay. I will give way again.

Just very briefly again, I would argue that 'senedd' is a bilingual word. Are you suggesting that we're somehow special because we can use 'senedd' and those outside can't?

Well, I'd encourage others to use it as well. I use 'Dáil', and I know what it means, so I have no difficulty there.

I think, in common usage, it is likely to be called the Senedd, but not everyone will. I'll be very relaxed; I certainly will use it. And this is not uncommon. Parliament is as often referred to as 'Westminster' as it is 'Parliament', so, you know, these things will be established by common usage. But, in the actual Act, I think we should state our full bilingual dignity. So, anyway, that's the reason we will be supporting Carwyn Jones.

In terms of the other amendments, we will support Alun Davies's amended versions of them—namely amendments 87 and 94—as this leaves Members of this Assembly with the designation 'Members of the Welsh Parliament', which we prefer. Otherwise, we feel the version put forward by Carwyn Jones would result in the designation 'MSC', and because that has obvious academic references, that would cause some confusion. I don't know if anyone in here holds an MSc; I've an MA, but you could be—[Laughter.] Self-promotion is every recommendation, in my view. So, we could have some MScs MSCs. [Laughter.] I know in Germany you have lots of Doctor Doctors, and that's an actual title without the following joke, but I do think that we need to establish an acronym that is slightly more exclusive in its use than the confusion that would cause. So, we will be going along the lines suggested by Alun Davies.

Then the other amendments that I've got are basically amendments to amendments. We have quite a few of these in this Bill, and I know we can rely with alacrity on your ability, Deputy Presiding Officer, to steer us through all this, but I don't envy you this afternoon and this evening, I must say. But, anyway, our amendments to amendments relate to what the Counsel General has put forward in terms of the designation, and they basically then amend so that Alun Davies's version is reflected in the Counsel General's amendments. So, having said that—. We will also be supporting some of Caroline Jones's amendments that achieve the same designation, and, with that, I move our amendments in group 1.

I think this debate goes to the heart of who we are and who we want to be, and the sort of country we want to live in as well. I'm not one of those people who dismiss the debates and discussions about names and titles as being merely a—I'll start again—names and titles as not being important to the political debate about what this place should be and is. The Labour Party has, for a century, at different times campaigned for a Parliament. It was in Keir Hardie's manifesto when he was elected to represent Merthyr and Aberdare, and who can forget S.O. Davies's campaign for a Welsh Parliament through the 1950s as well? It was a Labour campaign for a Parliament for this place, a Parliament in this country, home rule for Wales, to ensure that Wales is governed on the same basis as the other countries of the United Kingdom.

And, in establishing a Parliament in this place, we did so not on the basis of simply a number of technical issues, but on the basis of our values—what we believe in and who we are as a country and who we want to be as a nation. And it was important to me, and I think it's important to all of us in different ways, although we express it differently, that bilingualism is at the heart of that. Both our national languages have a place in this Parliament and have a place in this Chamber, and have a place in how we organise our business here. It is right and proper that we can choose the language that we participate in in the business of this place and that both languages are accorded equal respect and that that bilingualism is a real, live bilingualism. It's not the bilingualism that sometimes we hear and sometimes we see from institutions that don't really believe in it. It's not the bilingualism that's sometimes a painful bilingualism, which we listen to in the declaration of election results on some occasions. And we've all heard that—it's not a real, live bilingualism; it's a fake bilingualism. But I want to see the real bilingualism, the vitality of our languages, the vitality of our cultures in Wales, represented here in who we are and what we are. That's why I'm going to support Carwyn Jones's first amendment.

But, in supporting his first amendment, I'm not going to support his other amendments, unfortunately, because bilingualism doesn't simply stop at the nameplate at the entrance to this place. It doesn't stop at the headed notepaper we may use from time to time. It should be at the centre and at the heart of what we do here. I do not understand how you can propose to have a bilingual title in amendment 88, is it—86—and then move forward to amendments 86, 88 and 89 with monolingual amendments. There is no intellectual consistency at all. And I'm happy for the former First Minister to intervene, should he wish to do so. You cannot—. Oh, well, here we go. [Laughter.]

Can I thank my colleague for his invitation to intervene? The point, surely, is this: the reason why all the amendments after 85 are phrased in the way they are is in order to secure the use of 'Senedd' as the working title of this place. That's the reason for it. So, we have a legal definition and then we have all the amendments that deal with what the convention should be in the future. And let's not pretend that Welsh and English are languages of equal strength in society—they're not. And so it is important that, whilst we look at equality between the two languages, we do understand that it is not the case that the two languages are equal in strength in society.

I understand and appreciate that. But far from—. I don't wish to disagree with my learned friend, but I'm going to. You can't simply describe what you write in law as a working title. It is not a working title; it is the legal name. It is what is written in law; it is in statute. It isn't simply a brand and a name that we can use colloquially when we're sitting in the Dog and Duck. It is what is written in statute, and I do not belive that you can, on the one hand, claim to have a hardwired commitment to bilingualism in amendment 85, but that commitment to bilingualism does not reach amendment 86. I believe, if you have an amendment that recognises the bilingual nature of this place, then that should be consistent through the parts and names of all parts of this institution and not simply on the front door.

Thank you for taking an intervention. Would you agree that our amendment also succeeds in achieving exactly what you're calling for, which is to have that bilingualism within the legislation? The legislation makes it very clear that it is a Senedd in Welsh and a Parliament in English, but that you have a common bilingual name in 'the Senedd' that fits all of us in Wales, whatever our choice of language. 

Look, Rhun, like David Melding, this isn't something that I want to spend time disagreeing over, because many of us will use different terms and titles in our everyday lives. As somebody who, of course, speaks Welsh, I use the word 'Senedd' and have done for quite some years and I have no issue with that. But I also recognise that I represent people who do not do that, and I believe that the importance of rooting this place in the people we represent means that we must also use the language that people speak, and that means using both our national languages, not simply one of them but both of them, and doing so in a way that guarantees the equality that we both seek to see. So, I hope that this won't be seen as a divisive debate and one where we are simply arguing for an English-only approach, because I wouldn't support that either. And I wouldn't support the amendments from the Brexit Party for that reason. But I will support an effective, strong, living, vibrant bilingualism, which is what we've all fought for in different ways for many years. 

When I was establishing—or when the First Minister at the time was launching the strategy to create a million Welsh speakers, to change fundamentally the nature of the future of Wales, we were doing so to strengthen and to empower the Welsh language, to strengthen and empower people to speak and to use Welsh. But we weren't doing that in order to weaken and to make people feel threatened who didn't speak Welsh and spoke only English. So, we were doing that in order to ensure that we do have two vibrant language communities in Wales, both of which should be represented here in this place.

The amendment, Deputy Presiding Officer, that sits in my name in this debate is that over what we call ourselves as Members, and that has to be understandable to people throughout this country. I think the Government's amendment is probably the worst of all worlds. I don't believe it has the support that the Government is claiming for it. I do not believe that it is one that will be used as a means of understanding and for rooting an understanding of what we do and what is done here. Now, if it was simply a neutral term, one that didn't help to understand, then it wouldn't be so bad. But I believe it's worse than that, in fact. It's something that will create a barrier to understanding and a blockage to understanding of what we do and what we are and what this place is. It's already been pointed out that 'MSC' is already in use in this country as an academic suffix, and it will directly lead to confusion, but it will also not help people that we represent understand what we do.

The 'Member of the Welsh Parliament' amendment in my name sits easily in the existing terminology of Members of Parliaments in different places. We have MSPs, we have MPs we have MEPs. There is no reason at all why you can't have an MWP, which will help understanding, which will enable people to understand what we do here, which will increase clarity, increase transparency—

Isn't there an issue, though, that we say 'Members of the Parliament' as that one, and that this is a 'Member of the Welsh Parliament'? What we're doing in introducing 'Senedd', of course, is bringing in that unique, rather than setting ourselves as being deferential to the other.

I hope that understanding is important as well, and I believe—. In the Welsh language, I would be very happy for us to be called Aelodau Seneddol, Aelodau'r Senedd or Aelodau Senedd Cymru, and I prefer the first two rather than the last, quite frankly. But, in the English language—and my amendment goes to the English language version of this legislation and not to the Welsh language part of this legislation—we need to use terminology and words that are understandable in the English language and that describe, in the English language, what this place is and what we do and who we are. The Government amendment, I believe, is the worst of all worlds. It adopts a suffix that is already in use. It will lead to confusion, it will lead to barriers to understanding, it will not lead to greater transparency and greater clarity and it will not help us root this institution in the communities of the country that we seek to represent.

I rise to move amendment 106 in the name of Caroline Jones and the other amendments in her name in group 1 on the name of the National Assembly for Wales. I'd like to commend Rhun on his, I thought, very good initial speech, which I listened to very carefully and I thought was thoughtful. The comments made by David Melding I'll also associate myself with. I think the tone of the debate so far has been good.

Our amendment was submitted in English, having considered the English version of the Bill. We would like to see, given the parity of esteem for the languages that we have in this institution, that—while we have no objection to 'Senedd' being the description in the Welsh language version of the Bill, or indeed 'Senedd Cymru' if that is preferred, we believe that in the English version of the Bill we should have the English descriptor 'Welsh Parliament'. We think that is important in terms of genuine bilingualism and parity of esteem. Yes, I think this building has a certain degree of recognition as Senedd, but, to me at least, that descriptor has traditionally attached to the building more than it has to the institution.

As an institution, we had a very significant consultation with the people of Wales where we asked their views, and the very strong message that came back from that was that, in English, we should be known as the Welsh Parliament. I don't agree with Rhun when he says it is enough that it should just be up there on the door in smaller letters beneath 'Senedd'—that somehow that gives the parity of esteem. It does not, and I think we should give equal precedence to 'Welsh Parliament' in English as we do to 'Senedd' in Welsh.

What we have seen is we need to make the whole of Wales feel that this is their institution, that this is their Parliament, and, representing south-east Wales, I am concerned that people who live close to the border with England, people who do not speak Welsh, people who listen primarily to or absorb UK-wide media, should feel this is as much their institution as it is those of us in the country who speak Welsh, on which basis I give way to Delyth.

Thank you very much for giving way. I am listening to your contribution and I would ask if you could explain how the case you're making for how you want this institution to belong to all the people of Wales sits alongside what other members of your party have said in terms of wanting this institution to be abolished.

It's not the position of our party or our group.

Not in this place, but other members of the Brexit Party have.

Well, I cannot answer for every single supporter the Brexit Party may have, but the position of the Brexit Party group is that we support this institution and we would like devolution to work. I think an important part of that is calling our institution by a name that resonates with the whole of Wales, and in English, at least for a substantial proportion of the population, that is 'Welsh Parliament'.

We have had an evolution in devolution. When this institution was set up, we clearly had fewer powers than the Scottish Parliament, and notwithstanding the comments earlier, I believe it was intended that being called an Assembly, as the London Assembly is, was showing that we had fewer powers than were given to the Scottish Parliament; at least, that was one aspect, in my view, of the difference in name. However, now we have primary law-making powers and we have substantial tax-raising powers, and irrespective of people's views about how far devolution should go—and we would like to have a stable settlement—we should call something what it is. To the extent that we have developed, in English terminology, from the powers and function of an Assembly to that of a Parliament, it is important that we should update what we are called to say that we are not the Welsh Assembly, in colloquial language, but the Welsh Parliament. That is the purpose and intention of our amendments put in the name of Caroline Jones, and I would appeal to Members for support for them.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

Thanks for giving way. In many ways, I have got a lot of sympathy for the 'Senedd' argument, and there is a certain clarity there. But in terms of what you've just said, we already have a Scottish Parliament and a Westminster Parliament. Are you honestly saying that there is massive confusion there—that the people in Scotland don't where the different responsibilities lie? I don't believe that the argument that you are using there is adequately supporting the case in the way that Rhun ap Iorwerth's did. 

I'll turn to English as I finish. I don't usually use English in the Chamber, but let's cwtsh up today. Let's not be twp. Let's say together, 'There's to be a Parliament for Wales, to be known as the Senedd.' Diolch.

It's a pleasure to rise in this debate, in the first section of amendments, and I'll speak to amendments 85 and 87A, if I may. I'd congratulate, as David Melding said in his opening remarks, the tone of the debate so far. We're arguing over two very strong cases here in fairness, but to me the compelling argument is how people outside this institution understand what we do, and beyond Wales as well. People understand the term 'Parliament' and 'parliamentary activities' and I think that's important for us to reflect and consider. Because in 2012 when I first raised this particular issue about how we needed to move from being an Assembly to being a fully fledged Welsh Parliament, when the Eisteddfod was held in the Vale of Glamorgan, there were strong arguments for and against that put on that very day. I can remember the Presiding Officer at the time, or the former Presiding Officer at the time, making the point about the French Assembly and how people wanted a continuation of the 'Assembly' term because people understood what we were doing in this institution. But obviously—I'll take the intervention in a minute, if I may—we've moved on from there now, we have, and with tax-raising powers and law-making powers, as well as a separate Government from the legislature, I do think it is really, really important that we do share the sentiments that Alun Davies, in his remarks, made about bilingualism, because that's really, really important in my book as someone who isn't a Welsh speaker at all, but respects the motives behind encouraging people to pick up our native language and run with it, so it becomes an everyday occurrence rather than an exceptionality. When I was growing up, in south Wales in particular, in Cardiff, it was the exception rather than the norm. Today we go around many of the shopping arcades, many of the community facilities, and very often you hear the rich dialect of Welsh being spoken, and long may that continue and be expanded. Rhun.

Just very briefly, and to point out that Andrew R.T. Davies slipped into his first sentence a word of the kind that we are describing here—'Eisteddfod'. You mentioned the Eisteddfod being in your constituency; you slipped from English to this bilingual, nebulous word 'Eisteddfod' very comfortably. What we're asking is for this place to give leadership in bringing 'Senedd' into national parlance, if you like, in the same way.

As someone who can massacre the English language, I'm sure you're very grateful that I don't familiarise myself with the Welsh language too often, because the damage I could do to the Welsh language would be unbelievable, most probably. But I accept the point.

In many conversations around Wales, whether it be at the kitchen table, whether it be in the pub or a meeting place, people thankfully today easily hop between the two languages, but as David introduced into this debate, the consultation that was undertaken by the Commission clearly showed that the people who responded to that consultation did want a bilingual name for this institution. Therefore, I think it's incumbent upon us as the legislators—although people have a free vote here today—to reflect on that consultation and actually replicate what people's wishes are. Because one of the biggest issues that we find is the lack of understanding of what this institution does and means to the people of Wales, and indeed beyond Wales around the rest of the United Kingdom as well. That is a massive problem. There was no prouder moment than when I got elected to this institution in 2007 and have been able to serve now for three terms, yet when I go just a couple of streets away from this building, precious few people understand what actually goes on in this building and what is done in their name. It's a small step, admittedly, and some of the measures that we will take further on in the process will hopefully again enlarge people's understanding and simplify people's ability to understand what we do within this building.

That's why I have no hesitation in supporting the amendment that's put down in the former First Minister's name. It wouldn't be very often I would have said over the seven years that I supported Carwyn Jones, and he might have sweated if I did say that too often, but I'm more than happy to support the amendment in the name of Carwyn Jones today, and then following on to support the amendment in Alun Davies’s name, because the argument that Alun Davies made is so simple and straightforward, it’s almost unarguable against. If we’re going to be called a Welsh Parliament, then we are Members of the Welsh Parliament. That is in the English language, and I appreciate, and I will not try and massacre the Welsh language part of it, but the Welsh translation follows quite easily as well then. So, surely it is a logical continuation of the journey that if you set the argument in the English language that this is a Welsh Parliament, then we are Welsh Parliamentarians, and rather than complicate it, keep it simple, keep it straightforward, go back to the consultation responses.

And I do regret that the Bill that has come forward hasn't retained the sentiment of the consultation, and we haven't had to have this debate, it was actually included in the body of the legislation, so that we could just move straight forward. However, the Commission chose not to do that, and I hope today, as legislators, we will correct that by supporting the amendment that Carwyn Jones has put down, and then supporting amendment 87A that Alun Davies, the Member for Blaenau Gwent, has put down. I was just going to finish.

Can I just quickly—? Thank you for taking the intervention before you sit down. I wanted to just draw attention to when you were saying that you didn't want to massacre the language: you're putting yourself down. I think that part of the spirit of our amendment was to encourage all Members—not all Members, but all people in Wales—to see the Welsh language as something belonging to them. And I know that you were doing that to be self-deprecating, but I fear sometimes that a lot of Welsh people who don't speak Welsh have this sense of it not being for them, and if we were to have a monolingual name that showed that it was for everyone, then it might start to break down that sense of the Welsh language being either for you or not. Do you accept that point?

I can see the point you're making, but I have to say, I can do it to the French language, I can do it Latin, as my school reports will show as well. In fact, my French master who taught me for five years, his last sentence in his final report for me was, 'I hope Andrew Davies doesn't come into any contact with the EEC, because, ultimately, he'll finish that as well, he will.' That was back in 1982.

But on that note, I do hope that people will support the amendment in Carwyn Jones's name, 85, and the amendment in Alun Davies's name about being called 'Members of the Welsh Parliament', and I do commend Members for the tone of the debate so far.

I rise in support of the amendment in the name of Rhun up Iorwerth, Hefin David and Mike Hedges. I hailed a taxi from Cardiff Central railway station recently, and I said to the taxi driver, 'Take me to the Senedd.' And off we went. And we arrived here. On the way, the taxi driver said, 'You're one of those Plaid Cymru people aren't you?' So, I said, 'Yes.' And he said, 'What’s the Welsh for "taxi"?' And I said, 'Well, what’s the English for "taxi"?' Because, of course, the word 'taxi' is Greek. And that’s the essential point in this debate today—no language is exactly pure.

All languages are amalgams of words borrowed and assimilated over centuries sometimes, certainly over very, many years, borrowed from other languages. There are, for example, over 1,000 words in Welsh that are from Latin. That refers to the time when the Roman empire was here 2,000 years ago. For 400 years there was an overlap between the Latin language and Old Welsh. So, we have 1,000 words of Latin in Welsh: 'ffenestr'/'window', 'pont' and, yes, 'senedd'. And, obviously, in the same way, English has also absorbed hundreds of words from other languages, from Norman French, from French, from Latin, from Greek. The list goes on: quid pro quo, pro bono, laissez-faire, sabotage, espionage, fait accompli. Now, let’s just take 'fait accompli'. It’s never directly translated straight afterwards, 'fait accompli/stitch up', like we are proposing 'Senedd Cymru/Welsh Parliament'. 'Fait accompli' is accepted as what it is. Nobody goes around saying, 'fait accompli/stitch up', and if you don't say 'stitch up', nobody knows what 'fait accompli' means. Because if we insist on translating everything because we think people cannot learn and will not understand. Where will it all end?

Some words of Welsh have been absorbed into English properly. We've heard some examples, but specifically 'eisteddfod'; 'penguin' is a Welsh word in English, and 'corgi' is a Welsh word in English. So, shall we address the Queen's dogs as 'corgis/miniature dogs' from now on, in order to protect people's sensitivities? And when we come to place names, we have Heol y Cyw in Bridgend; should it become 'Chick Road'? And Nantycaws, outside Carmarthen, should it become 'Cheese Brook' as well?

Now, we've been here before. I grew up in Meirionnydd when it had to be called 'Merioneth', otherwise plainly people would have no idea where they were. [Laughter.] And 'Dolgethly' instead of Dolgellau. No, it's Senedd. It's Senedd only, please. No alternative fait accompli. 

Let me declare at the beginning that I fully support all the initiatives being put in place to expand the use of the Welsh language and applaud the Welsh Government's aim to have the language spoken by 1 million people by 2050. Indeed, I and Caroline Jones are learners of Welsh. However, if, as it appears, the change of name of the Assembly is to give it the same status as other Parliaments, then it is essential that the name we use can be understood not only here in Wales, but throughout the rest of the world. The name 'Parliament' is understood throughout all of the English-speaking world, which, incidentally, makes up 20 per cent of the world's population, some 1.5 billion people. 

Will you take an intervention?

Of course. 

I would argue that Ireland has a pretty solid reputation internationally. They seem to get away with the Dáil. 

Well, I'm not certain, if you walked up to a person in Australia and said 'the Dáil' without referring to it as the Irish Parliament that they would understand what you meant. [Interruption.] We could argue all night on that, but that is the situation, Rhun, I'm afraid. 

As I understand it, the Welsh word for Parliament will be understood by just 0.5 million Welsh speakers, but will have to be translated for the other 2.5 million Welsh people who do not have the language. I have no objection to having 'Senedd Cymru' as the first name, but it must be accompanied by 'Welsh Parliament' alongside it. 

Thank you. Can I now call the Counsel General?

As a result of the way the issues are approached in the Bill, the result would be two sets of essentially duplicating provisions in the statute book. If we proceeded as the Bill proposes, after Royal Assent the provisions in the current sections 2 to 8 of the Bill would stand in their own right, but at the same time the Government of Wales Act 2006 would be amended with the aim of achieving exactly the same effect. So the statute book would contain duplicate, overlapping provisions in two different pieces of legislation: one that would be in English, and one that would be in Welsh and English. I hope Members will appreciate the undesirability of that outcome. So, the amendments proposed by Carwyn will produce a clearer and more accessible set of provisions, most of which will then be found in one place, our founding statute, the Government of Wales Act.

Finally, I refer to the replacement of the word 'Assembly' by the word 'Parliament' in what, if these amendments are accepted, will be an amended section 1(1) of the 2006 Act. That the Assembly should be able to change its name to a Parliament, if it so chose, was a central part of the legislation that gave the Assembly the powers to consider this Bill. The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee recommended that we secure a section 109 Order to put the position beyond doubt. But the Welsh Government’s judgment is, first, that this amendment is within competence, without the need for a section 109 Order, and, secondly, that the risk of legal challenge to this in the courts is minimal. Additionally, there will be practical challenges in obtaining consent, given developments in Westminster, if this were to be thought necessary, which it is not. So, I am happy to commend that amendment.

I invite the Assembly’s support for Carwyn’s amendments, and I invite Members to reject the other amendments in this group, including the Llywydd’s amendments 5 and 6, which are to Schedule 1, which Carwyn Jones—

The Llywydd’s amendments 5 and 6 I'm asking Members to reject, which would be to Schedule 1, which Carwyn Jones’s amendments would remove, but excluding the other technical amendments the Llywydd has proposed. Diolch.

Diolch. I call on the Llywydd. 

I'm grateful to the Member in charge. I think it would be useful for us to know why the Commission disregarded the consultation that was undertaken, which very firmly—it wasn't a close result—backed a bilingual designation?

As the Member in charge, I've been guided by many issues during the consideration of what name to put in the Bill that was published. The consultation—the highest majority favoured the bilingual name, as has been referred to already. Over 50 per cent also favoured 'Senedd' as a monolingual name. As I've said, and I said during the Stage 1 debates here, I would also be guided by what would command the majority in this place, and I consulted within individual Members and with political groups at that time, and I always have at the back of my own mind the fact that we need a super-majority to pass this legislation in its entirety. I made a judgment in presenting this Bill to this Senedd, but it will be ultimately, as we are here today, for you to vote, and to guide us in the choice of name that will be finally chosen for this place. So, that's how we came to today, but today moves us forward to the next stage following Stage 2, and we'll see how the votes fall as this afternoon continues.

Thank you. I call on Adam Price to reply to the debate.

'would send a strong message that the Welsh language genuinely belongs to everyone regardless of their background.'

'the names of most national assemblies and Parliaments of ​ various countries are known to the rest of the world by the name for a Parliament in their own languages? There is only one Knesset, one Duma, one Riigikogu and one Seimas.'

why use six syllables when you can you use two?

By having a unique name that is based on our history just doesn't say that, actually, we have our own tradition here. It also says that we could have our own future. We can create our own unique democracy. We may be starting to pick up some of Westminster's bad habits by meeting too late tonight. Let's remember that commitment to family-friendly hours. That's very much at the forefront of my mind at the moment, as you can imagine. But, look, when new democracies are formed, I think Alun Davies is right: the naming of things, symbols, are important, because they say something about what you're trying to create. When the Dáil—. The first Dáil met 100 years ago this year, didn't it? They didn't call—. They'd had an Irish Parliament. And, by the way, that's the difference: the Scottish Parliament, when Winnie Ewing said, 'The Scottish Parliament is hereby reconvened', we couldn't have said that; we never had one like that. The Dáil, though, when it was created, it was a deliberate choice—they wanted a new word because they wanted to create a new Ireland that represented their values. And I think that's represented in the history of this institution and what we could become. We don't simply want to recreate the parliamentary tradition that has existed elsewhere; we want to create a Parliament that is fit for us, that belongs to us, that is part of our history and our tradition, yes, but also says something about a different kind of democracy that could be made here in Wales. And, indeed, the First Minister himself, I think, actually touched on this when he was asked about the idea of 'Senedd' versus 'Welsh Parliament'. And seeing as I'm—. I know he's not in his place, but, as I'm agreeing with him, I think it's fair for me to quote him. 'It does in a way'—using 'Welsh Parliament'

'does in a way, assume that the gold standard has been set somewhere else and what we have to do is recreate our own mini version and I'm not in favour of that',

he said.

'If I had to choose, I'd have to go with the Senedd because I am quite keen that we establish our still very new institution in ways that does not take a preexisting model elsewhere as the sort of template and that we're always judged against what has gone on somewhere else.'

And I couldn't put it better myself. And could I quote the former First Minister? In a letter he wrote to the Presiding Officer—the first bit is in Welsh and the second bit is in English, so it's quite appropriate, really:

so, this is the suggested amendment—

'There is to be a Parliament for Wales to be known as the Senedd'.

That is exactly the amendment that we're proposing, and I think there's a bit of poetry in there, isn't there?

'There is to be a Parliament for Wales'—

the indefinite article, the general—

'to be known as the Senedd'—

the definite article. You know, that's the beauty of what happens here. We're taking a universal principle—which is democracy, which exists in all kinds of Parliaments around the world—we're taking that universal principle and we're making it our own. We're turning the universal into the particular. And that's what every Parliament must do. And I have to say to—. I've listened to very sincere arguments and I think the Senedd should be commended on the quality of the debate and the way that we've engaged with each other. That civility, I think, is part of our unique culture, but let's celebrate that unique culture now and what it could be by naming ourselves as the Senedd that belongs to all the people of Wales.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 265 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 16, one abstention, 38 against, therefore that amendment is lost.

I now move to amendment 85. Carwyn, formally, to move.

Thank you. If amendment 85 is agreed to, amendments 266, 106 and 107 fall. The question is that amendment 85 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Right, we move to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 43, no abstentions, 13 against. Therefore, amendment 85 is agreed and amendment 266, amendment 106 and amendment 107 fall.

We now move to amendment 86. Carwyn to move.

Thank you. If amendment 86 is agreed to, amendment 108 will fall. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 38, two abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

We now move to—. Can we now move to 87, amendment 87? I call on Carwyn Jones to move amendment 87.

[Interruption.] Yes, that's right. I move to 87. Excuse me. I'm asking Carwyn to move amendment 87, and then we will move to the amendment to amendment 87. So, Carwyn to move.

Thank you. Right. So, as there is an amendment to 87, that amendment will be disposed of first. Alun Davies, amendment 87A.

Yn ffurfiol. Thank you. The question is that amendment 87A be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, there's an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 19, five abstentions, 32 against. Therefore, amendment 87A is not agreed to.

We now proceed to vote on amendment 87. If amendment 87 is agreed to, amendment 109 falls. Open the vote. Oh, sorry, does any Member object? We don't have to have a—. [Objection.] I thought you would, so—. Sorry—trying to save a couple of minutes there. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 25, four abstentions, 26 against. Therefore, amendment 87 is not agreed to.

So, we now move to amendment 109, and I ask Caroline Jones to move.

Yes.

You're moving 109. The question is that amendment 109 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 17, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, amendment 109 is not agreed.

Carwyn Jones, amendment 88.

If amendment 88 is agreed to, amendment 110 will fall. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we'll have an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 41, four abstentions, 11 against. Therefore, amendment 88 is agreed to and amendment 110 falls.

Carwyn Jones, amendment 89.

Thank you. If amendment 89 is agreed to, amendment 111 will fall. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 40, four abstentions, 12 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed and amendment 111 falls.

Carwyn Jones, amendment 90.

Thank you. If amendment 90 is agreed, amendment 112 will fall. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll have an electronic vote, then. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 40, four against—sorry, four abstentions, 12 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed and amendment 112 falls.

Carwyn Jones, amendment 91.

Thank you. If amendment 91 is agreed, amendment 113 falls. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion, 41, four abstentions, 11 against. Therefore, the motion is agreed and amendment 113 will fall.

Carwyn Jones, amendment 92.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we have an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 41, five abstentions, 10 against. Therefore, amendment 92 is agreed.

I now call on Carwyn Jones to move amendment 94.

Thank you. As there are amendments to amendment 94, those amendments will be disposed of first. I propose that amendments 94A to 94K, which appear consecutively on the marshalled list, are disposed of en bloc. Does any Member object to the votes being grouped? No. Therefore, the amendments are being grouped. Alun Davies to move amendments 94A to 94K.

Presiding Officer, we've tested the mood of the Chamber on these matters. It isn't my intention to test the mood again. I'm happy not to move these amendments if the mover of the main amendment, 94, Carwyn Jones, is willing to give us an undertaking that he will consider the votes taken during this session and bring back subsequent amendments at Stage 3.

Well, I'm happy to give an undertaking that I will consider what is already a quite complex situation to make sure that we have coherent legislation, and I think that that's important for all of us. I can offer that undertaking that I'll discuss the issue with him.

On that basis, I do not intend to move those amendments.

Can I ask the Member in charge of amendment 94, Carwyn Jones, whether he intends to move 94 to a vote?

I'm not sure that I was asked not to move it to a vote, but to give an undertaking as a result, subsequent to the vote being moved, so therefore I move. 

You move 94. Thank you. So, we now proceed to a vote on amendment 94. Does any Member object? Nobody object to 94? [Objection.] You do. Okay. Right. So, we now proceed to an electronic vote on amendment 94. All those in favour—. Sorry. Sorry, we haven't opened the vote. Open the vote. Confusing me already. 

Before the vote, can I ask for the bell to be rung?

You want the bell to be rung.

Yes. 

Do we have three Members who will show for the bell to be rung? Okay, ring the bell. Can somebody ring the bell please?

I intend now to move on, so if Members can come to order.

We have passed five minutes since the bell was rung, and so I now am going to resume. Carwyn Jones.

I think it's probably best to raise this as a point of order, Dirprwy Lywydd, under the appropriate Standing Order. There have been discussions—. I was very keen—which is why I asked for the bell to be rung—to make sure that we had consistency and that we had a direction, in what is a very complicated Bill. Having discussed the issue with a number of Members of other parties, it’s clear that with amendment 94, all the Schedule would remain as it is, but there are inconsistencies in that Schedule, in the Schedule proposed under amendment 94, that would need to be rectified, because they make reference to 'Members of Senedd Cymru'. So, in moving amendment 94, and seeking support for 94, can I give an undertaking—and also I’ve spoken to the Government, who also understand the issue and are open to doing this—that in the next Stage, any inconsistencies created by the rejection of amendment 87, which of course the Assembly was perfectly entitled to do, will be corrected at that Stage, so that we don’t have different terminologies in different parts of the Schedule compared to the Bill, which is where we are at the moment?

Okay. So, you have moved amendment 94.

Yes. 

So, if amendment 94 is agreed to—[Interruption.] You all need to listen to this. You all need to listen to this, because you're going to get terribly confused later on. If amendment 94 is agreed to, amendments 170 to 183, amendments 5 and 6, amendments 184 to 208, amendment 267, amendments 209 to 220, 268, amendments 221 to 242, amendment 7, amendments 243 to 253, and amendment 8, will all fall. The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Objection. Right. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 30, four abstentions, 21 against, therefore that amendment is agreed and all the other amendments that I earlier called out have fallen.

We now move to group 2. Group 2, the next group of amendments, relates to the extension of the right to vote to persons aged 16 and 17 and associated electoral registration. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 114, and I call on Caroline Jones to move and speak to the lead amendments and the other amendments in this group. Caroline.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. I move the amendments tabled in my name. The purpose of the amendments in this group is to seek to remove Part 3 of the Bill. We can see the need to change the name of this institution to reflect the fact that we are a law-making Parliament, and the changes to the disqualification criteria are long overdue. The law created a bizarre situation whereby if you worked for certain organisations, you had to resign from your job in order to get on the ballot paper. It was like having to quit your job in order to qualify for an interview for another—totally unjust.

What I can't see, however, is the need to lower the voting age. I firmly believe that the voting age has to remain at 18, the age at which we legally become an adult. Both the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Children Act 1989 define a child as someone under the age of 18. We have a bizarre situation when both this institution and the UK Parliament have been restricting 16-year-olds, preventing them from smoking, visiting a tanning salon or getting intimate piercings, yet want to give them the right to vote. The argument many politicians have put forward for lowering the voting age is that 16-year-olds can get married and join the armed forces, so they should be able to vote. But what they fail to add is the need for parental consent. Yes, you can get married or enter a civil partnership at 16, but you have to get permission from mam and dad or your guardian. You can join the army at 16, but once again you need permission from a parent or guardian. 

Will you take an intervention, Caroline?

Certainly, Helen.

I'm grateful to you for doing that. Of course, the other argument is that, at 16, you can be employed and you can pay tax, and you don't require parental consent to do that. I happen to be a democrat and I believe in the principle of no taxation without representation. 

Thank you for that, Helen Mary, but what I'm trying to say is that there's definite confusion here between being a child and an adult and what you can and cannot do, and I think that this is not in the interests of a child under the age of 18, as stated. 

So, I've yet to hear a compelling argument for lowering the voting age. Unless those advocating votes at 16 are also going to reduce the age of majority, the voting age should remain at 18. We should be concentrating on encouraging the 55 per cent of the adult population who didn't vote at the last Assembly election to participate, rather than extending the franchise. According to experts from Queen Mary University of London, overall turnout would drop, because turnout for 16 and 17-year-olds tends to be lower than other groups, as evidenced from other countries with a lower minimum voting age. And it is for these reasons we have sought to remove Part 3 from this Bill, and I urge Members to support my amendments. 

I move four amendments, and they can be separated into two parts. Firstly, amendments 270 and 273 would insert on the face of the Bill a duty for the Welsh Government to issue statutory guidance to all secondary schools, including colleges, on how to educate and inform on the changes to the voting age. I do think the education aspect of extending the franchise is quite critical. It was very extensively discussed in the Stage 1 committee, and it was reflecting on that that I thought it was necessary to bring these amendments forward.

It would ensure that all providers of secondary education in Wales must promote the awareness of elections to the Senedd, as well as the concept of citizenship. The duty ensures that Welsh Ministers must issue guidance to the providers of secondary education in order to ensure compliance with these provisions. While there are various arguments for and against the lowering of the voting age to 16—and we are divided in our group on this issue, and people will make up their minds—there is one common concern, and that's the evidence that we saw, which highlighted the need for education and awareness to accompany any change that is made to the franchise. 

The current level of education support was deemed inadequate by witnesses to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. For example, the Electoral Reform Society Cymru stated that political education is 'relatively poor', and that

'we're relatively disengaged in devolved politics, in particular.'

While noting some excellent practice in schools, even the Minister for Education admitted that there was a variability of provision for citizenship education, and acknowledged the need for consistency in the messages that children receive in relation to political education through the new curriculum. So, I do think we should take this opportunity to issue guidance.

Welsh students are crying out for more political engagement. That was also part of the evidence that the committee received, and a poll in 2017, for instance, showed that only 28 per cent of 16 and 17-year-olds knew that the NHS was devolved. That's probably the most important—well, it is the most important public service we're responsible for, and of this age group, under a third realise at the moment that it is devolved.

Without the correct educational support behind these proposed changes, we could be heading towards some of the same problems that face Scotland, where 25 out of 32 authorities had developed guidance on how headteachers and other staff should approach the referendum, but the other authorities didn't. The Electoral Commission, hinting at this situation, stated that from their perspective,

'the key thing will be effective public awareness ahead of any election that would explain to people who can and who can't take part in that election, and that doesn't just fall within any mass media work or campaign; it will also fall within political literacy and schools' formal education work as well'.

And I do agree with that.

Deputy Llywydd, it will not be healthy for our democracy to have such a variation in approach as they in the end had in Scotland, depending largely on the local authority's attitude to the approach to political and citizenship education. This is a difficult and intricate area of public policy. It's one that actually needs a lot of improvement, because I'm sure we've all experienced some schools that are just too timid to invite any engagement with political parties, because they believe we all need to be there at the same time whereas, obviously, they've just got to act in a non-partisan way and ensure that they have a fair programme throughout their school year, rather than have a perfect balance on every occasion. These amendments would ensure that we had a harmonised approach to public education in relation to the franchise.

My other amendments in this group, amendments 274 and 276, insert a sunrise clause into the Bill, delaying the commencement of votes at 16 until after the relevant provisions relating to the extension of the franchise in the local government and elections Bill are commenced. This will avoid the scenario where 16 and 17-year-olds are able to vote in Senedd elections, but not local government elections. As I said at Stage 1, in the Welsh Conservatives, we'll be having a free vote on the issue of votes at 16, but we are firm in our belief that should the extension of the franchise to 16-year-olds remain in this legislation, it should not be commenced until the approach is consistent for both Assembly elections and local government elections.

When we looked at this issue in the Stage 1 committee, even the Llywydd acknowledged that there is merit to having the whole franchise change in one piece of legislation. And while I respect the fact that the Welsh Government fully intends to bring forward the local government Bill before the local government elections in 2020—indeed, the Bill is promised imminently—we're aware of the convoluted history of this Bill, along with its prolonged and controversial gestation. The Llywydd spoke about her original intentions for this Bill and how it was originally intended to be implemented after the local government Bill, before the timetabling was flipped. So, our approach would ensure that the franchise is extended to 16 and 17-year-olds for both Senedd and local government elections at the same time. This would eliminate any prospect of confusion, and this is very important, I think, also for the efficient organisation of electoral arrangements.

Listening to the evidence in the Stage 1 committee proceedings, it was very clear that many of the expert witnesses believed that the extension of the franchise for both elections should be in a single Bill itself, and that one on electoral reform. This view also applied to the latter sections of this Bill regarding the oversight of the Electoral Commission. So, I hope that we're operating in the most efficient and effective way here as opposed to rushing through these hugely significant changes. And I hope that Members will be sympathetic to the constructive amendments that I'm seeking to move here.

The Electoral Reform Society and Professor Roger Scully both spoke about how the extension of the franchise for both elections at the same time would be the ideal situation. The Welsh Local Government Association said it was, 

'not immediately clear...why the franchise element of the local government and elections Bill is separate to this.' 

And, additionally, the Association of Electoral Administrators highlighted that—and I again quote—

'divergences between the local government and Assembly franchises would create the potential for confusion, both amongst the electorate and those responsible for administering elections, which in turn could impact on voter engagement.'

And, so, on that basis, I move our four amendments and urge—as well as the first two—the need to have this consistency. 

I'm just rising to speak about changing the voting age as opposed to discussing the curriculum, which my colleague Siân Gwenllian will do. As somebody who grew up and was campaigning against many issues such as opencast mining in the Valleys area where I lived as a young child, I don't feel that it's something that we should be afraid of. We debated this during the climate change debate recently, where I said that we should respect and value young people's views, and by respecting and valuing their views, we can extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds.

But it's not just about that. It's about trying to engage with a new cohort of people who may have radical or creative ideas that may influence or be able to collaborate with us much more as Assembly Members. We all want that, and we all want those new ideas to come forward. We've seen it with the climate activists, but we've also seen it with the independence for Wales movement. Some of you may not want younger people to vote for that very reason, but we certainly want to engage with those younger people and I certainly do not want them to feel that they're disenfranchised from this political movement. We're here debating very important things today, but we want to say to young people, 'Well, what are the issues that you care about?', 'What can you change in relation to your communities?' Of course this needs to come with a public information campaign. Of course it doesn't sit on its own. There's no point having the vote if they're not going to use it, but there's ways and means of being able to do that in a constructive and positive way.

So, I would urge all Members here to think about what that means for those 16 and 17-year-olds. In fact, they may make more rational decisions than some of our world leaders right now, I would beg to question. We've seen some very toxic, very depressing debate of late, and I've spoken to young people about this and they feel frustrated by it. They feel that they want to be part of the discourse, and by giving them the vote at that earlier stage: what is the harm? We can get them involved earlier, surely, so that they vote more often in later life. I think Adam Price told me quite a few years ago, research shows that if you do engage at a younger age, they are more likely to vote throughout their lives, be it on any issue that affects them. And let's not be fooled: younger people will become adults one day and they will want to engage in various different issues. I was too young to vote in the referendum vote that established this very place, and I remember campaigning but feeling disenfranchised from not being able to vote. Well, let's not make the mistake of not allowing younger people to vote, and go down in history as a progressive and enlightened Parliament. 

I welcome the opportunity to speak in this part of the debate. It's no surprise to many that I don't advocate votes at 16. It's a consistent position that I've taken, although I'm happy to be persuaded, I have to say—[Interruption.]—by the merits of the argument. And I heard Bethan say that she tried to, but I have to draw on my own experience when I've gone around schools in the South Wales Central area, and one of the key arguments that's put by the students themselves—and it's highlighted in Laura McAllister's piece of work in particular—is the lack of education and information that's provided in the curriculum. I think that's a glaring anomaly in our system that we're now at Stage 2 and I haven't heard any real arguments that have convinced me that there's a coherent plan in place to have that education and have that information in the curriculum. Indeed, the legislative committee of the Assembly, when Mick Antoniw was speaking in Stage 1, said that:

'we are concerned at the apparent lack of a coherent action plan to deliver votes at 16 in readiness for the 2021 Assembly elections.'

Now, the 2021 Assembly elections are a little over 18 months away, and yet there isn't a coherent plan in place. I've yet to hear of it, and we're prepared to vote for votes at 16.

And equally, when we look at other pieces of legislation where we think we are protecting young people, as we've heard from Caroline Jones already this afternoon, such as piercings, such as sunbeds, such as cigarette smoking, we've moved the age from 16, in many of those cases, up to 18, we have, then. I'm a father of four children and I believe passionately that the more you engage with young people, the more vibrant a society we have. But we have to set an age where we think it is applicable to have the franchise. And as I said, from my own personal experience and the experience I've had since I became an elected Member in 2007, time and time again, the students themselves are the ones who are telling me that they do not feel at the age of 16 and 17 that they are in a position to take up that very powerful position of voting in a democratic election, and 18 is the age that most people think is a sensible age.

I appreciate I will lose the vote tonight because there has been a majority here, a constant majority, for votes at 16; I accept that. But I would ask the Chamber to think seriously about the amendment in David Melding's name—amendment 270—which does build on the work of the McAllister review into this, that does talk about the need for an education provision within the curriculum. I can see the education Minister chuntering away. If she'd like to intervene and inform me that there is a coherent plan, I'd be most grateful because the committee report indicates that the education Secretary couldn't provide that coherent plan when she came in and presented evidence.

So, I do think that it is incumbent on Members here, if they are going to vote for votes at 16, to make sure that there is that ability within the curriculum to inform our citizens, our citizens of tomorrow, of the role that they will play in that democratic exercise, and I would suggest, the most powerful exercise that you can undertake, which is to put a cross on a bit of paper and actually put elected representatives into institutions like this to make that decision.

I do think it is important, as well, as David Melding has highlighted, that if the franchise is to change, that it is done together at a local government level as well as an Assembly level. As I said, I disagree with the principle, but I accept there's a majority here, and for many, it will be very disorientating and confusing to find one part of the franchise moving and the other parts of the franchise either staying still or catching up with it at a later date. And I do think that argument that David prosecuted is a very powerful argument, should the Assembly this afternoon vote to lower the voting age to 16. For that reason, that's why I'm supporting amendment 270 on education and will be supporting other amendments in this category, but not the principal amendment, which is to lower the vote to 16, which we, as a group, have a free vote on.

Thank you. Can I now call the Counsel General?

Dirprwy Lywydd, amendment 37, which the Government has brought forward to Part 3 of this Bill is part of a suite of Government amendments designed to extend the franchise—forgive me—yes, to extend the franchise for Senedd elections. This particular amendment will ensure that any citizen who is aged 16 and over and who meets all other qualifying criteria for voting may vote in Senedd elections. Dirprwy Lywydd, I commend the amendments to the Assembly.

I support the Llywydd’s amendments 11, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, which make amendments to the Welsh text of the Bill. Amendments 101, 114, 116 to 123, 125 to 130, 135, 137 and 165 from Caroline Jones all seek to remove from the Bill the provisions that enfranchise 16 and 17-year-olds and the administrative provisions necessary to give effect to that enfranchisement. These should be rejected as they remove one of the aims of the Bill, which the Welsh Government shared with the Commission.

Amendments 270 and 273 seek to place a duty on secondary schools to promote awareness of the franchise and of citizenship and to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to issue guidance in relation to this. I share the intent behind the amendment that we provide young people with the information they require to make an informed decision. However, curriculum for Wales 2022 seeks to allow for a broadening of learning, supporting settings, and schools to be more flexible in their approaches, and provides education leaders and practitioners with greater agency, enabling them to be innovative and to be creative. The new curriculum, through the—

Will the Counsel General give way? The real problem we have at the minute is a cultural barrier to dealing with anything political in secondary schools and in colleges, and that can only be sorted out at this stage, I would say, by guidance. Whilst I hope that the new curriculum will broaden things and allow the scope, so that it'll have that as the foundation, it won't do anything to shift that culture at the moment, which means that teachers just don't go anywhere near political stuff if they think it is controversial, and we need to challenge that.

Well, David Melding makes an important point, but I would say to him that we understand very well that the feedback we've received, for example, from the Youth Parliament suggests politically impartial teaching packages are needed as part of a mix of interactive activities and videos to help support young people to understand the broader responsibilities of citizenship and of democratic engagement, and we are very fixed on that.

The new curriculum, through the humanities area of learning and experience, aims to give learners an understanding of the broader historical, political, economic and societal issues that are required to become informed and to develop perspectives in this important area. And I think it's important to note as well that the objective is that the new curriculum will help to develop a generation of politically engaged and informed young people, which I know are David Melding's concerns.

We are already working with partners across the sector, engaging with schools, and local government, amongst others. Phase 1 resources will be in place by September 2020 and will be aimed at those young people eligible to vote in 2021 and 2022. And discussions are already under way to ensure that phase 2 resources complement the new curriculum. There'll be communications and awareness-raising campaigns developed alongside that to ensure consistency of messaging.

In that broader context, we will not be supporting amendments that make the provision of education on the franchise and the concept of citizenship a statutory requirement. That goes against the ethos of the new curriculum, and therefore we will reject amendments 270 and 273. [Interruption.] Yes.

I'm grateful for your outlining what resources will go into place, but, obviously, if this vote passes, which, as I said, it will, because there's a majority view here, this would be for the election of 2021. All the resources and exercising of the new curriculum are for 2022, so, surely, a better change in the date would be for the election of 2026, when the system will be educating our young people, because I think the earliest you said the resource is going to be made available is in September 2020, a mere six months before the Assembly election of 2021.

Well, as I say, resources are going to be ready by then. We will ensure the work is delivered in time for the Assembly elections in 2021, and the intention is to ensure that there'll be additional, politically neutral materials and teacher support available to schools by the summer of 2022, to prepare 16 and 17-year-olds for voting for the first time.

Amendments 274 and 276, which some speakers have referred to specifically, work together so that provisions lowering the voting age to 16 come into force only when the Senedd enacts legislation lowering the voting age to 16 for local government elections as well. This would mean, in practice, that registration could not be undertaken in advance of the franchise change, with the result that 16 and 17-year-olds would miss out on the opportunity of voting in the 2021 Assembly elections. I believe we should reject amendments 274 and 276 for that reason.

Speakers have referred to the relationship between this Bill and the local government and elections (Wales) Bill. The timing of the next Assembly elections in 2021 means that the changes in this Bill have to be taken forward in good time for that election, giving the electoral community time to prepare, and the local government and elections (Wales) Bill will not be introduced until later this year, and that would, obviously, be too late to make the necessary changes.

Thank you. Can I now call the Llywydd?

Thank you. I call on Caroline Jones to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. First of all, I'd like to thank everyone that took time to respond to what I was proposing. So, thank you all for that. I've taken on board everybody's contributions, and I'd like to thank you all for that. Although you had different opinions to me, it doesn't really matter because we are here to debate and we are here to reflect the opinions of the people that we represent, and the opinions of the people we represent are varied. But I look back on what has been said and you've stated, nearly every Member stated, that there was a need to educate and inform young people. My opinion is that, yes, of course if people are interested in politics, they need to make an informed choice of who they vote for, but I also look at the pressures on 16 and 17-year-olds today with examinations, and I look at an already overstretched curriculum, and I say that the pressures on 16 and 17-year-olds is vast. I wonder what sort of choices they are thinking of if they want to vote? Andrew R.T. Davies has stated that he has been around the school and spoken to 16 and 17-year-olds and there was no appetite to vote; they felt it was too young. But I've heard—[Interruption.] Well, it is Andrew. Of course it is Andrew. That's what I'm talking about.

We've heard about giving people the opportunity to engage in their community, and of course we all want people to engage within their community, and have an opinion on what goes on in their community. But I can't see that giving them a vote at 16 and 17 years of age is going to make an awful lot of difference, and I think it's putting, as I've already said, undue pressure on people at that age who are already studying for exams, and the curriculum is already overstretched. So, I would urge people to support my amendments, and you won't change my opinion. Thank you very much. 

Thank you. If amendment 114 is agreed to, amendments 37 and 115 will fall. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. [Interruption.] I've opened the vote. I did say 'open the vote', thank you. Close the vote. For the motion 11, no abstentions, 45 against, therefore 114 is not agreed. 

The Counsel General to move amendment 37. 

The question is amendment 37 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 36, no abstentions, 20 against, therefore amendment 37 is agreed to.

Caroline Jones, amendment 115. 

Yes. 

Yes. Okay, thank you. The question is amendment 115 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment five, no abstentions, 51 against, therefore 115 falls. 

David Melding, amendment 270. 

I move.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 270 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 14, one abstention, 41 against, therefore amendment 270 is not agreed.

I now intend to take a 10-minute break. We will ring the bell after five minutes, but I would urge you all to be back in time to start. Thank you. 

Right, if I can call Members to order, we'll reconvene.

The next group is group 3. The amendments relate to the extension of the right to vote to foreign nationals and associated electoral registration. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 38, and I call on the Counsel General to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in the group. Counsel General.    

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. We are seeking to amend the Bill with respect to who may vote in Senedd elections for both principled and practical reasons. At present, European Union and Commonwealth citizens may vote in the Senedd elections. This means citizens of other countries, such as the United States of America, who have lived, worked and raised a family here are not able to vote. Our view is that people who contribute to the economic and cultural life of our communities should have a say in the future of that community. Therefore, we are proposing amendments to the Bill to extend the franchise at Senedd elections to foreign citizens who are legally resident in Wales, and we've included a clear definition of what that means. People who do not require leave to enter or remain in the UK, or those who do require leave and have been granted any description of such leave, will be able to vote in Senedd elections.

Ensuring foreign citizens may register and vote in Senedd elections on or after 5 April 2021 is achieved by amendments 35, 38 and 39. Amendment 40 includes the definition of who may be considered a qualifying foreign citizen for these purposes, and that is someone, as I say, who either does not require leave to enter, or who does and has been granted any description of such leave. This set of amendments dealt with ensuring foreign citizens are added to the franchise, and are able to be added to the register for local government electors. The next category of amendments laid in my name address the practical considerations to ensure administrators have the appropriate information needed to register electors, and that all electors have access to the same mechanisms for registration and voting.

Amendments 41 and 42 are consequential to enfranchising foreign citizens, and are necessary so that registration officers have the information they need in order to add an individual to the electoral register. The Electoral Commission must amend a prescribed 'invitation to register' form to include reference to qualifying foreign citizens. All electors should have equal access to the mechanisms that enable registration and voting. These mechanisms include declarations of local connection, service declarations and being able to act as a proxy voter.  

Declarations of local connection allow electors, in certain circumstances, to register by reference to an address at which they have a connection. This is extended to foreign citizens by amendments 43 and 44. Service declarations enable those serving in the armed forces, British Council or in service of the Crown, and their spouses and partners, to register to vote.  Amendments 45, 46 and 47 extend this mechanism to qualifying foreign nationals, including  where they are residing with partners or spouses, in the armed forces, British Council or in service of the crown.  

For practical purposes, the parliamentary and local government register of electors should be combined when necessary, and amendment 48 amends section 22 of the Bill and ensures the combined parliamentary and local government register of electors must be marked to show that qualifying foreign nationals are entitled to vote only at local government and Senedd elections. 

Amendments 49, 50, 51 and 52 insert a new definition of 'qualifying foreign citizen' into the National Assembly for Wales (Representation of the People) Order 2007, and enables qualifying foreign citizens, aged 16 and over, to act as proxy voters at Senedd polls. Amendment 50 removes unnecessary wording from the definition of 'qualifying Commonwealth citizen'.

Amendment 69 makes changes to the provision about the coming into force of Part 3 of the Bill. The effect of the amendment is that whilst most of Part 3 comes into force upon Royal Assent, it does so for the purposes of voting at, and registering for, an election to the Senedd that takes place on or after 5 April 2021. This amendment means that the newly enfranchised can be registered for the purposes of the 2020 annual canvass. 

Amendments 73, 74 and 75 are tabled as a consequence of the extension of the franchise to foreign citizens. Their effect is to add qualifying foreign citizens to the list of persons not disqualified from being a Member of the Senedd or a candidate in an election to become a Member of the Senedd. At present, in addition to British citizens, Irish and other EU citizens and qualifying Commonwealth citizens are entitled to stand for election and be Members of the Assembly. The Welsh Government believes that citizens of other countries should likewise be eligible for candidacy and membership, provided they are resident in the UK and either do not need leave to enter or remain in the UK under the immigration legislation, or did, indeed, need leave but have been granted indefinite leave to remain.

The rationale for extending the rights to candidacy and membership to qualifying foreign citizens is straightforward. They are eligible to work here, they pay their taxes here, and they can and do make a significant contribution to our society. There is no good reason to disqualify them, and every reason to allow them the opportunity to make further contributions through service in elected office, whether in local government or in this place, and I invite the Senedd to endorse that conclusion. Dirprwy Llywydd, I commend these amendments to the Assembly.

I turn now to amendments by Caroline Jones and David Melding. I have clearly set out the Government’s position in relation to extending the franchise to foreign citizens. Our stated aim is to ensure that everyone who contributes to the cultural and economic future of Wales should have a stake in our democracy. For that reason, we ask Members to reject amendment 96, which seeks to remove the right to vote from 16 and 17-year-olds, and amendments 39A, 39B, 52A and 52B, which seek to change the amendments laid in my name enfranchising foreign citizens.  

Thank you. David Melding. 

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I do think it's unfortunate that such a major change to our electoral arrangements has been proposed in this manner. It's piggybacking on a Commission Bill that thoroughly considered whether foreign nationals should be addressed in it, and, as the explanatory memorandum points out, found there was no consensus and now was not the time. It also shows that there's a lot that's been slipshod in our approach to electoral arrangements. We're legislating a bit here, promising a bit there and then squeezing in by amendment—amendment—a major extension of the franchise that's not based on our citizenship. This, surely, requires scrutiny, committee work and examination. And what you have suggested, to bring in such massive changes—. You're supposed to be there defending the making of coherent law and you've brought in massive amendments that fundamentally affect the principle of what's here.

I do think we have to have at the basis of your right to vote a concept of citizenship. Now, we can be very generous about that and we can be expansive about it. We have allowed through our common European citizenship members of the European Union or citizens of the European Union to vote in sub-state elections in the United Kingdom. We have a nearly century of practice of allowing citizens of the Republic of Ireland who come and settle in Britain to vote in our elections, and we have reciprocal rights in Ireland. And I think there is the nub: if we have reciprocal rights and we want to extend this principle, then there's a basis for it. But, really, whilst people who decide to live and work here are most welcome for their contribution, 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. So, at the very least, if we want to establish a different principle, then it should be properly scrutinised. So, I think it's very, very unfortunate, fellow Members, that we have decided—well, the Government, rather has decided—to proceed on this issue in this manner. And just for the reasons if none other than coherent law making, I think we have to say on this occasion 'no'. If you want to bring this principle back in a separate Bill, then, okay, let's do the scrutiny properly and make law properly so that our citizens currently can understand why such a fundamental extension of the right to vote is being made. I move our amendments.

I wholeheartedly agree with everything David Melding has just said. I haven't heard him speak with such anger since he was resisting a 'no deal' Brexit in a recent debate.

I think the timing of this is absolutely shocking. I think it's three weeks since we had, in Brighton, the Labour Party pass, at its conference, a motion saying that it wanted to extend free movement not just to the European Union but the entire world, to lift immigration restrictions and controls, and then to extend an immediate right to vote to all foreign nationals. And we see here in Wales—straight afterwards, we see a First Minister, a Counsel General, defending this shocking amendment to legislation with no preparation.

We were hearing just now from the Llywydd about Rosemary Butler and the work that she did and the consultation all that time ago, when we didn't have the powers, about voting rights for 16 and 17-year-olds. However much I may oppose that, I admit, and I'm very clear, that the ground for that has been prepared, and has been considered very carefully over a long period of time. There has been no equivalent consideration for this. It negates the concept of citizenship and the link between citizenship and voting.

Now, I didn't really support it at the time, but I think, given the passage of time, what the European Union did around voting rights municipal, i.e. local council elections, has become something that's been gradually accepted, and, in principle, I would have no objection to the extension of that to other foreign nationals. But in our national election, for what we consider very far from being a municipal election, but a national election, with so little thought, to shove this on to the Bill now, I think it's impossible to avoid the conclusion that it is for narrow partisan reasons—

And so is your opposition.

—with virtually no thought. The First Minister couldn't even give me an estimate when I asked him yesterday of the numbers that would be affected, let alone if they were to get their policy of allowing anyone from the whole world to come here without the immigration controls that we've had before and have the immediate right to vote without consideration or consultation. This is simply wrong.

I would like to strike a chord of optimism and to say clearly that anyone who has chosen to make their home in Wales is welcome here. EU citizens and those born in other parts of our world enrich our lives here in Wales, and our culture, and they should be given the right to vote in our elections.

In the aftermath of the Brexit debate that was, at times, so poisonous, Theresa May said that people who supported being members of the European Union somehow wanted to be citizens of nowhere. What a crass, unimaginative and narrow statement that was—to believe that diversity somehow diminishes us when, in fact, it is the opposite. Learning from other cultures widens our horizons; learning other languages opens further windows on our world. In streets the length and breadth of our nation, we live together, we celebrate sporting success together, we mark life's milestones together. We mourn together. We are living our lives alongside one another, and the decisions made in this place affect everyone's lives just the same. And so I would repeat that the people living in Wales today, wherever they were born, should be considered full citizens of Wales and they should have the associated rights, including the right to vote.

Abraham Lincoln said that 'elections belong to the people'. Well, it stands to reason that they should belong to all people living in that nation. Through voting, we offer citizens a voice, a chance to change things. For too long we have predicated that right on the happenstance of where someone happened to be born rather than where they've chosen to live out their life. The Plaid Cymru benches are proud to support the Government's amendments on this issue. We are proud to support the rights of every person who has made Wales their home, who contributes to our society, to participate in our democracy. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I now call on the Llywydd?

Thank you. I call on the Counsel General to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank Members for their contributions to the debate. I would associate myself very closely with the words of Delyth Jewell in her contribution to the debate. Now is the time to signal very clearly to people across the world that people who have chosen to make Wales their home, wherever they come from, and who contribute so richly to our communities, to our society, to our economy, to our public services, should feel entitled to play their full role in our democracy, both as voters and participants in that democracy and in election to this Assembly and—

Will the Counsel General give way?

I will.

I wonder if he could give us an example of any other countries in the world that entirely divorce citizenship from voting rights and extend voting rights to all foreign nationals.

Well, I heard the Member's contribution to the debate earlier, and I think the tone—the tone in which it was delivered to the Assembly Chamber I think was the most instructive part of the contribution. I'm absolutely clear that now is the right time for this institution to signal its commitment to people living in Wales, regardless of where they were born, who have made a commitment to live here and to participate fully in our society, and I am not prepared to be seduced by the view that the debate that he suggests ought to have been engaged in would be one in which his contribution would lead to that level of understanding and to supporting that level of inclusion.

David Melding made a point in relation to public engagement in relation to this, and I would reflect comments that the Llywydd made in her contribution as the Member in charge: in the consultation that the Assembly Commission undertook, 66 per cent of respondents agreed that all legal residents in Wales should be allowed to vote in Assembly elections. The Government agrees with that view. And they also believed—86 per cent of respondents believed—that the same people should be able to vote in local government and Senedd elections. So, the continuity and consistency with the local government Bill is an essential part of the vision of the Welsh Government and others to ensure that residents here in Wales play their full part in our democracy.

The Llywydd invited me to confirm that the intention is for the changes to come into effect through the Electoral Commission by the next elections, and I can commit that that's the case. 

Thank you very much. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 37, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is agreed. 

Caroline Jones, amendment 116. Are you moving 116?

Yes. I move. 

Okay, thank you. If 116 is agreed to, amendments 39B, 39A, 39 and 40 will fall. The question is that amendment 116 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion nine, no abstentions, 44 against. Therefore, 116 is not agreed. 

Can I call on the Counsel General to move amendment 39?

Thank you. As there are amendments to amendment 39, those amendments will be disposed of first. David Melding to move amendment 39B.

Move.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 39B be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 15, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. 

David Melding, amendment 39A.

Move.

Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 39A be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 15, no abstentions, 39 against. Therefore 39A is not agreed to. 

The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 36, no abstentions, 18 against. Therefore, amendment 39 is agreed. 

Counsel General, amendment 40.

Ffurfiol. Thank you. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay. We proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore the amendment is agreed. 

Caroline Jones, amendment 117.

Moved.

Move. Thank you. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion nine, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, 117 is not agreed. 

Caroline Jones, amendment 118.

Moved.

Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion nine, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 118 is not agreed. 

Caroline Jones, amendment 119.

Move. 

Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, 119 is not agreed. 

Caroline Jones, amendment 120.

Moved.

Moved. Thank you. If amendment 120 is agreed, amendments 41 and 42 fall. The question is that amendment 120 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, the amendment falls. 

Counsel General, amendment 41.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, amendment 41 is agreed. 

Counsel General, amendment 42.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed. 

Caroline Jones, amendment 121.

Move.

Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 121 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 44 against. Therefore amendment 121 is not agreed. 

Caroline Jones, amendment 122. 

Move.

Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

Caroline Jones, amendment 123.

Move.

Moved. Thank you. If amendment 123 is agreed, amendments 124, 43 and 44 will fall. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 9, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 123 is not agreed. 

Caroline Jones, amendment 124.

Move.

The question is that amendment 124 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 5, no abstentions, 49 against. Therefore the amendment is not agreed. 

Counsel General, amendment 43.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, so we'll move to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore the amendment is agreed. 

Counsel General, amendment 44.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Caroline Jones, amendment 125.

Moved.

Moved. Thank you. If amendment 125 is agreed, amendments 45, 46 and 47 will fall. The question is amendment 125 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 9, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Counsel General, amendment 45.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, amendment 45 is agreed.

Counsel General, amendment 46.

The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Counsel General, amendment 47.

The question is amendment 47 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, amendment 47 is agreed to.

Caroline Jones, amendment 126.

Moved.

Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed.

Caroline Jones, amendment 127.

Move.

Moved. The question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, 127 is not agreed.

Caroline Jones, amendment 128.

Moved.

Moved. Thank you. If amendment 128 is agreed, amendment 48 falls. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 9, 45 against, therefore 128 is not agreed.

Counsel General, amendment 48.

Thank you. The question is amendment 48 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 38, no abstentions, 16 against. Therefore, the amendment is agreed.

Caroline Jones, amendment 129.

Move.

Moved. Thank you. If amendment 129 is agreed, amendment 15 will fall. The question is amendment 129 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 9, no abstentions, 45 against. Therefore, amendment 129 is not agreed.

Llywydd to move amendment 15.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] [Interruption.] All right. So, we'll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 48, four abstentions and two against. Therefore, amendment 15 is agreed.

Caroline Jones, amendment 130.

Move.

Moved. Thank you. If amendment 130 is agreed, amendments 16, 131 to 134 and 17 will fall. The question is that amendment 130 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment nine, no abstentions and 45 against. Therefore, amendment 130 is not agreed. 

Llywydd, amendment 16.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. We proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 47, four abstentions and three against. Therefore, amendment 16 is agreed.

I propose that amendments 131 to 134, which appear consecutively on the marshalled list, are disposed of en bloc, given their nature. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Right. Okay. So, we now take the amendments each in turn. So, amendment 131—Caroline Jones to move.

Moved.

Caroline Jones to move. Come on, keep up with me.

I did say 'moved'—[Interruption.]. I said 'moved'.

Right. Amendment 131 has been moved. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 14, no abstentions and 40 against. Therefore, 131 is not agreed.

Caroline Jones, 132.

Moved.

Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion five, no abstentions and 49 against. Therefore, 132 is not agreed.

Caroline Jones, amendment 133.

Moved.

Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion five, no abstentions and 49 against. Therefore, the amendment is not agreed. 

Caroline Jones, amendment 134.

Moved.

Moved. Thank you. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment five, no abstentions, 49 against. Therefore, amendment 134 is not agreed.

Llywydd to move amendment 17.