Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

I move. 

I move.

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm pleased to open the debate on this group of amendments that relate to the names of Senedd constituencies and the role of the Welsh Language Commissioner in the boundary review process to be undertaken by the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru. I will be supporting all the amendments in this group, and, in opening the debate, I would like to set out the effect of the amendments and how they relate to the recommendations of the Reform Bill Committee.

Amendments 92 and 101 are in response to recommendation 33 of the Reform Bill Committee. The committee recommended that amendments to Schedules 1 and 2 to the Bill are brought forward to provide that each Senedd constituency be given a monolingual name unless the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru considers that there are specific reasons why bilingual names are appropriate. The two amendments create the presumption, in Schedule 1 and 2 to the Bill respectively, that the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru will give a single name to a Senedd constituency. It will only be in circumstances that the commission consider doing so would be unacceptable that they must propose different names for communication through the medium of Welsh and English.

While the amendments do not specify that the single name for a Senedd constituency must be in the Welsh language, as per recommendation 34 of the Reform Bill Committee, the effect of the amendments in practice will mean that any single name must be acceptable to use through the medium of Welsh. There are many examples of names in Welsh that are acceptable in English—for example, Llanelli, Ynys Môn, Torfaen, Pontypridd—but we have not identified any names in English that would be acceptable in Welsh. I'm therefore confident that the amendment gives effect to the recommendations of the committee.

The remaining amendments in this group are a package that respond to recommendations 32 and 35 of the Reform Bill Committee. They require that the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru must consult and have regard to the representations of the Welsh Language Commissioner during the Senedd boundary review set out in Schedules 1 and 2 of the Bill.

Amendments 93, 96 and 99 amend Schedule 1 to the Bill and require the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru to consult and have regard to any representations of the Welsh Language Commissioner on the orthography of any proposed constituency names before making its initial, second and final reports.

Amendments 102, 106 and 109 likewise amend Schedule 2 to the Bill to give the same effect. These amendments are in response to recommendation 35 of the Reform Bill Committee. They expand the existing provision of the Bill, which currently limits such consultation to the orthography of proposed constituency names in the medium of Welsh. The amendments ensure that ahead of each report, the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru will consult the Welsh Language Commissioner on the orthography of proposed constituency names and take account of their views.

Amendments 94, 95 and 97 amend Schedule 1 to the Bill and require the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru to consult the Welsh Language Commissioner regarding its proposals during the first and second periods of consultation.

Amendments 103, 104 and 107 likewise amend Schedule 2 to the Bill to require the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru to consult the Welsh Language Commissioner regarding its proposals during the first and final periods of consultation. These amendments are in response to recommendation 32 of the Reform Bill Committee. During these consultation periods, the Welsh Language Commissioner will have the opportunity to provide comments relating to all aspects of the proposals set out in the respective report. This would include representations on the proposed names for Senedd constituencies that may be broader than the orthography of proposed names.

Whilst this means that the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru must consult with the Welsh Language Commissioner at different times for different purposes, there are several reasons for taking this approach. These include maintaining the timescales and overall delivery of such reviews and ensuring representations that may relate to the substance of proposals, including the proposed constituency names, are received by the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru and given regard to in the same periods of consultation.

I'd like to take the opportunity at this point to make the connection between these amendments and amendments 98 and 108 that we debated in the first group at the start of these Stage 2 proceedings. Amendments 98 and 108 to Schedule 1 and 2 to the Bill respectively combine the requirement for the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru to have regard to the representations of the Welsh Language Commissioner with the technical amendment that addresses concerns raised by the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales in their written evidence to the Reform Bill Committee.

The process and approach provided for by the amendments have been discussed with both the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales and the Welsh Language Commissioner’s office. I am grateful for their engagement and input as we have developed our response to the Reform Bill Committee’s recommendations. Diolch, Llywydd.

Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. I can confirm that the Welsh Conservatives will be supporting all of the amendments in this group. As the Counsel General has quite rightly said, there was a great deal of evidence at the Reform Bill Committee Stage 1 proceedings, which suggested that there was the opportunity to strengthen the role of the Welsh Language Commissioner in terms of the naming of Senedd constituencies in the future, and that's why there was a clear recommendation to try and have a single monolingual name that could be used interchangeably by people who might want to speak in English or Welsh when naming constituencies. 

I do think it's a little bit of a shame that it's taken a while to get the proper level of engagement, shall we say, from the Welsh Government with the office of the Welsh Language Commissioner over these issues. It would've obviously been much better if that detailed engagement and work had taken place in advance of the publication of the Bill. Nevertheless, I do think that it's welcome that that engagement has now taken place. I fully support every single one of the amendments in this group and very much hope that everybody else in the Chamber this afternoon will do likewise.

Heledd Fychan.

Only in summary to say that I'll take on board the comments that have been made, and we'll give consideration to those. I move the amendments.

I move.

I move.

I move.

I move.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendment 14, tabled in my name.

The Bill before us today includes a clause that stipulates that when the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru undertakes a boundary review in advance of the Senedd elections currently scheduled for May 2030, it must ensure that the electorate in each of those Senedd constituencies has to be within 10 per cent of the electoral quota. Now, the electoral quota is the total number of local government electors in Wales divided by the total number of Senedd constituencies. And as we know, for the first set of elections, the commission will be required to pair each of the current 32 UK parliamentary constituencies in Wales, to create 16 new Senedd constituencies.

Now, UK parliamentary constituencies have an electoral quota of plus or 5 per cent—. There's a requirement for UK parliamentary constituencies to be within 5 per cent of the UK electoral quota. Now, at the time of the last review, that meant that the electoral quota was 73,393. So, the margin by which constituencies can vary from that quota means that every constituency, in the whole of the United Kingdom, now contains between 69,724 and 77,062 electors, other than five protected constituencies, which include Ynys Môn, which is a protected constituency and remains unchanged, with just 52,415 electors.

Now, the result of this is that, at the Senedd elections in 2026, all Welsh Senedd constituencies will have just under 147,000 electors, bar the constituency paired with Ynys Môn, which is likely to have between 122,000 and 125,000, depending on which constituency it's paired with, which means that it could have up to 25,000 fewer electors than elsewhere. Now, that actual number is likely to be even larger than that, because of the extended franchise that we have here in Wales for Senedd elections, versus UK parliamentary elections, because, of course, we give voting rights here in Wales to 16 and 17-year-olds, and to foreign citizens with the right to remain in Wales.

Now, in the interests of fairness and equality of representation for all citizens in Wales, it is important that all Members of the Senedd represent a similar number of constituents. I'm sure that all of us would agree with that. And it's also important that the size and shape of constituencies should be reviewed from time to time, to reflect population changes and try to ensure that those constituencies have a similar number of electors, whilst, at the same time, paying regard to local ties and not splitting communities that naturally sit together. But, under the electoral quotas proposed by the Welsh Government, it will be possible in future Senedds that constituencies could vary in size by up to 30,000 electors or more. Now, that is clearly unfair and inappropriate, and it will need to be addressed. The Reform Bill Committee recommended that the electoral quota of 10 per cent should be reduced in order to address this inequity. We know that the boundary commission has been able to do its work, with smaller constituencies, to find constituencies and communities that come together with this plus or minus 5 per cent margin. You would expect that, with bigger constituencies, with more electors, you could have twice as good an opportunity, even at 5 per cent, to be able to make sure that those constituency boundaries were appropriate. Yet, the Welsh Government is seeking to have a 10 per cent quota, I believe, without justification. And I think, if there's variability in the number of electors in Senedd constituencies of up to 30,000 voters or more, then that, clearly, is not right.

So, in the interests of fairness and equity of representation, I urge Members to support my amendment, which would reduce the electoral quota percentage variation from 10 per cent to 5 per cent. It would still give the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru a margin of about 15,000 to work with, in order to move communities in and out of constituencies, which, by any stretch of the imagination, is more than sufficient.

Heledd Fychan. 

Well, thank you to both Darren and to Heledd for those contributions. By way of starting, I will not be supporting Darren Millar's amendment. Introducing a smaller variance than 10 per cent would likely mean more change in Senedd constituency boundaries between 2026 and the 2030 elections, and less flexibility for the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru to take other factors beyond the electoral quota into account as part of its reviews, such as geography and local ties. While UK boundary reviews now apply a statutory 5 per cent variance from the UK electoral quota, this is not a long-established rule. The statutory electorate range was introduced in 2011, and the 2023 UK parliamentary boundary review is the first implemented review to have used this variance.

In terms of boundary reviews for the Scottish Parliament, constituencies should be as near the electoral quota as is practicable. Therefore, no numerical variance is in place in Scotland. While I recognise the concerns identified around variations in constituency size, I do believe that a variance of 10 per cent appropriately balances such concerns against those that might arise from a more rigid electoral quota.

I did look back and was considering this with the comments I made at the Stage 1 general principles debate, and then I stated that I concurred with the comments that were made by Professor Renwick that the level for an electoral quota is fundamentally a trade-off between equality of representation and the flexibility to respond to matters such as geography, local ties and community relations. And I noted also, then, that the Local Democracy and Boundary Commission for Wales and Boundaries Scotland expressed concerns to the committee that the more rigid a variance is, the more likely it may give rise to otherwise unavoidable situations, such as the very large geographical constituencies or the breaking of community ties. As such, while I recognise the concerns identified by Members around variations in constituency sizes, I said that I believe that a variance of 10 per cent appropriately balanced those particular concerns.

I do have one other potential regard as well, of course, and that is that other legislation coming before this Senedd on the issue of automatic registration may result in up to another 400,000 people being added to the register. I think 10 per cent is an appropriate balance between the ensuring of parity, but also recognising that there are potential ties and other issues that may want to be considered when the boundary commission carries out its functions.

Darren Millar. 

Well, I'm disappointed to hear the response from the Counsel General and, indeed, Plaid Cymru on this matter. I think that having differences of up to 30,000 between one Senedd constituency and the next is, frankly, unacceptable. That's over half the size of some of our current constituencies in Wales and, clearly, it would be, in my view, inappropriate. The fact that the margin on a bigger constituency with more voters of 10 per cent is going to give more than twice the flexibility that's afforded to the current boundary commission, in terms of the reviews that have been undertaken for UK parliamentary constituencies, gives me some confidence that, even if it was set at 5 per cent, having this margin of 15—and, as I say, it's likely to be greater because of the extended franchise and, indeed, the automatic voter registration system that the Minister's just referred to—would give more than sufficient flexibility. I don't know of many issues that couldn't be resolved with a margin of between 15,000 and, say, 18,000 variance, in terms of the opportunity to go up above or below the electoral quota that might emerge as a result of some of the changes. So, what seems to me to be happening here is that you're going to bake in some unfairness, particularly in respect of that corner of north-west Wales that will have over-representation in the Senedd, and that will be detrimental to every other part of Wales because, effectively, their votes will mean much more than the votes of other people in other parts of the country. That seems to me to be grossly unfair. I don't want to see that injustice to be allowed to continue.

I appreciate what you say about the flexibility that there is in Scotland and that the variance rule of plus or minus 5 per cent of the electoral quota is something that is relatively new in the parliamentary boundary review process for the UK Parliament, yet you have decided to put one into this Bill. So, the question is: is it appropriate or not? And it is disappointing, I have to say, and we see this all the time, to see the effects of the Government whips on people—when a committee makes a recommendation, it doesn't do that lightly; it does it because it's trying to reflect the evidence, and balance that evidence and make a recommendation in accordance with the evidence that it's received. We heard conflicting evidence from different people about whether it was appropriate to have a variance in there against the electoral quota, but, on balance, the committee of all Members made a recommendation to reduce the quota. And then we see, in the Chamber today, members of that committee standing up and arguing against having any electoral quota reduction at all, in spite of the fact that they were party to the recommendation to reduce it. So, I would like to see a reduction. I've proposed 5 per cent, if the Minister thinks it needs to be higher than that, closer to 10 per cent, or somewhere in the middle, then I'd be happy to have a discussion with him. But I cannot see any justification for having Senedd constituencies that could be 30,000 to 35,000 in magnitude, in size, in terms of the number of people voting in those constituencies—that difference. That seems to me to be grossly unfair. We need to address it, and that's why I urge people to support this amendment this afternoon.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Move.

Move.

Move.

Move.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Moved.

Move.

Move.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendments 36 and 37, both of which have been tabled in my name. Now, as all of us in this Welsh Parliament know, if we're honest with ourselves, the overwhelming majority of the public do not support an increase in the size of the Senedd or a change in its voting system. The overwhelming majority of responses to the consultation by the Reform Bill Committee on this legislation underscored this lack of public support. And the reality is that none of us has ever knocked on a door before an election campaign to have someone answer and tell me that the solution to all of the problems in Wales is that we need more politicians in Cardiff Bay. Yet, Labour and Plaid MSs have been claiming a public mandate for the proposed changes before us today.

They claim that references to Senedd reform in their manifestos provide them with a clear mandate to introduce this package of measures. Like a used car salesman pointing to an exclusion clause buried in the small print of a long warranty document, they point to these manifestos, assuming that they have been read by the masses and that anyone voting for their parties have signed up in blood to every clause they contain. But, Llywydd, their manifestos are not worth the paper that they are written on. References to Senedd reform in these documents are scant. In advance of the 2021 Senedd election—. And I can hear the First Minister chuntering on the front bench. In advance of the 2021 Senedd election, the Labour manifesto simply said this, and I quote,

'we will build on the work of the Senedd Committee on Electoral Reform…and develop proposals to improve the representation of the people of Wales in their Parliament’.

Note—note—that there was no reference to increasing the number of Members of the Senedd, there was no mention of the potential costs, there was no reference to changing the voting system, and there was no reference whatsoever to taking away the opportunity for voters to vote for individual candidates of their choice.

And what of the Plaid manifesto? [Interruption.] Because I want you to hear, because you usually have your fingers in your ears and do not listen, do not listen to the people of Wales. Perhaps if you took your fingers out of your ears, then you'd understand the scale of the opposition that is out there and that will confront you when you actually speak to people about these plans, Lee Waters. 

So, what of Plaid Cymru's manifesto? As I've said before, and I'll say it again, it's the best antidote to insomnia ever produced. It said this:

'We will...implement the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Assembly Electoral Reform, in particular'—

in particular—

'on Single Transferable Voting, gender quotas and expanding the Senedd.'

I will give you some credit: at least there was mention—at least there was mention—of more Senedd Members. But the legislation that we have today is not consistent with the commitment in your manifesto. I know you have a co-operation agreement that you don't like people describing as a coalition, but it is, without Ministers. It's effectively a co-operation agreement—it's a coalition without Ministers. So, while there's at least the mention of more Senedd Members, the legislation that we have before us today, which Plaid says it now supports, does not constitute STV in any way, shape or form, and it does not implement all of the recommendations of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform. So, Llywydd, it is therefore abundantly clear that neither Labour nor Plaid voters at the last Senedd elections have given the green light for the reforms that this Bill before us today seeks to introduce.

There is therefore no public mandate for the changes to proceed, and it is the view of the Welsh Conservatives—[Interruption.] It is the view of the Welsh Conservatives that significant constitutional changes of the nature in this Bill, particularly changes to the way in which Members of a national Parliament are to be elected, should be put to the people in a referendum. That's what the UK-led Conservative coalition Government had the decency to do back in 2011 when it gave the public the opportunity to have their say on proposals to change the UK parliamentary voting system. At that time, voters across the whole of the United Kingdom were given the choice of whether to back a proposal to scrap first-past-the-post as a voting system for UK elections and to replace it with the alternative vote system instead. That proposal was roundly rejected, with 68 per cent of those who turned out voting against the proposals, and it was rejected in all parts of the UK, including here in Wales, where two out of every three people backed the first-past-the-post system and expressed a view to keep it. 

Now, given that that was the attitude towards scrapping first-past-the-post when it was last tested at the ballot box, it is all the more important that the public have their say on any plans to scrap the first-past-the-post system whereby two thirds of the current Members of the Senedd are elected in this Parliament.

Now, I have to say that I suspect that these plans would be even more wildly unpopular than the AV system that was previously proposed, especially given the closed list voting system, which we already know—[Interruption.] I'm happy to take an intervention.

When did we vote on the police and crime commissioner method of election, and when did we vote on the change to the police and crime commissioner voting system? And when did we vote on the mayoral voting system, and when did we vote on the change to the mayoral voting system in England?

There was a clear manifesto commitment from the Conservatives. [Interruption.] A clear—[Interruption.] A crystal—[Interruption.] There was a crystal clear—[Interruption.] Unlike the manifesto—[Interruption.] Unlike the vague manifesto commitment of your own party.

Believe it or not, I do want to hear Darren Millar.

Unlike the vague manifesto commitment from your own party, Mike Hedges, there was a crystal-clear manifesto commitment to change those voting systems. And I'm talking, and I'm talking here—[Interruption.] And I am talking here very carefully about elections to a national Parliament. They're not national Parliaments. This is about changing the voting system for national Parliament elections, a completely different—completely different—matter.

So, I suspect that these would be even more unpopular than the proposed AV system that people had the opportunity to vote on in 2011. Because we know that the proposed closed voting list system is a power grab from the public to political parties. It removes the direct accountability between Members of this Senedd and the people that we represent, and that is why I have tabled amendments 36 and 37. Amendment 36 will insert a whole new section in the Bill, and this will require that a referendum should be held prior to any part of this legislation coming into force. Amendment 37 is consequential to amendment 36, and I commend them both to the Senedd.

Heledd Fychan.

Diolch, Llywydd. I feel like I'm in a bit of parallel universe, because, for the last set of amendments, Darren was mentioning fairness and equality of representation, talking about a similar number of electors, and yet seems to be advocating against a Senedd that would be fair and equitable with a similar number of electors. I outlined yesterday the inequity of representation, especially with the reduction of 40 to 32 MPs. Why should we put up with—

Without a referendum, we should add.

Why should we have to just put up with having fewer representatives, fewer people fighting for our communities, making the case for change, fewer representatives scrutinising the Government? I'm not willing to be non-ambitious for our communities; I want a democracy that works. And I thought that you did from your previous contribution, but obviously not.

Alun Davies.

The Tories can't help themselves, can they, Presiding Officer? They just can't help themselves. They don't want more Welsh democracy—they want less Welsh democracy. I remember in 1997, in December 1997, the Wales Bill was introduced to the House of Commons, less than three months after a successful referendum in September 1997. Did the Conservative Party respect the views of the people of Wales in that referendum? Did the Conservative Party vote on Second Reading for this place to be established, in line with the wishes of the people of Wales? Of course they didn't. They voted against it. Three months after a referendum, they voted against what the people of Wales wanted. At least they're consistent. Because what we've seen—. Darren Millar talks about a transfer of power. There has been a transfer of power in the last three or four years, and what we've seen is a transfer of power from the people, from elected Parliaments, to the Executive in Westminster and Whitehall. And we've seen that through legislative consent memoranda coming down here week after week, month after month, not just neglecting the mandate that the people of Wales have given us to sit here, but actively seeking to overturn it. And then Darren Millar comes here crying his crocodile tears about Welsh democracy. Darren, you've had the opportunity to stand up for Welsh democracy when the United Kingdom Internal Market Bill was in front of the House of Commons, and you didn't—you didn't, and none of you did. You're all on your telephones now, you're not interested, but let me tell you—

Will you take an intervention? 

I'll take an intervention; I have one of you listening. 

Thank you very much, Alun Davies. You often talk about respecting the results of referenda. Can you tell me a time when you respected the wishes of the people of Blaenau Gwent to leave the European Union? 

I campaigned for a second referendum. I haven't sought to overturn the—. I've never sought to overturn, by parliamentary means, the delivery of the first referendum. What I've done—what I've done, and this is important—this is important; you should have been listening. What I've done is campaigned for a second referendum, and I will campaign for a second referendum today and tomorrow until we get that referendum, until we win it. Let me tell you that. [Interruption.] I'll take another intervention; it's going to take all night. Cardiff City FC are playing tonight—remember this.

I know. Do you mean a second referendum or a third referendum, because, back in 1975, the first referendum, we voted to stay in the European Union?

If Swansea City FC were playing tonight, he wouldn't be making those interventions. [Laughter.] Let me say—. Let me say—. Let me say, Mike, I do accept exactly the point you made. But this is the really important point; this is why Darren avoids these arguments in the point he was making in introducing this debate. Darren does not respect Welsh democracy and the Conservatives do not respect Welsh democracy. If they respected Welsh democracy, we wouldn't have seen the erosion of the powers of this place week after week, month after month, and it is for that reason—and it is for that reason—that the Conservatives are in opposition today and will stay in opposition. I think it's something like 7 per cent of people under 35 are saying they're going to vote Conservative at the moment. It's no surprise, if you look at them.

What we have to do is to work with the people of Wales to deliver the democracy that the people of Wales have said they wanted, and we've seen the Conservatives throw aside the interests of people when it comes to appointing their cronies, family members and donors into the House of Lords. Four hundred and thirty four new peers appointed, unelected members of the House of Lords, since the Conservative Government took office. Presiding Officer, this amendment is a mirage. It's not about Welsh democracy, it's about the erosion of Welsh democracy. It's about the Conservatives seeking to undermine Welsh democracy. I believe we have a mandate in this Chamber and in this Parliament to strengthen and empower Welsh democracy, and that is exactly what the Conservatives don't like. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I call on Members to reject the amendments in this group. The compelling case for Senedd reform has been made in a succession of experts' reports, it has been endorsed by three of the four political parties represented in this Senedd, and has been voted for by a majority of Members of the Senedd.

On some of the points that have been made, there have been hundreds of new members of the House of Lords, unelected members created; there's been no referendum in terms of whether that should be able to increase, whether there should be a limit; there's never been a call for any change there. There was no referendum that was held when changes were made to the electoral system for the election of mayors. Why was that change made? That change was made because Labour was winning all those mayoral seats and the Tories were losing them. So, what do they do? 'Let's change the voting system. We're not going to ask the people about it. We're not going to get a commitment to do so. We're not going to go to a referendum. We're just going to change the rules of the game, so that we can get people more easily elected.' There was no referendum on ID cards—a significant change, the objective of which was to stop people or to make it more difficult for people to vote, and we've seen the reasons why that is. Rees-Mogg made it very clear: it was a political manoeuvre that backfired. There was no referendum on the reduction in the number of MPs, and of our Welsh MPs.

And of course, in the Wales Act 2017, which is what entitles us to bring forward these reforms, there is no referendum requirement. Westminster, when it considered that legislation, when it was passed by all parties, if it had been intended that changes should be made only by means of a referendum, then Westminster would have inserted that. It was clearly the intention that this was a power that could be exercised by this particular Senedd. That is what we have before us, and I recommend that Members reject the amendments.

Diolch, Llywydd. Pretty extraordinary contributions, if I may say so. Look, it doesn't surprise me that Plaid Cymru want a bigger Senedd. If they have their way, we'd end up like the People's Republic of China, with thousands of people who are politicians in this Senedd, and I'm sure that that's what they want to see.

You talk about the need for fairness and equality of representation, and I have to say that your manifesto commitment was not clear. Our manifesto commitments to change the size and shape of constituencies, to equalise the votes of every person in the UK, were fulfilled and implemented. We put them to the people in our manifesto, very clearly. The manifesto commitments that were in both of your parties' manifestos are very different than what we see before us in this Bill today. 

Will you give way?

Yes, of course, of course.

You said earlier that there was a clear commitment in terms of the police and crime commissioner elections, changing the electoral system from supplementary vote to first-past-the-post. What it actually says is this:

'We will strengthen the accountability of elected Police and Crime Commissioners and expand their role.'

Absolutely no clarity whatsoever.

And that commitment was made clear on the campaign trail, that what we would do is go back to first-past-the-post representation.

Now, I maintain the position that the people of Wales want more doctors, dentists, nurses and teachers, not more politicians. If you think, if you're so confident here in the Senedd that the people of Wales want more politicians, and they want them elected via a closed list system, then what are you afraid of? Let's have a referendum. Let's test that view. Because the reality is you're all frightened of a referendum, because you know full well that those proposals would be absolutely roundly rejected by the people of Wales if you put them to them. [Interruption.]

Are you giving way, Darren Millar? It's Huw Irranca-Davies.

Of course, of course.

I'm just wondering about the astronomical costs that you talk about. Based on freedom of information costs, apparently, over the last four years, the police and crime commissioners have cost in excess of £100 million. Where did that feature in a clear referendum on exactly what that cost would be, and what that size would be, year after year after year? I don't recall that at all, Darren.

Look, we are here to debate this call for a referendum—[Laughter.] We are here to discuss this call for a referendum. Can I go back to the contribution by the Member for Blaenau Gwent? He tells me, in a lecture, that I need to respect Welsh democracy, and this from a Member of a party that has ignored the views of in excess of 465,000 people—that's one in six of the Welsh population; more than one in six; much more than one in six of the Welsh population—who outright reject the view that there should be 20 mph default speed limits across the country. This comes from a man who did absolutely everything he could to thwart the will of the people in his own constituency, and across Wales, as Tom Giffard quite rightly pointed out, after the referendum on whether the United Kingdom should leave the European Union.

So, what we see is scoffing, frankly, at the views of the public: 'We don't give a stuff what the views of the public are. We're going to implement our way anyway, regardless of how unpopular it may be.' So, I won't take any lectures from you, Alun Davies, on such matters, when, frankly, the people of Blaenau Gwent, who voted against staying in the EU by a margin of more than six to three—[Interruption.] It's a bit rich of you, isn't it, really? 

Are you taking an intervention?

I'll happily take it.

Marget Thatcher described referenda as a device of dictators and demigods. Why was she wrong?

Here we go, let's wind the clock back to Margaret Thatcher—that's the usual thing. Margaret Thatcher was the greatest Prime Minister in my lifetime. [Interruption.] She transformed our country into the modern nation it is today, and I'm proud to be a Member of the party that she was the Prime Minister for. [Interruption.]

Okay. Allow Darren Millar to continue. I think he wants to move back to his notes.

If I can make this point—[Interruption.] If I can make this point about the Conservatives being a party that is, somehow, against democracy, against the Welsh people and against the Senedd: that's not the case. I campaigned for further powers for this Senedd in the March 2011 referendum, as did many of my colleagues on these benches. We implemented the outcome of that referendum—because we respect the outcome of referendums, by the way—to make sure that the powers were then devolved to Wales. And we have supported consistently this devolution, and this Senedd, as a permanent part of the electoral landscape and parliamentary arrangements in the United Kingdom. Jenny, I'll happily take an intervention.

In the 2016 referendum on the European Union, we were promised £536 million for the NHS every week, and that was part of the offer that was encouraging people to vote 'yes' for that referendum. So, referendums can be dressed up to be anything you like.

Someone said it was £350 million yesterday, you're now saying it's five-hundred and something million, but what I do know is that your party has made clear manifesto commitments to increase the number of apprentices, and you're actually reducing them. And we've seen budget commitments that have also been broken, as well.

The Counsel General made reference also to the work that the UK Government is doing to introduce voter ID requirements at UK Government elections. That, of course, was a recommendation following the Labour Tower Hamlets scandal, which saw people being cheated in an election, and, therefore, those requirements to introduce photo ID, which is the norm in nearly every European country across this continent. We're an outlier, a complete outlier. The UK Government is trying to address that, because it wants to ensure the integrity and security of elections, unlike, it seems to me, the Labour Party.

So, in conclusion, Llywydd—in conclusion—we all know that these proposals are unpalatable to the people of Wales, in our heart of hearts. We know that the public, given a direct opportunity to vote on these proposals before us, in this legislation, would soundly reject them in a referendum. You say that you're confident that they support them, let's put it to a referendum. Let's test the views of the public. What are you frightened of? Let's get on with it and vote for these amendments today.

Diolch, Llywydd. I move amendments 9 and 20, both tabled in my name. When we were debating the amendments in group 7, I explained why it was inappropriate for any legislation in this Senedd to place a duty on future Members of the Senedd or Welsh Parliament office holders. It's regrettable that this Bill introduces such provisions, not just once, but twice.

We have already debated the duties that it seeks to impose upon the Senedd in relation to a review of job-sharing arrangements for office holders. But section 19 of this Bill also includes inappropriate and constitutionally problematic provisions as well. It requires a motion to be tabled within six months after the 2026 Senedd elections, by the Presiding Officer, to propose the establishment of a Senedd committee for the purpose of reviewing and reporting on Parts 1 and 2 of the legislation. And it requires that that work be completed within a period of 12 months from the first meeting of the Senedd after the April 2026 elections.

Now, while I completely agree that we need to ensure that there is a review of the impact of any changes that this legislation will implement, it's not right that any future Senedd, or its officers, should be bound by another in order to undertake any particular piece of work. To provide such requirements on the face of this Bill is not acceptable.

The Government has argued that the primary purpose of this Bill is to increase the scrutiny capacity of this Senedd, yet sections 7 and 19 of the Bill undermine the Senedd's scrutiny capacity, by requiring it to set up two new committees after the 2026 elections, which will absorb any extra capacity that a future Senedd with more Members may have. And it will distract Members from other important scrutiny work, including holding any future Welsh Government to account.

So, it's for these reasons that I have tabled amendment 9, which gives effect to recommendation 41 in the Reform Bill Committee's Stage 1 report, by deleting section 19 of the Bill. Should amendment 9 not be agreed, then I will move amendments 10, 11, 12, 19 and 53, all of which seek to improve section 19.

Amendment 10 would delete a requirement to ensure the extent to which the elements of a healthy democracy are present in Wales, and whether that should be considered by any review undertaken by the committee established to review the operation of the legislation. The Reform Bill Committee recommended, by a majority, the removal of this requirement, as there were mixed views as to whether it would be helpful. There were questions over the definition of a healthy democracy, and there were concerns that consideration of these wider issues could be a distraction for any committee when undertaking a review of the Act.

Amendments 11 and 12 would give effect to the Reform Bill Committee's recommendation 45, by deleting the requirement for the committee to complete its work within 12 months of the first meeting of the Senedd following the 2026 elections, and replacing it to enable the future Senedd to determine a timescale for the completion of the committee's work instead. All of us in this Chamber are acutely aware of the length of time that it can take, post an election, to establish committees. It took months after the 2021 Senedd elections to put our committees together. So, placing a straitjacket on the work of the Senedd in the future could be highly problematic and lead to the work of this particular committee being rushed and being inappropriately constituted.

Amendment 19 would require the committee, should it be established, to engage with stakeholders and undertake a public consultation on its work. Amendment 53 would require the Welsh Government to lay a response to the committee's report before the Senedd, in accordance with the Reform Bill Committee's recommendation 47 in the Stage 1 report.

Turning to my amendment 20, this seeks to enter a new section into the Bill to require Welsh Ministers to undertake a review and to report on the operations and provisions of the legislation. This is a Welsh Government Bill, it is not a Senedd Bill, as implied by the Member in charge throughout the scrutiny process. It's therefore incumbent upon Ministers to ensure that, as is the case in many Senedd Acts, there is a requirement for Ministers to review the operation of the legislation that they bring forward.

With regard to the other amendments in this group, if I can just briefly speak to them, we will not, I'm afraid, be supporting Jane Dodds's amendments 49 and 50, which seek to add to the requirements placed upon a future Senedd committee undertaking a review and setting out even more detailed requirements for Welsh Ministers when undertaking a review. In our view, these provisions are unnecessarily prescriptive and will not afford the sufficient flexibility to either the Senedd or Welsh Ministers to undertake any post-implementation reviews that may be required.

However, should my amendments 9 and 10 fall, then we will support amendment 116 in the name of Heledd Fychan, because that seeks to require a Senedd committee, when conducting a future review, to consider the support available for Members of the Senedd and registered political parties in Wales. This was an issue that cropped up during the evidence sessions at Stage 1, and it does seem clear to me that there's work to be done on this issue, given that the support for political parties at a UK level to assist with policy development and other matters is far more generous than that that's available here in Wales to this Senedd, where we have a significant portfolio of responsibilities that we all need to make sure that proposals are developed for. I look forward to hearing the rest of the debate.

Heledd Fychan.

Jane Dodds.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I'm speaking to amendments 49 and 50, which are tabled in my name. The purpose of both amendment 49 and 50 is to introduce a review of the operation and effect of the new provisions in this Act relating to the Senedd itself, its Members, the Welsh Ministers and our voting system for general elections. It is a clear guiding framework.

As it stands, the Bill includes a provision regarding a review into the extent to which elements of a healthy democracy are present in Wales following the 2026 election cycle. While having such a review of democratic health is a fine sentiment, I agree with many of the experts who gave evidence to the Senedd reform committee that the phrase remains frustratingly vague and impossible in scope for any fundamentally relevant review to undertake. The illustrative list provided in the explanatory notes regarding what a healthy democracy could encompass is hardly exhaustive, and would not have any binding effect on the review itself. Simply put, without clear criteria any such review risks being an unfocused academic exercise, divorced from practical realities.

These amendments remedy that shortcoming by establishing a set of eight specific democratic principles that must guide and structure the reviews. These principles are derived from the highly respected 2017 expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, which drew on the collective expertise of the panel members, extensive academic research, and wider public debate on electoral reform. The eight principles cover crucial aspects like proportionality, Member accountability, Government effectiveness, voter choice, diversity of representation, integrity of boundaries, and simplicity for voters. Collectively, they provide a robust multifaceted framework to evaluate whether our new electoral rules are producing a representative legislature and accountable governance that ensures that there is voter equity and a sustainable system overall—the very cornerstones of a healthy democracy.

Amendment 49 requires this committee of the Senedd to conduct its review based on these eight principles, and amendment 50 mandates that a parallel review from Welsh Ministers should also adhere to the same criteria when examining the new provisions. Amendment 50 would go even further in strengthening the review process by requiring public consultation and engagement with key stakeholders, like the Electoral Commission and other political parties, and ensuring the findings are formally reported to the Senedd within six months of the 2026 election. The time frame and reporting period would ensure any review would capture and assess the full operation and effect of the new rules, from initial implementation through to their first usage in an election cycle. 

Before I close, I wish to speak to the lead amendment, amendment 9, and subsequent amendments 10, 11 and 12, as tabled by Darren Millar. These amendments, which would remove altogether the statutory review of the operation of the Act and the healthy democracy parameter, would represent a concerning step backwards for accountability and democratic oversight. While you bring up, Darren, really valid points about the need for clearer review criteria, which my amendments 49 and 50 directly address, scrapping the review entirely is an overreaction that risks insulating the substantial electoral reforms from any formalised scrutiny or public accountability. As I've said before, the Bill we are currently debating needs to represent a generation-defining opportunity, one we cannot afford to let slip or render unsustainable. I do urge the Member to consider how a more robust framework based upon these principles contained within my amendments will help ensure that Senedd reform is sustainable in the long term. 

Finally, this is the last time I will be speaking in the Siambr on this Bill. Can I formally thank the Member in charge for his hard work on the Bill? Can I also thank Heledd Fychan and Darren Millar for their contributions in this debate, and also the members of the reform committee, to Sarah Murphy and to Dai Rees for his chairing? I wish to, if I may, just make three final statements. Firstly, I never expected to say this, but the most progressive and radical party in this Siambr on a better voting system is not Labour, it's not Plaid Cymru, it's the Conservatives. They have actually rejected first-past-the-post, standing up for the people of Wales to have a say in democracy and pushing for a more proportional system. So, thank you for your support. Secondly, we don't yet have a reason from Welsh Labour for why they are supporting the least proportional system, rejected by every single expert who came to the panel. We can, of course, make assumptions.

Will you take an intervention?

Of course I will.

We're not rejecting the least proportional; the least proportional is STV, where polling the most votes doesn't get you the most seats. Just look at the Irish general election. 

Mike, you and I have been engaged in a Twitter exchange on that, and I'm not going to rehearse that in this Siambr. 

I want to just finish off this second point by commending, in my view, Welsh Labour, who have talked time after time about how they have stood up for the people of Wales, how they reject control from Westminster, and how they believe in devolution. So, I sincerely hope that Welsh Labour has not been influenced to reject flexible lists by Westminster. 

Thirdly, here is a girl from Wrexham whose mother in 1997 was part of the stakeholder group to set up the Welsh Assembly, and I am now standing up for what I feel to be a really modern, forward-looking Senedd. I have lost the argument, I realise that, but I regret nothing in putting on record my belief that we had the opportunity to create a really forward-looking Senedd that would make a difference to the people of Wales, much like my mother did 27 years ago. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Can I start by thanking all the speakers in this particular debate for the contributions that they've made? Many of them were very well thought out and they're based on concerns and principles. Some are, I think, feasible; some I think are not. But, put it this way—. I think, as far as Darren Millar's amendments 9 and 10—those are amendments that I cannot support. Given the significant constitutional changes that this Bill gives effect to, it is appropriate that a review is undertaken to evaluate the operation and effect of its provisions. The impact of the legislative and electoral changes provided for by the Bill will extend beyond the specific effect of the legislative provisions themselves, and it is important that the review also considers any wider impact on the elements of healthy democracy in Wales.

So, whilst I support the principle of amendment 19, I cannot accept that the purpose behind section 19 is to enable the next Senedd to determine whether a committee should undertake post-legislative scrutiny of this legislation. And that is because I remain of the view that it should be a matter for the next Senedd, and therefore the content of the motion should also be a matter for the next Senedd.

My concern with amendment 19 is that it is unnecessary and may have unintended consequences. I believe it is inconceivable that a Senedd committee would undertake a review of the legislation without taking such evidence. This is a standard practice for committees of the Senedd. Such an amendment may therefore call into question whether the Senedd would involve consultation and evidence gathering in carrying out such work unless expressly provided for. I would, however, be willing to work with the Member to see if a mutually acceptable amendment can be made.

I will also not be supporting amendment 16, as tabled by Heledd Fychan. As already noted, it would be a matter for the Senedd to consider the scope of any such review, and as such, I do not believe this amendment to be necessary. But I do recognise the importance of the matter raised by the amendment. Just looking at the amendment itself, which is basically:

'when carrying out a review of the extent to which the elements of a healthy democracy are present in Wales, the matters to be considered by the committee must include the support available for Members of the Senedd and each political party registered...and represented in the Senedd to carry out their roles'.

I think that is an important issue. I think it is one that is certainly worth exploring. I do not think, though, that it's appropriate for it to go in this Bill in that specific way, and particularly bearing in mind that it is predominantly a matter for the Senedd itself at that particular time. But I think there may be a way of taking it forward and I'm happy to explore that. So, I hope, maybe with that assurance, that it will be withdrawn, and I'm happy to sort of engage and to discuss, but I suspect it may be a much broader discussion that's required. But the principle that you've raised is indeed, I think, an important one.

In my response to recommendation 48 of the Reform Bill Committee, I said I would give further consideration to the matter of support for Members and political parties in conjunction with the Independent Remuneration Board of the Senedd, the Senedd Commission, the Electoral Commission and registered political parties. So, I think that is probably the basis on which we can actually take this forward and discuss it further—that would be the appropriate way to do so.

I will also not be supporting Darren Millar's amendments 11 and 12. It is important to ensure that if a review is undertaken, then it is completed in good time to allow for the potential implementation of any recommendations in advance of the 2030 election. The timing requirement set out in this provision is to ensure that there is sufficient time for the committees to conduct and conclude its work, as well as sufficient time to consider the outcome of any Senedd committee report in advance of the 2030 election.

I won't be supporting Jane Dodds's amendment 49, as with Darren Millar’s amendment 19. While I remain of the view that the scope of the exact terms of the review should be a matter for the next Senedd, I am concerned that this amendment, again, might have unintended consequences. For example, the table of principles includes 'Boundaries', however the review would be expected to be undertaken at the start of the next Senedd, at the same point that the Democracy and Boundary Commission Cymru would be undertaking a full review of the 16 Senedd constituencies established for the 2026 election. While I cannot support amendment 49, again I'm happy to work with the Member to see if a mutually acceptable amendment might be achievable.

I will also not be supporting amendment 20 by Darren Millar, or amendment 50 by Jane Dodds. Given that the genesis of the proposals that form the backbone of this Bill emanated from work undertaken by the Senedd itself, I continue to believe that it is appropriate that the Senedd undertakes any post-legislative review and not Welsh Ministers. However, I will be supporting amendment 53, tabled by Darren Millar. Whilst Welsh Ministers will, by convention, always respond to Senedd committee reports, I am happy to support this amendment that would put such a requirement on the face of the Bill. Diolch.

Diolch, Llywydd. Can I just thank the Minister for his acceptance of at least one of my amendments in this group? Just turning very briefly to Heledd Fychan's comments, I totally and completely support the need for a review of the funding mechanisms available for policy development for political parties in Wales at a national level. It's quite clear that the Short money short-changes political parties in Wales to allow them to do that work, and therefore we need to address that anomaly, and I was very pleased to hear the Counsel General suggest that he is happy to work with you—and I hope, with me, and every political party in Wales—in order to address that anomaly, so that we can get it right for the future. I do note that, obviously, the remuneration board has indicated that it is prepared to consider these matters as well, and hopefully we can make some progress on the matter.

Amendments 49 and 50—. If I can just say to Jane Dodds, who I think has done a cracking job as well, by the way, in terms of putting forward her party's views throughout this legislative process—it's not that we don't want a review of the implementation of the Act, Jane Dodds, which is what you suggested in your comments. We're not wanting to scrap it. We're simply suggesting that to tie the hands and bind the hands of a future Senedd in terms of the timescale and when and how that review should be conducted is inappropriate. That's what we were told as a Reform Bill Committee, and you accepted the recommendations of that committee report as well, which included a recommendation to take this section out of the Bill. We're trying to give effect to that on the balance of the evidence we receive. But we were told, weren't we, by the academics who gave evidence to the Reform Bill Committee, that these provisions were, and I quote, 'quirky', 'unusual', 'strange' and an 'anomaly' in parliamentary practice. It's for that reason that I want to see them out of the Bill.

Now, I take on board what the Counsel General said, and that is that the genesis—. I love the word 'genesis', by the way, as you might imagine. [Laughter.] The genesis of this whole reform programme was indeed from the Senedd itself. I understand that. But we all know that this particular Bill is quite different than many of the recommendations of the work of previous Senedd committees. So, it's a Welsh Government Bill. It's been produced by the Welsh Government without direct consultation with all parties in this Senedd. I appreciate there was a deal done between at least two individuals in the Senedd in order to agree some of the terms in this Bill. But there are bits that haven't been the subject of discussion by the wider Senedd up until the production of this Bill, and that's why I say this is a Government Bill, it's not a Senedd Bill, and it's therefore appropriate for Government to be doing these sorts of reviews, not just the Senedd, which undoubtedly would undertake one post the next Senedd elections in any case.

You've repeatedly said that the terms of the committee's work et cetera should be a matter for the Senedd, and yet you've laid down two prescriptions on the face of the Bill already about what constitutes a healthy democracy, and you've given a clear timetable. That, to me, doesn't look like you're trying to get the Senedd to set the terms of the work of this committee at all. It sounds to me as though the Government is insisting that something must be done, and as I say, I think that's detrimental, potentially, to the scrutiny capacity of this Senedd that this Bill seeks to improve, because you're already requiring two committees, shortly after the next Senedd elections, to be established, even if negotiations and discussions are still ongoing between political parties about other scrutiny committees, which, as I said, after the last 2021 elections took many months to resolve.

So, I will be pushing all of my amendments to the vote. I would be happy to work with the Minister if none of my amendments progress—and indeed Jane Dodds—to come up with something that is better, if this part is going to stay on the face of the Bill, which does set out, perhaps, some clearer parameters in terms of the way that any review might be conducted. But as I say, I'm trying to give force to the implementation of the recommendations in the Stage 1 report, which were agreed by Members of all parties in this Senedd, and it is disappointing that the Counsel General is resisting that. Thank you.

Move.

Move.

Move.

Move.

Move.

Move.

Moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. In changing the electoral system to one where political parties submit lists of candidates, and independents stand as individual candidates in their own right, it will be necessary to review and update the existing system of election campaign expenditure, which currently reflects our mixed Member system.

As is currently the case in Senedd regional elections, expenditure incurred in respect of party list constituency candidates in the new system should be treated as incurred by the party. In turn, campaign expenditure incurred by parties are regularly regulated by the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, including those in respect of Senedd elections in paragraph 6 and Schedule 9.

Amendment 81 is the substantive amendment in this group, and it gives Welsh Ministers the ability to make provision by way of regulations to amend the relevant provisions of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 in connection with section 1 and Part 2 of this Bill.

This power is necessary to ensure that the system of campaign expenses for Senedd elections reflects that there will be 16 Senedd constituencies returning six Members each ahead of the 2026 Senedd election, rather than the current provisions in respect of 40 first-past-the-post constituencies, each returning a single Member, and five regions returning four Members each.

Now, I recognise the importance of transparency and integrity in implementing the rules that govern how political parties can spend money on campaigning in advance of elections. That is why this power to amend the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act can only—can only—be exercised with the consent of the Electoral Commission.

Furthermore, amendment 83 specifies that regulations made under this section must be made via the affirmative procedure. This approach provides clear and robust checks and safeguards for the exercise of the power, ensuring the role of the politically independent Electoral Commission and the will of the Senedd are respected in setting out the changes to the regime for election campaign expenses.

The power provided by amendment 81 is only to allow for the immediate and necessary changes to be made. However, it is important to note that the role of the Electoral Commission also continues after these changes will have been made. The Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act already grants Welsh Ministers the power to amend campaign expenditure limits to give effect to inflationary changes without a recommendation of the Electoral Commission, but any future change that goes beyond that limited exception can only be made on a recommendation of the Electoral Commission.

Individual candidate expenditure limits will continue to be regulated through the conduct Order, and, as the regulations are developed in respect of the changes to party campaign expenses, I will ensure that there is consistency, where appropriate, between candidate and party expenditure limits.

Amendments 82, 85 and 86 are consequential and technical amendments associated with amendment 81. Amendment 82 omits section 21(3)(b), which is no longer needed because amendment 81 includes the power to make incidental, supplementary, consequential, transitional, transitory or saving provision.

Amendments 85 and 86 set out that the provisions in the Bill that relate to the power to amend the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 do not come into force on the day after the Bill receives Royal Assent, but rather they do not come into force until two months after the Bill has received Royal Assent. Diolch, Llywydd.

Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. These amendments are significant. They introduce a significant new section into the Bill in relation to campaign expenditure, which has not been subject to committee scrutiny. To bring them forward at such a late stage is wholly unacceptable, as is expecting any Member in this Senedd to vote on them today. Just yesterday, the Minister was railing against some of my amendments because they sought to introduce new sections into the Bill, and yet here, today, the Minister is seeking everybody in this Chamber to give him our support in inserting a very significant new section into the Bill. So, if it's good for defeating my amendments, the argument is the same for yours: what's good for the goose is good for the gander, Counsel General.

So, I'd urge the Welsh Government to withdraw these amendments so that Members can be given the opportunity to give them detailed consideration before Stage 3 proceedings, because it may well be that these are entirely appropriate arrangements that this new section seeks to introduce. But we cannot possibly support anything that amounts to a last-minute amendment that has not benefited from any proper scrutiny either by Members of this Senedd or other interested stakeholders, and, frankly, it makes a mockery of the Senedd to table such significant amendments in this way without any prior discussion with party spokespersons. The whole purpose of this Bill, we are told, is to improve scrutiny, and yet the Minister has avoided scrutiny in respect of this whole new separate section that is suddenly being introduced into this Bill at the last minute. So, we'll be voting against this set of amendments.

I offer this to the Minister: I'm very happy to have discussions with him in order that I can better understand the implications of this new section and how it will work, and whether it is consistent with similar powers for Scottish Ministers, UK Ministers as well. But I do think that the Reform Bill Committee needs to be able to consider this matter, take advice, and report back to this Committee of the Whole Senedd at Stage 3, before any decision on these amendments is taken. And that's notwithstanding the assurances that the Minister has given, that no changes could be made without the support of the Electoral Commission or without an affirmative procedure, which, I understand, these amendments seek to make any future changes subject to. So, thank you.

Heledd Fychan.

Just by way of response, I think the amendments in this group are really there to ensure the system of campaign expenditure for Senedd elections just reflects the new electoral arrangements that are provided for by the Bill. Amendments 81 and 83 provide incredibly robust safeguards for the exercise of the power. I think it's an essential part of the Bill and I urge Members to support these amendments.

Move. 

I love it when that Member then starts to look around innocently, as if it was nothing to do with him. [Laughter.] 

Diolch, Llywydd. I’d ask Members to support amendments 84, 87 and 88, which are, as has been said, transitional amendments, provided for a circumstance where the scheduled election in 2026 did not go ahead because an extraordinary general election was held in the six months prior to May 2026. In such circumstances, amendment 84 clarifies that the date of the subsequent scheduled ordinary general election would still be May 2030.

Similarly, amendments 87 and 88 provide that section 3 of the Bill, which changes the frequency of Senedd elections to once every four years, would come into force following the first general election held after 7 November 2025. This thereby provides for the circumstance of an extraordinary general election occurring up to six months prior to the scheduled election in May 2026. Diolch, Llywydd. 

Heledd Fychan. 

Darren Millar.

Diolch, Llywydd. Yet again, we've got another set of amendments that have not been the subject of discussion or scrutiny by this Senedd that have been tabled by the Government this week. I don't know whether the Welsh Government is predicting that it's going to collapse within the six months before the next Senedd elections, but that's what it appears to be trying to put a safeguard in place for with these particular amendments. And what I will say is this: bring the collapse on earlier if you can, because we're ready to go street to street in combat with you as far as any election campaign is concerned.

Including a general election campaign?

Absolutely.

Will you bring the general election on?

I'm looking forward to the general election, Mike, particularly in Clwyd North. Particularly in Clwyd North.

So, as far as I can see, applying the provisions of this Bill to elections that could be less than 16 months after Royal Assent would be unacceptable. The Reform Bill Committee heard throughout Stage 1 that the timescales to complete everything in time for the Senedd elections in 2026 were already tight, and that evidence was provided by the Counsel General himself, who acknowledged that there were very tight timescales, and that it might be quite difficult to get everything in place for the Senedd elections in April 2026, and yet here we see him trying to wind the clock back again, like Marty McFly, to November 2025 instead. So, how on earth you think you're going to be able to do all of the work required, and all of the other stakeholders to do all of their work that's required, prior to an election that could be as early as November 2025 is beyond me, and you've given me absolutely no information this afternoon that gives me any confidence that those timescales could actually be met.

We heard from lots of different witnesses in the Reform Bill Committee Stage 1 process. They all raised concerns about timescales, but said they could probably just about meet them for an April 2026 election. They all highlighted the Gould principle, saying that the legislation should be in place and the arrangements should all be known, both primary legislation and, of course, the secondary legislation, should all have to be in place six months before an election, and ideally a lot earlier. The Electoral Commission said that it was absolutely necessary in order to have the clarity and time to plan, give sufficient time for campaigners and electoral administrators to understand and implement any changes, and of course, very importantly, to educate the public and inform them about the new voting arrangements.

The Member in charge acknowledged these challenges. He gave us a timetable, which was published in the Stage 1 committee report, and it shows how difficult, with the timetable that the Counsel General gave us, it was going to be to hit the April 2026 target for implementation. And yet now, if we stick November into that mix, there's no way that all of the work in the Counsel General's own timetable could possibly be met.

So, this is a problem. We will not be supporting these amendments today. It would put huge pressure on everybody—election administrators, regulators, political parties—and it would be detrimental to helping the public understand and appreciate the reforms, why they're being implemented, and the way that that's going to change the nature of the voting system.

Now, given that this is the final group of amendments, and it's my last opportunity to speak in this set of debates too, I do want to thank the Counsel General for the way that he's positively engaged on a number of amendments that we have tabled as a Welsh Conservative group at this Stage 2 set of debates. We've had a lot of political knockabout, understandably, in this Chamber, but there's some serious work that has been done, and I hope that everybody in this Chamber understands and appreciates that whilst we, as I said at the outset of these debates, have a principled opposition to the reforms, we have tried to be constructive and we have tried to work with others in order to kick what is a very significant Bill, which is going to bring significant changes to the voting system and our constitution, into much better shape than it is. It's still not in the sort of shape that we think is right, and we will still go on, of course, to try and seek further amendments at the Stage 3 process, but we recognise the arithmetic in the Senedd for reform, and that's why we've tried to engage in a positive way.

And I want to thank also other Members from other political parties for the positive engagement we've had with them, particularly Heledd Fychan and Jane Dodds, because it is important that every Bill that goes through this Senedd has proper scrutiny, and I think we've shown that this Senedd has the ability to scrutinise legislation—without extra Members, by the way—in a very effective way. So, thank you.

Just on the first point, just in terms of the amendments, obviously I'm seeking support for these amendments. They are really to cover a potential exceptional circumstance, which is probably not going to happen, but it is appropriate in legislation that it is there, and it is catered for. I can give you assurance I am confident that the timescales will be met, and I am very confident that the Gould principle will be met. This legislation represents a decade of work and the fulfilment, I think, of commission after commission. The amount of expertise and input that there has been, really, from across Wales, has been really important and has led to this legislation where it is now. It is also important, I think, to thank all the officials, and the lawyers, for the considerable expertise that has gone into this legislation. Again, I would also thank all those who've contributed from all political parties. I recognise, indeed, that we have a certain amount of political knockabout and discussion, some of which has been quite entertaining, but, at the heart of it, there's been a lot of very constructive engagement, and I am grateful for that. So, I'm happy to proceed to a vote, Llywydd.

On the third attempt, I got it right.

Move.

Move.

—is it being moved?

Move.

Move.

Move.

Move.