—of a non-partisan nature. It may be Gareth Bennett today, it may be anybody else tomorrow. Therefore, the procedure that we set up has to be fair and reliable and to be applied equally. Yes, by all means let us set up a process of appeals from a decision of the commissioner, but let us not do it in an individual case, where it might easily be said that this is a case of victimisation, against a specific individual, because he is not popular in the Assembly. That would seem to me to be the correct way in which to proceed.

Organisations like Liberty have spoken up for the double jeopardy rule to be maintained in the past, and many organisations that should be revered by Members of Plaid Cymru or the Labour Party have explained publicly, and in documents, how abhorrent it is that individuals should be subjected to a retrial, unless there were compelling new evidence, which is allowed for in the European convention on human rights as well. In this particular instance, there is nothing new whatsoever, as I understand it, in these complaints.

Now, Mr Bain, I'm sure, is a totally acceptable choice for such a position; I've nothing against him whatsoever. If he comes to a different conclusion from Sir Roderick Evans on this matter, where does that leave Sir Roderick Evans's credibility? Whose decision are we to accept as preferable and why? Are we then to have a third commissioner appointed, in order to resolve the impasse between a difference of opinion between the existing two? And how many times does this have to go on? Should we have a people's vote on this matter, ultimately? This seems to me a matter of extreme importance to not just the liberty of the individual, but also to justice, and justice should matter to all of us, even though it may not be apparent to some who have noisily been trying to intervene in my speech today.