On the extension of the franchise, I do think this is a matter that requires careful examination, although there are certainly clear examples around the world of the benefits of lowering the age of voting to 16, or the eligibility to 16. That captures that part of the population obviously that are going to live with the more profound decisions that are taken for them, but also in terms of education, training—these sort of basic issues that are essential, really, to the prosperity of the society, and they really impact that age group, and I think you'd have the potential of raising those issues in our deliberations. 

I do think you're wise to look overall at the issue of how politics is taught in schools. The political process is something that's not always well understood, and I don't want to turn all citizens into political scientists but, in the sense that we have a basic understanding of how the criminal law system works and how juries are important, I think that citizens do need to be taught at school for the responsibilities that are ahead of them in terms of citizenship. It's at the heart of democracy. Without citizens, you can't have a democratic system, or certainly not a healthy one. So, I think that's really important.

There's emphatic evidence that, at an early age, if you miss two elections, then you're unlikely to vote at all during your life. It's astonishing, I think, to everyone in here that there are citizens out there—and quite a lot of them—who never cast a ballot in a democracy. So, I particularly welcome that insight that we'll need to do something in schools to prepare our younger citizens, especially if we do lower the voting age to 16. 

The name is obviously work in progress, I'll put it like that. I think there is, at least within the political bubble, an acceptance that the word 'senedd' has really taken hold. It's what I prefer to call us, I have to say, and certainly the people that I'm engaged with—most of our stakeholders—understand that. Obviously, the further we go away, and the more we talk to our constituents, then that common usage is not so well established. I also think the principle of biligualism is important, and 'senedd' is one of those lone words that almost does both jobs, but I think there is a big constituency that looks at the word 'parliament' as that brilliant, splendid, understandable British word. Well, it's French, of course, but you know what I mean—[Laughter.]—and it is what most people call a legislature in the Westminster model, wherever it's applied. If we could, in a more direct way, get 'parliament' in, and I know there've been difficulties about competence, and they'll have to be explored, but I do hope we''ll have an expansive view of this also in terms of how we can interpret our competence under the 2006 Act. I do hope people of goodwill will be able to solve this in committee and beyond. 

Eligibility for election—I think I ought to declare an interest here, Deputy Presiding Officer, because when I was Chair, in the fourth Assembly, of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, we did look at this. And, I'm grateful that, as far as I can work out, the provisions are pretty much what we recommended, so that you're not deemed to be illegible, you're deemed to have resigned from something when you get elected, if that was a disqualification or you couldn't hold both offices at the same time. We had a mortifying experience in 2011, in terms of potentially two Members being disqualified. In the end, one was disqualified, one wasn't, and it wasn't very clear to me, ever, how that distinction was made. We just don't want to be there.

But what's at the heart of this, and what was at the heart of the CLAC report, is that we need to extend the range of people who can stand for election to the maximum and we need to restrict the exclusions to as few as possible, and that's what democracy demands and I think this will go a long, long way.

In terms of excluding Members of the House of Lords from sitting in the Senedd—whilst they're sitting in the House of Lords, there will be a provision, of course, for them to stay their membership of the House of Lords. I think the logic of that is that you shouldn't be a member of two legislatures concurrently. And that, for me, puts it in a very different category to membership of a local authority, though many people may believe that's not best practice either—to retain membership of a local authority and membership here. But I do think this will help heighten the importance of our Parliament, our Senedd, and eliminate any hint of a conflict of interest.

Finally, can I just say where I think perhaps some improvement is still possible, and that's on public engagement? I think all around the UK, we need new models. We've done a lot, in fairness, with our outreach unit, but I really think, as we move from a representative democracy to a participatory democracy, that's the challenge ahead of us, and I think recent events shout at us that we must do this. We will need more extensive and deeper engagement with our citizens and the way we do that, through citizens' juries or citizens' chamber—there are many, many models—. But I do think, at some point—if this is not the right vehicle, maybe we'll have a look at it, I don't know—that's a challenge that's ahead of us and one that we will have to grasp very soon.