Item 5 on our agenda this afternoon is a statement by the Llywydd: introduction of a Commission-proposed Bill—Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill, and I call on the Llywydd, Elin Jones.

The introduction of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill today sees the culmination of a long period of consultation and engagement with the public, political groups and wider stakeholders on electoral reform, and it takes up the opportunities presented in the Wales Act 2017 to strengthen our National Assembly for the better.

The substance of the Bill, then, is to create a more effective and accessible Senedd and to ensure that the cradle of our democracy is fit for purpose as we celebrate its establishment 20 years ago. As the Member in charge of this Bill, I have listened to a wide range of views on the main elements of the draft legislation—changing the National Assembly’s name, expanding the franchise for Assembly elections, and changing the law in relation to the arrangements governing individuals’ ineligibility to stand for election.

In designing these main provisions, the aim has been to ensure the broadest consensus possible among Members and to build on the mandate given to this legislation by a majority in this Assembly in October 2018.  

What, then, does the Bill entail? Firstly, reducing the minimum voting age to 16 for the 2021 Assembly election—the Commission's objective is to empower and inspire young people to participate in the democratic process. Building on the work to elect Wales's first ever Youth Parliament last year, the Commission is collaborating with partners to expand the franchise to include 16 and 17-year-olds in time for the Assembly election in 2021. This provision goes hand in hand with the need for political education that will enable young people to understand their political rights and to increase participation in elections. The Commission is working with relevant stakeholders to ensure that the appropriate information reaches as many young people as possible before this positive change comes into force.

Secondly, the Bill proposes renaming the Assembly 'Senedd'. Renaming the Assembly will ensure that the institution's name reflects its constitutional status and it will help to improve public understanding of the legislature’s role and responsibilities. The Bill contains a clause noting that the Senedd may also be referred to as 'Welsh Parliament', reflecting the opinion of many that the Bill needed an English explanatory term to reinforce the change in the institution’s status. This is a clear statement that 'Senedd' is now synonymous with 'parliament', rather than 'assembly'. The intention is that the change of name will come into force legally in May 2020 to ensure that the public are familiar with it in good time before the Welsh elections in 2021. This change will bring with it other connected changes—for example, the descriptor that appears after Members' names and the titles of bodies such as the Commission. Assembly Members will become Members of the Senedd—'Aelodau o’r Senedd' in Welsh, for example.

Thirdly, the Bill will reform the framework for ineligibility to be an Assembly Member. The Commission is introducing recommendations made by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in the fourth Assembly to change the law on eligibility to stand for election to the Assembly. The purpose of this change is to ensure clarity for potential candidates with regard to their eligibility to stand for election. The change will mean that most people will not have to resign from work before standing for election; such resignations would only become necessary if they are elected. In addition, this clause will prohibit Members of the House of Lords from being Assembly Members, unless they take a formal break from their work in Westminster.

The final element of the Bill proposes changes to the Assembly’s electoral and internal arrangements. These practical changes will introduce more flexibility following an election by extending the deadline for the Assembly’s first Plenary from seven days to 14 days. This will allow more time for the parties to hold important talks in moving towards electing a First Minister and forming a government. One of the other aims in this section is to clarify the Assembly Commission's right to charge for providing particular services to external bodies.

In addition, the Assembly Commission should consider, given that the Electoral Commission has responsibility for devolved elections, changing its financial and oversight arrangements. The Electoral Commission is of the view that it should be financed by and be accountable to the Assembly for its work in relation to the devolved elections, rather than the United Kingdom Parliament. This Bill, therefore, places a duty on the Senedd to consider this change, and should the Assembly recommend support for such a move, amendments may be introduced at Stage 2 to give effect to this.

The Bill will undergo extensive scrutiny in committee sessions and in Plenary. An explanatory memorandum has been made available to ensure clarity and transparency with regard to the financial implications of the Bill. Also, detailed assessments have been completed on the impact the plans would have on the Assembly’s official languages, equality and inclusion, children’s rights, the justice system, and other areas.

Of course, this Bill is just a starting point. In introducing it, it is my hope that the Bill will spark interesting and meaningful debate and encourage Members, stakeholders and the wider public to participate in the discourse on the future of our national Parliament. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Government for their co-operation to date. The Youth Parliament has proven to us, in such an encouraging way, that the next generation are eager to play their part. What better occasion than the twentieth anniversary of our Senedd to inspire them and to involve them directly alongside every other citizen in the opportunities that the next 20 years of our democracy and our Senedd will present? Thank you. 

Thank you. Can I call the Counsel General and the Brexit Minister, Jeremy Miles?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I welcome this Bill, which is another important milestone in the journey of devolution.

The Welsh Government is very supportive of the three main aims of the Bill, as we see them. First of all, giving the Senedd a name that reflects its status as a legislature, secondly, giving young people an opportunity to vote, and thirdly, providing greater clarity for possible candidates as to their eligibility.

Specifically, the Welsh Government is entirely supportive of extending the franchise to young people of 16 and 17 years of age in Part 3 of the Bill. This was a commitment in the Welsh Government’s national strategy ‘Prosperity for All’, and I’m very pleased that we can provide assistance through our officials to produce the provisions in this Part. We believe that the franchise for Assembly elections and local authority elections should be consistent. Specifically, we want to see the Bill extending the franchise to include foreign nationals who are legally resident in Wales, to reflect the provisions that we will introduce in relation to the local government franchise.

In addition to that, the Assembly recently expressed its view that it supports the right of prisoners to vote in Welsh elections. We support that view in principle and await with interest the conclusions of the equality committee’s inquiry.

We believe it is important that the Assembly's financing and accountability relationship with the Electoral Commission is placed on a formal footing, and we stand ready to work with the Llywydd, the Electoral Commission and the Treasury in light of Stage 1 scrutiny, to explore whether we could take this further than the Bill currently provides for.

The Welsh Government also supports the clear demarcation that the Bill provides between those disqualified from being a candidate in Assembly elections and those disqualified from becoming an Assembly Member. We will be giving more thought as the Bill progresses to whether any further changes are needed to the detail of these provisions. We also recognise the objectives behind the provision in Part 5 of a power for the Welsh Ministers to implement Law Commission recommendations about elections. But we do not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate for this power to be in the hands of Welsh Ministers, and we would like to explore this further during scrutiny. 

We welcome the opportunity presented by Part 2 to consider renaming this institution to reflect its central role as a legislature in Welsh life. The decision on what the name should be is for the Assembly as a whole to make, but we would urge all Members to bear in mind that the provisions of this Bill will amend the Government of Wales Act 2006—our key constitutional statute. So, it's very important that we make sure that the provisions on the name change, as well as on other matters, are as clear and as accessible as possible. As the Bill is currently drafted, I am concerned that this is not the case. I will be writing to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee shortly to provide more information about the Welsh Government's initial position on the Bill. But I hope that the Llywydd, as the Member in charge, can confirm that she shares my view, and that of the Government, that this Bill, as a crucial piece of constitutional legislation, should, as far as possible, be an exemplar for constitutional reform, and that she will continue to work closely with me, as well as with Assembly committees, other interested Members and our stakeholders, to ensure that this is the case. 

I thank the Counsel General for his comments and for his questions, and may I agree with what he has said in concluding? This is an important constitutional Bill, so it’s important that it is an exemplar of good legislation that this Assembly and Senedd is responsible for. And I very much hope that, in putting forward this legislation and in scrutinising it, we will exhibit that clearly.

There are a number of questions that you’ve outlined, Counsel General, where there is agreement between what has been put forward in the Bill and what you aspire towards as a Government, and I am very grateful for that.

On the franchise, of course, the Government is looking to extend the franchise for local government elections in 2022 to young people of 16 and 17 years of age. And it’s been important that I, as I’ve developed this Bill, have worked very closely with Government officials and with you as Counsel General, and that we do that in a common manner, and in a way that uses the mechanism of this Bill that will look at extending the franchise for the election that will come before us first, namely the Assembly election in 2021.

There are two aspects of this, and you have referred to them, that aren’t included in the Bill, as it has been drafted and presented, to extend the franchise, and that is to foreign nationals and to prisoners. And, of course, there are quite complex issues related to both aspects, and perhaps we haven’t received a full mandate from the Assembly to look at extending the franchise to foreign nationals in putting forward the Bill. But I do very much hope, as we discuss and debate within the committee, and within the full Assembly, that, if there is a way for us to look to ensure relatively early as we extended the franchise, that the franchise for this Assembly and the franchise for local government are aligned. I don’t think that it is advantageous in any way for us to have two different franchises for our domestic elections, in those local government elections and in the national elections. And so, I will listen very carefully to what the committee and others will have to say, as this Bill goes ahead

And on your comment on the Law Commission, it’s very interesting for me to hear the Government saying, perhaps, that they wouldn’t be eager to see the powers that are put forward in this legislation to Government; they would want to see them remaining in the legislature. Perhaps that is again a matter for the committee to consider.

And finally, on your point about the need for this legislation, as constitutional legislation, to be as clear as possible for the people of Wales, and in thinking about the clauses that rename the Assembly as the 'Senedd', there is reference that you’ve made to the opinion that you have about ways that these clauses could be made clearer. There is reference made in the explanatory memorandum as well to the consideration that I gave to changes to the way that these clauses were drafted; because of some issues related to competence, and discussion about competence, the clauses on the name of the institution were drafted as they have been presented. But I’m sure that the committee will, once again, give due consideration anew to the points that you’ve made, and the points that are outlined in the explanatory memorandum.

And so, thank you for your support in principle for a number of different aspects that are put forward in the Bill today. Again, I look forward to collaborating with you, and also about what you said about your support for making the Electoral Commission accountable, in terms of its budget and its general accountability, to this Assembly, rather than to the Westminster Parliament for elections in Wales—local and national.

We welcome the introduction of this Bill. It is an important recognition of the status of the Senedd as a legislature, as the Counsel General also indicated. So, it's an important landmark. And I think that those of us who have served—as you have, in the Chair at the moment, Deputy Presiding Officer—since 1999, it's almost like we've been in this huge constitutional convention, when we started off with, I think, what someone famously called 'Glamorgan County Council on stilts', and then we moved to separate powers, got this legislative competence Order process of legislating primary legislation on sufferance from Westminster, finally to a proper legislature. It has been, sort of, how to get from Cardiff to Newport via Wrexham, but we did it.

I also support the intention to create a more effective and accessible legislature. I think that's the right aim, and we do need that sort of clarity and purpose in our constitutional thinking and law making. 

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.

Thank you to David Melding for his observations on the Bill as it stands at this point. On the matter of votes at 16 and 17, the points that you make about all of education and citizenship awareness within education and young people's education—those were the exact points made by Laura McAllister's independent report in recommending that votes at 16 and 17 should be introduced in Wales, but should only be done so in partnership with a very in-depth look at how we promote information and engagement with young people, whether that's through the formal role of schools and the curriculum—. And it's a matter I've discussed already with the education Minister and we're keen to work together on how we do this in preparation, if this law is passed, for 16 and 17-year-olds having the vote in 2021. And, of course, it can be done in a more informal context, through social media and our work on that, especially with the Wales Youth Parliament, which has proved to be very successful over the past few months.

In fact, the point that you make about how engaged 16 and 17-year-olds are compared to possibly other age ranges is an interesting one. The evidence in Scotland—and, of course, Scotland have had at least two examples of using voting for 16 and 17-year-olds, for the independence referendum and then for their Scottish Parliament—was that 16 and 17-year-olds were far better versed in the mechanics of voting, and how to vote and where to vote, than the age range that follows them, the 18 to 24-year-olds, where they may all have left their home environment, moved to another locality and their first voting experience is in an area that they aren't as familiar with. Certainly, that was the interesting experience from Scotland in introducing votes at 16 and 17.

On the main change, the clauses within the Bill as drafted, and also the name itself—the use of 'Senedd' or 'Senedd'/'Welsh Parliament'—that is work in progress, as you say, David, and I look forward to going in front of the committee of the people of goodwill to see whether we can develop further thinking on this. I would urge caution at all times and Members to remember that this is a piece of constitutional legislation and it will require 40 Members of this Assembly, and not a simple majority, to finally pass the Bill, and I hope that all Members, in thinking about interesting amendments that they may wish to put to this Bill in Stage 2 and Stage 3, will always have, at the back of their minds, that in Stage 4, it'll require 40 Members to support it and not just a simple majority. I'd actually forgotten that you were the Chair of the constitutional committee during the fourth Assembly, David—forgive me for that. But the provisions on disqualification are as that committee outlined to us, and very much so in light of the difficult experience of 2011. So, we are now following the Wales Act 2017, giving us the powers to enable us to put into legislation the recommendations from that committee. 

Public engagement, of course, can be improved without the need for legislation, and we always need to improve on that work. But as you say, there is an interesting discussion that we need to have here about a more participatory way of looking at politics in Wales that may not require legislation, and we need to look to interesting models that we can trial without legislation to see what is possible for us to improve our relationship and the understanding that the people of Wales have of what we do here and their input into what we do on their behalf.

May I congratulate the Llywydd on introducing the statement today, and also welcome the statement and what’s included in it? Specifically, then, I would like to strongly support the intention to reduce the minimum voting age to 16 for the 2020-1 Assembly election. I realise that we are at the very early stages of this Bill and that it will come before the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee for further scrutiny at Stage 1. So, as you’ve already mentioned, we’re at the beginning of the journey now, but we might as well say that we agree fundamentally with what you had to say?

I recall, in the third Assembly—and it was an Assembly at that point—the local government committee crossed the seas to Europe to look at voting ages and voting systems and so on, and we visited countries such as Denmark and Sweden, and what became apparent there was that teenagers were being educated about the various political parties—in countries such as Denmark. They learned exactly what the local 'Labour' party stood for, what the local 'Plaid Cymru' equivalent stood for, in a way that was simply educational, and people accepted that. And that was a means of informing people about what their different views meant, and that has worked in Denmark over a period of years. I think that was the substance of what was happening in Sweden too. You could see how children and young people took an interest, a real interest, in the voting system and tended to be more willing to use their votes.

So, that was the evidence that we received when we sought the real facts overseas. So, I’m sure that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee will need to go abroad again to see whether those views have changed. But, certainly, there are other nations in the vanguard in this regard. Because as David Melding has already said, the evidence that we received from that evidence gathering is: if people don’t vote in the first two elections where they are qualified to vote, they never will vote. I think that’s the importance of reducing the voting age to 16, whilst that enthusiasm is still there, and ensuring that young people have the confidence, before leaving home, to vote. They are far more likely to vote in that scenario.

We’ve seen that same enthusiasm with our Youth Parliament. Those of us who have been involved and have been meeting with our youth parliamentarians— some of whom are very young—you just see how enthusiastic they are about the whole process. Because there are a number of injustices out there, and they want to do something about it, and they know that the political process is the way to deal with those injustices, in relation to language, the environment, or whatever it is may be, and they are very enthusiastic. In a way, some people have become disillusioned with political systems. I don’t see that with our young people, and I think it’s important to emphasise that point.

I see that time is against us, and I can see that the Deputy Llywydd is looking at me, so I will just mention a point on the name of this institution. I think it deserves the name 'Senedd', because, as you’ve already mentioned, we have taken that step from being an Assembly that had no powers and no taxation powers. We now have legislative powers, primary legislative powers, and the power to levy tax—that is, we are a Senedd, so why not name ourselves 'Senedd'? We would then be on a par with the Parliament in Scotland and the Parliament in Westminster. I understand that there is some sensitivity around this, and of course we will be scrutinising the Bill line by line, but I also believe that as we have taken that step to become a Senedd, then surely we should call ourselves 'Senedd'. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Dai Lloyd, for the contribution, and thank you for the support for the different elements that you referred to in the Bill. I won't repeat what I have already said about some of those particular matters, but just to point out, as Dai Lloyd already has, that there has been a long-running discussion leading up to this point where we're now looking to legislating on changing the franchise to include young people of 16 and 17 years of age. This isn't something new that’s happening for the first time ever in the world in Wales; it does happen in other places in the world, and it happens within the United Kingdom also, in Scotland. And so, there has been discussion on this in the past, but until the Wales Act 2017, we didn't have the powers in this Senedd or Parliament to do that. We could debate it in the third Assembly, as Dai Lloyd mentioned, but it is now, in this fifth Assembly, that we have had the powers to legislate on our own elections, and that’s why we can do this now, and we can look to call ourselves 'Senedd', because that’s what we do: we legislate.

Can I say I very much welcome this Bill and welcome the terms in which it has been drafted? I'm absolutely looking forward, after spending the best part of my life debating and discussing devolution, to see this exemplar of constitutional reform take place. The Counsel General is very ambitious in his vision in responding on behalf of the Government. I noticed, looking through some boxes at home, that when I was in my early 20s, I was campaigning for a 'senate' in Cardiff. NUS Wales, which I was then, somehow, elected to lead, had consented to me running this campaign. We chose the term 'senate' because it sounded like 'senedd' and because it was understandable to all—now this is going back to the 1980s—and I do believe that what we call ourselves is important, as it happens. I don't believe it's a technical or academic exercise, and I don't believe it's an exercise in either vanity or self-regard. I believe it's fundamental to this place and what it seeks to be. It was Arthur Henderson, of course, as general secretary of the Labour Party in 1918, who said that Wales could become a utopia with self-government. Now, I'm sure he was quoted by others in doing so, here today. But at that time, of course, there was a determination—a real determination—in different parts of the then UK Parliament, to create home rule all round, and I believe that that is the right and proper constitutional framework in which we should take these matters forward, where Wales and Scotland have Parliaments able to determine the domestic arrangements for those countries within the framework of the United Kingdom. And I hope that at some point during this exemplar exercise in constitutional reform we will look at the issues that affect our colleagues, friends and neighbours in England as well. But that's beyond the scope of this statement this afternoon.

I have little concern over whether we call ourselves 'Senedd' or 'Parliament'. To me, I use both and my constituents use both. I'm happy to be an 'Aelod Seneddol', and I am equally happy to be a 'Member of the Welsh Parliament'. What matters to me is the powers that we have and how we exercise those powers. I said earlier in my remarks that I was looking back to my early 20s—well, I celebrated my fifty-fifth birthday yesterday. [Interruption.] Thank you very much. I know that many of my constituents are looking forward to my retirement. [Laughter.] I hope that we will be able to do so with adequate settlement and adequate powers. We've already discussed this afternoon that in order to build a railway station in Abertillery we need to go cap in hand to a Tory Government. Surely that can't be right. We need a settlement to enable us to do that and to address properly the issues of mental health in Cardiff prison. As we've heard this afternoon, we're unable to do that as well. So, for me, the powers of this place are always what has driven me, and our ability to effect change on behalf of the people that we represent.

I'm interested in the example of the Dáil in Ireland, and I think it does give a very real example to how bilingualism—as David Melding quite rightly pointed out—can mean more than simply using two names in every instance. As a Welsh speaker, quite often, I'm told that bilingualism is me speaking English, and I think every so often we do need to ensure that we do have terms in our everyday language and in our national life that reflect the importance of our national language as well. But it is something I hope we will be able to reflect upon.

But the point I'd like to make this afternoon is that I hope that this will be a beginning of a more substantial reform as well. To be effective—in the Llywydd's words—we do need to have more Members here. To be effective, we also have to represent people in all parts of the country equally and, for me, that means a proportional system, and I would prefer the STV system of electing us, which I believe would provide a single method of election for all people here, rather than the two-tier system we have at present, which I think fails everybody. So, I don't believe that this should be the end of a process, but should be the beginning of a process, and look then at how we deliver active citizenship in reality. And, Presiding Officer, I very much enjoyed your introduction to this statement. For me, active citizenship is how we will define our democracy in the future. All of us here, because we are politicians and elected, enjoy the 'stubby little pencil on a piece of string' form of democracy. My children will not recognise that, and our democracy has to be a different democracy in future than the one that we've experienced in the past, and that means an active citizenship, actively involved, not only in the deliberations here, but a Parliament and a Senedd that is able to reach out across the whole of Wales.

So, I do welcome the changes in the franchise. I don't share the concerns that have been outlined elsewhere, and I also hope that we will be able to extend the franchise further to include those who are serving relatively short prison sentences and those who are citizens of other countries but settled in this country, because we do need to be an inclusive Parliament as well as a democratic one.

So, I hope, in welcoming the beginning of this debate, and in welcoming the statement this afternoon, we will look beyond what this Bill says, but we will look towards the sort of Parliament that this wants to be and the sort of country in which we want our Parliament to reach out and to create something for our future generations.

Diolch, Alun. You spent quite a bit of your contribution reminiscing over your time in your 20s. That reminded me of the time in your 20s when we were both members of Aberystwyth Town Council, both in our 20s then, both on the same benches then as well. 

But, of course, Aberystwyth Town Council—. When I was elected here in 1999, Aberystwyth Town Council in some areas had more powers than the body I was then elected to, the National Assembly. And here we are 20 years later with a very different body, organisation, Parliament now, making laws and raising taxes. I almost said 'taxis' there; taxes—raising taxes. And we are a Senedd, we are a Parliament—that's what we do here and therefore that's what we should call ourselves. As you said, there is a Senedd—Parliament—in Scotland and there is in Wales. So, let's now call ourselves that.

Just on some of the points that you finished with, of course, there are areas of other reform that this Bill could have looked at and that would have looked at other aspects of the work of the Laura McAllister report on extending, increasing, the number of Members that we need in this Parliament, as well as possibly changing the system of elections for that. I know that you and others in this place support that. Those issues remain with us, but they are for another day and another Bill.

And, finally, Gareth Bennett.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd, and diolch, Llywydd, for today's statement. We appreciate that with the arrival of tax-raising powers there is a likely consensus that the name of this legislature will change. So, we are not opposed to change per se. Many people have spoken about the name. The proposal from the Llywydd today, following consultation, is to style the legislature as the Senedd. Now, when we debated this last time around, Llyr made the point also that Alun Davies made just now about the example of Ireland, where they do have there the Gaelic terms of the Dáil and the Taoiseach in a country where there is not a particularly high rate of Gaelic speakers. So, given this example, there is a case that we could replicate that here in Wales by using terms like 'Senedd' and 'Aelod o'r Senedd'.

I did look into the history of the Irish terms so I could get some more insight into this. Now, the term 'Dáil' was first used when the Irish legislature was being set up in the early 1920s. So, an advantage they did have there was that it wasn't a case of renaming an institution; it was a new institution that was, essentially, being created. 'Taoiseach' came in slightly later. That wasn't introduced until 1937, but until that point they didn't have a Prime Minister as such; they had a chairman of an executive council. So, again, 'Taoiseach' was a name for a new position. I think there may be some difficulties here in Wales in that we already have this institution, and of course we already have a name for it, and many people are familiar with the terms 'Assembly' and 'Assembly Members'. So, I think there is going to be initial confusion. Of course, this confusion, I'm sure, can be overcome. 

Now, if we are going to go for 'Senedd', I think that then leads to 'Aelod o'r Senedd', which is AS, rather than AM. I think Lee Waters did raise an issue last time—again a slight issue—that it might confuse viewers of Welsh language programmes, as AS is the term currently used for MPs. 

The First Minister's title is the same in Welsh—[Inaudible.]

Ah. Yes, and that is the case as well, but I'm sure these confusions can be overcome. And of course—[Interruption.] Oh, there is no confusion, okay; I'll further investigate. 

But the point I was going to make is, if we did use 'Parliament' alternatively, that would probably create greater confusion, so I think 'Senedd' is a definite possibility. Although I think even that change of term may not guarantee that we get the railway station Alun Davies actually wants in Abertillery.

Now, the lowering of the voting age—as I've mentioned before, UKIP in general doesn't support this, but of course I accept there may well be a supermajority in this place to do exactly that. So, if we do embark on this change, I think we do need to ensure we do have a clear programme of political education. That's been mentioned by many people. I know that the Llywydd is particularly interested in this, and hopefully we can use the experience of the Youth Parliament in developing that, and any insight that we can get from countries like Denmark and Sweden, which have pioneered this in the past. I would just raise one issue. This is coming in for the next Assembly elections, so time is of the essence if we are going to develop something. So, hopefully, we will bear that in mind as we go forward. Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

Thank you, Gareth Bennett, for your response and for looking more deeply into the Irish history on the naming of their Parliament than I have, even though I was able to attend the 100 years celebration of the setting up of the Irish Dáil a few weeks ago. You make some really valid points about aspects that need to be overcome with introducing a name change from the Assembly, whether that's to Senedd or Parliament or both. Those are issues that we need to be very aware of in making this change, because the change needs to be made with the people of Wales understanding the nature of that change.

We've already had a consultation with the people of Wales with a great number of people responding where they did recognise and support the need to change the name from an Assembly to a Senedd, Parliament. But I agree with you that we do need to ensure that there is a whole programme of engagement with people to ensure that they are very clear, by the time that this comes into force, that the name of their democratic political national institution is 'Senedd' here, not 'Assembly'. 

Then, very much so on the 16 and 17-year-old voting, I understand that your party is against that in principle, but I hope that, with considering how this is to be introduced in Wales—that it will be introduced both for national elections and local elections, one franchise, all 16 and 17-year-olds engaged in the political process in Wales, and with a well-developed political engagement programme—perhaps even those of you who may be sceptical at this point of introducing votes for 16 and 17 will see that the package in its entirety can enthuse young people in Wales. We've seen a hugely enthusiastic response to setting up a Welsh Youth Parliament. I think we should capture that mood. Young people are telling us, showing us, that they're interested, and we should enable them, then, to have an ownership of their own democracy so that, for the next 20 years and more, young people know that they will have a vote in how decisions are taken, and whether Alun Davies gets a railway station into his constituency or not. The 16 and 17-year-olds in that constituency deserve a say in that as much as anybody else.

And, finally, Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. I won't keep you; I just wanted to add to the very short debate that we've had on the parallels with the Republic of Ireland. Oireachtas—and forgive me my pronunciation—is the name of the Parliament; you have the Dáil Éireann and the Seaned Éireann as Chambers within that Parliament. If you do go and Google and put 'Oireachtas' in there, it says 'the homepage of the Irish Parliament'. Now, Irish Parliament is not an official name at all for the Parliament, but it is a descriptor, and I think we do need to move towards having a name, a single name, 'Senedd', for our new national Parliament, but we also need this legislation, of course, to describe our change on that journey from being an Assembly, which was a term that was to put us at a lower level to the Parliament in Scotland. We need this legislation to take us on that journey to being a Parliament. So, I think we need 'Senedd' as a name, we need a way, through this legislation, to have 'Parliament' there as a descriptor, and I look forward to us using this as a step to establishing ourselves even further in the hearts and minds of the people of Wales in our next 20 years and beyond.

Diolch, Rhun—thank you for allowing me the opportunity just to close, really, now, I guess, just by saying that the Bill does rename officially the National Assembly to 'Senedd', but it does allow on the face of the Bill for 'Senedd' to be described as 'Welsh Parliament'. That's what it will be, it is, we are—a Welsh Parliament—but we will be named officially as the Senedd. But this is the start of this legislation. It is being introduced at this point and committees and the Assembly—Senedd—in its entirety will scrutinise that and will have various views on how we end up at the end of this Bill. But thank you for the opportunity for introducing this Bill, and I look forward to going in front of the committee of people of goodwill to scrutinise this legislation further.

Thank you very much. I think it was important to extend the time on that, as we have done on most constitutional journeys that some of us have been on since 1999. So, there we go.