The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Caroline Jones, amendment 2 in the name of Jane Hutt, and amendment 3 in the name of Darren Millar. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected.

Item 8 on our agenda this afternoon is the Plaid Cymru debate on Assembly reform, and I call on Adam Price to move the motion—Adam.

Motion NDM7118 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Calls for an increase in the number of Assembly Members.

2. Calls for immediate action in order to increase the number of Assembly Members in time for the start of the Sixth Assembly.

3. Calls for reform of the Assembly electoral system, and the introduction of the single transferable vote system for electing Members in time for the next Assembly elections in 2021.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I'm pleased to rise to move the motion in the name of my party and, indeed, to build upon the previous debate's discussion of where we've come from, how we've developed as a Parliament, and how we could develop further. I think, in thinking about this arc of Welsh democracy, if you like, one way of seeing it is that we started as a Parliament that was small in size and also weak in power, and we've now become a small, powerful Parliament.

I think, though, that there is a flaw in that description. A different way of summarising the predicament that we are now in is to say, 'Yes, we have more levers at our disposal, which is welcome, but we've got the same number of hands'. And there is a problem there, isn't there? Because powers that are held but cannot be effectively used can, in some ways, be the worst of all worlds, because they create expectations of wide-ranging transformative change, for example, which cannot then be fully delivered, risking alienating citizens and ultimately undermining faith in the institution itself. In that sense, we are a Parliament with new powers, but without the power to use them to the fullest effect. We are an under-powered Parliament, if you like, with a gaping capacity gap between what we're able to do in legal terms now, and what we're able to do in practice, directly or indirectly, in holding the Executive to account.

Now, the question of the size of parliaments sounds like it's a peripheral issue, it's the preserve of constitutional geeks. It's anything but. It's so fundamental in the development of democracy itself that James Madison and Alexander Hamilton wrote a Federalist Paper about it. And fast forward to today, and the New York Times recently did an editorial on it, making the case for more Members of the House of Representatives elected—as we suggest in this motion—on the basis of single transferable votes in multi-Member constituencies. Now, it's a long way from Capitol Hill to Cardiff Bay, but the essential argument is the same. Our Parliament is too small, and that represents a big danger to the health of our democracy.

Now, over the past 15 years, we've had three major independent inquiries, all coming to the same conclusion—that, if this place is to work effectively, it needs more Members. We had the Richard commission in 2004, the Silk commission in 2012, and finally the McAllister expert panel last year. The fourth Assembly Commission said that we are underpowered and overstretched, and the current Assembly Commission agreed, and that's why they commissioned the expert panel.

How could you not come to this conclusion? As the powers and workload of this place have steadily increased, the case, I think, for more Members has become increasingly incontrovertible. We have a Welsh Treasury, but do we really have a Treasury committee? That's no disrespect to the Finance Committee, but a Finance Committee with six people isn't enough to scrutinise the recently devolved taxation powers and to oversee the £2 billion plus worth of taxation powers. As the McAllister panel put it, quoting the Silk commission,

'good scrutiny means good legislation, and good legislation pays for itself.' 

Now, leaving aside Ministers and other office holders, for example, there are only 44 Members in this place, in this Parliament, that are able to hold the Welsh Government to account and scrutinise legislation as backbench Members, effectively. That compares with 113 in the Scottish Parliament in that position, and 522 at Westminster. The McAllister panel concluded that as a point of principle, Chairs of policy and legislation committees, or other significant committees, should sit only on their own committee, and other Members should sit on no more than two committees. But they said that, with only 60 Members, this is not achievable within the current committee system. As Members, we all know; we're constantly moving from one meeting or one issue to another, and much of the time we don't even have the opportunity to read, let alone reflect properly on, the documents at the heart of those meetings. The monuments to multitasking that are these dreaded computer terminals are testament to the fact that we have too few Members with too little time. We don't even have the time to listen to each other, let alone to think.

Between them, Richard, Silk and McAllister undertook an exhaustive trawl of equivalent small country legislatures around the world. They found that 60 Members was extremely small for a legislative Assembly that also provides an executive. We're way at the end of a long tail. The Electoral Reform Society found that even for devolved legislatures with executive functions like ours, around 100 representatives is the norm internationally. We are the only nation in the world that I've been able to find where the council chamber of the capital city has more members than the national Parliament itself. The average size of national Parliaments for countries like ours, with between 1 million and 6 million citizens, is around 140 Members. Indeed, if you applied the famous cube root rule—now I am fully in constitutional geek territory—the finding by the Estonian political scientist Rein Taagepera that the largest legislative body of a national legislature tends to be the cube root of the population, a number that, when multiplied by itself twice, yields the voting age population, then the Senedd would have around 140 Members.

Now, the McAllister report, of course, advocated the far more modest and reasonable proposal of between 80 and 90 Members, but surely we must accept that 60 is far too few for us to be able to do the job that we've been assigned. We need to do something about that, and we need to do it now. I know that some people today have accused me of playing politics with this, so let me quote someone who is avowedly apolitical, the former Auditor General for Wales, Huw Vaughan Thomas, who said this in his valedictory letter to us:

'ever since my membership of the Richard Commission in 2002-04, it has been clear to me that an increase in the number of Assembly Members is necessary in order for the Assembly itself to continue to be able to scrutinise the executive effectively. With the ever-increasing range of powers being devolved to Wales under the 2015 Act, most notably in tax-raising, innovative finance mechanisms and transport, I consider that the need for additional Assembly Members is now becoming acute'.

Now, I think many Members in the Chamber know the truth that I speak. I think that's why the First Minister and his party, to be fair, have come out in favour of more Members in principle. The essence of the Labour Party's current position as I understand it is a bit in the spirit of St Augustine: 'Make us more effective, but just not yet'. And I fear that we're falling into a very familiar trap here. So many times over the last 20 years we've had maximum ambition but zero urgency, and there are dangers there for all of us.

I do recognise the argument that you put in—that you want it now, and you want it delivered in 2021—but in the commitment that was signed up to by quite a number of existing cross-party Members today to do this, absolutely, but to do it by 2026, recognising a certain realpolitik in order to achieve that, it isn’t only Labour and a couple of Conservative Members and Liberal Democrats and so on, but it is some notable members of Plaid Cymru—people who led Plaid Cymru—who are on that list as well, former Assembly Members here. So, I would ask him simply to recognise that there may indeed be a shared objective here, but the question is how we can build the consensus and achieve this together beyond today’s debate.

But the essence of the argument that I'm presenting is that we cannot afford to wait until 2026. This is not a problem that can be put off until tomorrow, let alone another five years’ time—it’s a crisis in our democracy that we have to put right today. And we can do it today if we support this motion. And for those who are in any doubt about whether we have the time, I’d just remind you that in 1997, of course, by my reckoning, there were 20 months between the 1997 referendum and the elections to the first Assembly. We have 22 months before the next election, and I don’t think any of us would want to argue that we are less capacious than Westminster in bringing forward legislation to strengthen Welsh democracy.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

Adam, I detect that there is support for the position that you are advocating, but for that to happen there is also a requirement for maximum unity, maximum agreement, and would it not be a more intelligent approach were you and others to seek that agreement and not simply put down a motion on a Wednesday afternoon if you're really serious about achieving that sense of unity? Because otherwise, we'll go through the motions again, and it will be lost.

Well, I think we've been very clear and consistent about this. I understand the spirit in which he’s making the point, but where else can we actually have that debate about the future of the Parliament than in the Parliament itself? I’m afraid I’m not going to apologise for that. This is the forum where we can have that discussion. Now, it can be done on a non-partisan basis, and I believe that has been the spirit in which I have made my comments today. Now, I think we could act today. We could act today. We could decide this afternoon to increase the size, and hence the effectiveness of this Parliament. We should not defer this to a future Parliament. We should take responsibility and act now on this issue, before our inability to act effectively in all other areas begins to erode public trust, I fear, in the very foundations of this Parliament.  

Thank you. I have selected the three amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be de-selected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be de-selected. I call on Mark Reckless to move amendment 1 tabled in the name of Caroline Jones.

Amendment 1—Caroline Jones

Delete all and replace with;

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the report of the Expert Panel on Assembly Electoral Reform.

2. Believes that there is no appetite amongst the voting public to increase the number of politicians in Wales at this time, and that efforts should focus instead on:

a) enacting the proposals of the 2018 Review of Parliamentary Constituencies for election to the House of Commons;

b) speeding up local government electoral reform in Wales.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Llywydd. I move the amendment in Caroline's name. I thank the Member for his speech. I thought he spoke in a very, very measured way. Others say that he may be playing politics. I think that phrase is often used either when groups are divided amongst themselves as to their position or when a Member’s own position diverges, perhaps, from those that they represent, and I think, perhaps, the leader of Plaid Cymru may have touched both those issues today.

For our group, we are clear—we’ve moved our own amendment. Firstly, we want to note the report of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform. Even though we may not be able to support it, even at the lower end of the range of AMs that the panel gave, I’m very appreciative of the work that Professor Laura McAllister and her esteemed colleagues did, and I would like to put on record our thanks, and I’m sure I speak for others in that.

Our second point is to believe that there is no appetite amongst the voting public to increase the number of politicians in Wales at this time. We simply believe that is true. It may be that Members want to increase the number. It may be that Members come up with particular arguments, and some of them may be good arguments for doing so, but there is no appetite amongst our constituents for doing this. I'll try and explain why there's no appetite; it's that increase in the number of politicians that I think particularly jars. We bring out a bit of this in the two sub-points of point 2. We'd like to see the 2018 review of parliamentary constituencies at the Westminster level enacted. I don't know what Plaid's position on it is. At the moment, Wales is very over-represented at Westminster. Perhaps they'd like it to be even more over-represented. But I think when we have devolution it is difficult—[Interruption.] They don't want us to be there at all. They sometimes hide that, but not today—the unambiguous support for independence that the First Minister noted yesterday.

I think in population terms, Wales would have 29 seats rather than 40 in the House of Commons. That's what the parliamentary review they had said, but it doesn't seem to be being enacted. So, that would be 11 Members reduced. Then, we're meant to be leaving the European Union; that would lead to four MEPs losing their positions. So, 15 politicians in all no longer paid by the public purse. And in that scenario, Members may wish to put their arguments again and we will engage with those arguments. But at the moment, there is no appetite for expanding the size of this place, and that is partly because we've too many MPs at Westminster and we've MEPs in the European Parliament when we voted three years ago to leave.

The argument that Adam made was that we were small in size to begin and weak in powers, and as we have developed more powers, we should therefore have more people. But surely a corollary of that argument is the institutions from which we've taken power—i.e. Westminster and our representation there and also prospectively, I hope, the European Union—should see those numbers reduced. That has not happened, yet we have this urgency to do this by 2021, potentially before that happens. I think that's what makes this a very difficult motion for him to put forward and why he won't be finding the support from perhaps others in the Chamber that he would hope for. 

I also finally just draw attention to the situation with local government. I think twice, perhaps three times, Labour have sought to reduce the number of councils across Wales. There are quite strong arguments for why they should do that, but each time they have pulled back and we still have these 22 councils that are much smaller on average than councils in the other nations of the United Kingdom. We have these costs for all those 22 councils, many replicated 22 times. If you had less councils, if you had less councillors, as well as—

Fewer.

I absolutely take that correction, thank you very much—fewer councillors. I'm very embarrassed by that. Fewer councillors, 11 fewer MPs, and four fewer MEPs—then perhaps the Member would like to come back with the argument then. But we in our group are not persuaded of the case for increasing the size of the Assembly and do not think other Members will be able to bring the members of the country with them currently. Thank you.

Thank you. I call on Jane Hutt to move amendment 2, tabled in her in name. Jane.

Amendment 2—Jane Hutt

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the publication of A Parliament that Works for Wales and its recommendations.

2. Agrees that an increase in the number of Assembly Members is needed.

3. Calls for further cross-party work to take these matters forward.

Amendment 2 moved.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd, and thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate this afternoon. I speak to the amendment tabled in my name, and I do speak today not on behalf of the Welsh Government, but as chief whip of the Welsh Labour group in the National Assembly, and also as Jane Hutt AM, to set out the Welsh Labour position on increasing the number of Assembly Members in this institution. We're debating this issue just moments after debating the general principles of the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill, which will pave the way to this Assembly becoming the Parliament for Wales and introducing votes for 16 and 17-year-olds—and I'm sure it will be passed later today.

I think, as David Melding said in the previous debate, this is a point of celebration, an opportunity to strengthen citizenship, particularly appropriate after the session we had two weeks ago with our Youth Parliament, a very important step in our democracy. But, I was also pleased to be here—and David was, indeed, and a few others—in 2004, when the Labour peer Lord Richard of Ammanford reported on his independent review of the powers and the electoral arrangements of this Assembly, and I welcomed his recommendations then. It's worth just reflecting on what his recommendation was in terms of the size of the Assembly and its role and responsibility. He recommended a rise in the numbers of AMs to 80—and I quote—as essential in order to enable AMs to increase their scrutiny of Welsh legislation and Welsh Government policies. 

Well, we're 15 years on from that review and we now have primary legislative, electoral, borrowing, tax-raising and varying powers, with the responsibilities and duties to deliver on those effectively. And, last year, we debated the Assembly Commission's report, 'Creating a Parliament for Wales' following the publication of Professor McAllister's report. I was very pleased to speak in that debate as a backbencher, and I particularly welcomed the panel's recommendations to widen the participation of women and young people in the Assembly. And I did say at the time, as one of the original founder AMs, proud to have been elected in 1999 and having served as both a Minister and a backbencher, I want us to take the steps to make our Assembly a Parliament that works for Wales, with women and young people at the forefront of that endeavour. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, Labour delivered devolution and Welsh Labour continues to be a fiercely devolutionist party. Alun Davies was commenting on the word 'devolution' earlier on this afternoon, and I do think that this is about decisions that affect Wales being made in Wales. And we believe in a strong Wales, as part of a successful United Kingdom, as the First Minister said yesterday, but to do that, our party does support the arguments made in the McAllister review that more AMs are needed to do the work of this legislature effectively and to hold the Government to account properly.

Opinion is divided, however, about how AMs should be elected in any reformed system, and when we asked members of our party, the responses supported the view that the case for a new electoral system within a larger Assembly hasn't been sufficiently made yet with the public. It's vitally important that we engage with the public in considering these issues and draw from the extensive evidence gathered by the McAllister expert panel and our own party consultations.

But I would draw attention to the letter from the Llywydd last month, which said that the second phase of electoral reform would not go ahead this term, but confirmed the Assembly Commission would continue to explore these issues relating to the size of the Assembly and how Members would be elected. And the Llywydd helpfully confirmed, in her letter to us all, that this work will continue to assist the public debate and political parties as they consider their views on these matters. So, we believe a cross-party working group to further examine these matters would build on the excellent work already carried out by Laura McAllister and her expert reference panel and group.

Now, I was surprised—

Will you take an intervention?

Of course.

Can I say how much I welcome the tone and the content of your contribution, chief whip—I nearly said 'Minister'? Can I say, the new First Minister—he's in his place, so I've got to be careful what I'm going to say now—[Laughter.]—has shown very real leadership on issues around the future direction of travel of this place, of this Parliament, in terms of numbers, electoral systems and the rest of it? Is it time that we collectively, as Labour Members of this place, showed that collective leadership that the First Minister has shown, and went out and made the case for the change to take place sooner rather than later?

Well, thank you, Alun Davies. I think, like you, I was pleased to sign the Electoral Reform Society's statement today, and it was good to see it signed from across part of the Chamber. But I believe that there's a good discussion, and I expect we'll hear more about it in a minute. Also, the Electoral Reform Society came to our party conference—I don't know if they came to your party conferences—and we had a very good debate. What was interesting was how many members not just of our party, but of third sector organisations and campaigning groups, came to that fringe meeting, and we engaged and we got their views about how we should respond to the Laura McAllister report. [Interruption.]

Can I just finally, then, say that I do believe we can move forward, in line with the Labour amendment to the motion today, which I urge you to support? Our position is that no legislation designed to reform the size of the Assembly and the electoral system should be introduced without a public mandate via a manifesto commitment. But I think work now has to be done. We've done this in the past in a cross-party way effectively, with constructive engagement leading to consensus, and that's what we seek today. Diolch.

Thank you. Can I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 3, tabled in the name of Darren Millar? Paul. 

Amendment 3—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises that there are significant challenges in the capacity of Assembly Members to undertake satisfactory scrutiny of legislation and the Welsh Government.

2. Calls for further investigation into the impact of any increase in Assembly Members and whether there is public support for such a move.

3. Calls for any increase in the number of Assembly Members to be funded via overall savings to taxpayers arising as a result of a reduction in the overall number of elected representatives in Wales.

4. Calls for any additional Assembly Members to be elected on a no less proportional basis than is currently the case.

Amendment 3 moved.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Whilst we on this side of the Chamber see merit in the original motion, we can't accept it in its entirety, and so we've tabled an amendment to set out the current position of the Welsh Conservative group. Therefore, I move the amendment tabled in the name of my colleague Darren Millar.

The leader of Plaid Cymru is right: since 1999, the National Assembly for Wales has grown at a rapid pace, continually gaining powers over some of the most important aspects of people's lives in Wales. Devolution has certainly brought decision making closer to the people of Wales, and, over that time, the responsibility and financial accountability of this institution has strengthened significantly. This April saw the devolution of income tax to Wales, heralding yet another step on the devolution journey, cementing the fact that the Welsh Government is not just a spending authority but is now responsible for raising money too. Whilst these steps are welcome and strengthen the devolution settlement, with these powers comes the need for greater scrutiny in monitoring the Welsh Government's actions. Therefore, we on this side of the Chamber fully accept the need to increase the number of Assembly Members so that every action of the Welsh Government is appropriately scrutinised and given the attention it deserves. The people of Wales deserve no less.

It's crucial that the Assembly has the appropriate resources and capacity to effectively scrutinise Government policy and legislation, and it's fair to say that the increasing workload has made it difficult for the Assembly to operate as effectively as it possibly can. Whilst I believe the Assembly is punching above its weight, the introduction of tax-raising powers coupled with Brexit will put an immeasurable strain on the Assembly Commission and its representatives, and it's the people of Wales who will suffer as a result. But, in order to persuade the people of Wales that this place requires more Members, I would suggest that further work is required and further outreach work across Wales must take place to communicate the need for change and the impact that having more Assembly Members would have on people's lives in Wales. The people of Wales—

Will the Member take an intervention?

In a moment.

The people of Wales must be involved, and we as elected representatives must make the case that strengthening the capacity and scrutiny functions of the National Assembly for Wales is in their interests. I give way to the Member for Mid and West Wales.

I hear what the Member says, and I welcome the positive way in which he's responded, but does he accept that there is actually a risk to making this case for the future of Wales that the lack of ability to scrutinise really effectively could mean that something serious would go wrong and, as Adam Price has suggested, we could end up inadvertently undermining the faith of people in this institution because we're not able to effectively scrutinise, and poor scrutiny makes for poor law and poor policy?

I very much accept the point that the Member makes, but obviously we need to make the case as well to the people of Wales that we require more Members in this place.

Now, it's the view of my colleagues and I that any increase in the number of Assembly Members must be funded via savings arising from a reduction in the overall number of elected representatives in Wales. I note that the 'A Parliament that Works for Wales' report gives us detailed costings of the additional recurrent annual costs that could arise from an additional 20 or 30 Assembly Members. And I fully accept that these costs should be considered in the broader context of democratic representation in Wales. As a consequence of Brexit, there will no longer be Welsh MEPs, which I understand is the equivalent of funding 24 Assembly Members. I therefore accept and agree that it is perfectly feasible to increase the number of AMs at no extra cost to the taxpayer, but more work needs to be done to persuade the people of Wales that this is the right thing to do.

Our amendment also calls for any additional Assembly Members to be elected on a no less proportional basis than is currently the case, and I accept that there will be a range of views across this Chamber on how Members should be elected. And that is probably the main sticking point to actually increasing the number of Assembly Members amongst politicians, because it is difficult at the moment to see how parties will agree on what electoral system should be used in electing more Members going forward. Therefore, we on this side of the Chamber believe that the Assembly Commission, in conjunction with political parties, must look at its current arrangements and establish a system that elects Members in a way that carries the support of the people it serves.

Dirprwy Lywydd, my colleagues and I look forward to engaging in a dialogue with the people of Wales that explains the need to increase the capacity of this institution, and we are happy to work with the Commission and all parties to look at ways in which we can deliver future electoral arrangements that will result in increasing the effectiveness of the Assembly's operations. It's absolutely crucial that this dialogue takes place on a much bigger scale than is currently the case, because in many communities across Wales there is still very little understanding of the need to increase the number of Assembly Members. The devolution journey has continued to deliver more and more power to this institution and closer decision making has, I believe, on the whole, been a benefit to the people of Wales. But we are now at a crossroads, and I fully accept the Assembly needs additional Members to function effectively, but, fundamentally, it must come at a cost that's palatable to the people of Wales and delivered in a voting system that is supported by the people of Wales, and I, therefore, urge Members to support our amendment. 

This institution is 20 years old this year, which is a source of great pride for me, and I speak certainly on behalf of most Members here in the Chamber that we can look back at that event a little over 20 years ago where we decided to take that first step along the path of devolution and self-government to Wales, never mind how nervous that initial step was. But it was very clearly noted—and the term has been used many times since then—that it was a process that was being started then, not an event. That’s what we saw at the end of the 1990s, and that process has progressed so much now that one could ask whether we are truly the same institution as the institution established in 1999. The answer to that is 'no, we are not'.

This place was established under the Government of Wales Act 1998 as an Assembly with subordinate legislation powers. It was a corporate body with the Government and the legislature working as one. It was a spending body, with few financial powers that didn’t have much in the way of teeth, which led to the Richard commission, which then led to a second Government of Wales Act in 2006 that separated the legislature and the Government, preparing the way for a referendum in 2011, which led to another kind of Assembly—a far more powerful Assembly, legislating for itself, and which would in time develop, as it has done now, into a tax-levying body, too.

But what hasn’t changed during that period is the capacity of this Assembly to respond to those additional demands that are placed upon us and that have developed as this institution has evolved. Now, because of the work of the Commission and the expert panel, superbly led by Laura McAllister, the case has been made now independently and in an impartial way in tackling that situation. I’m pleased to see a consensus developing on that, and there are good reasons why we should make progress in this area; we’ve heard many of them this afternoon.

Our work as an Assembly is to hold Government to account. We do that not for our own sakes, not for the sake of our political parties, but on behalf of the people of Wales, and the people of Wales deserve to have faith in our capacity to hold the Government to account effectively. There are far too many of us wearing multiple hats in this place; I speak as Plaid Cymru chief whip and as spokesperson on finance, the economy and transport, as well as being a member of the Business Committee. It’s not a matter of complaining about the workload but doubts about my ability to do my work as effectively as I should. I’m grateful to Jane Hutt for reminding us that she is wearing two hats today, speaking in one role rather than as a member of the Government. It does place unfair pressures on backbench members of the Government party—and I see the Member for Blaenau Gwent nodding enthusiastically—who are under unreasonable pressures in terms of workload because many are required to be Ministers within Government.

And I think it’s in the most recent area that we’ve moved into that we need to strengthen our capacity most, and that is taxation. We are moving towards a situation where we will raise £5 billion in taxation between local taxation and national taxation. It’s a wonderful thing, but, as Adam Price said, although we have a Welsh Treasury, we don’t have a Treasury committee, and we don’t have the capacity to have that kind of committee.

It is positive that there is consensus developing across political parties, although it’s not unanimity, that we need to take these steps, but it’s entirely right that we recognise the fact that the support is not unanimous among the public and nowhere near to being that. We wouldn’t expect that. We’re talking about increasing the number of politicians, and let’s be realistic about people’s instincts in that regard. But whilst recognising that, it’s important that we are courageous enough to lead that debate as to why we want to make these changes; how democracy will be improved; how strengthening our Senedd will be a way of transforming and strengthening our politics in the face of evidence that is becoming more and more clear that the old system in Westminster is breaking down. Let us build rather than break down. And now is the time to strengthen and to consolidate what we have here.

Of course, whilst much of the attention, understandably, will be focused on numbers, we have to look at this in the broader context of the need to reform the electoral arrangements too. It’s important to bear that in mind, and that would truly strengthen our democracy.

To conclude, the Member for Blaenau Gwent said earlier that he believed that our motion led to divisions rather than encouraging collaboration. I do reject that accusation and, indeed, I look forward to working with Alun Davies on the creation of this new Senedd that we so need, the new Senedd that the people of Wales deserve. Both of us are agreed on that. But it was important, it was crucial I think, to make the point that if this is something that Wales desperately needs in 2026, then the people of Wales deserve to see this change introduced now, or certainly by the 2021 election. Why would we commit ourselves to another unnecessary five years of an Assembly that—

Are you winding up, please?

—both he and I agree is inadequate? So be brave. 

Thank you. Hefin David.

I'd like to take the Chamber back to 5 May 2016, and particularly a living room in Hengoed, where I was pacing the floor with—it was the evening of the count; the polls had closed and I was very tired, and I'd had a shower, and you know what it's like—pacing the floor with BBC Wales on the telly and academics from Cardiff University looking far too happy that the BBC had announced Caerphilly was too close to call and was, in fact, a three-way marginal. So, it was a funny old evening, and we didn't actually have any indication as to how the count was going until about three or four in the morning. And I went off to the count, and I was pacing the floor of the leisure centre looking depressed because I thought I'd lost and the Plaid candidate Lindsay Whittle was pacing the floor looking depressed because he thought he'd won. [Laughter.] And we eventually came—there's a lesson for you there, Delyth, right? We eventually came out with the result, and the result was: I had 35 per cent of the vote, Lindsay, Plaid Cymru, had 29 per cent of the vote and UKIP had 22 per cent of the vote. And I reflected on that. If that had been a first-past-the-post system, that result would not have been acceptable under a first-past-the post system. We have the D'Hondt system and we were able to see that those people who'd voted Plaid Cymru and UKIP, their votes were represented in the D'Hondt system. And as I say, Chief Whip, I, 100 per cent, want people to vote Labour—and 60 Labour Members would be amazing—but I was delighted to see Steffan Lewis elected on the list and knew that he'd be a fine Assembly Member. And I'll say to Delyth Jewell that I was disappointed that you weren't elected on that list as well, and serving here with Steffan.

But the issue I thought, then, was that the balance of our electoral process wasn't right, and the fact the D'Hondt system was needed to top up those seats and create this dual tier of Assembly Members when, in fact, a single transferable vote system would do it better was what persuaded me. It's actually not much to do with Brexit or the system in the UK, but that persuaded me, actually. For example—and I've read 'A Parliament that Works for Wales'—and, for example, a three-Member constituency may have seen, through the single transferable vote, a Labour, Plaid, UKIP three-Member constituency. Who knows what you would have seen as a result of the single transferable vote? But it would have been fairer; it would have been more proportional, and you would have seen a fairer sweep across the system than was represented even by the D'Hondt system, which itself, I believe, is flawed.

So, my support for more Assembly Members actually starts with a more proportional voting system. So, my call is for a more proportional voting system before we actually start talking about more Members. So I was a little bit concerned about signing the ERS motion because it doesn't talk about the voting system in the proposal. It says for a Parliament fit for the twenty-first century we need the right number of Members. That's a key part of the argument, but a missing bit is that proportional vote as well, which I think is absolutely key.

More Members though will also bring, as has already been said, better scrutiny. I often think, looking at the frontbench now—frontbench, please pay attention, I'm talking to you. [Laughter.] I look at the frontbench and I think, 'What do they want? Would they be happier with more people scrutinising them or fewer people scrutinising them?' Not just you two, not just the two sides over here, but me as well—you'll have more people like me, too, scrutinising these people there.

More of you.

More, absolutely more. And I can see the First Minister nodding away vigorously there. [Laughter.]

I've had conversations with Members, as recommended by the Llywydd in the previous debate. I've had conversations with Members across the Chamber. I've spoken to the leader of Plaid Cymru and to Siân Gwenllian today, I've spoken to Jayne Bryant, and one of the things that Jayne Bryant said to me is we need to look at representation as a whole across the UK and how our representation works. I buy into that argument.

One of the things I was disappointed with Plaid Cymru—I could have signed up to their motion but for that '2021'. Personally, I'd like to see it by 2021, but you've got to have, as Huw Irranca-Davies said, realpolitik, and you've got to bring people with you. I don't want to see another referendum in this country, I'm sick of referenda, and I think they're alien to representative democracy, but I still think you need a mandate for this particular change, and that mandate has got to be put into a manifesto that is presented at an Assembly election. I think if we had Liberal Democrats, Labour and Plaid Cymru particularly, but inviting all the other parties to join in and say, 'We are united on this,' then we'd have that mandate going into 2026. Who knows who will be in Government? Who knows who will be implementing it? But we know it would be implemented because there would be a cross-party majority—[Interruption.]

No, I think he's almost coming to—

I'm being told by the Dirprwy Lywydd that I can't.

But the last thing I'd say is that this is just part of a bigger picture, and I think we also need—I say to the First Minister, when representing us to Westminster—we need a federalised UK as well. I think we need a federalised system across the UK with regional Parliaments in England that recognise devolved power, but we need a system of devo max in Wales that is balanced across the United Kingdom. I think that is absolutely fundamental. We have the opportunity here in this Parliament to lead the way on it, and I hope and will do my best with my colleagues to persuade the Labour Party that that's what we need in our manifesto in 2021.

The building that we're debating in is often celebrated for its architecture, its concave ceiling, its sloping walls. The contours of the space itself remind us of not just the principles of openness and transparency in democracy, but also the, at times, circuitous path we've taken to get here, winning the vote in 1997 by a whisker and the work that's happened in the past 20 years to engage the public, to build trust, to endeavour to make this a Parliament we can be proud of. But it is not without its faults.

I have been a Member here for five months, and already I can see how limited we are in our ability to scrutinise Government, because of how many statements, debates, questions and committees we each cover. It is for the good of our Parliament and our democracy that this place is able to function properly and scrutinise decision making effectively. The point has been made already this afternoon that the Silk report concluded that good legislation pays for itself. The same is true of legislatures.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this is not an issue that should divide us along party lines. In no area is the desperate need for more capacity in this place clearer than with Brexit, with statutory instruments being waved through with little time for debate, and the added burden worsening the lack of capacity available to hold the Government to account. This is not good for Government or for opposition. The lack of a second Chamber here means there is no legislative safety net for the Assembly. As flawed in some ways as the House of Lords is, it is a revising Chamber, and it often improves legislation. That safety net does not exist in Wales. Good legislation that can make a difference to people's lives depends on effective scrutiny by a small number of backbench AMs whose time constraints are considerable. It is not an option to do nothing.

The McAllister report on electoral reform looked at options to improve scrutiny, including increasing sitting weeks and extending the working week. It concluded that this alone would not be sufficient and that

'the severely limited time available for just 60 elected Members to carry out their responsibilities' limits the capacity of the Assembly to be truly a Parliament that 'works for the people of Wales.'

That is a damning indictment. As that sentence indicates, this place needs to work for the people of Wales, and the people of Wales need to see themselves in it. That isn't just true of the building—these sloping walls. It's also true of the elected body who sit in it. We should reflect the make-up of a modern, vibrant Wales, which is why, as well as increasing the number of Members, we should take steps to encourage diversity in our membership. It is ironic that these calls for reform and better representation will be used by some groups as a means of entrenching the divide between politicians and their communities, to appeal to this nefarious sense of distrust in our institutions. It would be a shame—not just on those groups, but a shame for us all—if that argument were to win out.

In this, as with so many issues at the moment, it feels like we are at a crossroads for our politics. Public faith in our institutions is at a low point. Sometimes, it is in these moments of fracture, like we are in now with all the attacks on our politics, that the foundations of an institution need to be strengthened. As my beloved Leonard Cohen has it:

'There is a crack in everything, that's how the light gets in.'

This fracture point in our politics demands a reinvigoration of democracy, a re-engagement with the public through people's assemblies, a coming together, and, yes, a strengthening of our institutions. Democracy is not a shining city on a hill. It is not a museum of plinths and pedestals. It is a circular room, with a roof opening out to the sky and the communities we represent. This place has come so far. We should be proud of it and, to paraphrase Gerallt Lloyd Owen, it is 'darn o dir yn dyst i stori ein cenedl'. How far we have come, but we have not come this far to only come this far.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. Let me begin by thanking all those who have contributed to the report, 'A Parliament that Works for Wales'. It is a robust and thorough piece of work, and it's timely and necessary, as our institutions of Government and scrutiny and democracy in Wales continue to grow to meet new challenges and deliver better for the people of Wales.

The title, 'A Parliament that Works for Wales', carries so much within those few words. It is not a Parliament that works for a political party—a Parliament that works for Plaid Cymru or for Labour or for the Conservatives or assorted others. The title and the intent of the report is to envisage a Parliament that works for Wales and for the people of Wales. The title is also a recognition that the current Assembly, faced with an Executive growing as it has done—and continues to do so—in powers and confidence and maturity, has not commensurately grown its capacity for democratic scrutiny.

I agree with this fundamental finding of the report. The majority of Assembly Members here work exceptionally hard and diligently on behalf of their constituents and for Wales. But, we are underpowered, not in effort but in simple numbers. We can say this confidently in light of comparisons with other regional Governments and Assemblies across Europe and the wider world. I say this confidently as a former member of the UK Parliament too, who has served as a backbencher and a Minister, a parliamentary aide, a committee Chair, and more in Westminster. We are doing ourselves no favours by pretending that we can continue as we are. More importantly, we are doing Wales no favours by keeping up the pretence that we have the capacity to work with our new powers and our new demands, by showing a brave face and saying that we can just work harder and work cleverer. As the report actually says, we are doing that already. It is just not enough on its own. Numbers really matter.

So, the case is compelling. The question is: are we, as the masters of our own destiny, so compelled to act? Or, do we wait and wait and wait, putting off the difficult political decisions forever and a day, until we and the Assembly collapse under the weight of inertia?

But, the report is not only focused on the need for an increase in the numbers of Assembly Members. It's also underpinned with clear principles by which we can deliver progressive change in our democracy and our legislature in Wales.

Will you take an intervention?

So, let me highlight some key principles. I'll come back in a moment if I can.

Voter choice, where the chosen system of election going forward should enable voters to select or indicate a preference for individual candidates; where the electoral system should deliver Members with broadly equivalent mandates that afford equal status; where we have at least the current level of proportionality as the current system, and ideally more; where votes should have the same value; where the system is as simple and intelligible as possible to voters; and where it's futureproofed to changing needs and trends, and which can deliver government accountability, effectiveness and stability, whether those are majoritarian governments or coalitions. Now, I won't rehearse the full and thorough detail of the report—others can read it at their leisure—but it leads to very clear and well-evidenced conclusions: that we need more Assembly Members to do effectively the job of scrutiny for which we are elected, and that no amount of clever working will make up for a current and a growing capacity gap, and also that we need to consider a new system of election that, together with more AMs, will not only deliver on the principles outlined in the report, but will, together with the recommendations on positive action to promote gender equality, lead to all parties and the Assembly as a whole leading the way on greater diversity in action, not just in words, and by making all votes count equally can promote higher voter turnout. I will give way.

Diolch yn fawr. I agree with you entirely that the case is really totally compelling now. So, therefore, why do you want to wait another five years before you change it?

Thanks for that intervention, Leanne. I mentioned in my earlier intervention on Adam Price, leader of Plaid Cymru, that there is also realpolitik, and it is a question of having this within a mandate of manifestos going into the election. So, that's your answer. [Interruption.] You may agree or not agree with it, but that is the realpolitik of taking this forward. And, again, I would appeal—

You sound like Tony Blair.

I'll continue; I'll ignore that remark and continue.

The report refers to itself repeatedly as a call to action, and I agree. But our actions must flow from building a dialogue and a consensus here and across Wales that recognises the challenges we face and is willing to put forward democratic and electoral reforms for the good of Wales. But let's be clear as well what this is not about: it's not about the number or election of councillors or Members of Parliament or MEPs, or the over 900 and growing members of the House of Lords. This is about the capacity of this place—this Senedd, this Welsh Parliament—to deliver effectively for the people of Wales. We now have Parliament in reality indeed, which has seen its role change from a very limited Assembly when established in 1999, through successive iterations driven by Government of Wales Acts and Richard and Silk commissions, and a 2016 tax Act, to become a muscular legislature on a reserved model similar to Scotland, with primary law-making powers and tax-varying powers. Yet, our capacity of effective scrutiny in 2019 as a democratic institution remains constrained by the then necessary electoral compromises of 1999.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, in supporting the Government's amendment today we need also to work across parties and across Wales to build that consensus that will indeed create a Parliament that works for Wales and the people of Wales, now and for the challenges of the future, and I look forward to playing a full part in building that consensus.

I get a bit annoyed sometimes when I hear everyone going back to 20 years ago and so on, because some of us actually go back to the time of the Kilbrandon report and remember the contribution leading up to the first referendum in 1979—a referendum that we lost very, very substantively, in a very demoralising way. At the time there were various reasons given for that; either what was on offer wasn't enough, or what was on offer was too much. The fact of the matter was that the politics of the time didn't allow for us to actually succeed with that. But as is the case with referenda—and I agree with the comments about the inadequacy of referenda—the people changed their mind, and called for a second referendum, and that second referendum actually did support devolution and the establishment of this Assembly. I remember also the debates at the time that what was on offer then wasn't enough when we came to the Government of Wales Act, and, of course, we had the referendum and we won by 7,000 votes. I do take the view that, if we had been more ambitious—and there were many of us, on all sides and parties, who would have liked to have seen more—we might well have lost that referendum. So, I raise the point in terms of the importance of carrying the people with you in terms of anything we do and anything we change, and avoiding the temptation, the seductive arrogance there can sometimes be, where we look at our position here within this Chamber and we sometimes forget that is in the ownership of the people of Wales and that we have to carry the people of Wales with us.

Now, what is very, very clear is that there is a considerable area of agreement between us, there's a lot of common ground, but there are clear dividing areas, and that's why I think this motion, as it's phrased, is inappropriate, because any change we do wish to make will have to have consensus. Now, I have my own particular views as to the sort of system I'd like: I would like to see 80 Members here; I would like to see two per constituency; I would like to see one-male, one-female constituency, so that we actually institutionalise gender balance; I would like to see a single transferrable vote system of voting. But I know, equally, that there are half a dozen different views as to what form any reform or increase should actually take.

Now, we work within our own political parties, we also work within our constituencies, and we have particular views as to how we actually achieve change, so I think it's important that I put on record here that I think the position, when we have discussed this within the Labour Party in our own conferences, that we have adopted as to making change—the policy position we have is this: there is broad support for the argument that the Assembly requires more AMs to function effectively, although opinion is currently divided on how AMs should be elected under any reformed system. That's just a statement of fact, certainly within our party. We have two other particularly important points: no legislation designed to reform the size of the Assembly and the electoral system used for its election should be supported or introduced without a public mandate via a manifesto commitment; and then, as the party that delivered devolution, it is important that we maintain the confidence of the people of Wales when deciding upon the future of Welsh democracy. It is therefore right that the party takes time to further debate these issues to ensure that our position provides a durable and sustainable system for the long term. Now, there may be those who disagree, who may think that that's too cautious or it's the wrong approach, or whatever, but it is the approach that we have adopted. And if we actually do wish to achieve change, then it could only be done by consensus. That is the reality of the situation. Consensus in this place means that there has to be a two thirds majority, so the important way of actually proceeding is recognising the reality, recognising the different approaches and starting, actually, that debate, rather than a resolution that effectively seeks to railroad a policy decision by 2021 that is incapable of being delivered, I think, within the Assembly at the present time.

I agree largely with the spirit of consensus, actually, which has characterised the debate if not the motion. I hope that we'll be able to move forward on the basis of this. I've campaigned for devolution all my life. I'm facing retirement now, and the people of Blaenau Gwent might insist that I retire in a couple of years' time, but I hope that we will be able to settle some of these questions and settle the question of devolved Government in this country. For 20 years, this place has grown. I think it has grown within the hearts and minds of the people, as well as grown in stature in the country and also with the powers that it has accrued and used in that time. I'm convinced in my own mind that it is time now for us—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes.

If you believe that we have grown and we have matured, then will you take back your comment that you said that regional AMs are mostly anonymous?

I think that the dual system is not a good system. I've served as a regional AM—

That's not the point.

—as you will remember—I'm making the point—as you will know. And I know that the experience of being a constituency Member and a regional Member is different, and I do not believe that regional representation is effective representation. I do not believe that the people of Blaenau Gwent—

Will you take an intervention? [Laughter.] I've been a regional Member in this Assembly for 12 years, and part of that time alongside you and others, and I cannot sit here and listen to you saying that you believe that regional representation, somehow, is less representation. So, I'm afraid I'll have to completely and utterly disagree with your comments.  

I actually hadn't said that, but I was just about to. [Laughter.] I do not believe—. I recognise what you're saying, Joyce, and I recognise, of course, why you're saying it, but I do not believe that regional representation is real representation, I'll be absolutely clear about that. I do not believe—[Interruption.] I don't believe it. I'm afraid I don't believe it. And do you know what? I think most people in Wales agree with me. It might not be a popular or a comfortable thing to say in this Chamber, but I think most people in Wales agree with me. 

So, let me say this: I believe that we do need a system of electoral reform that provides for equality of membership of this place. I believe that we need a system of electoral reform that does hard-wire proportionality into the system. One of the foundations of this form of devolved Government was that of proportional representation. I do not believe that we should, in any way, move away from that founding principle of this Welsh democracy. I believe that proportional representation has to be hard-wired into our constitutional settlement, and that is why I support the single transferable vote as a means of representing everybody in Wales equally, across this Chamber and across this country. And we need to do that in an intelligent way. 

I recognise the power of the argument that's been made by my colleagues in the Labour Party over this matter, and I recognise the importance of an electoral mandate. I think that is an important matter and it can't be simply dismissed. I'm afraid the wishes of the people of this country can't be dismissed as an inconvenience. I feel the frustration of those who have seen and watched commissions come and go, reports written and published, debates taking place and then put away because there isn't the political courage to take those decisions and to make those changes. I believe that four Wales Acts in 20 years is not a triumph of parliamentary deliberation or democracy. It is time for a stable settlement in this country. It is time for a settlement that reflects the needs of the people of Wales. I have argued time and time again—in this place and, as a Minister, I argued it from the position of the Welsh Government—that we need to see devolved Government in Wales that is fit for purpose. I've argued for the devolution of policing and criminal justice, I've argued for the devolution of those powers that enable this place to function properly and to deliver for the people of Wales. But I will also argue that this place needs to change as well, that this place has to function, in a way that Adam Price and others have, in fact, argued. But what I will say to Plaid Cymru this afternoon, and I'll finish on this point: withdraw this motion this afternoon. Do not divide this place on this matter. Look for unity. Look for consensus. Look for unity of purpose. The people of Wales will not—

Rhun ap Iorwerth rose—

I'm out of time.

The people of Wales will not thank politicians—[Interruption.] The people of Wales—[Interruption.] I'm sure the deputy Presiding Officer will let me carry on until you allow me to finish my sentence. 

I might not, so get on with it. 

The people of Wales will not thank an Assembly, a Parliament, that looks inwards and forgets about what they want and forgets the people that they represent. I want the people of Blaenau Gwent to be represented by a Parliament that works for Wales, but they also need to be given the opportunity to give the consent that they have for that. And that means a consensus across the Chamber, throughout the country, and that we move forward on the basis of that consent.

Thank you. That was a very long sentence; it was almost into a paragraph, that. But given the lateness of the evening, I'll let you off with that one. 

Can I now call the Llywydd to respond on behalf of the Assembly Commission. Llywydd. 

Thank you to Plaid Cymru for bringing forward this debate this afternoon, for the amendments and for the thoughtful and interesting contributions that we've received so far.

This is a very different Parliament to the one that was established in 1999, and as its powers and responsibilities evolve, so does the case for increasing its capacity to create an organisation that’s truly fit for purpose. It's worth beginning by reminding ourselves, as others have already, of the journey so far.

Only five years after the opening of the Assembly, the Richard commission suggested that Wales needed 20 more Members if it was to operate effectively. A decade later, a similar recommendation came from the second part of the Silk commission on devolution. Following this, in 2015, the Assembly Commission agreed unanimously that this place needed more Members if we were to ensure that the cradle of Welsh democracy was to deliver all of its responsibilities and operations effectively.

The Wales Act 2017 gave the Assembly the powers to implement these recommendations for the first time. It isn’t a matter for the Westminster Parliament to make changes of this kind; it’s now in our hands. That development led to the creation of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, led by Professor Laura McAllister, which gathered and analysed a range of evidence on how to create a more sustainable Parliament. The work of the panel culminated in a wide-ranging report including recommendations such as lowering the voting age to 16 and increasing the number of Assembly Members to between 80 and 90, alongside reform of the electoral system.

Members will be aware that the Assembly Commission had pursued a programme of electoral reform in light of these recommendations. Part 1 of the programme has already come to fruition, and we have just discussed the Senedd and Elections (Wales) Bill this afternoon. You will also be aware that we had hoped to proceed with part 2, namely the recommendations on increasing the size of the Senedd and reforming the electoral system. The Commission had already consulted the public on these particular issues and received the agreement of a majority of responses. However, last month, it emerged that we could not proceed with part 2 of the programme during this Assembly.

There’s no doubt that the case for more AMs has been argued effectively, but parties are still considering the implications of changing the electoral system. Some parties have a firm policy and some have differences of opinion on that. So, I very much hope that we will soon reach common ground and agreement on an electoral system that can win a supermajority so that we can introduce legislation to achieve this.

Arguing against creating a Parliament with the necessary capacity to serve the people of Wales to the best of its ability is increasingly impossible. There has been a growing consensus amongst the parties and civil society that it is inevitable that there should be more Assembly Members, and I am confident that the vast majority see the rationale for this. Our powers continue to increase, as we’ve heard: on taxation and on Brexit. The commission on justice is also expected to report in the autumn. With the case in favour of increasing the Assembly’s powers in that area also increasing, there’s a real possibility that we need to establish a justice committee to scrutinise the resulting work.

That is a likely flavour of what is to come in future—more responsibilities, more expectation to scrutinise, but the same number of Members and hours in the day. But there is a better way that could be chosen that is more representational. As the expert panel acknowledged in its report, calling for more politicians will never be a popular step, but it would be irresponsible to ignore and refuse to acknowledge the problem of delivery.

International and domestic comparisons highlight the lack of scrutiny capacity. If we look at the number of Assembly Members per head of population, Scotland and Northern Ireland are better off than Wales. In Scotland, there is one MSP for every 42,000 of the population, in Northern Ireland it’s 20,000 of the population. In Wales, we have one Assembly Member for every 52,000 of the population on average. As has already been mentioned, nine of our 22 local authorities have more elected members than our national Parliament. And there are plenty of other examples overseas. The expert panel's report states that if the Assembly had the same number of Members per head of population on average as the 16 European legislatures with similar populations, then we would have 86 Members in this Assembly. If we also included the nine American states with similar populations, we would have 91 Members in this Assembly.

Will the Llywydd give way?

Yes.

I'm very grateful to the Llywydd. She said that Scotland and Northern Ireland were more fortunate than us by having more Members. Will she also recognise that the range given by the report that Professor McAllister chaired, even at the lower end of that—the 80—that would give us more Members per head than we see in Scotland?

I think the point that is made in the report is that the international comparisons and those within the United Kingdom show that there is under-representation of the people of Wales in their national legislature. So, the international comparisons demonstrate that that under-representation makes it more difficult for us as a legislature to do our scrutiny work as compared with similar Parliaments in other parts of the world.

To turn to the issue of cost, which has been referred to also this afternoon, we have to remember, of course, that it all comes down to money at the end of the day for many people. The expert panel figures are the latest available in this respect. It is estimated that an additional 20 Members in this place would cost £6.6 million per annum, with a further 30 Members costing £9.6 million. By comparison, the 2013 Treasury figures—the most recent figures, that is—estimate that spend for the four Welsh Members of the European Parliament is over £7 million currently. So, in terms of the public purse, the four Members of the European Parliament represent more than an additional 20 Assembly Members. And do remember that, if Brexit happens.

So, what next? Because of the lack of consensus, but dependent on today's vote of course, the possibility of legislating by 2021 appears to be unrealistic. With that in mind, my recommendation would be to establish a temporary committee of this Assembly to build on the work of the expert panel on increasing the number of Assembly Members and reforming the electoral system. I will be asking the Business Committee to consider doing just that. There is a precedent for establishing temporary committees to look at constitutional issues, and that was particularly true in the second Assembly. By gathering evidence from relevant experts and stakeholders, we could ask a committee of that kind to report on their work before the summer of 2020, in the hope of assisting the parties as they discuss this further.

I strongly believe that maintaining momentum on this issue not only merits our time and resources, but is also necessary if this Senedd is to stand the test of time and the challenges it brings. Today's debate has been a useful milestone, and I very much look forward to continuing this debate with an eye to legislating to increase the number of Members of this Senedd sooner rather than later.

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

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I think we have had a considered and useful debate. And that is what you get in parliaments when a motion is tabled. There is a range of views. We have seen, if truth be told, some common ground emerging in some of the contributions, and some fundamental differences of opinion, and I make no apologies at all for tabling this motion, because it is important that the people of Wales do see where the common ground exists and where there are differences of opinion.

Let me be entirely honest: this wasn't our first choice in terms of bringing this question forward. There was a process, as we've already heard from the Llywydd, of discussing between the parties. I know, because I was a Commissioner at the time. The reason that that realpolitik had failed in the attempt to deliver consensus was that one party, by the way not our party, had decided that they didn't want to act within this Assembly term, and that was the Labour Party. Now, you cannot blame us because you had come to that position, which I believe is entirely contrary to the substance of what many of your Members had said with great sincerity.

We truly need these changes in Wales now. Let's be clear: there are some things more important to me than party politics. I've shown that over the past few days, and the quality of our national democracy is one of those things. So, this isn't a matter of playing party politics. That's not what we're doing here, but we are urging the Labour Party mainly, many of whom I believe in their own hearts do sympathise with what we have to say, our analysis of the situation and what drives that—. I urge you, even now, in this next vote, or in any future negotiations that will happen in the cross-party committee that we have just heard mention of—we need to take action now. We have a mandate that is more comprehensive, and that is the mandate that we've had through two referendums to create a democracy that delivers for the people of Wales, and we can't deliver that in the current climate.

I disagree with him about the mandate. The mandate will come through a manifesto commitment that will then be voted on by the people in the next election and that commitment wasn't universal at the last election. 

Well, it was in our manifesto in terms of increasing the number of Members, and therefore you cannot blame us for the fact that you haven't reflected the position. [Interruption.] Where have you been? The chief whip has just—[Interruption.] The chief whip of your own Government has just said—[Interruption.] If I may finish the sentence, Mick. The chief whip has just said that she had felt, when Richard reported 15 years ago, that this needed to be resolved. What is being proposed is that we deliver that 22 years after that commission reported. Surely, that simply highlights the need for us to take action on this and to take action on it now.

Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Therefore, we defer voting on this item until voting time. We have reached voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed to the first vote. Okay. 

Voting deferred until voting time.