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.