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.