I'd like to just draw attention to the clarification that Mark Reckless made over point 1 of his motion, where he said the criticism of the impartiality of the presiding officer of the legislature was directed at the Speaker of the House of Commons. I'd say, let's be absolutely clear that the Dirprwy Llywydd and the Llywydd act impartially in this Chamber, both here and outside the Chamber in meetings we have with them. I think it's worth making that clear.

The speech made by Neil McEvoy, who's now gone—. Neil McEvoy said that it's not a constitutional outrage but that it's outrageous that the constitution relies on the purity of the sitting Prime Minister. I actually used almost those same terms in the Labour group this morning when I described how I felt about the constitution. It is a weakness of the UK constitution, and I think that was reflected in the words that Mark Reckless used as well about the House of Commons: this is a weak constitution, and, indeed, a failing constitution. And I would say that we would probably arrive at different solutions to that failing constitution, but nonetheless I think it has become an agreement across this Chamber that the UK constitution needs to change.

I would say we need a codified written constitution in this country that clearly establishes a separation of power of executive and parliament and also is true to the principle of subsidiarity. The principle of subsidiarity suggests that power is devolved to the level most appropriate to the nature of the decision that is being made. It's perfectly possible through cross-party consensus to achieve a recommendation that would achieve that objective. But, I would say the key to unlocking that constitutional reform doesn't lie in the form of a referendum. I've spoken at length in this Chamber about my objection to the principle of referendums that are barely democratic, and I draw the Chamber's attention to a speech that was made by Bernard Jenkin MP, himself considered to be an arch Brexiteer. He said in Parliament on Wednesday,

'The bitterness of tonight’s exchanges reflects the breakdown of our shared understanding about which mandate is legitimate: the representative or the direct. We now have a constitution containing competing ideas of legitimacy, and unless we are to abandon referendums this House should be ready to implement popular decisions that it does not like, but it has shown some reluctance to do so.'

I would argue that the time for referendums is coming to an end. We cannot see further referenda in this country without dividing this country irrevocably. And, therefore, what do we do instead? Well, the key, in my view, to unlocking constitutional reform is electoral reform, and, before we can do anything further with constitutional change, I think we need root-and-branch electoral reform both here in this Senedd and at Westminster. I think that's the fundamental key to changing the constitution of this country without the need to go for a referendum. A fully proportional electoral system would require more than one party to advocate constitutional change on which they can find agreement, and, indeed, then would require those parties to work together to achieve it. I believe that that system of electoral reform will allow and achieve that. But with its call for a referendum, that is not what the Plaid amendment seeks to do, and that is why I won't be supporting that Plaid amendment.