I'm delighted to speak in support of the recommendations that came out of this committee, and to welcome as well the way in which John stewarded this committee. We heard an immense amount of evidence—those people who came in front of us, the visits that we made as well, where we spoke with prison governors, prison staff, front-line staff and also with people who are incarcerated themselves. I want to thank all those people who gave evidence, but particularly the way in which Members dealt with hearing that evidence as well. There were differences of opinion on this committee—they've come out in the report in terms of the main recommendation that we've come to—but we have done it in, I think, a temperate way. We've recognised those differences. I would simply say to Mark: I'm not a so-called representative. I am a representative in this institution, as everybody else is. Don't denigrate the role of myself or others by calling me a so-called representative.

However, if I can turn to the substance there, the report is balanced, because it does actually look at the arguments for and against as well. It makes clear that, as the European Convention on Human Rights has said, voting rights are not absolute rights—universal rights. That is exactly why this committee was looking at it. To what extent do we reflect public opinion? To what extent do we want to show leadership as well? But there is clearly, also, by international evidence, but also the pressure that's been put on the UK Government over successive years and years, a mood that we should actually look at this and see how much further we could go, very much because of the arguments that Leanne and the report put, which are that, whilst it might not be a universal, absolute right, we should be looking to individuals who are in prison not as—. Some will be lifelong prisoners, and some, including women we met, who said, 'Well, I've got children outside of this prison. I'm in here for a very short time. My children are in school. My children will be receiving care while I'm away from here. I have no say whatsoever in—'. Yet, still, those people who are in prison—all of them—will pay tax on earnings, tax on savings et cetera whilst they're in. So, it's a curious anomaly.

The report is balanced. It recognises—Mark, you're absolutely right—that the public does not support voting rights for prisoners. It does also reflect that the public mood is changing, and has changed on this as well. Sometimes, there's a need for us, as elected representatives, to actually signal a course—a direction of travel. I won't embarrass the Minister, but when she came in front of us in committee, I said, 'Minister, what is your mood toward all of this?', because I was slightly sceptical. I thought the Government might park this and kick this into the long grass: 'What an interesting committee report this is. We'll come back to this in five years or 10 years' time.' And I said to her, 'Do you see yourself, possibly, being the Roy Jenkins here of the Welsh Government Ministers on this issue?'—not that you should go above and beyond, and not that you should try and be cavalier in the way—. But look at the evidence and decide what is the right, progressive policy that balances those interests of people like the victims' commissioner, who came in front of us and spoke quite passionately about her concerns about the victims' side, but also very much that issue of rehabilitation—the fact that these people remain citizens, because they are paying tax, they have children outside in schools et cetera. So, I think it's quite balanced.

Now, the compromise we came to is a compromise. There were different views on the committee. There were those of us who supported, for simplicity but also on basic principles, the actual universal extension of that suffrage within there. Many of the witnesses who appeared in front of us actually supported that as well, for the very same reasons. But we recognised that, on the committee, because there were such differences of opinion, we should look at something that was practical, that was simple, that was deliverable and that wasn't overcomplex. We looked at many different possibilities within that, and the one we've settled on, of sentences of four years or less, gives that, I think, simplicity and clarity, and it gives that clear message that Wales, even if the UK Government won't move, could actually move forward and show a clear signal that we believe in the principles of rehabilitation—in the principles that these people, many of whom will be passing through prison, will be back living with us, alongside us and reintegrated in society, and bringing their children up and working in careers and so on and so forth. I think that's an important principle.

So, I welcome this and I welcome the response of the Government as well. My only query would be to echo what the Chair has said: what are we talking here about timescales of taking this forward? I think there is an opportunity here for the Welsh Government to show some leadership on this and, perhaps, who knows, the UK Government will follow suit in due course.