In principle, I think that's a fair point, Andrew. There was, though, reference, I think in Dai's contribution, to this having first been looked at two and a half years ago, and I welcome what you said in your speech, but I did find it contradictory in one bit in that you said that you wanted to leave this in the hands of the Commission and then, at the end of your speech, you said that it should be for the standards committee to take things forward. And it does actually give me some confidence that you are a member of the standards committee, and I have confidence in David's work on that, and I associate myself with what Jane Hutt said about Jayne Bryant and how well she chairs that committee. So, I do hope you will take this forward, and I do hope you will take it forward quickly and actually drive a result and that we're not going to sit, falling between two stools of whether it's the standards committee or the Commission doing it.

In terms of Caroline's history of some of the lobbying and the scandals that we have seen, at least at a UK level, and some of the changes those have led to, I was myself a little surprised by the point of order because I heard a very clear reference to a particular example from Caroline, and that was the Bernie Ecclestone example. And I think that the history of this is accepted—that shortly after the Labour Government was elected in 1997, the Cabinet took a decision to exempt Formula 1 from a ban on tobacco advertising and, shortly after that, it came out that the Labour Party, had, shortly prior to that, accepted £1 million from Bernie Ecclestone. So, to say that there's no allegation of wrongdoing or no evidence of anything, I don't think is right. I think the Labour Party were right to give that £1 million back, and, to be charitable, perhaps it was a certain naivety in terms of a new Prime Minister from a party that had been out of power for a long time. And I'm glad that we have seen some of the changes at the UK level that we have seen since that point.

Can I thank Mandy for her succinct speech when she said democracy should not be for sale? Jayne, I think, sort of welcomed this debate, and I thank you for that, and I acknowledge that you and your committee have been working on this. I hope you will continue to work on it and drive it forward to a result. I commented before on Dai, and I thank Plaid for their support.

Neil McEvoy then enlightened us with some of his particular history around the lobbying issues and his dealings with Plaid, albeit they were disputed. Perhaps they should take Andrew's approach of minuting all meetings that may be relevant lobbying and publishing the results. And not only does it show Andrew R.T. doing his work, but it shows those organisations coming in to lobby politicians, which is their job. So, to bring transparency to those dealings is, I think, a very good thing. I thank Jane Hutt for her response to the debate and associate myself with the remarks she made about Jayne Bryant and her committee.

There are a few substantive points I would just like to make before closing. Some concern around the cost of a lobbyist register was expressed, not this evening, but I remember previously Mike Hedges mentioning this cost issue and, I think, saying that it could be paid for by the lobbyists who would be signing up to that register. And as my colleague Caroline Jones said, we should not put a price on democracy. Some have argued there have been relatively few cases of lobbying breaches in Wales in the past. I think it's important to make the point that, without a lobbyist register, how can we actually gauge the extent and nature of lobbying in Wales?

It's misguided, in my view, to say that if we haven't had many public lobbying scandals in Wales that means we shouldn't have a register. This building hasn't been attacked, as far as I'm aware, but should we do away with security? Of course we shouldn't. If we did not have security officers checking bags, how would an airport discover contraband items? In order to find breaches, you need to look for them. You certainly need to be aware of from where they may come, who is regulated, and for what.

Jayne raised appropriate definitional issues, but I would say people in this Chamber argue for more powers for the Assembly and, as we get those powers, we can expect there to be more lobbying. We need to be ahead of the curve and not behind, and to make sure that rules are clear for bodies seeking dialogue with Ministers and senior officials. It's those Ministers and senior officials of Welsh Government that my party think are key for consideration and for registration of those activities.

This isn't about demonising lobbyists or presuming guilt. We accept lobbying is a crucial part of a healthy democracy, but it must be regulated. We do not want to live under a shadow where undue influence is presumed. We must make sure that undue influence is curtailed. I welcome that Public Affairs Cymru have their code of conduct and that lobbying bodies want to establish good practice. A statutory register would reinforce that, and I therefore encourage all Members to support our motion tonight.