The next item is a statement by the Chair of the Committee on Assembly Electoral Reform and an update on the work of that committee. I call on the Chair of the committee to make her statement—Dawn Bowden.

Diolch, Llywydd. The Committee on Assembly Electoral Reform was established by this National Assembly in September 2019 to examine the recommendations of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform. Members will recall that, in 2017, the expert panel reported on a wide range of issues, but at the core of its work was a recognition that the Assembly and its Members need to be able to carry out our responsibilities effectively if we are to properly serve the people that we represent. The expert panel concluded that, as devolution in Wales enters its next phase, the Assembly cannot continue as it is without risking its ability to deliver for the people and communities it serves.

The expert panel's recommendations on votes for 16 and 17-year-olds have been given effect by the Senedd and elections Bill. Our role as a committee is to examine the remaining recommendations, which embrace a range of significant issues. These include: the size of the Assembly; its diversity; how Members are elected; and, the areas that we represent. These can be seen as complicated and technical issues, but we must help to continue an informed public debate as they lie at the heart of our still-developing democracy in Wales. As a committee, we will look at each issue in turn.

We see no need to go over the previous ground, So, in carrying out our work, we will consolidate and add to the existing evidence, using the work of the expert panel as our starting point. I believe that the conversations that we hold and any recommendations that we make will be most effective if they underpin a long-term vision for the Senedd and are rooted in a broad base of political and public support. To achieve this, the committee will be outward looking and open minded. We will provide accurate and accessible information, seek evidence and gather opinions. We will use a broad range of methods to gather evidence and listen carefully to people's views.

Most of us in this Chamber have engaged with or have been part of this institution since its early days, but we must also remember that younger people—including the 16 and 17-year-olds who will have the right to vote for the first time in 2021—will never have known a Wales without devolution. To make sure that their voices are heard during our work, we are exploring options for working with the Welsh Youth Parliament and for engaging with young people across Wales through the Assembly's education and outreach teams.

So, today marks a key moment in the committee's work. Since you voted to create this committee, we are aware that most of our deliberations have been in private, as we've received technical briefings and discussed the work programme that we're presenting today. This statement now provides the opportunity to share our plans with you. Today, we've published our strategic approach, setting out our aims and objectives for the coming months, as well as the terms of reference for each of our inquiries. I hope that this will provide clarity about how we will explore the three key issues within our remit.

We've also launched our first consultation today. We're seeking evidence from the electoral community, political parties and other stakeholders to inform our work on electoral systems, boundaries, and boundary-review mechanisms. In addition to gathering formal written evidence, we want everyone to be able to follow our work and tell us what they think. To facilitate this, we will be using the 'Your Wales' digital-engagement platform to share information about our work and to provide opportunities for people to offer their thoughts and feedback on an ongoing basis. I hope that you, as Members, will encourage people in your constituencies and regions to engage with our work in this way.

I'm pleased today to have been able to outline our ambitious and comprehensive programme of work, which we intend to complete by autumn 2020. Indeed, our work has already begun, with an evidence session in December with the Llywydd, and discussions with stakeholders earlier this week. We're approaching our task with a sense of realism as we know that there is a range of different views amongst Members present here today. There will doubtless also be a range of views among those who will sit in these seats in the next Assembly, and amongst the constituents they will represent. We each approach these issues from our distinct perspectives, but we hope for meaningful discussion with, and hopefully between, political parties and the people who we all seek to represent.

We don't underestimate the task, but we will approach it with enthusiasm. As a minimum, we intend for our evidence-based conclusions to offer a roadmap for reform, which we hope will help political parties as they consider their manifestos for 2021 and maximise the chance of a consensus emerging on a way forward. As a committee, we have a challenging task ahead of us, but we also have a real and exciting opportunity to contribute to the continuing and flourishing democracy in Wales. Diolch yn fawr.

I welcome the establishment of this committee, and I'm very glad to sit on it. Although, it is a shame that any changes we recommend will not come into force until at least 2026. It's all the more essential that we work cross-party to get this to be a project that everyone in the Senedd can feel that it belongs to them—and I really do hope that the Conservative benches will feel able to add a Member to our midst.

Now, as Dawn Bowden has said, the committee will partly be looking at how we can address the lack of capacity we have in this place, to allow us to be more innovative, to do more cross-party work, for more effective scrutiny to take place, and to allow Members of this Senedd to develop expertise in particular fields.

Now, Llywydd, this isn't about increasing numbers for the sake of increasing numbers; it's about ensuring that this Senedd can fully fulfil not just its potential but its obligation to be a truly national Parliament of Wales. To become a legislature that reflects the people it represents, a Parliament where the people of Wales can see themselves not just spoken for but exemplified, a Parliament where anyone in Wales could see people who look like them, who have similar characteristics to them, present. Because our committee will also be looking at how the increase in Members could lead to more diversity in this place.

After all, there is more than one meaning to the word 'represent'. Yes, it can mean to act or speak on behalf of or to present officially for another person or group of people, but it can also mean to be the result of something or to be something. When we are elected to this Parliament, we're given the tremendous honour of speaking on behalf of and voting for the benefit of our constituents. Up until now, and with some exceptions, there has been a disappointing lack of diversity in our midst. This is our chance to put that right. Imagine a Senedd where every person living in Wales recognises the Senedd as a place that is relevant and belongs to them. Now, wouldn't that represent a change we could all be proud of? 

Whilst my party is willing to engage in discussion and debate on the expansion in the number of Assembly Members and the other matters under the committee's remit, we believe that there must be a robust and exhaustive examination into the current role and workload of the existing AMs, which also takes into account the expansion in the workload of the Assembly as a whole. This would then inform whether there is a call for the expansion to 80 or 90 AMs, as envisaged in the expert committee report commissioned by the Welsh Government. 

Above all, the Welsh people themselves must be convinced, via the arguments put forward, that such an expansion is not just desirable but unavoidable. We as a party chose to be involved in the process by representation on the electoral reform committee because we believe such dramatic changes to the Assembly structure should be subject to rigorous scrutiny.

As has been outlined by the Chair of the committee, the committee is determined to engage with all those who shall be affected by the changes, and this, above all, will include the Welsh public at large. In order to achieve these aims, we have set out how we intend to facilitate this engagement and, indeed, have already begun this process with initial discussions with the chair of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform, Laura McAllister, her officers, and the Llywydd and her staff. We have also hosted a round-table event with relevant stakeholders.

Our deliberations are, of course, not confined to the increase in the number of AMs. There are two other important proposals that we shall be examining in depth. The first of these is what changes may be made to increase the diversity in the Assembly, and the second being that of electoral reform. That is, the method by which Members of the Assembly shall be elected, and this will include any intended border changes that may be needed in order to implement alterations to the electoral system chosen. 

Given our deliberations so far, I'm convinced that we have an extremely competent Chair of the committee in Dawn Bowden, and there is a definite desire amongst those parties who have chosen to engage in this process to reach consensus on the way forward. Thank you.

It's my mistake: I should have asked the Chair of the committee to respond to the statements made by Delyth Jewell and David Rowlands. It is a statement, not a debate, and I've confused myself there. So, if I could ask the Chair of the committee to respond to the statements already made—

Thank you, Llywydd.

—and I'll try and switch myself back on. [Laughter.]

It's okay, I was waiting for the questions, and they were very supportive statements, so thank you both for that. Can I just deal, firstly, with the point that Delyth Jewell raised about the lack of a Conservative Member on the committee? I think I too and other members of the committee would very much welcome the Conservative Party reviewing their position on that. I have had conversations with the leader of the Conservative group, and I know that the Conservative group are very keen to be involved in the work of the committee, and it's certainly the view of the committee that we need to reach out to all political parties, even those that are not on the committee and to seek their views, and we will be looking to do that. But, of course, the committee can change its membership at any time, and if the Conservatives do come forward and offer somebody up to sit on the committee and work with us, then I believe the Business Committee can look at that and can make recommendations to this Assembly, and we can take an additional member on board, so I very much hope that will happen.

The other issues that have been picked up are the issues of capacity, diversity and scrutiny. Certainly, on capacity, we've already had, as was described by David Rowlands, a round-table discussion with some initial stakeholders, and these were primarily third-party organisations and the media that work with the Assembly very closely, and they were able to give us their observations about how they work with the Assembly. I thought what was interesting about that was how they were able to contrast and compare how they can interact with MPs in Westminster and how they are unable to interact with us in the same way, because of our lack of capacity, our lack of numbers, our availability and so on, and the need for us to be able to specialise in particular areas.

Again, they referenced the fact that MPs quite often only sit on one committee, and I think, Llywydd, when you gave evidence, you mentioned the fact that something like 100 MPs don't sit on any committees. So, that does give the MPs much more scope to be able to specialise, to concentrate on particular areas, that we as AMs don't. I think one of the things that have come across loud and clear in the information that we've received so far is that, to enable us to scrutinise more effectively—and that is, after all, what this Assembly should be here to do, to scrutinise the Government—we need to have the capacity to be able to do that.

Another point that came out of those discussions that I think is worthy of flagging up here was that we constantly talk about having 60 Members, but, in actual fact, we've really got about 45, because 15 are in Government, and so, we really only have 45 Members then, who are available for committee work, Commission work and scrutiny work. So, we need to look at it in that context.

But I think one of the key aspects for us, and I think all of us have identified that, is that we have a huge amount of work to do with the public. That will be very, very important for us in terms of the outward-looking approach of the committee, how we engage with members of the public, how we explain to them what this place does, and how they can influence that and how they can make us more effective.

Could I welcome the statement by the Chair today, and in so doing, thank her and my fellow committee members for what has been a very collegiate, very open and very frank and engaged way in which we've all, together, approached the work of the committee? Whilst we may all come forward with our own ideas, and, sometimes, our preconceptions, we've all made the undertaking to be open and to reflect upon the evidence as it comes forward. These are tricky political matters: examining the case for further electoral reform, for additional Assembly Members and related issues. But we have been charged as a committee with examining these matters in a meaningful, informed and evidence-led manner, and we are doing so.

Now, there are many parts to the strategy underpinning the inquiry, which the Chair has laid out in her statement today and in the accompanying documents that are on the website, but one of the most important facets is that of engaging and informing the public to help shape our work as a committee. So, my first question of our Chair is to ask whether she can expand upon our approach to engaging the citizens of Wales and seeking their informed views on matters such as the optimal number of Assembly Members for this Senedd, and the electoral system deployed, and other matters. This engagement, early and consistently through the process, is also important in establishing whether the case can be made and won for further reforms, as the broad support of civic society and a well-informed electorate is important in taking forward any possible future reforms.

Now, as the Chair said in her opening remarks, any recommendations we make will be most effective if they're rooted in broad-based political and public support. So, the public engagement at this stage and throughout is crucial, but so, I have to say, is the political engagement. So, my second question to our Chair is to ask whether and how she'll continue to engage with all political parties in the Senedd, but also those significant other political entities in Wales who are not represented here, so that their views are also fed in, but so that they can also see and engage with the evidence that we hear. In particular—it has been mentioned already—I seek the Chair's confirmation that a seat does indeed remain at the committee table for all the major political parties represented here, and we would want to see that single empty blue seat be occupied by an able, meaningful and insightful Member from the benches directly opposite from me here, and that she will continue, on behalf of the committee, as I will personally, to encourage that seat to be filled, so that we can all engage with the evidence together, regardless of our individual or our party political standpoints. That surely is the most basic task we have as legislators and policymakers—to wrestle with these difficult questions together.

I genuinely am missing the voice and the contribution of colleagues from directly across the floor on this committee, and I'm sure that that party, who, under Disraeli and under Gladstone, wrestled with difficulty, but I have to say with confidence as well, with things such as the Irish question, as extending the franchise, and major parliamentary reform in the nineteenth century, is more than able and confident, I have to say—. I look at individuals across from me now, any one of those Members would be able to engage on this little, time-limited committee on electoral reform. [Interruption.] I'm doing my best to encourage this, Presiding Officer. They'd be more than able, from that party, to engage with this time-limited little committee here on electoral reform in the twenty-first century.

Could I also ask the Chair to expand a little on the schedule, the timescale, of this, in effect, task and finish committee? Ultimately, it's going to be in the hands of all Senedd Members here to make any final decisions on electoral reform, informed by the public and their own parties, but also informed by the work of this committee. So, can she lay out her broad thinking, as Chair of the committee, on when our recommendations must emerge to enable this Senedd to productively consider them, and whether she'll be discussing with the Presiding Officer, Welsh Government and party leaders of all parties how this timetable enables any reform proposals that may be brought forward, if the evidence supports it and if it's felt that proposals can garner the support of the Senedd, in the timescale that allows this or future Senedd gatherings to do the necessary preparations, the necessary legislation, if appropriate, and bring it forward?

Finally, could I ask the Chair for her reflections on some of the evidence that we've heard already? She touched on it a moment ago—on the implications for the performance and the effectiveness of this Senedd and on our working methods and working week, or on what we might have to choose not to do with our existing powers, let alone powers that we are not using at the moment, or any future powers, if we choose not to undertake further reform that could increase the capacity and the diversity of representation to fully reflect this, our nation, our Senedd of Wales. We've already heard evidence on this and it was fascinating to hear what those organisations that regularly engage with us and lobby us on important matters of health and the environment and so many other things, thought would be the implications of choosing not to proceed with some form of electoral reform that would increase the capacity and diversity of this place. Would she care to expand on that?

Yes, thank you, Huw, I'll take that in reverse order. The final point that you made about the implications on our performance, I think, from the limited evidence that we have taken so far, the evidence that we have taken was consistent and was very clear in terms of the implications for us. If we come to a point where we are unable to expand the size of this Assembly, then I think that it is clear to everyone that we have spoken to so far that the way in which this Assembly works will have to change dramatically. And there will probably have to be some recommendations that many Members of this place would find unpalatable.

And if I say to you that one of the things that was even suggested to us, which would be hugely unpalatable to me and to most Members in this room, was that we may have to put a pause on devolution itself if we are not in a position to carry out our functions effectively. What those people were talking about was that we would have to say, in terms of further powers, that if we are unable to take on further powers more effectively, then we may have to say that we can't and we may have to look at the powers that we already have and say that we can no longer carry through those powers unless we can do them effectively. Now, I am not saying that that is something that the committee agreed with, I'm not saying that that would necessarily be one of our recommendations; what I am saying to you is that that was one of the suggestions that was coming forward from people who engage with us and were saying that we would need to seriously consider.

Other aspects of our work that we would have to look at are our working week, how many days a week this Assembly sits, how long our days may be, how many committees meet, whether we need to merge some of our committees, whether we can send people home on a Thursday or whether people have to stay here five days a week, and all of these kinds of things. If we are serious about being a law-making body that is serious about scrutinising the work of this Government, then unless we expand the capacity then we will have to take some very, very difficult and unpalatable decisions. 

In terms of the timescales, the timescale that we're working on at the moment is to produce the committee's recommendations in advance of summer recess this year with a view to coming back to the Assembly for a debate in the autumn session—so, before the autumn recess in October. That is the kind of timescale that we're working to. That may or may not slip. I don't know how much latitude the committee would be given to slip its timescale because that decision has been taken by this Assembly in terms of, you know, this is a time-limited task and finish group. I think we need to work to that timescale. The committee clerks, I have to say—. Can I offer my sincere thanks to the committee clerks who've worked very hard on producing a timetable for us, setting out very clearly the pieces of evidence that we need to take and the groups that we need to speak to during the course of our work?

That will bring me on to the point that you raised, Huw, and I touched on in my previous answer, around engagement and the engagement of citizens. What we are proposing around the engagement of citizens is that we establish a citizens assembly. The reason that we have proposed establishing a citizens assembly is that that gives us the best chance of having a very representative sample of the wider electorate in terms of age, gender, location, language—English, Welsh and so on—that we can bring together with various views, various political views, and that can be done quite scientifically, that we get people together in a kind of mini parliament, a mini kind of citizens assembly. But, and this is a big 'but', that is a very costly exercise. We would be looking to do that—. We've discussed with the clerks how we could do that in the most cost-effective way. So, we've looked at the lower end of the scale, but even at the lower end of the scale, it is not an insignificant amount of money that would be involved in running a citizens' assembly. But if we are serious about doing it, and we are serious about wanting to make sure that we have an informed opinion from the general public, then we feel that that would be money well spent. And I understand that the Assembly Commission is going to be looking at that on 27 January to hopefully approve our request for a citizens' assembly. If we don't get a citizens' assembly, then we will have to look at other ways of that public engagement, and that could be focus groups, that could be opinion polling, that could be other ways of engagement. But we're very keen that we move down this road of a very deliberative consultation with people across a wide range of views and so on.

So, the other point I think that you raised, Huw, was about the seat open for the Conservative Party, which, again, I will just reiterate what I said in response to Delyth Jewell: the seat is there for the Conservative Party to join in. I hope that we can continue our conversations with them, that they will be engaging with the work on this committee and that that they will review and reflect on their decision and will come back to us with a more positive position in the future.

I'll join with other Members in the Chamber in saying what lovely people the Conservatives are and how wonderful it would be to see them engaging with this. Llyr, don't say, 'Don't go that far'—I think it would be a really good thing if they engaged. [Laughter.]

Llywydd, I'll use your words that you said to the committee, and the Chair has already mentioned it. You said of Westminster MPs that, of the over 600 MPs, over 100 sit on no committees at all, and in your words, you said they

'take no part in Government or shadow Government, and—. I wouldn't know what they do.'

You said:

'I wouldn't know what that life must be like, to turn up to the Parliament and then not have anything to do for the week.'

And that is quite a long way from our experiences. Of every single person in this Chamber, that is quite a very, very big distance from our experiences, being on two or more committees, spending weekends getting your head around your papers for two committees in the following week, for those of us who are on committees. And I can't imagine, then, how Government Ministers balance both constituency work and being in Government. It must be absolute hell for work-life balance. I cannot imagine ever being in that position, especially with two young children. I can't imagine how it's done with the numbers we currently have and the workload we currently have.

But with regard to the more popular argument for persuading people, I think you need to say to people, 'If a Government Minister is under scrutiny, what would you prefer? Would you prefer them to have lots of people scrutinising what they do, or fewer people scrutinising what they do?' And I would say that people would say, 'Well, I'd rather there were lots of people who are experts in small, limited areas scrutinising Government, rather than a few people trying to do everything.' You get better scrutiny, I believe, with more Members—[Interruption.]—and also the depth of the scrutiny becomes better as well. I'm sorry, I'd love to take an intervention, but it's a statement, so I can't do that. But I don't know you've just said, Janet Finch-Saunders, I'm sorry.

And the other issue is electoral fairness and clarity. Electoral fairness and clarity. I've had complaints, Delyth Jewell, from constituents in Nelson who've said they've received Plaid Cymru leaflets saying that I was no longer the Assembly Member and Delyth Jewell was the Assembly Member. And they were complaining to me, 'When did you stand down?' Well, of course, that wasn't what you did, you just put a leaflet out saying, 'I'm the Assembly Member for South Wales East and I'm here to help you.' Of course you did, I don’t think you did anything wrong. Delyth, if you'd have done anything wrong, I'd have gone straight to the standards commissioner. [Laughter.]

I object to this. [Laughter.]

But what you did was the right thing to do—you were a new Assembly Member and you were introducing yourself to people in Nelson. But the people in Nelson we're confused—they thought that there was a new Assembly Member and I'd somehow stood down. People didn't understand that they had more than one Assembly Member representing them with this dual system. That electoral system doesn't work and it needs changing. I think that that should be part of what is looked at, and I think the only way you can argue for more Assembly Members is if you also argue for electoral reform that is more representative of the society we seek to represent.

In a multi-Member constituency—and I suspect using the model that Laura McAllister proposes—the kind of constituency we'd have in Caerphilly, perhaps you and I would both be Assembly Members representing the same constituency. Well, that's fine, because then you've got a clear explanation of why you were there, what you were there doing, and I would also argue it would enforce parties to work together better than the current system does. And also, it would be more representative of the percentage of the vote, because currently, even with the D'Hondt system, this Assembly is not electorally representative of percentages. So, it currently doesn't work, and I urge—. I know committee members have taken a step back from taking these quite bold positions, but I argue for these positions—. As a backbench Assembly Member, I argue for these positions. I think you should be looking deeply at a fairer electoral system, more Assembly Members taking on more scrutiny roles, and that balanced across a more balanced Chamber, and I think we can win that argument publicly, especially with no MEPs and probably fewer MPs, too, in the future. I think that argument can be won if we are bold enough and we make those cases.

And also, if you've got a good representative democracy, there will be no need in future for direct democracy, because your representative democracy will be functioning. We can take the divisions on behalf of society. We don't have to pass those divisions on to citizens in the form of referendums in future—[Interruption.]—I would argue. I would argue. Mark Reckless, I'm not arguing on behalf of my party.

So, with these cases being made, my question to you, Dawn, is: your committee's got a consultation opening on 19 February—I found it quite hard to find the detail of that consultation on the website, so I think it would be helpful to make that more user-friendly. And also, how are you going to make this—? The words used in the consultation are not the kind of words that I would, for example, be able to share on Facebook. How are you going to get people responding to that consultation in the first instance? Because if all of these arguments I've put are going to be out there, it must be accessibly done, and I don't think that that first consultation is necessarily as accessible—notwithstanding the people's assembly—I don't think that that first consultation is as accessible as it could be.

Thank you, Hefin, for those comments. I think there's probably much in that that the committee would agree with. Now, what I'm not going to do as the Chair of the committee, and neither are any of the members of the committee at this stage going to come down and say what we believe should or will happen around electoral reform, but electoral reform is part of the brief that the committee has. So, we will be looking—. We already have had the Electoral Reform Society come in and give us a technical briefing on the various forms of a voting system. You will be aware that Laura McAllister's report, the expert panel report, did make a recommendation about moving away from the current D'Hondt system that we have, for the very reason that you've talked about: the different type of AM and the confusion that that causes. I know, as a constituency AM, I do things very differently to how a regional AM has to work. So, that was identified within the expert panel report. That was something that people generally didn't favour going forward. They wanted some more clarity around the way that people are elected. They wanted clarity in terms of knowing who their Assembly Member was.

So, part of the work that we will be looking at will focus on electoral reform, and alongside electoral reform, of course, will also have to come a discussion around electoral boundaries. Now, for the purposes of the expert panel—and that was a pragmatic approach that was taken because at that time there was a hope, I think, that the recommendations of that would have been in place for the 2021 elections. Clearly, that isn't happening. As a pragmatic approach to that, the expert panel suggested twinning constituencies, and my constituency would have been twinned with yours. So, Hef, you and I may have been Members in the same constituency, with Delyth and who knows who else. But that was a pragmatic way of doing it where we would have just reduced the number of constituencies but doubled the size, and increased the number of Members representing each constituency on an STV system—single transferrable vote.

So, all of that is for the committee to consider and we've got to take more evidence about that. We will be taking evidence from political parties about that, because we know that political parties have different views about that, and people within the political parties have different views on that, and you will know, Hefin, that in our party, there are many people that have very different views about what is the best voting system—[Interruption.] Yes, absolutely, because we have to be—. We have to live in the real world and we have to recognise that this is politics, and we have to recognise that political parties will look to see which system they think will favour them the most. Now, that's just the politique réal. So, we have to consider that. But we have said—and as I said in my opening statement—from the outset that we are going to be open-minded about this, and we will base our recommendations on evidence that's presented to us that shows us what would be the best way forward.

In terms of electoral boundaries, one of the things that have been devolved to us is the ability to set our own boundaries, but we don't yet have the primary legislation in place to enable us to do that. So, we have the competence, but not the legislative process to do that. So, we would have to put that in place as well. There would have to be a piece of legislation introduced through the Assembly to enable us to set up our own boundary commission to determine our own boundaries. So, that will be, again, one of the areas of work that the committee will be looking at—so, electoral reform, electoral boundaries.

The final point I think that you made was around the consultations being user-friendly. I take that on board, I take your point, and I will have a discussion with the committee clerks about how we might make that a little bit more user-friendly, and perhaps looking at some of the language used as well, certainly, when we're doing the more outward-facing public consultations, as opposed to consultations with organisations that work with us on a regular basis. That, I'm sure, will be very important, so I'm happy to look at that.

We're out of time for this statement, but I will call the two remaining speakers for short contributions. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm a little baffled—I stand, actually, in a personal capacity now, when I make the comments I do, and I just feel this has given me the opportunity, with you introducing this, Dawn. Certainly, as a Member who travels from north Wales, at great expense, actually, to the taxpayer—four, four and a half hours on the train, there and back—when I'm here, obviously, I want to fulfil the time in the best possible way.

What I have got concerns about are two things in your statement today. First off, we did have a referendum in 2011, the alternative vote referendum—was it two thousand and—? [Interruption.] No, no, but it was still a referendum: the people spoke, the people decided on the voting system they wanted, and for me as an Aberconwy Member, with health and education and the concerns they have there, it doesn't figure highly on their Richter scale as to what we should be doing here.

But you mentioned greater scrutiny. Now, another disappointment I have, when we've travelled down here, is First Minister's questions used to be an hour, then that was soon shortened to 45 minutes. I feel, personally, that we could be doing more in the time that we are here—the numbers we're given. Quite often, I am asked in my constituency, where people have gone to Senedd.tv, 'Why are the benches always empty or very few people on those benches?' I go to committees where people are only on one committee, and they don't attend committee on a regular basis. I genuinely believe, and I would like to ask—my overriding question is: what or who in this institution would perhaps look at how we could perhaps make greater use of the time that we as Assembly Members are here, and not always keep looking to how we can increase the cost to the taxpayer?

Members, Wales has the highest number of politicians, as I understand it, from a study I did, across Europe. So, I think, really, before we start saying, 'More, more, more—more cost to the taxpayer', we should look—[Interruption.] I'm asking—

The Member is trying to contribute to this important discussion. Allow her to continue.

And I'm asking that question: what considerations have you given to making this Assembly make better use of the Assembly Members who actually attend here? Thank you.

Just before the committee Chair responds, for the record, I cannot remember a time when the First Minister's questions was last 45 minutes. It may be allocated for 45 minutes, but it hasn't been 45 minutes for quite a long time. Committee Chair.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'll keep my response very brief. Janet, you're absolutely right, and I think I did touch on this earlier on in a response, about looking at—it was actually in response to Huw Irranca-Davies. One of the things the committee will be doing is looking at the way that we work, because even if we get agreement on recommending an increased Assembly, and the Assembly votes for that, and we get it, and the next Government approves that—because it won't be this Government; it'll be the next Welsh Government that would take that through—there will still be a period of five years where we're going to be working with 60 Members. So, the status quo is not an option in terms of how we currently work. That was the view expressed to us by a number of people, and so that will be one of the things that we—. That is one of the things that we have to consider in the evidence that we are taking: if we do not move to a greater number of Assembly Members, then we would be looking to make recommendations about the way in which the Assembly operates differently, because it cannot continue to operate in the way that it is now, with the current number of Members.

Could I emphasise the need for speed in debating and coming to a conclusion on these matters? In the 20 years since democratic government was introduced in Wales we've had what appears to me to be an embarrassment of riches when it comes to commissions and committees and when it comes to examinations by some of the greatest minds in this country—certainly a greater mind than I have. And if all—[Laughter.] I accept that doesn't set the bar especially high. But all these people who have studied this issue have come to the same conclusion. Their conclusions have been somewhat different in minor matters, but they've come to the same conclusion—that this place doesn't have the resources and the capacity to do its job properly, and it is elected in a way that does not demand popular connection with the political process.

I was shocked yesterday, speaking to the Electoral Reform Society, when I learnt that 52 per cent of people who voted in the general election last month voted for losing candidates—didn't have somebody they voted for elected. Fifty-two per cent—a majority of people who voted in the general election last month—did not elect anybody they wished to see representing them. That is an absolute condemnation of first-past-the-post.

But we also know—we also know—that the additional member system that we operate here also creates a disconnect between the people we seek to represent and this place here. We know that people do not appreciate and understand the two-tier system with the list system. We know that people find it difficult sometimes to understand who is representing them, in the same way as my colleague from Caerphilly has explained this afternoon. We also know that the list system doesn't work and is broken. We know that from events in this place over the last three years. It doesn't provide the proportionality that it sought to do.

So, the system we have creates a disconnect, is broken, is not working, and therefore we need change. It's the easiest thing in the world—it is the easiest thing in the world—simply to stand back and sloganise, to make easy, lazy arguments. But let me say this to those who do so: the Government is not the people who will necessarily benefit from this reform. It is this place, and it is us as parliamentarians that will benefit, because we will be able to scrutinise the Government in a more profound way than we are able to do today. We will have the time and the space to represent our constituents in a more profound way. At the moment, I would argue that this Government here is the least scrutinised Government anywhere in the United Kingdom, and it should be the most scrutinised Government. [Interruption.] And it is the opposition, Darren, who should be doing that.

Darren made the argument yesterday that opposition parties shouldn't oppose Governments, which I thought was a very courageous argument for somebody who's been in opposition for 13 years to make, but it is the opposition that will benefit greatly from this reform, not the Government. And I believe that we have to make that. And I also believe—and I know I'm testing your patience again, Presiding Officer—that, as parliamentarians, we have a higher responsibility than simply looking to personal and to party political benefit and advantage. As parliamentarians, we have a duty and a responsibility to ensure that this place works properly for the people of this country, and that is a responsibility that I hope I've always taken seriously in my membership here.

I do believe that Janet Finch-Saunders is right on some matters. I do believe that there are changes that we need to make to the way that this place operates, not just to maximise the opportunities we have here to make change. But I do believe, for example, that we should change the way that we deliver the Government's budget. We should have a legislative process to put the Government under more scrutiny, to make the Government work harder to get its way, but we can't do that if we do not have the capacity to deliver it. I also believe that we should be putting the Government under more pressure to legislate, in a way. I've written to the Minister today about Lucy's law, asking why that isn't being delivered as quickly as perhaps it should be. But you can't argue that the Government isn't working hard enough and then argue that it needs less scrutiny. You can't do that. That means that you do need certainly to make changes to the way we operate here, and particularly when we have a unicameral system. But you can't do that if you don't, at the same time, argue to have the capacity and the structures and the resources in place to maximise the work that we do as parliamentarians.

Thank you for those comments, Alun. Not much there to disagree with, other than to say that obviously we haven't yet concluded our deliberations and so we haven't reached conclusions on a number of those issues that you raise. 

My final comment, really, is just to say that we are seeking evidence and submissions from political parties both inside and outside this place. We are also seeking evidence and submissions from individual members of political parties and Members. So, any individual Member that wishes to make a submission on any of the points that have been raised today, please feel free to do so. You can do it through the website or you can do it through writing to me personally. I will also make myself available to speak to any Member of this place who wishes to talk to me personally about any of the issues that have been raised today and the work of the committee, and all of that I will add in to the deliberations that the committee makes over the next few months.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

Thank you very much.