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.