I'm going to take the temperature down a little bit. Three of the four political parties represented in this Senedd now broadly accept that the United Kingdom is not currently fit for purpose in respect of its UK-wide governance and its constitutional arrangements, and its relationships between democratic institutions. And in the previous Senedd, there was indeed at least one notable and distinguished Member of the Conservative benches, too, who accepted this and argued the case for reform to preserve the union. We wait to see if there are any Welsh Conservatives willing to pick up the mantle of David Melding in his cool and considered and astute analysis of the failings of the union and the dangers to the union of proceeding as we are, because the status quo is not an option. It is like running an old car until it falls to bits, without any maintenance, let alone upgrades. Ultimately, it rusts, it seizes and it falls apart. You either need to take proper care of that old jalopy or you scrap it and get something new.

Now, where three of the four parties represented here agree in their concerns, as reflected in the motions and amendments, their prognoses are quite different, from prophesying the end of the union to arguing for radical reform, hence the range of amendments to the main motion. I would say that the case for radical and urgent reform is simply now unarguable. This is not a political point; it is a pragmatic point. The current UK constitution, built around the traditional model of Westminster parliamentary sovereignty, is simply outmoded and inappropriate for today. It does not reflect the modern identity and the aspirations of the four nations, let alone the welcome re-emergence of the strong metropolitan and regional mayoralties in England.

So, what should a reformed union look like? Well, it must reflect the reality that this is a voluntary union of nations and regions, working together for mutual benefit, not an overcentralised system with a clear power imbalance. As a voluntary association of nations, it must also be ultimately open to any of its constituent parts, democratically, to choose to withdraw and walk away from the union, not to be simply bound to it forever, come hell or high water. And as a voluntary union, there should not only be respect between the constituent parts, but that respect should be reflected in the way in which the parts of the union collaborate and contest ideas and policies and visions for the whole of that union; where the constituent parts have an equal say in what the centre does and what it does not do; where the centre does not dictate, but it listens and it responds, and where the sum is greater than the parts because the nations and the regions feel, and indeed do have, a meaningful role in that union.

Now, Welsh Labour, my party, campaigned on reform, and this Government has been elected with a mandate to develop the thinking around this, and with the wider Welsh public, on something that looks like, whatever we may call it, a form of far-reaching federalism within a new and successful union—I think the last person to use that phrase in here was David Melding—for a national civic conversation in Wales about our future; for the establishment of an independent standing commission to look at the constitutional future of Wales and within the UK; to support the work of the UK-wide constitutional commission being established currently by the UK Labour Party to work across the four nations, but to work with other UK parties on this as well, and with the House of Lords, to press the UK Government for a more thoroughgoing federal reform of our constitution and our inter-governmental relations; to pursue the devolution of policing and justice, as recommended by the Thomas commission; and to challenge the UK internal market Act, not for political reasons, but to avoid a tax on devolution and to champion the rights of this Senedd to legislate without interference in areas that are currently devolved to Wales.

Now, look, sometimes, relationships do get strained—brother to brother, partners, teenage fledglings and stuck-in-the-mud parents—and I should say that none of this is autobiographical. [Laughter.] Relationships don't always work very smoothly; they hit bumps, sometimes big bumps, and if it's really bad, you sometimes question, 'Is it so bad that it is over, have we fallen out of love, should we go our separate ways?'

In the Plaid Cymru scenario—and it's a principled point—it is over, it always was over and should never have started: 'The union between England and Wales was a doomed relationship from the off, we should just now separate and call it a day'. But we have to acknowledge that the 'call it a day' scenario was tested robustly in the recent election and it didn't carry the public in Wales with it.

For the Conservatives, the union is a loving and beautiful relationship where the current Government in Westminster has only the best interests of Wales at heart and sometimes has to show some tough love to Wales to show how much they care. It's not disrespect, it's not talking down to the children, it's just laying down the house rules for the family and guests, it shows who is boss, and this is straining the relationship.

Welsh Labour is clear: the union is not working in its current shape and form, but it could work with radical urgent reform. Countries like Wales and Scotland and powerful parts of England where the powers and funding are increasingly devolved could be even more muscular and yet still collaborate—