I thank the Member for his comments. He's absolutely right that those of us with legal backgrounds like to indulge in the minutiae of constitutions and legal niceties. Important as they are within the operation of a parliament, and particularly a legislature, the crux to change, and the crux to determining the sort of change that we could envisage for Wales, how we might govern better and differently, has to be something that belongs to the people of Wales. It has to be owned by the people of Wales, and it means the language has to be a language that relates to the lives of people, otherwise I don't think they will engage. 

I've said previously that I think, when we look at governance, that we have democracy in crisis, where so many people are disengaged from political processes or have so little confidence in it, as we see from the turnouts in elections. I think the points you make are absolutely right in terms of how we construct a framework, a terms of reference, that is sufficiently wide to raise the breadth of debates for people to engage, to participate, to consider all options, but yet, nevertheless, has a focus on a number of key points. What sort of Wales do you want to see? What should Wales's future be? What are our values? What should our future relationships be? That may be in terms of a whole variety of consequences. What should our relationship be with the UK Government, with other countries around us? I think all those are very complex issues that need to be put together. And it is a difficult task of work. As I've said, it is one of the big challenges, to put that together, because this convention, this commission, has to be something that is really different. It's a stepping stone to the future for Wales.

You raise, quite rightly, the issue of examples elsewhere, because we are not alone. Many other countries face these similar challenges in terms of their society, their democracy, their governance. You mentioned Scotland; Scotland are very interested in the publication imminently of their long-standing report from their Scottish citizens' assembly, which was funded and supported by the Scottish Government over the last two years. I think there may well be lessons there. There are certainly lessons from some of the processes in Ireland and Finland, and I'm sure in many other parts of the world. It's very interesting to see developments in Catalonia, in Spain, where they're actually moving towards a system where they are now talking about doing that, with a view to having an engagement with people as to what the people in Catalonia actually want, with a view to, undoubtedly, a referendum there. But the fact is that people are starting to say that you have to have a consensus of people, you have to have support of people to make really radical and long-standing change.

You referred to the Wales TUC commission; I think that is a really positive step, and I think it shows very effective and dynamic leadership, that they are looking at all those issues, so many of which have arisen during COVID. Isn't it in many ways bizarre that one of the reservations in our devolution settlement is equal opportunities, when so much of our work is about equality and equal opportunities? On the dilemma in terms of the perception around the UK, you mentioned the example of the flags, and I don't want to reiterate that debate. But it seems to me that the message is this: you have buildings—say, tax buildings, HMRC—which are down as 'UK Government in Wales' or 'UK Government in Scotland', but in England they're just 'HMRC'. Why are they not 'UK Government in England'? I think that sends a particular message, which identifies part of that particular problem.

How to build up the commission and make it representative? I'm not quite sure that I should use a footballing analogy, but I think it's actually trying to work out how to build up the squad that you want, and what's the size of the team you want out of that, and to picking. I think the diversity of the squad is probably going to be appropriate, and obviously we may well want to look for a few Gareth Bales within the civic engagement process.

In terms of remaining relevant and the purpose for the future, I'm very clear, I think, in my mind now that there has to be a further stage, which is that, when it does produce recommendations, when it does produce a report, when we can see the conclusions of the important work that it will do, it should consider also the recommendations as to how these can be taken forward—how you might establish, perhaps, a standing commission that would actually carry these recommendations through, so they're not something that are just an 18 to 24-month process and then forgotten about, and then we go on again a couple of years and try and repeat the same thing. This has got to be a process that leads to, ultimately, a conclusion. As I said, I think change is inevitable, and I think these are the mechanisms by which we can build a consensus for that change, and to make change happen.