The issue of a referendum comes at the end of the discussions and deliberations, does it not? And we are at that point where recommendations have been made by the committee, and it's at that point, when you look at the significant changes that have been recommended, that you have to accept that the public of Wales have not had their say.

Now, we acknowledge that there is a majority in this Chamber in favour of Senedd reform. We've been honest enough to accept that that is the position, and it's on that basis that we took part in this committee's proceedings, that I was appointed to that committee in order to represent the Conservatives. We took part in that process because we were told that there was a genuine opportunity to shape its work, to shape the recommendations that would emerge from it. But it became abundantly clear to me, on 10 May, following the publication of a statement by the First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru, which was issued to the press first before it was circulated to Members of this Senedd, entirely disrespectfully, that the faith that we had placed in that process was utterly misplaced, because the conclusions in the report before us were effectively the same set of instructions that were issued by the First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru. They simply regurgitate, effectively, in the executive summary, the list of requests and demands that were made in the, frankly, grubby backroom deal that the leader of Plaid did with the First Minister.

I ask everybody in this Chamber: what on earth is the purpose of this Senedd setting up committees, appointing Members, appointing clerks, appointing legal advisers and researchers, taking oral and written evidence from people, carefully considering that evidence, fleshing out some ideas, and then not being able to complete its work because the rug is pulled from under your feet right at the end of the process? Because that is what happened, and it was despicable, frankly, in terms of that behaviour. It was disrespectful to the committee, an insult to this institution, and in fact, the behaviour of the First Minister and the leader of Plaid undermines the very Parliament that they are saying they want to strengthen. What on earth is the point of that?

Now, we all know, in this Chamber, that the overwhelming majority of members of the public do not support an increase in the size of the Senedd. That is why you guys are so terrified of having a referendum on this matter. If you really believed that the public would support this package of reforms, you would put it to the people and allow them to have their say. The Labour Party wasn't even brave enough to set out its ideas in its manifesto. I'll read the quote on Senedd reform from your manifesto to you, to remind you, because I know that, probably, most of you didn't read your manifesto yourselves. It said this—. It said this and I will quote. It's on page 64. This is what it said:

'We will build on the work of the Senedd Committee on electoral reform...and develop proposals to improve the representation of the people of Wales in their Parliament.'

It said nothing, nothing whatsoever, about more Members. It said nothing whatsoever about scrapping the voting system. Nothing whatsoever about gender quotas. And there was no reference whatsoever to taking away the opportunity for members of the public to vote for an individual candidate of their choice.

Now, at least Plaid Cymru's manifesto was more honest. To be fair to Plaid Cymru—. And it took me a long time to find the reference, by the way, in your 100-odd-page manifesto. I can tell you, it's very, very good reading for insomniacs. I finally got to the page, it was on page 117, and it said this:

'We will...implement the recommendations of the Expert Panel on Assembly Electoral Reform, in particular', it said,

'in particular on Single Transferable Voting, gender quotas and expanding the Senedd.'

So, there was at least some mention of expanding the Senedd and gender quotas, but, of course, they've abandoned their pledge to introduce, in particular, STV—this particular reference that they felt most strongly about in that particular report. So, if people who voted Labour didn't vote for the proposals in the committee's report today because they weren't referenced, and if Plaid's manifesto commitment was significantly different in terms of the voting system than the deal—the backroom deal, in those dark corridors of power that Adam Price likes to hang around in—if the deal that was done was significantly different, then there is absolutely no public mandate whatsoever to introduce these changes. I appreciate that you might have a different view, and that's why I said, 'Put it to the public.' We're prepared to test the public and if the public vote for it, we will back it 100 per cent, just as we did when it came to Brexit, because we respect democracy, unlike you.

So, let's have a look at what happened in the past when it came to the ability to change the voting system. Of course, the UK Government, Jenny Rathbone—I can see you're paying great attention—the UK Government, Jenny Rathbone, gave the opportunity to the people of Wales and the whole of the UK to vote on proposals to change the voting system, to scrap first-past-the-post and introduce the AV system, the alternative vote system of elections. [Interruption.] I'm happy to take an intervention. Would you like to make an intervention? [Interruption.] I'll happily take an intervention. Come on.