The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Darren Millar.

Item 6 this afternoon is a debate on the report of the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform, 'Reforming our Senedd: A stronger voice for the people of Wales'. I call on the Chair of the committee to move the motion. Huw Irranca-Davies.

Motion NDM8014 Huw Irranca-Davies

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes the report of the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform, ‘Reforming our Senedd: A stronger voice for the people of Wales’.

2. Endorses the recommendations for policy instructions for legislation on Senedd Reform in time for the next Senedd elections in 2026.

3. Notes that the report also calls on the Senedd to consider a number of matters relating to Senedd reform.

Motion moved.

First of all, I would like to say how much of a privilege it was to be invited to chair the Special Purpose Committee on Senedd Reform. It has also been a great pleasure to chair a committee where the individual members—Jane Dodds representing the Liberal Democrats; Jayne Bryant on behalf of Labour; Siân Gwenllian on behalf of Plaid Cymru; and, until we lost him in the last few weeks, Darren Millar representing the Conservatives, too, and we thank him for his many thoughtful contributions to the committee's discussions over the past seven months; along with Elin Jones in an observational role—have studied the evidence and listened to each other's views, have often found common ground and established areas of nuance or full disagreement at other times, whilst maintaining respect for one another's views and respect for the importance of the work that we were asked to do by the Senedd. On behalf of the whole committee, I would also like to thank the integrated team of officials who have provided us with an excellent service. Our task could not have been accomplished without the invisible support of these distinguished public servants. I would also like to thank those who engaged with the committee, who have challenged us and who have shared their ideas, evidence and experience with us.

If I do not take interventions on this occasion, Dirprwy Lywydd, it's out of courtesy to what I suspect will be many speakers who want to contribute today, not out of disrespect to those who want to intervene on me.

We began our work last autumn, and we've now fulfilled our task, which you, the Senedd, gave us, to bring forward recommendations for policy instructions for a Welsh Government Bill on Senedd reform by the end of May 2022. Our committee will be dissolved following this Plenary debate on our final report. Our hours are therefore truly numbered.

Our committee's report sets out an integrated package of proposals for a strengthened Parliament to better represent the people of Wales, and a route-map for getting us there. We believe that our proposals can command the support of at least the 40 Members necessary for a supermajority here in this Senedd. As we state in the report, we firmly believe that these reforms are essential and they are achievable before 2026, but to do so, we cannot dither or delay. 

Today, we in this Siambr can choose to send a clear message to the Government that there is now a consensus that we should move forward. In presenting this report, I and the members of the committee are conscious that we do indeed stand on the shoulders of giants, and not just one or two giants either: the late Lord Richard, Sir Paul Silk, Professor Laura McAllister and the members of the independent expert panel, the former Chair of the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform, our own Dawn Bowden MS, to name but a few. And as we heard in exchanges yesterday during First Minister's questions, the architects and exponents of a strengthened Parliament and a stronger voice for the people of Wales go back even further into our history. 

And yet, the history of devolution is peppered with reports that sought to move the devolution story forward, to move this Parliament forward. Most recently, our committee's report drew on the foundations established by the expert panel on electoral reform, and the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform, but we did not seek to replicate the evidence previously gathered through their public consultation and expert deliberation. None of those more recent reports and inquiries had the immediate impact that their authors would have wished, though they have stood us in good stead.

Today, in debating our committee's report, entitled 'Reforming our Senedd: A stronger voice for the people of Wales', we also have a moment in time, possibly a moment in a generation, where we can choose to move forward and instruct Government to bring forward legislative proposals. So, we look forward to hearing Members express their views on the proposals today, and Members will quite rightly want to express their own views on their own preferred or even ideal system, on their best way forward.

In doing so, two points, I would suggest, are worthy of your consideration. Firstly, there is no one single unadulterated perfect package of electoral reform that will satisfy everyone. Yet, there are some systems, or combinations of systems, that potentially seek more perfectly to achieve multiple aims, such as different expressions of proportionality, simplicity, diversity, and so on. Secondly and unavoidably, the odyssey that our committee set out on was to find proposals that must also win support across the whole Senedd—that supermajority of myths and legends—not to seek some vision of perfection, and thereby sacrifice practicality and delivery by 2026. 

Let me turn to the key building blocks of our package of reforms, namely the size, electoral system, boundaries, gender equality measures, recognising that these issues are inextricably intertwined; they influence and they inform each other. Firstly, on size, we have concluded, as has every single august body that preceded us, that the Senedd is categorically underpowered for the job it is asked to do. In short, there are too few of us backbenchers to do our job effectively in holding the Government to account. Our power of scrutiny is constrained. Our ability to specialise, to delve deeper, to challenge harder, is underpowered by all national and international comparators; we are too few. 

This is about recognising that the Welsh Government makes critical decisions that affect the lives of millions of people in Wales, manages a budget of nearly £20 billion, and those decisions need to be scrutinised and challenged most effectively. We recommend, therefore, that the Senedd's size should be increased to 96, a number that should be set out in primary legislation. It would bring Wales broadly in line with levels already in place in Scotland and Northern Ireland, though still, to note, below some of the international comparators. It's not a magic number, but it is tied integrally to the wider package of reforms, and, crucially, it will also enable us to make a coherent proposal for reform that is doable by 2026.

Let me make the point that if we fail to take this opportunity to equip our Parliament in Wales, this Senedd, with the capacity to meet the additional responsibilities we now have—of primary law-making, tax-varying and borrowing powers; of the additional and enduring legislative, policy and inter-parliamentary burdens we have assumed in a post-Brexit scenario; of the heightened public awareness of our responsibilities, not least because of the pandemic; and of the not-unrealistic potential of additional future responsibilities—then we will not simply tread water, we will go backwards as a Parliament, and we will set this Senedd up to fail.

Our package of reforms also includes changes to the electoral system itself. The current hybrid mixed-Member system may have served its purpose initially, but it's not fit for purpose now or for the future; it's complicated for the public, it results in two types of Member and so on. Our proposals for a proportional representation system using closed lists will be at least, or more, proportional than the current system; it's a type of voting familiar to and easily understood by voters, as it's currently used in part of the existing Senedd electoral system, indeed.

The changes to the electoral system, and an increase in membership of the Senedd, in turn, provide us with the opportunity to consider measures to ensure that the Senedd better reflects the diversity of Wales, whilst managing the legislative competence risks. So, we do propose the introduction of legislative gender quotas and other measures to promote and embed for the long term greater equality and diversity in the membership of this, our Senedd. We can be proud of our record on gender, but we cannot be satisfied. We must now take the next step to make us the first country in the UK to embed, legislatively, gender balance in this, our Parliament—our Senedd. Beyond the immediate legislative proposals, our report also recommends actions on wider diversity too.

On the boundaries and the boundary-review mechanism that will now be needed, equal electoral districts—ardaloedd etholiadol cyfartal—were one of the great demands of the 1839 Newport rising of the Chartists. They were right, yet our current boundaries guarantee unequal votes. Our Senedd electoral boundaries are also ossified, with no mechanism to review them. This is no way to run a democracy. So, we must take this step to shape an independent boundary commission that can set Wales's boundaries for Wales's own needs, conferring the powers upon the existing Local Boundary and Democracy Commission for Wales, but renamed and reconstituted to reflect its new functions. These proposals enable the establishment of more equal, multi-Member constituencies before 2026, based on pairing the new Westminster constituencies.

Therefore, in looking forward to Members' contributions today, let me conclude by saying that this report is far from the end of the journey to delivering Senedd reform. The Welsh Government Bill to make change happen will need to be addressed without delay. We will then have further opportunities to scrutinise that legislation, but today we must take the first step.

Today, we can provide a clear mandate for the Welsh Government to deliver the legislation needed and to set out a clear pathway for reforming our Senedd. We can choose to give the people of Wales a stronger voice and include diversity, representation and inclusion at the heart of this Senedd, where the votes are more equal. We can make a Senedd that is fit for today and, also, fit for the future. The case for change is urgent; it is essential and it is achievable before 2026. Dirprwy Lywydd, I look forward to hearing from other Members.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on Darren Millar to move amendments 1 and 2 tabled in his name.

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Regrets the position statement on Senedd reform by the Welsh Government on 10 May 2022 which undermined the independence and work of the committee.

Amendment 2—Darren Millar

Add as new point after point 2 and renumber accordingly:

Regrets that the voting system proposed by the committee would not permit voters to vote for an individual candidate of their choice. 

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you to the Chair of the committee for his kind words about my participation in it. I do move the amendments, which have been tabled in my name, and it will come as no surprise whatsoever to anybody in this Chamber that we will be voting against the motion before us today, because we cannot countenance, on the Welsh Conservative benches, supporting an increase in the number of Senedd Members, and a significant reform to the change in the way that Members of this Senedd are elected, without the people of Wales clearly having a say. I've said it many times before and I'll say it again—I said it earlier on today—Wales needs more doctors, dentists, nurses and teachers, not more politicians, and we need a Welsh Government that is focused like a laser beam on addressing the pressing issues that we have in our health service, our education system and our economy, helping people with the cost-of-living challenges that they are facing, supporting businesses as they recover from the pandemic, and helping people get access to the medical appointments that they need. [Interruption.] I'll happily take an intervention.

I believe the Chair was very generous about your numerous, I think he said, interventions in the committee. Those of us who've sat on committees with you are used to your interventions in these matters, of course. How many times did you argue for a referendum?

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.

Is he aware of the turnout? What was the turnout for that AV referendum?

I haven't got a note of the turnout.

Forty-two per cent.

What I do have a note of—[Interruption.]—what I do have a note of is the result, and two thirds of people in Wales rejected wholeheartedly abandoning the first-past-the-post system. Two thirds of the people who voted rejected that idea, and that is why they must have the opportunity to vote and say whether they want to reject first-past-the-post here in the Senedd. Because the ability for people to vote for a person, not just a party, is very, very important, and that's why these closed list systems, frankly, are inappropriate. There are other ways—there are other ways—assuming that you want to introduce a list-based system, and we explored these in the committee. We explored these in the committee. If you want to introduce a list-based system, then why not introduce a flexible list-based system? There's a slight reference to it in the report. There's no explanation as to why that system was abandoned. I'll tell you why it was abandoned, because that was not the deal that was struck between the two individuals that seemed to be instructing their party members on the way that these things are going to work out. It's not a good system for democracy; flexible lists allow people to vote for either a party or a person. They are much, much better.

We also have concerns about the recommendation in this report for gender quotas, and I have concerns for two reasons: (1) it could scupper your Bill completely, because it could well be—. In fact, we were told—the legal advice to us was that it would be outside the competence of the Senedd to be able to legislate for gender quotas. That's one reason why that shouldn't go forward in any package of reforms, because equal opportunities are an entirely reserved matter to the UK Parliament. The second reason that we do not support or advocate gender quotas is because they promote one aspect of diversity over another. It doesn't address issues of diversity—[Interruption.] It doesn't address issues—. I'm happy to take an intervention. Would you like to make an intervention? [Interruption.] Would you like to make an intervention? Yes.

So, if there were no compulsory gender quotas in our Bill, would the Conservative Party consider following the example of the Labour Party in Wales, which is to have had gender balance ever since the Senedd was first founded?

The Conservative Party is a meritocracy. We believe—[Interruption.] We believe—[Interruption.]

I would like to hear the conclusion of the Member's contribution, and he is aware of the timescale as well.

We believe—[Interruption.] I've taken a number of interventions.

I am aware of the interventions, Darren.

We believe that people should be selected as candidates not because of their gender, or their race, or their religion, or their disability, but because of their qualities and merits as candidates. That is our firm belief. And I ask the question as well: why do we actually need to take any action on that front when you look at the fact that the Senedd actually had 50:50—[Interruption.]—actually had 50:50 representation?

I would like Members to be a little bit more quiet, please. I like to listen to the contributions. We have a very long debate and lots of Members wishing to speak. The longer you take in making such noise, then fewer Members will be able to speak. 

We must remember that the existing system of elections has delivered 50:50 representation on a gender basis in this Senedd in the past. And on that basis, there's no actual need to take this particular action. So, why on earth would this Welsh Government want to embark upon a journey that is going to end in the Supreme Court on the current basis of the devolution settlement? Because that's where it's going to end up, and it could scupper completely any delivery of Senedd reform in the future.

So, in summary, I just want to say this: there is no public mandate for these changes. The financial costs are likely to be very significant. The proposals will curtail public choice at elections and sever the direct accountability between named individuals and their constituents. It will amount to a power grab by political parties, because, at the end of the day, the candidates will be more accountable to them because of their position on the list than the public that we are here, supposedly, to serve. And these proposals will pit, I regret, one aspect of diversity against another. And for these reasons, I urge Members to vote against the proposal and to support the amendments tabled in my name.

This Senedd is younger than all of its elected Members. And yet, in that short space of time, this institution has developed significantly. We forget that the first Assembly had fewer fiscal responsibilities than community councils. Thank goodness, we have moved away from the early Senedd models that saw Ministers sitting on committees. And yet, despite this, the Senedd is still smaller than eight of our local authorities. Cardiff Council, for example, has 79 members—19 more members than our national Parliament.

Or let me put it in a different way. There are over twice as many Tory MPs without confidence in the Prime Minister than there are of Senedd Members sitting here.

Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd never refers to the devolution settlement in Wales because its been anything but settled. We've had at least four different versions. There are only two constants in the history of Welsh devolution. One is sitting next to me: the continued presence of four of my esteemed colleagues. Llywydd, if you'd served in each iteration of the Icelandic Parliament, you'd be over 1,000 years old by now. The other constant, of course, is the Senedd size. Despite the development from a glorified local government into today's modern Parliament, we have seen the Senedd remain exactly the same size. I could bring all the reports that Huw Irranca-Davies mentioned to this Siambr that have demonstrated the need for more Members, for proper scrutiny, but I wouldn't be able to carry them all in, they'd be too heavy for me. But they all agree that a larger Senedd is necessary to make life more difficult for people on those benches—to scrutinise the Welsh Government more effectively and more efficiently.

Now, some people have criticised my party that these proposals do not go far enough, and they are right—they don't go far enough. We would prefer a single transferrable vote system. However, as Huw Irranca-Davies said—[Interruption.] No, I won't take an intervention; you'll have plenty of time to talk. As Huw Irranca-Davies said, this is work in progress, as the story of Welsh devolution has been from the beginning. 

The ability of the closed list system to ensure gender equality is an excellent step forward. Our Senedd was the first legislature in the world to have gender parity and I look forward to that happening again in the next Senedd. And I hear the Conservatives talking against gender quotas—looking at those benches, I wonder why they are against gender quotas. And whilst the reforms may not go as far as we would like, sometimes, one needs to compromise to move things forward. If Members—well, some of us who can remember; maybe Luke Fletcher can't remember—cast their minds back to 1997, Plaid Cymru wanted to go much further than the proposals put forward by the New Labour Government, but we were willing to compromise, because we had to acknowledge that the people of Wales had voted for four Plaid MPs rather than the 40—Alun Davies was not successful for us in Cynon Valley in that election. [Laughter.]

It's worth reminding my friends on the benches opposite of some historical facts. The Conservatives were wiped off the electoral map in Wales in 1997—the first time since the Liberal Party landslide in 1906. They were good days, weren't they, Jane Dodds? The Tories did not stage a comeback at Westminster until eight years later in 2005, and a great help for that comeback were the Tory Members who were elected in the first two Assembly elections in 1999 and 2003. At that time, the Conservatives welcomed their Welshness and its unique nature and they supported devolution through words and also through deeds.

Andrew R.T. Davies recently said in the Conservative Party conference that they need to put on the red jersey in Wales. Well, Andrew, backing a stronger Senedd would be a good start for that.

Before long we will lose 20 per cent of our representatives in Westminster. Back in 2016, one of my predecessors, the Conservative David Melding, launched a pamphlet on the opportunity to create more Assembly Members by cutting the number of Welsh MPs in Westminster.

The report argued that, because of a cut in the number of Westminster Members, we could increase our numbers here without a negative effect on the public purse. Professor Russell Deacon went forward and he said, as one of the authors of the report, that there's a potential Brexit bonus in this—that truly elusive creature that you lot haven't been able to find yet—a Brexit bonus that the loss of Members of the European Parliament could provide a fiscal bridge to ensuring more Senedd Members. It's therefore disappointing that the Conservatives, who must hear 'Brexit bonus' and 'levelling up' in their sleep by now, aren't behind a potential Brexit bonus here that would actually make a difference. Perhaps if we put the financial benefits of scrutiny into shillings and farthings, you might actually understand.

If we want to discuss in more detail the cost of politicians, maybe the Conservatives can have a word with their friend the Prime Minister—well, the Prime Minister for the time being—Boris Johnson. As we heard, more than 80 appointments to the House of Lords, and some of those against the advice of the appointments commission—that is what we have now in Westminster.

We all know that the scrutiny role of the legislature is vital to a healthy democracy. I'm very fond of the wise words of Sir Paul Silk: 

'Good scrutiny means good legislation, and good legislation pays for itself.'

We need a Senedd with the appropriate resources to scrutinise—to scrutinise over £17 billion of expenditure every year, to scrutinise significant legislation, and to conduct inquiries into the issues that matter to the people of Wales.

This is a case of levelling up the Senedd so that it fits the modern, confident, self-governing Wales of today. The number 96 will be futureproof, as Huw Irranca-Davies alluded to. Whilst Andrew R.T. Davies performedly announces that Welsh Conservatives will always—will always—oppose devolution of justice, we know that his bosses in London will be happy to overrule him at any point. Indeed, Boris Johnson, when he was the London mayor, wanted greater powers over criminal justice devolved to him.

It was disappointing to hear the comments about a referendum from the Conservative benches. Haven't they heard of another democratic tool, a well-used democratic tool over the years—elections, the ballot box? And in the last Senedd election, the Welsh public overwhelmingly supported parties that wanted a larger, stronger Senedd. Andrew claims that his party's standing up for democracy. Well, I think it's very odd that standing up for democracy involves limiting the number of elected Members, limiting the amount of scrutiny in this place and preventing a more representative Parliament. That's a new one for me.

What is being proposed today is not perfect, but the nature of devolution in Wales since 1997 has not been perfect. In 1997, some in the Liberal Democrats, and some in my own party, argued that what was being proposed by Labour wasn't good enough and that we shouldn't support that, while others said, 'Well, we will take hold of this, this imperfect proposal, in order to try and refine it and build on it.'

With hindsight, the latter group were correct—thankfully, Dafydd Wigley and Richard Livsey put their full force behind the most meagre of proposals, but one that, within a few years, had built this Parliament. 

If our nation had voted against devolution for a second time, we would have spent the last two decades as a voiceless periphery, unable to address the pandemic in a community-centred way, unable to act to protect our most vulnerable citizens, unable to withstand the full force of the disjointed, expensive and disastrous privatisation of the public services that our friends in England have suffered. The lesson, therefore, for all of us, is that, if we want to move our country forward, even if it's not the strides we want to take, we need to grasp it. Because do we want an undersized Parliament? And if 'no' is the answer, if we want to see a more progressive, a more proportional, a more diverse Parliament for Wales, then today we have a chance to take a great step forward. I, for one, despite the imperfections of Huw Irranca's report, in the new proposals, am excited and I'm honoured to vote for the new Senedd of tomorrow, not dwell in the old, inadequate one of today. Diolch yn fawr.

In 1997, my mother was one of the north Wales representatives on the National Assembly advisory group. She talked then—and I concede that I wasn't really paying much attention—about the importance of a real democracy for Wales. So, 25 years later, I stand here to say that now is the time for us to refresh that vision of a real democracy for Wales; a democracy that is connected to the people, that can do the job we need it to do and that is reflective of the population. We can't afford to stand still. So, I would like to thank the First Minister for his vision and drive in pushing this through, and I'm grateful to have had the opportunity to take part in this cross-party process. Thank you, also, to Huw Irranca-Davies for his leadership of the committee, to my Senedd colleagues, to Commission staff and external organisations, some of whom I know are in the gallery today, for their advice and support.

You all know the areas on which I agreed and disagreed. Firstly, the areas on which I agreed. I am pleased to see the need to increase the size of the Senedd. The Welsh Liberal Democrats have long made calls for a larger Senedd, elected through a fairer voting system that ensures greater diversity, accountability and transparency. The fact is that, if we want to ensure that the Senedd does its job of scrutinising legislation and public expenditure, the Senedd and Members need the capacity to do that justice, especially given the significant shift in the lay of the land in recent years. 

Secondly, I am pleased that the committee has been able to navigate the issue of gender representation. We need to bake into the legislation measures that act as a stop-gap to ensure that we don't fall further behind. This also gives us the opportunity to put forward on other equality issues.

Now to the areas of disagreement. As the committee report makes clear, I differed on two areas from the majority of Members, including the preferred boundaries and the voting system. And this is where I also want to learn more from the Counsel General, who I believe will be responding, about the timing of the announcement from Plaid Cymru and Labour. The morning the committee was due to meet, I was very sad and disappointed that a press release was made with a totally new proposal on preferred boundaries that had never been discussed before, and, it seemed, the proposed and agreed voting system. This really undermined the cross-party work that I happen to hold very dear and which, to that date, I felt very privileged to be part of. And I recognise the sentiments of the Conservative amendment. I pay tribute to Darren Millar for staying on the committee until 10 May. Thank you, Darren. Diolch yn fawr iawn. The surprise announcement by Plaid Cymru and Labour did the committee a disservice. It prejudged the debate here today and the legislative process that will follow. It looks like a stitch-up and it feels like a stitch-up. To make an announcement before the committee published its report, and to favour proposals so different from what the evidence tells us, was a very disappointing approach.

But let me focus on the two areas I disagree on: firstly, boundaries. I welcome the fact that a boundary review will be locked in. However, in my view, opting to use and pair UK parliamentary boundaries makes very little sense from the perspective of voters. And I have to say, I am surprised that Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru want to see Westminster-imposed boundaries at work in shaping our democracy in Wales. The Welsh Liberal Democrats' view is that constituencies should be based around local authorities, which makes sense to people in Wales, and they can relate to those. 

Jane, would you take an intervention?

Of course I will.

You say they're Westminster-imposed boundaries, but, of course, they are the consequence of the work of the Boundary Commission for Wales. They're not imposed by anybody; they're designed to represent people, and it makes more sense to use boundaries that will become, or would become, understood, than to impose another set for no apparent reason.

Thank you for that intervention, and my response to you is that, actually, people in Wales know their local authority very, very well, and that's what the committee had been considering to date. That's what the discussions were focused on. There was no mention at all of the proposal to bring forward Westminster constituency boundaries.

Will you take an intervention?

[Inaudible.]

Oh, sorry. I thought it was 10 minutes that—

No, the Member doesn't have 10 minutes, but she is being allowed to extend a little bit longer than normal. But no more interventions, I'm sorry.

The other issue where I differed with the majority of the committee was on the electoral system. The Welsh Liberal Democrats have long argued for elections to be held using the single transferable vote method, giving meaningful power and choice to voters, ending party control through closed list elections, and ensuring that Members are more accountable to their constituents than to their parties. The committee considered several electoral systems, including D'Hondt and Sainte-Laguë. The expert panel's findings, which the committee considered in detail, found, and I quote,

'that the D’Hondt electoral formula generally produces outcomes which are less proportional than those using the Sainte-Laguë formula, and sometimes less proportional than the current electoral system.'

Unquote. The proposal before us hands power to parties rather than voters, and what concerns me is the very different track we're going down to that proposed by the expert panel and the Senedd committee on reform. Both recommended, based on the available evidence, how to deliver very clear principles of reform—a very different model to that proposed by Labour and Plaid Cymru. So, I do really have to question the rationale behind going in a very different direction to the evidence, and I would ask, Counsel General, that you give clear reasons why the previous expert panel recommendations were rejected.

I'm going to finish very soon. I would urge Labour and Plaid Cymru to look again at the electoral method and make at least provisions for flexible lists to give voters greater choice. I don't just worry for the sake of the technicality of the proposals: this is our opportunity to kick-start a new deliberative, proportional, diverse politics, driven by accountability and transparency.

To conclude, Dirprwy Lywydd, I do support the principle behind reform. The Welsh Liberal Democrats and I are committed to delivering a Senedd that can support a vibrant democracy, a confident self-governing Wales and a thriving Wales today and in the future. I do have reservations about the detail, and I hope that the Senedd can work together—let's revert to that real cross-party working together that I hold so dear—and collectively build on and adapt these early proposals to ensure that this package of reform truly delivers real democracy for Wales, as my mum would have wanted. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

For clarity, for Members' purposes, I gave flexibility to the Member for Mid and West Wales, because she is the leader of one of the parties represented in this Senedd. Other Members are not in the same position, therefore, I expect them to keep to their five minutes, please. Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much. I think no change is not an option, not least, as already outlined by Rhys ab Owen, because we simply don't have enough Members to make proper, good scrutiny decisions. I used to be a member of the Public Accounts Committee, so I was never short of examples from the Auditor General for Wales of things that had gone wrong that might have benefited from better scrutiny at an earlier stage. I think it's absolutely clear that bad decisions cost money and nowhere is that clearer than in the finangles around the M4 relief road. Members of the Senedd had ample opportunities to scrutinise the decision by the then First Minister in 2014 to use new borrowing powers not to build more homes, hospitals or schools, but to have another stab at tackling congestion via the M4 relief road—

Will you take an intervention?

I will in a minute, but not quite now. The Tory benches are never slow to come forward to remind us of the millions that have been lavished on trying to reinstate this most extensive strip of proposed road, led by your good self—

Sorry, you made reference to the former First Minister wanting to max out the borrowing, effectively, on the M4 relief road. Of course, the finance Minister was the current First Minister at the time; he was the one that signed the letters requesting that that money be made available for a road.

Okay. I'm sure the finance Minister can speak for himself. But I wasn't in the Senedd in 2014—

You were, I remember it.

Well, I was in the Senedd in—. I wasn't in the Senedd in the earlier, third Senedd, but I'm not aware of any proper scrutiny of decisions by either Andrew Davies or Ieuan Wyn Jones approving and then scrapping plans, and I can't recall any proper scrutiny of a decision to spend £1 billion and then £1.5 billion and then what would certainly have risen to £2 billion by the fourth Senedd. I can see a brief reference to it in a Finance Committee report in relation to the budget, but nothing really substantial on whether this was a suitable way of spending £2 billion. With the benefit of hindsight, how lucky are we that we made a decision in 2019 not to go ahead with this road? Because in the context of the climate emergency, we'd all look completely stupid to have spent money on such a futile project, when we actually have to reduce our emissions from vehicles, not increase them.

So, the size of the Senedd is too small and something that Welsh Labour—as Darren Millar pays such attention to it—has already voted on, both in 2019 and earlier this year, about increasing the size of the Senedd. I do have some concerns about the method of voting, because I think closed lists could be used by party machines to get rid of members of the awkward squad, and members of the awkward squad are the best scrutineers, because they are prepared to think outside the box and question the rationale of long-held holy grails that may have outlived their usefulness.

So, I find STV quite an attractive option, because it does enable voters to cast their vote for a worthy candidate who may have no hope of being elected, but without feeling that this would be a wasted vote, because they can then have a second choice about the person they think they would have as their second-best choice. So, I do want to question the Chair of the committee. When discussing the limitations of STV, there's a phrase that found its way into page 29 of the report, saying that the limitations were:

'It can be argued that this could lead to an imbalance in Members' focus on constituency matters to the detriment of other elements of their roles.'

Well, I regard focusing on the needs of my constituents as essential to doing my job in all aspects of it, and I have to admit that it is one of the challenges of necessarily having to have larger constituencies to make any PR system work, because you've got to—. Obviously, if you're going to apportion based on the proportion of the vote, you're going to have to have constituencies of more than one Member. But I think there are ways around it and ways in which people can agree amongst themselves, once they're elected, that X is going to focus on the north of the area and Y is going to focus on the south of the area. So, I think there are ways around that problem. But I recognise that STV is not the choice of many people, and I know there are other opinions for and against.

Jenny, please conclude now.

I think this idea of having a referendum on the method of election is completely ridiculous, because I recall in 2011 people asking me, 'How should I vote on this referendum?', because they absolutely did not understand what it was about.

Please conclude now, because I have a lot of speakers and the time has gone.

Okay. Okay, thank you.

Natasha Asghar.

I'll come back another day.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. A stronger voice for the people of Wales. I have no doubt in my mind that anyone here is going to disagree with this sentiment, and I commend the hard work of everyone who's taken part on the committee. And I also have no doubt that your heart was in the right place. However, I do believe that the proposal within the special purpose committee report was severely flawed and could impede the very aims that it sets out to achieve.

Let me be crystal clear amongst you all today, as a woman who made history here in Wales last year, I genuinely want to see a Senedd as diverse and as inclusive as possible, and I don't think anyone can comprehend how much, and without sounding like Martin Luther King, I dream of seeing a Senedd that has more women, more people of colour, more members of the LGBTPQ community, and more disabled people sitting right here amongst us every single day. And I sincerely appreciate the Senedd's desire for inclusion and variance. However, the introduction of a gender quota, in my opinion, could result in an increasing number of women at the expense of other minority groups, who I'm sure would make an invaluable contribution to the make-up of the next Welsh Parliament. As a person of colour, I'd like to share something very important with you all today: the pursuit of gender balance should never be at the expense of genuine diversity and equality.

I am proud of the fact that I am the first woman of colour to be elected here to the Welsh Parliament, but I did not get here and stand amongst you all today due to the colour of my skin. I am humbled every day by the fact that I got here on my own merit and through equal competition with some very hard-working and capable Conservative candidates. No gender balance, no all-women shortlist, no positive discrimination. The people of Wales need to be convinced that Members of this Senedd are not here merely because they 'tick all the boxes' or fulfil some artificial quota.

There is no guarantee that such a gender quota or positive discrimination is even legal. In March this year, the Huffington Post reported that the Labour Party is dropping all-women shortlists to choose candidates for the next general election after receiving legal advice that continuing to use them for Westminster seats would be unlawful. In 2018, a group of Labour Party members began legal action over proposed changes to the party's policy on formal inclusion of self-identifying trans women on all-women shortlists. The power of the Welsh Parliament to legislate in certain areas has already been tested in the Supreme Court with three Bills in the past. Any legal challenge to this proposal could cause significant delay and mean it would not be in place for the Welsh parliamentary elections in 2026.

The proposed changes claim to strengthen the Welsh Parliament and to better represent the people of Wales. But how can this be true when it's actually being forced? The report recommends that there should be 16 Senedd constituencies, each electing six Senedd Members by a closed proportional list system. I sincerely fail to see how this delivers a strong voice and better representation. Having read many papers and having listened to countless arguments on this, I honestly find this truly mind-boggling. This new voting system severs the direct accountability of elected representatives to their voters and increases the power of political parties to impose candidates on local people.

I stand here today and dispute the claim that there is a mandate for these proposals. I'm sure I'm not the only Senedd Member whose inbox has been inundated with e-mails from constituents expressing their concern and opposition to the increase in Members here in the Welsh Parliament going forward, when the public would much rather have money spent on healthcare, roads, infrastructure and education. So, today I say to the Welsh Government: if you are so certain that these proposals will better serve the people of Wales, give them a stronger voice. If you are certain that you won't promote one aspect of diversity over others, if you truly stand in front of me and believe that the people of Wales are content see up to £100 million spent over the next five years on more politicians, then put the question to the people by way of a referendum. This is the people's Senedd, so let the people of Wales decide.

I am very pleased to contribute to this crucial debate as a member of the special purpose committee that has been working on the report that is the subject of today's debate. The committee's task was to look at the conclusions of previous reports on parliamentary reform and then to make recommendations for policy directions for legislation by the Government to reform the Senedd. The backdrop to this was the co-operation agreement between my party and the Welsh Government, which agreed to create a Senedd that is more aligned with our modern democracy.

On Sunday evening, I had the incredible privilege of watching the Welsh men's national football team reach the World Cup finals. The players and crowd were as one—confident, excited, and eagerly awaiting what the future holds. Today is also an important day in our nation's history. This is an opportunity for the Senedd to give its seal of approval to the committee's recommendations and take the first step on the journey to creating a larger Senedd and an equal Senedd. That would be an exciting step forward in terms of the growth of our democracy, in terms of creating a nation that has confidence in its own future, a nation that is becoming more and more eager to take control for the benefit of all who live here.

The Senedd has made great strides over the last 20 years with its powers having greatly increased in terms of legislating and tax setting. The next sensible step is to increase the size of the Senedd and move us closer to the size of other similar Parliaments around the world. There is no doubt in my mind that the COVID period has convinced the people of Wales of the value of having a strong Parliament that can plough its own furrow in respect of important policies, and support was garnered for the cautious approach of the Government elected by the people of Wales to the health crisis, and there was a realisation that our Senedd is important. More and more of our constituents were turning to us as Members of the Senedd for help and information during the pandemic, as more and more of them realised—some for the first time—that the Senedd has discrete powers and that we use them in a different and better way than the Parliament at Westminster. That creates a new backdrop for the reform that is afoot, and people will welcome the move to a larger Senedd, a strong Senedd, with enough Members to scrutinise and challenge and hold our country's Government to account on the issues that matter in the lives of our citizens.

I mentioned that today is an exciting day for our nation. I am extremely excited about the recommendation to create mandatory gender quotas as an integral part of our electoral system. Establishing gender equality has been one of my political priorities over the years, and that's one of the reasons why I decided to try to become a Member of the Senedd six years ago, because I believed that we needed many more women in influential roles in public life. I also believe that we cannot reach gender equality at the speed required without direct intervention and without specific mechanisms to achieve equality.

For some years now, I have been chairing the Senedd's cross-party group on women. Over the past few months, the group has been making the case for gender quotas. We've held a series of meetings with experts from around the world, and the evidence clearly shows that creating quotas is an effective way of increasing the representation of women rapidly. I want to pay tribute to all of the organisations that have attended our meetings and have campaigned passionately for quotas. There is now strong support from three of the parties in the Senedd for the concept of gender quotas, and I'm very, very pleased and proud of that. [Interruption.] There is no time now. 

In passing this motion today, the committee passes the baton of this journey to the Government. The committee's work is done. We are very grateful to the team who worked so diligently with us. We now need intensive and rapid work to get this all done in time for the next Senedd election. There will be an opportunity to discuss and refine as the legislation enters its journey. Today, we take pride in being at the outset of a historic journey during the lifetime of this Senedd, to create a strong and equal Senedd. We must eagerly grasp this special opportunity. We must not miss the opportunity and we must make this important change for the benefit of the people of Wales.

It's been a bumpy ride getting to this point, and I think the length of time given to this debate and the number of people speaking in it perhaps raises what is really, as Siân Gwenllian said, a sensible approach above the level of salience with which people in the general public hold it. I think people generally don't feel that strongly about the arrangements of a Parliament. The House of Commons changes its composition regularly, the House of Lords has 771 Members, which is probably about 571 too many, and this debate today is probably longer than required. Perhaps I should just sit down now, but I do want to make my point. [Laughter.] I thought that would go down well in the Chamber.

I do want to make my point, though. I thought the strongest speech I've heard so far has been from Jane Dodds, and she provided a very strong perspective as a member of the committee. It was very odd that the Government and Plaid Cymru presented their view at the point at which they did. I think it would have been better, actually, for the Government and Plaid Cymru to have set out their view a lot earlier, at the very beginning. I think part of the problem is it took Plaid Cymru far too long to come to the co-operation agreement. Seven months after the election, the co-operation agreement was published. That was far, far too long. I think if they were serious about Senedd reform primarily, they would have had that co-operation agreement under way within at least a month of the election. So, I think they have some responsibility for undermining the committee today. I do have some sympathy—[Interruption.] They don't want to hear it, but it's the truth. I have some sympathy for Darren Millar's position, but I wouldn't vote for the amendment because he resigned from the committee. If he'd stayed on the committee, he could have stayed there to make the point, as Jane Dodds did. 

With regard to referendums, I've long argued in favour of the reform of this Chamber, I've long argued in favour of more Members, I did before the Senedd election, and I've also argued against referendums. I think referendums represent a failure of democracy. The alternative vote referendum in 2011 had a 42 per cent turnout. People weren't engaged with that. The reason they voted against, and the reason I voted against AV, was nothing to do with AV, it was because of Nick Clegg. Sorry, Jane, but it was against Nick Clegg at the time, the same as my colleague from Blaenau Gwent. [Interruption.] I will take an intervention. It seems I've only used a minute so far. 

Of course, I think we should all remind ourselves it was a referendum that established this place. You can't govern without referendums when you have significant constitutional change. We had referendums on further powers. I campaigned for further powers for this Senedd back in 2011. When you have change, you have to have referendums to give the public their say. 

The referendum for this place was very narrowly decided on. There was no guarantee there was going to be a referendum for this place. It came about because Tony Blair and Ron Davies had a conversation. I don't think we needed a referendum. The Labour Government had just been elected with a massive majority, the Liberal Democrats were supporting the Senedd, Plaid Cymru were supporting the Senedd, what was the point in a referendum in 1997? I didn't support it then and I don't support referendums now. They represent the failure of democracy. Why didn't we have a referendum for police and crime commissioner posts? Why didn't we have a referendum for the transferrable vote system used for them? We didn't because we didn't need one, and we don't need a referendum for this.

Any arguments that you have against reforming a legislature, based on the arguments that have been put forward by Darren Millar today, and particularly with regard to calling for a referendum, are fatally undermined by support for the House of Lords. The House of Lords is an institution—[Interruption.] I'm not going to give you another intervention. The House of Lords is an institution that is continually growing, and it is time for that to be reformed. If you got rid of 571—[Interruption.] No, I'm not giving you another intervention. If you got rid of 571 peers, and directly elected them, you'd have plenty of room for 36 more Members. You've already got rid of Members of Parliament from Wales. That gives you plenty of room for more Senedd Members. You've got rid of Members of the European Parliament from Wales. That gives you plenty of room for more Senedd Members. So, I don't believe that that is a fair position to take.

Coming to Jane Dodds's two points, on the single transferrable vote, I agree with her. I think she's right, the single transferrable vote would be better, but if you want to do that, I don't think that would be achievable by 2026, to be frank. I think what we've got here is a compromise. I know people on these benches who I've spoken to privately are compromising on their beliefs. I suspect a lot over there are compromising. The Conservatives are being unwilling to compromise here, which is unfortunate. If we are going to get this through by 2026, then we must vote in favour of this report today. I would prefer to see a single transferrable vote. The boundary issue, though, I'm not so bothered about, because that has already, as Alun Davies said in his intervention, gone through a boundary commission process.

My final point is that if scrutiny is to be improved, what we need to have is the politicians in this Chamber scrutinising properly this Government. That means coming into this Chamber not with a speech that was written by an adviser 24 hours before, but actually coming in here and speaking to the debate. But it also requires us to have a civic society, a public sphere, that challenges Government too, and we need support for that. [Interruption.] Dirprwy Lywydd, can I take that intervention? 

You're out of time. 

I would have taken it, but I'm not allowed to.

This is just a step towards a mature and sensible democracy that scrutinises Government well. It is not controversial and it should go forward. 

For the purposes of Members, the clock unfortunately was reset after he had started, and therefore he had additional time. James Evans. [Interruption.]

You might not like to hear what I've got to say, but I'm sure some of the people of Wales will.

Well, well, well. It's been almost a year to the day since I stood in this Chamber and I delivered a speech against, then, Labour, Plaid and the Lib Dems' calls for more powers to this Senedd. Now, we're back here again discussing having more politicians. No wonder people out there think politicians have lost touch with the public. So, don't even try to pretend that you are genuinely going back to your constituencies and are hearing a groundswell of support for this ridiculous proposal, that people are singing and dancing down the streets saying that the way to sort Wales's problems out is by getting more politicians. [Interruption.] No, not yet.

Over the last week, I've been around every corner of Brecon and Radnorshire, and I was overwhelmed with comments from my constituents who are outraged by these proposals and the huge cost associated with expanding this Senedd, when people in my constituency can't even access a dentist for 12 months. At a time of a cost-of-living crisis, when Ministers in here regularly berate everybody on this side of the Chamber for saying it's a choice between heating and eating, now you want to go and spend millions of taxpayer money that could be spent helping people on electing 36 more politicians, plus the extra money for support staff, plus the extra money for Commission staff, Members' expenses, structural changes to this Chamber and Tŷ Hywel, all because you and left-wing academics and think tanks think we don't have enough resources. Your excuses for political expansion just don't cut the mustard. 

You say that the people of Wales need more representation to get things done. Let's just see how much representation we're going to have in Wales: thirty-two paid Members of Parliament, 96 paid Members of the Senedd, 1,242 paid county councillors, one thing that the Labour Party has never been able to deal with. I'm sure that people on the streets outside here would rather see the Government of the day cracking on with the day job, fixing the crumbling NHS in Wales, helping build the economy and providing excellent education for our children; that's what the public pay for and that's what the public deserve.

Let's be very clear: I'm a very, very proud Welshman. I love my country and I love democracy; it is one thing that I do think unites us in this Chamber from time to time. I believe that the public should have a say on reforms in a referendum on the number of politicians in this place. Every major constitutional change to the Senedd and Wales has been done via a public vote, and the people have a right to have their say on these changes.

If you truly believe that you have the confidence of the Welsh public for these changes, let's have a referendum. This underhanded back-room deal struck between the First Minister and Adam Price goes against everything this socialist coalition claim they stand for. They say it's progressive; it's not—it locks out a field of wider political choice, like Jane Dodds has said. You say it's equal; it's not equal—it doesn't recognise everybody from every diversity. And you say it's fair; it's not fair—it makes Senedd Members here servants of political parties and unions and not the people, and that is fundamentally wrong.

Tell Suzy Davies. 

No, thank you. 

You say the public voted for this in your manifestos, but there is nothing in your manifestos to say that we're going to have 96 more Members. Plaid Cymru came third in the last election—not first, not second, but third—so I don't think anybody on that side of this Chamber has got a mandate for change. We, on these benches, trust the public to make big decisions. We believe in empowering the people of Wales, and we believe that the public want and deserve a say on these matters. So, I say to Labour, Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, 'Pull the cotton wool out of your ears, stop hiding behind the sofa and let's have a referendum'.

Let me start by thanking the Chair of the committee, members past and present, and the Commission staff who worked to produce the report and recommendations for today. I thank also the expert panel chaired by Laura McAllister, commissioned five years ago by the Senedd Commission to bring forward recommendations on Senedd reform. One of those recommendations has already been enacted in enabling 16 and 17-year-olds to vote in 2021, and the remainder of the recommendations in general will take a major step forward today if this motion is approved. If there was ever a report that did not lie idly on a shelf collecting dust, then it may well be Laura McAllister's expert panel report.

That's part of the short history of why we're here having this debate today, but, of course, there's a longer history too. Sometimes, we make the mistake that devolution—our Senedd—belongs exclusively to us, the generation that spans from the class of '99, from the Icelandic 1,000-year old me and Jane Hutt, to the class of '21, but it belongs to so many of our political predecessors and to our successors too, from the class of 2026 to the class of 3026 and beyond.

Neither does devolution belong to one political tradition in Wales, but to many political traditions; to those predecessors, from S.O. Davies, Jim Griffiths and Elystan Morgan, to Megan Lloyd George, to Gwynfor Evans and to my uncle Jack—J.B. Evans—the lifelong Carmarthenshire Conservative, both parliamentary candidate and agent, and pro devolution. He was solely responsible for giving the 12-year-old me a 'Yes for Wales' sticker to wear on my school uniform in March 1979. 

Political debate on devolution spanned the entirety of the twentieth century, but devolution's actual starting point was not democratic devolution in 1999; its first building blocks were administrative devolution. I was reminded of the importance of this when listening to Lord John Morris a few weeks ago in the Senedd speaking about the first Secretary of State for Wales in 1964, Jim Griffiths—such an important appointment by the new Labour UK Government at the time, but preceded by the appointment in 1951 by the Conservative Government of the first Home Office Minister for Welsh Affairs, itself preceded by the creation of the Welsh board of education in 1907 by the Liberal Government. The Secretary of State's executive powers in 1964 were initially limited to responsibility for housing, local government and roads. Over the course of the next 10 years, responsibilities for health and education, agriculture and the environment were added—areas of responsibility that ultimately became the democratic responsibilities of that first elected Assembly in 1999. 

In this Chamber, we've heard today, we are familiar with what has happened since 1999: the significant increases and transfers of powers and responsibilities by successive UK Governments from Westminster to Wales. We would not be here today discussing Senedd reform were it not for the transfer of responsibility for Senedd elections by the UK Conservative Government via the Wales Act 2017 from Westminster to this Senedd. Why, then, my trip down devolution's memory lane? Well, it's to remind us all that we've reached this point today because of a wide array of actions and decisions by people of varying political persuasions over a century and more. And we are faced now, in this third decade of the twenty-first century, with the question of whether we finally want to equip our Parliament with the tools to do the job properly, with our current set of powers, and with the tools to take on more powers, if and when they are devolved or demanded.

Every independent commissioned analysis of our Parliament has concluded that we are under-resourced in the number of elected Members to do the job of holding Government to account and to scrutinise and pass legislation and budgets. Parliament members everywhere in the world should have the time to develop real expertise in subject areas, to be able to forensically scrutinise ministerial decisions, to be able to research and learn of great policy proposals to introduce here in Wales. But most of you are run ragged with the overload of the day-to-day here. As Llywydd, I watch all of you—all 58 of you—leaders of parties, Ministers in Government, backbenchers sitting on two or three committees, chairing committees, spokespeople delivering numerous speeches and questions in Plenary every week, chairing and attending cross-party groups, on top of all your constituency work, and I am reminded of the fact, in Laura McAllister's expert panel report, where it said that 115 MPs in Westminster do not sit on any committee or hold any additional role in Government or opposition. Nobody has that luxury here, and neither would they in a 96-Member Senedd.

We can carry on and do the best we can as 60 Members, or we can properly empower the next generation of Welsh politicians—and some of you are those politicians—to finally have the Parliament that the people of Wales deserve.

Firstly, I would like to put on record my thanks to Huw Irranca-Davies, as Chair of this committee, and all other committee colleagues. Our discussions in the committee were positive and constructive, and I'm grateful to the range of organisations and experts that came and gave evidence to us, and for the work of the expert panel and the Committee on Senedd Electoral Reform in the previous Senedd. 

Our work on this committee was not the start of the journey, as Huw has already said, and it was really helpful to be able to build on the evidence and efforts that others had already done. The recommendations in our report are far-reaching and significant. It is right that they should proceed on the basis of cross-party agreement. There is no doubt that there has had to be compromises, but this is the kind of mature politics that the people of Wales have come to expect.

On the size of the Senedd, this has been the subject of debate and discussion for 20 years. We all know that this institution has changed beyond recognition since the Assembly was founded in 1999. Therefore, it's right that we're finally taking action to make sure that the Senedd is properly equipped to do the job.

There will always be a range of views on voting systems, but the proposal is for a system that is both fair and proportional. It will ensure that every MS is elected with the same mandate, and it enables parties to take action on gender equality by zipping the candidate lists. This is an action that Welsh Labour takes at present and it has been an important way of ensuring gender parity amongst our MSs. 

Action to ensure the diversity of this Senedd was an important part of the committee's discussions. It is essential that the Senedd is truly representative of Wales, and the committee has made a number of recommendations to advance this important objective, and I'm really excited to see this develop. There are a number of detailed implications that will need to be considered by both the Welsh Government and the Senedd. Indeed, there is much work to still do. But this is a defining moment in our history, and if we decide, we'll ensure that whatever comes our way in the future, our Senedd is equipped in the best possible way to work for and to serve the people of Wales.

One in five on a waiting list in Wales; more than 10,000 people waiting 12 hours in A&E; our education system failing children, with Programme for International Student Assessment rankings at the bottom of the UK league table; a tourism tax on the horizon, penalising businesses after they've suffered tremendous losses over the last four years; the latest Office for National Statistics's statistics showing Wales is the only UK nation that's seen its economy shrink; and failing to support the next generation of home owners by building new homes. But yet, here we are this afternoon, talking about ourselves. Labour and Plaid Cymru would rather spend £100 million to increase the size of this place than on the priorities of the people of Wales. Instead of focusing on recruiting more doctors, nurses, teachers and dentists, this Welsh Government are hellbent on avoiding the scrutiny of a referendum and instead are hiding behind their nationalist friends' support. They'd prefer to see more of their friends elected to this place under the guise that it would better scrutinise the Welsh Government, but when it comes to scrutiny, and a Wales-specific COVID inquiry, the Welsh Government wasn't interested in scrutiny at all. But we all know today the real reason why we're talking about these proposals: it's more jobs for the boys for the Labour Party, and it's about ensuring a Labour Government here in Cardiff Bay for the foreseeable future.

We heard from Darren Millar earlier about Labour's manifesto, and we heard that there was no direct mention of the fact that there would be an increase in the size of this Senedd. I wonder why that could have been. It's because the Labour Party knew that opting for more politicians while people have been rallying around our NHS during the COVID pandemic would surely get people to sit up and listen.

Yes, there is an argument for Senedd reform—as put so vaguely in your manifestos that got you the most votes—but I'm afraid what was not in the manifesto were the costings, the number of politicians, the voting system that would follow in the announcement between the First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru. That's why this significant constitutional change should be put to a public vote. But we all know—all of us know—Labour and Plaid Cymru have a terrible record when it comes to trusting the people of Wales by asking them what they think. The amount of time they both spent in this place trying to block Brexit after the people of Wales voted for it is evidence enough of that. And any constitutional change of this significance, and where a change to the voting system's being proposed, has previously been put to a public vote. Look at that AV referendum in 2011; that precedent is already clear. We need to show the people of Wales that we trust them to make these decisions and not some cosy Cardiff Bay cartel that drags us towards independence by the back door. Because that could be the result here: Plaid Cymru, in their own social media post after the co-operation agreement was signed, stated that this was their aim. They said that Senedd reform would provide a Senedd fit for an independent Wales. We know that's not what the people of Wales want. That's why we need to put it to a vote.

It shouldn't be for politicians in the Senedd to decide whether or not to increase our numbers; that would be like turkeys voting to cancel Christmas. But for those of us who believe that at its best, the Senedd can truly be a place of good, a place that has the potential to make a real difference to the lives of people of Wales, we need to make sure that, at every possible step, the people of Wales know that this Senedd is far more theirs than it is ours. If this Senedd believes in devolution, it needs the consent of the people it serves to strengthen that case when changes of this significance are made. The answer they give us is important, and we should act on the result, whatever it is, but it's not as important as us asking that question in the first place, because if this place is truly to represent and reflect the people of Wales in all the ways we've heard today, it is they that need to make that decision. It must never be our place to tell the people of Wales what's best for them. They should tell us that. They give us our mandate and we'd be fools to forget that.

Simply, the Senedd should reflect the Wales that it serves. Its Members, those who speak for their communities in this place, those who scrutinise the impact of policy and legislation, and the way in which our nation is governed, must be representative of those communities. Currently, only 26 of the 60 Members sitting in this Chamber are women, although over half the population of Wales is female. Plaid Cymru has long argued for gender quotas as one approach that we can use to create a Senedd that is truly representative of the people of Wales. And the committee's recommendation for statutory gender quotas, given that this is the best way to promote gender equality among the elected Members, within all parties, is therefore to be greatly welcomed.

So, why are gender quotas a necessary step? How will they be effective? Well, gender quotas will provide a quick and simple solution to the unjustifiable fact of women's under-representation, or potential under-representation, in elected politics. International research shows that they are the single most effective tool for fast-tracking women's representation in elected bodies for Government, and they are used worldwide by over 100 countries. They are backed by the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, and, of course, the findings of the expert panel on Assembly electoral reform. So, the question, really, is: why aren't we doing this already, if we believe in equality?

Will you take an intervention?

No, you've had enough say this afternoon, Darren. Well, there are those who believe that the playing field—[Interruption.] There are those who believe that the playing field is already level—

We don't have the powers.

—that structural inequality, which we debated in this very Chamber yesterday, doesn't exist, although report after report points to the contrary, and the make-up of this Senedd proves it beyond a doubt. There are those who feel that we don't need statutory measures to ensure better representation. After all, we wore our early gender balance achievements as a badge of pride and patted ourselves on the back for leading the way. But when we look around this Siambr, we can see that voluntary party measures, or trusting to luck, so far have proven ineffective in maintaining balance or inspiring further diversity. Internationally, the impact of gender quotas is wide-ranging and often has positive, indirect, effects, with other under-represented groups becoming empowered to enter politics. This is why we need, as Women's Equality Network Wales puts it, to bake in gender equality into our electoral system through legislation. And the way in which any quota is legislated for is important. The Bill should state that at least 50 per cent of candidates must be women. The purpose of the quota is to put a floor below women's representation, a floor below which it shouldn't fall, rather than put a ceiling upon it.

And then there is, of course, as we've heard this afternoon, the 'best person for the job' argument against all forms of positive discrimination. Dirprwy Lywydd, quotas can help us advance towards a true meritocracy, rather than being an obstacle to it. There are societal biases and obstacles that prevent more women from becoming politicians, from being in the room where decisions about their lives are made that only leads to more structural inequality. This is also the case for disabled people, black, Asian and minority ethnic people, and people from the LGBTQ+ community.

It is true that gender quotas are not enough on their own to ensure the equal and diverse representation that could be achieved for our Senedd, and Plaid Cymru support the committee's recommendation that further work on diversity quotas, other than gender, be undertaken. This should be done swiftly, and I would have liked to have seen timescales attached to that recommendation. Reform of the mode of election, however, is only the start. To ensure the Senedd fully reflects the society it represents, the Senedd must be a workplace that works for women. Recommendations 13 and 14 of the report, which refer to the further work needed in order to enable job sharing, should be taken forward with urgency, because, as the committee says, job sharing

'could enable a greater diversity of candidates to stand for election, including those with family and caring responsibilities; those with disabilities; and those who are geographically based further away from the Senedd.'

Can the Member conclude now, please?

Again, we need timescales for this crucial work. It must not be swept aside. Hybrid working is also a key component of workplace practice, and it isn't mentioned, unfortunately, in the committee report. So, I would like to hear if the Government would consider addressing this as a part of Senedd reform.

Can you conclude, because I have many Members who want to speak?

Yes. I hope this is only the first step of many towards a Senedd that truly reflects and represents the citizens it serves. As Mary Wollstonecraft said, 'The beginning is always today.' I'm glad to see that today is dawning.

I would like to start by paying tribute, as others have, to the committee, to Huw and his colleagues, to Mark Drakeford for his leadership and the way he's driven this forward, working in partnership with Adam Price and Plaid Cymru, but also to pay tribute to all of those who campaigned for a parliament for Wales for so many years—generations who had that as an objective, as an ideal, because they wanted the people of Wales to have that strong voice and they wanted the people of Wales to be served by a strong parliament to represent their interests and look after those interests. There is such a long history, and for people like me who've come to it more recently with the campaign 'Yes for Wales' that preceded the Assembly, which I was so privileged to become a Member of at that first election, as did others who are here in the Chamber today—we were privileged, and we've been privileged to see this institution grow and develop. And we've done that, we have grown, and the depth and the breadth of powers of the Assembly, now a Parliament, has been very impressive over that period of devolution. But it hasn't been matched by an increase in capacity and resource to enable that job, that bigger job, to be done as effectively as it needs to be done, and that is the point, isn't it? It's about powers for a purpose, not powers for the sake of having those powers, but powers to deliver better for the people of Wales.

And I would like to say as well, Dirprwy Lywydd, that I do believe, from a Labour and Welsh Labour point of view, that we do deserve some credit—I would say that, wouldn't I—but, actually, the Labour Party and Welsh Labour have moved a long way on devolution, and the people of Wales, I think, have come along on that journey as well. And it is Labour that had the opportunity and the power to deliver and I'm so proud to say that that challenge was accepted and that delivery did take place, and I think we've got a very positive story to tell. And as I say, we have developed within Wales on that journey, as a political party, as a Labour movement.

We're trying to deliver on the powers that we currently have, those increased and developed powers that I've described, with fewer Members than some county councils. It's just not tenable, is it, to scrutinise legislation and policy properly, to have a big enough pool of talent, really, for Ministers, for backbenchers, for committee Chairs. We all know that the more you widen the pool and the more diverse it is, then the better the delivery, the better the performance that will result. It's not to criticise anybody here—of course it's not—it's just recognising the reality, and we do need that diversity. And it is, I must say, so demoralising, really, I would say, from a Welsh Conservative point of view, to see how they will continue to be left behind by history, by modern history in Wales. Wales is developing, Wales is moving on; the Welsh Conservatives are left behind. And look at the benches over there—you know, to oppose measures to improve representation of women, for example, over half of the population of this country—. And we look at the benches over there—. It's great to see Natasha here, but there is obviously a dearth of representation, a dearth of diversity. [Interruption.] Andrew.

I've heard the diversity put to me. I turn around and look at the diversity on the backbench of the Conservative benches, and, I have to say, two female Members who occupy the frontbench here are away sick today and they have permission to be away sick. So, when you look at your own benches, where is the diversity there from ethnic minorities? Where are they? Where are they, John?

There is further progress to be made, Andrew, but, come on, if you look at the diversity on the Labour benches now and throughout the history of devolution and compare it to your benches now and before, there's absolutely no comparison. [Interruption.] Darren, there's no point labouring the point, just look to your own performance and your own party, organisations and structures.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I know that we only have five minutes, so let me just say again that this is about better strategy, better policy and better delivery for the people of Wales. It's about better outcomes. There's a huge job to be done. I believe we can be a lot more radical—a lot more radical—in Wales. I believe we need to be, I believe we can be, but we need the resource to do that, and this further step that we will be taking today, and building on what I hope is the vote that will approve this next stage of Senedd reform today, will give us new opportunities to be that radical, reforming force and body that can properly deliver for our people in Wales.

It's no surprise this afternoon that I cannot support the expansion of the Senedd, and therefore I'll be voting against the motion before us tonight; it's not the afternoon now, is it?

So, what we have before us tonight is a plan for more politicians, not a plan for better democracy. And we're a young Parliament, and the paint is barely dry on the walls marking our change from the National Assembly for Wales to the Welsh Parliament, yet here we are being asked to expand the number of politicians by more than 50 per cent. For what purpose? Why do we need a bigger Parliament? I'm not convinced we need a bigger Parliament, nor are the vast majority of the Welsh public.

Just over a decade ago, in 2011, the Welsh public were asked to devolve more powers to Wales, more powers in order to enable us to make laws, to improve the lives of Welsh citizens. After all, that is the purpose of this place. I will read out the description of the Senedd that takes pride of place on our website:

'The Welsh Parliament is the democratically elected body that represents the interests of Wales and its people.

Commonly known as the Senedd, it makes laws for Wales, agrees Welsh taxes and holds the Welsh Government to account.'

It's there in black and white. We are here to represent the interests of our citizens and our nation. How does creating another 36 politicians represent the interests of the people of our great nation? I would strongly argue that it does not. Will more Members tackle the appalling state of the NHS, cut waiting lists, ensure my constituents get face-to-face meetings with their GP? No, it won't, nor will it do anything to improve transport links, grow the economy, tackle the global cost-of-living crisis or improve educational achievement.

Our nation is facing real problems and needs us to focus on delivering solutions, on delivering real improvements to the lives of our constituents, not debating the make-up of this Chamber. We need more politics, not more politicians. This place failed to deliver improvements to people's lives, and the public was told it needed more powers. More powers were delivered, but improvements were not. Now we are told we need more Senedd Members, and it doesn't wash, not with me or my constituents in the Vale of Clwyd. We need to walk before we can run. We need to deliver on the promises we all made to our constituents before we even consider any expansion of this Parliament. Maybe when we have a Government that governs rather than acting like an opposition party, and opposition parties that hold Government to account rather than holding on to their coat tails, we will fulfil the promise of this place. When we deliver on the compact made with the citizens of Wales in 1997 and 2011, maybe then we can discuss any expansion, but only if that is the declared will of the people of Wales. Thank you very much.

I wasn't going to start with this, but I have to say that I'm saddened and quite sickened by some of the fake anger that I'm hearing from some contributors to this debate, where they berate increasing the size of the Senedd and the cost that comes with that. Those very same politicians don't bat an eyelid when the British Prime Minister wholesomely swells the ranks of the House of Lords. No calls for a referendum there, of course. And those, of course, are unelected representatives—

Llyr, will you take an intervention?

No, I won't, sorry, because people have had their opportunity to contribute. They're unelected and, of course, many of them are appointed against the recommendation and advice of the appointments commissioner. Well, who was on about jobs for the boys five minutes ago? Who's been on about backroom deals and dark corridors? And when it comes to cost, we know that the House of Lords costs taxpayers £15 million a year in daily allowances alone. 'How many doctors and nurses is that?' I don't hear you say. You know, the refurbishment of the Palace of Westminster is going to be in the billions—some figures up to £18 billion. Eighteen billion pounds. That's eighteen thousand million pounds. And you're not bothered by that, but yet, when we talk about strengthening Welsh democracy, 'Oh, no. No, no, no. We can't have that, it costs too much. We need a referendum.' Come on. Your hypocrisy absolutely turns my stomach.

Right, I'm going to say what I was supposed to say now.

I just want to expand on the point that the Llywydd made on lack of capacity within the Senedd. You will know that I chair a committee in the Senedd, the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee. The remit of that committee is very broad indeed, as the title suggests. We are talking about the environment, climate change— which is a key agenda for us as things stand—energy comes into it, retrofitting homes, the planning system, spatial planning on land and sea. Infrastructure—we're talking about transport in all its aspects. We're talking about rail, buses, roads. We're also talking about connectivity in terms of broadband and so on. You have a number of committees in Westminster and in other Parliaments around the world dealing with those issues, but they are all within the remit of one committee here, and there are just six Members on that committee. Six Members who have to have the depth of knowledge and understanding of all of those areas to work effectively. Add to that the fact that most members of that committee sit on other committees too. That's the kind of capacity issue that we have. I'm also my party's spokesperson on finance and local government. That's an additional responsibility again, never mind the work that we all do in our constituencies in case work, in representing our constituents and so on and so on. We know this, but it's important that people hear this too.

That's just a glimpse of the capacity issues that we have now, and that does have an impact on our ability to scrutinise with the depth and detail that we should be scrutinising in terms of policy, legislation and so on. So, when people talk about cost, well, yes, we can describe it as a cost, but we can also describe as an investment, an investment in capacity that would then mean that the policies, the regulation, the legislation that are scrutinised and passed in this Senedd would be more effective, more efficient and would have fewer unintended consequences, which would mean fewer additional costs ultimately. So, I see this as an investment rather than a cost. More than that, of course, it's an investment that brings other positives, such as expanding representation to ensure that there is more balance and more diversity among those who are representing in this Senedd.

Now, I'm not supporting additional Members because I want to see more politicians, but we all have to accept that we need greater capacity to deal with the increased powers and responsibilities that we have. It stands to reason that additional devolved powers and additional law-making powers and additional tax-varying powers mean that there will be a greater pressure on existing capacity, and if you don't increase capacity to deal with that then what you're doing is you're diminishing the ability of the Senedd to use those powers effectively. I don't want a diminished Senedd. I don't want a Senedd that's less able to maximise its potential to improve the lives of the people of Wales. I want a Senedd that's firing on all cylinders and that's able to turn every stone in its scrutiny of Government, in its fulfilling of its legislative and fiscal responsibilities and, of course, in its ability to articulate the voices of the people of Wales in all of its diversity. So, less of the fake anger—support these proposals, because that is the way that will make all of that happen.

According to my calculations, we are coming close to the end of the time. I have three speakers left. I intend to call all three speakers to have a full debate on this report, so I do apologise if we go over, but that is my intention. Alun Davies.

I'm grateful to you, Deputy Presiding Officer and, like others this afternoon, I'd like to start my contribution by thanking all the members of the committee that looked at this and thanking Huw Irranca-Davies for his leadership of that committee. I'd even extend my thanks to Darren Millar. I accept he was placed in a difficult situation, but I know he also sought compromise on these matters over the period within which he served as a member of that committee, and I think in sometimes quite fractious debates we should always seek to recognise that contribution made by Members with whom we will disagree.

Like others, I also am compromising in my support for these proposals. Members who know me know that I would prefer single transferable vote. It's only the Labour Party that can have a debate where 87 per cent of its delegates vote for something and that proposal loses. Most members of the Labour Party will support STV, in my view. The majority—the vast majority—of our conference in Brighton last year voted for STV. It is the view of most party members, and I wish it was the system that we were moving forward with with this proposal.

Let me say this: I have also, again, like Darren, struggled with the issue of open and closed lists. I'm astonished by regional Conservative Members arguing over this matter, because they were all elected on closed lists. They didn't seem to understand that. It's quite something, actually: you don't even understand the system that you were elected under. But I've struggled with this, and let me say this, let me say this—. They're also elected under D'Hondt by the way—you don't understand that either.

But let me say this, let me say this, and I think Mark Drakeford said this very clearly, and he spoke of me when he was saying it, but it's a matter of head and heart with me as well, because I do believe—and I think Sioned Williams spoke on this very persuasively in her contribution—that we need a Parliament that doesn't just do the job, but a Parliament that speaks for the nation and the country, and that means a Parliament where diversity and gender don't happen by accident or because one political party determines it has to happen, but it's part of the DNA of who and what we are. And I was persuaded over closed lists because I believe it is the most effective way of ensuring that we have the gender balance and the diversity that make our Parliament truly representative of our nation. I'll give way.

When we considered these matters as a committee, it was actually the case that flexible lists could also allow for the zipping of candidates whilst still giving that direct accountability link. So, you could still have gender quotas if that's what people were persuaded that they wanted, but you could also have the opportunity to give that direct link to an individual to their constituents. Don't you think that that is a better system than closed lists?

Look, I said at the beginning of my contribution that I was also compromising in supporting this, and that is the compromise that I'm making.

The reason that this is important, and this is the reason why I'm astonished by the Conservative response to it, is that this is about holding the Government to account. Now, all of us in this Chamber learnt at the beginning of this Senedd that the Conservatives had given up on any pretence of wanting to be in Government, but now we learn they're giving up on opposition as well. It's not a matter for Government to be held to account, it's us in this Chamber holding the Government to account, and what these reforms do is to empower the opposition and backbenchers, and yet the primary opposition party don't want it. It's astonishing, it's astonishing, and it's something you need to think seriously about. Because let me say this, let me say this to you, it is important that we are able to scrutinise Government and do it effectively, and that means that we need a culture of scrutiny and not just the numbers to deliver that scrutiny. And we don't have that at present and the way in which you're approaching this debate is not going to deliver that either.

And, do you know, I've heard Conservatives argue this afternoon that we don't want to give the power to parties to determine who stands and what is done here, but they've all read out the same speech. Now, whatever you might think about the contributions that we're making here from the Labour backbenches and from Plaid Cymru and Jane Dodds as the Liberal Democrat, at least we've written our speeches and we've come here thinking about these matters. What you've done is read out the speeches—

Member of the Senedd:

Will you take an intervention?

No, I've listened to you too much—is to read out the speeches that were written all for you. And Darren Millar accepted in his introduction that he didn't really think about a referendum. It hadn't occurred to him that it was important until he was told it was important by the Secretary of State. And let me say this, and let me say this in closing—

Alun—

I can see the time. The Conservatives have never ever recognised the democratic mandate of the people of Wales. When the people of Wales—[Interruption.] When the people of Wales—[Interruption.] When the people of Wales—[Interruption.] When the people of Wales—[Interruption.] I'll carry on, I've got the microphone working now.

I want to hear him finish so that we can get other speakers in.

When the people of Wales voted for devolution in September 1997, the Conservative Party in the Westminster Parliament voted against the legislation in December 1997, and you need to remember that. And the people of Wales also elected a Government and a Parliament committed to reform. You can either come down the route with us and ensure that that reform is agreed across the whole of this Chamber—

Alun, you need to finish now.

—which is what I would prefer, or I'm afraid you're on the route to irrelevance.

I want to express my absolute disappointment at the proposals of Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru to increase the number of Senedd Members in this place, and I want to do so for three main reasons.

Firstly, you have to be well aware that the UK Government is not going to increase the Welsh Government budget to reflect this increase in Members, so what Welsh Labour and Plaid Cymru are proposing is to take an estimated £100 million out of the funds available for healthcare, out of the funds available for education, and out of the funds available for far more vital services, to pay—and let's be honest—for more politicians. It is incredible that this Government's response to the worst education standards in the UK, the lowest pay for people in every sector compared to the rest of the UK—and even before COVID, almost a quarter of the population of Wales were in poverty—is to take £100 million off these people so that this place can presumably talk more about how they can try and help them.

Secondly, I'm appalled that the First Minister would not even consider giving the people of Wales a say on this matter. Yesterday the First Minister, in response to my colleague Darren Millar, said that the people of Wales had chosen this when they voted in the last Senedd elections, but this is simply not the case. There was no mention whatsoever in the Welsh Labour manifesto, and let's be honest, this was not even widely discussed as an issue during the campaign on the doorstep. This Government needs to ground itself—

Joel, will you take an intervention?

How long—? No, sorry. Go on, yes.

Please be brief, because we are going beyond time.

I've listened with interest, as I always do, to the Conservative Members, but can I ask, if it is your view that it is not legitimate to introduce a change to the electoral system without a referendum, why did your Conservative Government at Westminster not introduce that clause into the Wales Act 2017? What you did was you said that it was subject to two thirds of the Members of this Senedd voting in favour. Why didn't you do it then, if it's such an important principle now?

Thank you for that question. I fear that's a question to be asked of the UK Government in Westminster rather than myself, I'm afraid.

This Government needs to ground itself in reality. Even though a 50-year-old report, as mentioned yesterday, may have recommended two to three Members per parliamentary constituency, that doesn't mean it is right. It doesn't mean it was right then, and it certainly doesn't mean it is right now. My fellow Member Alun Davies remarked yesterday, and today in this Chamber, that Conservatives were not interested in Welsh democracy. May I remind the Member that under a Conservative Government the Minister for Welsh Affairs was created, the Minister of State for Wales was created, the Welsh Grand Committee of the House of Commons was created, the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs was created, and the historic Welsh Language Act 1993 was created? Indeed—

Will you take an intervention from me?

No, sorry—

You did mention me by name.

You don't have to take the intervention if you don't wish to.

Sorry. Indeed, nearly every major form of devolution of power, with the notable exceptions of the 1979 and 1997 referendums, and every form of devolution of central services to Wales has come from Conservative Governments in Westminster. So, I would thank the Member if he could refrain from spreading such Trumpian disinformation in his future remarks.

Finally, I want to say this: the increase in Members in this place is entirely pivoted on the fact that this Government believes that it is not scrutinised enough, as has been discussed in this debate. But may I remind the Government, and those who want to support these proposals, that we are always standing here telling you how bad a job you are doing? Your commissioners are writing report after report telling you that you are failing. So, why do you think another 36 Members queuing up just to tell you what everyone else here is already telling you is going to change that? Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.

And the last backbencher, Peter Fox.

Thank you so much, Deputy Presiding Officer, for allowing everybody to contribute—I appreciate it. And Alun, I will be talking about democracy as a Conservative on this backbench, and the link between an elected representative and a constituent is a cog that makes democracy tick, because democracy functions quite simply by elected representatives being held to account. Our actions, our words, our deeds are rightly scrutinised by those we represent. This allows us to build a rapport and a relationship with constituents. Many Members in this Chamber, I'm sure, enjoy a bond with their constituents, and that link cannot be underestimated, because it means constituents know who their representative is, they know who to go to, they know who to speak to in times of hardship and need. But I fear that the Labour and Plaid and committee reforms will rip that up.

We're now in a precarious situation where random areas in Wales with absolutely no connection could end up being mashed together with little thought. For instance, there is a real risk that constituents currently in the South Wales East constituency could end up coming under mid Wales, and vice versa. How on earth does that make sense? The answer is that it doesn't. And such a scenario is totally wrong and unjustified anyway.

Monmouthshire, Pembrokeshire, Swansea, the south Wales Valleys and many other areas in Wales rightly boast of their uniqueness, a uniqueness that is entirely understood and profoundly important to those who live in those respective areas. So, who are we to alter something as precious as that? There is enough confusion as it is regarding the differences in local authority boundaries compared to the Senedd and parliamentary ones—

Peter, will you take an intervention?

Sorry. Yes, Jenny. 

Is it not the case that half the people on your benches are constituency representatives and half are list Members? So, whilst I applaud the virtues of the constituency link, you already have half your Members who are list Members.

Well, let's not lose the other half of constituency Members, then, Jenny. This is all I'm talking about: democracy.

As I said, there is already enough confusion about the boundaries. I believe that, should these plans be implemented in their current state, the level of confusion and anxiety caused will be on a mammoth scale. The people of Wales, who have put each and every one of us here, in one way or another, deserve to know the truth, not be kept in the dark. They deserve a right to have a say. 

I believe the plans also cause another serious concern for me: where will reform stop? Is this announcement a precursor to something more sinister—Alun Davies—such as a Welsh Government reorganisation of our vital local authorities? As a past leader of a council, I know how important our local authorities and their identities are to our citizens. Any reorganisation as a result of future boundary commission changes will remove local accountability, local identity and local sovereignty, things that are so precious to our local communities. Therefore, any theoretical boundary changes or further reorganisation must, for the sake of our democracy, be published to the people of Wales immediately. The committee may not know what those future plans are, but I'm sure the Government and Plaid Cymru are fully aware. So, I support the amendments. Thank you.

I call on the Counsel General and Minister for the Constitution, Mick Antoniw. 

I'd like to start by thanking the Chair and members of the committee and their staff for the hard work carried out in drawing up this comprehensive report. The publication of this report is an important step on the journey to creating a Senedd that represents the diversity of the people of Wales and has the appropriate resources to deliver its responsibilities in terms of policy, legislation and fiscal issues.

The co-operation agreement between the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru commits both partners to working towards Senedd reform. This commitment was recently reinforced by the position statement jointly published by the First Minister and Adam Price, the leader of Plaid Cymru, to support the work of the special purpose committee. 

Dirprwy Lywydd, the fact that the report has been agreed by the Welsh Labour, Plaid Cymru and Welsh Liberal Democrat members of the committee reflects the cross-party support that has been established for taking action to reform the Senedd. Llywydd, it is vital that we invest in our democratic processes and institutions. Investing in this institution will improve the governance of Wales, enhance the scrutiny and oversight of Welsh Government business and lead to more effective policy, more efficient spending and better legislation. If we do not act now, we run the risk of our legislature not being able to continue to deliver effectively for the people of Wales.

I'd just like to turn to some of the specific recommendations made by the committee, particularly on size, electoral system and measures to support diversity. I welcome the recommendation of the committee for 96 Members. The idea of a larger Senedd is not a new one and has been recommended by both the Richard commission in 2004 and the independent expert panel in 2017. In their 2017 report, the independent expert panel on Assembly reform recommended that the institution should increase in size to ensure that it has sufficient capacity to fulfil its policy, legislative and financial scrutiny responsibilities, and that Members can also undertake their representative, campaigning, political and other roles.

This Senedd is the smallest of all the devolved legislatures and still has the same number of Members as it did in 1999 when the National Assembly for Wales was created. Since then, Wales has taken on new powers, including primary law-making and tax-making powers. By comparison, there are 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament and 90 Members of the Northern Ireland Assembly. So, increasing the size of the Senedd will require reform of the Senedd's electoral system. Different electoral systems have strengths and weaknesses, and there is no one ideal answer that can achieve every objective. However, the majority of the committee favoured the introduction of a closed list proportional system. 

I also welcome the committee recommendations relating to the introduction of gender quotas, and its recommendation both in terms of the collection and publication of diversity data, and diversity and inclusion strategies. Such proposals have the potential to lead to real and visible change here on the floor of the Senedd. Who would not want a Senedd that is truly representative of the people in Wales? Improving equality and diversity and ensuring an acceptable gender balance is a key part of that. Our track record in terms of equality in the Senedd is better than many other Parliaments could claim, but there is much more we still have to do.

The special purpose committee's recommendation—

Minister, will you take an intervention? 

Yes, I will.

It's just on this matter of gender quotas. Do you accept that the Senedd currently does not have the powers to legislate in the equal opportunities field at the moment, and that, on that basis, we cannot introduce gender quotas? 

The assurance that I give to this Senedd is that I will work to create legislation that implements the recommendations of this Senedd, and that that legislation will be robust and competent. 

The special purpose committee's recommendation for gender quotas echoes much of what previous independent expert panels and committees have been calling for, and it has been argued time and again that gender quotas, integrated within the electoral system, have the potential to make a real difference. I'll just refer to those figures. If we look around this particular Senedd, on the task ahead of us, if we look at the Labour Members, 60 per cent are women. I mention that because the reference was made earlier that this is all about jobs for the boys. Well, 60 per cent of the Labour Members are female. Thirty per cent of the Plaid Members are female, 18 per cent of the Tories are female. If we turn that figure the other way around, 82 per cent of that side are male. I suppose the exemplar goes to the Lib Dems, who are 100 per cent female. [Interruption.] That may come with its own challenge. I've made reference already to the issues of diversity.

Finally—[Interruption.] Well, as someone who is a member of an ethnic minority, I think it's rather inappropriate that you make that comment to me. Finally, I welcome the challenging timescale recommended by the committee of implementing Senedd reform in time for the next scheduled Senedd elections in 2026. The committee also recognises that this may mean some aspects will need to be delivered on an interim basis. 

The Government will not be supporting either of the amendments tabled. We have every confidence in the process followed by the special purposes committee and support all of its recommendations. It is reasonable to expect that there will be differing views on the details of how best to take forward this package of reforms, but there is a consensus that there is an urgent need to create a Senedd that is fit for purpose. There is also a clear and undeniable mandate for reform. The case for Senedd reform has been accepted by the Welsh Labour Party, the Welsh Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru, and it featured in all three of the parties' manifestos. Each party will have its own internal processes for agreeing this reform package. Members will be aware that my own party will be putting the proposals to a recall conference in the coming weeks. Our support, as the Senedd Labour Party, is therefore contingent on the agreement of our conference.

If the special purpose committee's recommendations are endorsed today, the Welsh Government stands ready to prepare and introduce a Bill to implement these recommendations. Through scrutiny of that Bill, there will be an opportunity for every Member to contribute to creating a Senedd that truly reflects the people who live here in Wales. As part of that, there will, of course, be an opportunity for any costs associated with this reform package to be carefully scrutinised. I intend to publish the Welsh Government's formal response to the committee's recommendations in the coming weeks.

In closing, I would once again like to thank the committee for producing their report. This is an important day for this institution and a significant step in developing a stronger, a more confident and a more modern democracy here in Wales. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. 

I call on Huw Irranca-Davies to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. It's a pleasure to follow the balanced and constructive comments of the Counsel General, but can I also thank every Member who's contributed today, regardless of the different views and different opinions? It has been a lively—argumentative at times and passionate at all times—debate, and I think that's what this place is for. I think the reforms we're talking about today, we'll probably see more of those delivered, should we choose to take them forward.

The task we were set I've described previously, Dirprwy Lywydd, as being both divinely simple and devilishly complex. The divinely simple thing is coming up with a utopian plan of what we can take forward; the devilishly complex bit is actually getting something that would command a supermajority within this Senedd, which, as the leader of Plaid Cymru has pointed out, was set out in the Wales Act 2017, which gave us the power to do exactly this—not subject to a referendum and so on, but for us to do the jobs that we are paid to do: to measure, in our judgment, the balance of the interests of Wales and the people whom we are sent here to represent, and to make those hard, tough decisions.

Will you take an intervention on that?

I probably haven't got time, Alun, I'm afraid, unfortunately—I'm really sorry to Members on this.

We have heard from Conservative Members a consistency, and it's a consistency that was clear as well in their leadership even while the committee was sitting, I have to say: no more Members et cetera, et cetera. It's been repeated and repeated, and here we are today.

What was also mentioned today, interestingly, was some comments against positive discrimination. But, that's as it is—that's a point of disagreement. This is very strong in terms of measures that will need to be taken, including legislative measures here.

The arguments against more politicians have been, I have to say, regardless of the evidence for what that does for improved scrutiny, and I'll turn to some of those in a moment. From those who had different opinions in terms of support for this today, I welcome that strong support that we've heard evident today. Yes, there are different views on the shape, the form, the nuances, the detail and so on—I get all of that—and so there should be. I have my own personal opinions, which I've struggled to avoid putting into this report and to hold back from it; one day, I'll be allowed to say them. But, I do think that this is a major step forward in terms of the quality of scrutiny here. It was Silk himself who said that you can't actually cut corners on scrutiny; you need the right number of Members. Simply to say to my colleagues on the benches, I've come to this place because I believe firmly in this place and I believe in the voice it gives to the people of Wales, but we're not doing it well enough. I sat on, I presided over and I chaired a committee in Westminster that was 17 strong. It was the only one I sat on; I didn't have to do anything else—one committee. On that committee, I had the most green of Conservative Members—on the Environmental Audit Committee—the most green, attacking the Government. I had the most climate-change-sceptic attacking the Government. There were 17 members—there were mavericks and there were outspoken individuals. We don't have the capacity to do that deeper dive, that hard-nosed scrutiny, and that's what this is all about.

So, I would simply say that if this does go through today, then be constructive and engage with it, because what this is about is genuinely, as we've titled the report, a stronger voice for the people of Wales. It's not to do with more politicians; it's to do with holding this lot to account, from all of us—from all of us.

Let me just turn very briefly, Dirprwy Lywydd, to some of the detailed points. First of all, on the issue of cost-effectiveness, we deal with a £20 billion budget here—the Welsh Government does. That needs to be scrutinised effectively. As I've mentioned already, it was the Silk commission itself that said that good scrutiny means good legislation. Good legislation pays for itself—a point that has been made by other Members.

The question was raised about linking ourselves to Westminster boundaries. I do get that there were other models put forward as well. But if I can turn your attention to paragraph 232, which says,

'As previously noted, although we have recommended that the Senedd’s constituencies should initially be aligned to those of the UK Parliament constituencies, they should not be automatically linked to them'—

—forever and a day.

'This would mean that deviation from the UK’s constituencies could occur in future full reviews.'

And we've set up review bodies within this. It's a building block to get us to 2026.

On the type of voting system, what this would say, even with the differences of opinion, what this would do is it would see us finally moving away from the much criticised mixed-member electoral system in favour of a proportional system that is actually widely used in modern democracies, for all the criticism that we've heard. It will put an end to having two classes of Members of the Senedd, and avoid the confusion around the need for two different ballot papers for two different Members. And it's also a system that is highly compatible, we say in the report, with measures to encourage gender equality.

On legislative competence, the point picked up by my colleague the Counsel General, if I can refer Members to paragraphs 152 to 158 in particular, where they deal with this issue and culminate in recommendation 17, requiring Welsh Government to craft these proposals to minimise the risk of any successful challenge. And there are different views on the issue of competence and the confidence around it, but we have heard, Darren, on the committee—we've heard in evidence to the committee—that some of those giving evidence had great confidence in the competence issue. But what has to be tested now is by the way that the Government actually crafts it. And we've had much discussion around the type of the voting system.

Just finally, on the issue of this referendum—a final point in many that came out, and I can't deal with all of them—the UK Parliament's Act in 2017, drafted by the UK Government, devolved powers to this Senedd in relation to its size and electoral arrangements. Under that Act, any such reforms are a protected subject matter. They require a supermajority—two thirds of the Members of this Senedd—to vote in favour at the final legislative stage in order for any such reforms to be passed. Ultimately, this was the safeguarding mechanism selected by the UK Government, and the committee agrees and says that is sufficient.

And just finally, on the issue—I take my hat off as the committee Chair for a moment—of Welsh Labour, one thing that hasn't been mentioned is we actually signed off on the increase in Members several conferences ago, not in the last manifesto. It was several conferences ago. [Interruption.] Because you're not a member. I've told you; I'll send you the membership card and you can come to our conferences.

Just finally, I've said all I need to say. Other Members have said all they need to say already. There are differences of opinion. Even amongst those who support these reforms, they'd like to see different types of reforms; we get that. This is an important step, however, today, and I come back to the point I made in my opening remarks: for all of us, including those who have spoken in opposition today, if we fail to take this step today we may not have this moment for another generation, and we will not tread water; we will go backwards as a democratic institution. We cannot allow that to happen, our committee would argue strongly. So, in thanking again all those who gave evidence to us, the committee members, the fantastic team that supported us, and also for the contributions today, I urge you strongly: support this motion, give a stronger voice to the people of Wales in this Senedd.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I heard an objection, and therefore I will defer all voting on this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.