I move on to the next item on the agenda, which is a statement by the First Minister on the Wales Bill. I call on Carwyn Jones.

Llywydd, I would like to make a statement about the UK Government’s Wales Bill, which was introduced in Parliament yesterday.

I hardly need say that this Bill is of fundamental importance to Wales, and Members will be aware that it has had a tortuous history since the previous incarnation was published for pre-legislative scrutiny last October. In November, the Welsh Government published a detailed critique, which concluded that the Bill was not fit for purpose, and would introduce restrictions on the Assembly’s competence inconsistent with the 2011 referendum mandate. That analysis was endorsed by expert stakeholders and by the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in March. The Welsh Affairs Committee recommended the Bill should be paused to enable substantial further work before introduction, and the Bill published yesterday is the product of that work.

I have to say, Llywydd, that the new Bill is far from perfect, and there are many important details still to work out, but it’s better than the previous draft. It has benefited from discussion with Welsh Government officials, and those discussions are continuing. I would have preferred a later introduction to allow more progress to be made, but the Secretary of State has assured me that discussions with the Welsh Government on detail will continue, and that there should be scope for further substantive reconsideration of the Bill provisions during its passage.

On that basis, I’m able to give this draft a cautious welcome. I recognise that progress has been made, but further amendment will be needed on a number of key issues. I have made that clear to the Secretary of State, and will be writing to him to set out these views in detail. But, can I outline briefly the positive progress that’s been made, and summarise the most important outstanding issues?

The Bill contains provisions for new powers in such fields as elections, energy consenting, transport and marine licensing. We have always welcomed these, and the drafting has been improved. The constitutional provisions, dealing with the permanence of the Assembly and the Sewel convention are substantively unchanged and are broadly welcome, although the Sewel provisions, as is the case also in Scotland, unfortunately don’t cover all the circumstances where Assembly consent is required. Removal of the outdated restrictions on the Assembly’s internal arrangements is also, of course, welcome.

One of the biggest problems with the earlier draft Bill arose from the provisions recasting the conferred-powers model into a reserved-powers model. The UK Government had argued that protecting the joint jurisdiction of England and Wales within the new model required the imposition of new restrictions on the Assembly’s legislative competence. This was an unacceptable and unworkable row-back of existing competence, which greatly increased complexity and uncertainty in the Assembly’s powers. The new Bill is a significant improvement, and the Assembly will have extensive powers to modify the private and criminal law in relation to matters within its competence. These provisions still need considerable further detailed work to achieve some degree of consistency, coherence and overall workability, but they do represent positive progress.

At the same time, however, in extending the Assembly’s competence into new areas of law, the Bill will bring even more sharply into focus the tension within the single jurisdiction that was evident in the original draft. In our supplementary pre-legislative scrutiny evidence, we argued for a distinct jurisdiction as a solution to this tension, and we published an alternative draft Bill, which provided a more sustainable, longer-term solution. The revised Bill makes crystal clear that, over time, the divergence of the law applying in Wales and the law applying in England will continue to grow, to the point where a distinct or separate Welsh jurisdiction is inevitable. I’ll continue to argue that this issue must be addressed in this Bill if it is to be at all credible as a long-term settlement for Wales. Now, if the UK Government does not see its way clear in this Bill to a complete resolution, it should put in place, at least, arrangements that pave the way for a longer-term solution.

The new Bill also represents some improvement in respect of UK Government Ministers’ consents required for Assembly Bills. The reduction in the need for such consents is welcome, but there is, again, considerable complexity, and further work is needed before it will be possible to say whether the overall outcome is acceptable and workable. There has also been progress in reducing the number and scope of reservations, but we’ll be pressing for amendments to remove several that remain, including, for example, the community infrastructure levy and alcohol licensing.

I will mention briefly the other most important outstanding issues with the Bill. It removes the referendum provisions in the Wales Act 2014, with the effect that the Treasury would be able, by Order, to commence income tax devolution without the consent of the Assembly or Welsh Ministers. I have made it clear that I will not be able to support income tax devolution without a clear overall fiscal framework agreed by both Governments, and that this agreement will be a precondition of supporting a legislative consent motion for the Bill. I think that is entirely reasonable, where there is mutual agreement.

The Bill’s provisions on water are unacceptable as they stand—they don’t deliver on the St David’s Day commitments. Teachers’ pay remains a reservation in the Bill, due to continuing discussions on the funding transfer needed to support devolution, though there is agreement on devolution in principle. It will not surprise Members when I say that the estimate that we place on the cost of taking teachers’ pay and conditions is somewhat different to that that the UK Government is prepared to offer. And all those issues must be addressed.

To conclude, I do welcome the progress that has been made so far, but significant further improvement is needed to make the Bill fit for purpose and fit for the Assembly to consider giving its consent. Where we can reach agreement, the UK Government will bring forward amendments. There will inevitably continue to be some fundamental disagreements, such as on the devolution of policing—good enough for Scotland, Northern Ireland, London and Manchester, not apparently for Wales—where the Welsh Government will continue to press and to encourage Parliamentary debate.

Llywydd, during the last Assembly, I did seek to take forward discussion of the devolution settlement as far as possible through cross-party consensus. I’ll continue to take that approach and will be sharing my letter to the Secretary of State, responding to the Bill with the party leaders here and at Westminster. There is much work to do in a tight timescale and I hope we can work together, across parties, to get the best outcome for Wales.

Yesterday, the Secretary of State for Wales stated that the new Wales Bill would ensure that our democracy comes of age through a Bill that delivers permanency and accountability. It appears to Plaid Cymru that the UK Government’s words, once again, appear to be hollow.

The new Wales Bill will entrench Wales’s status as the poor relation in this union, limiting our democratically elected Government from acting in the interests of the people it was elected to represent, keeping as much power as possible in the corridors of Whitehall, while devolving just the bear minimum.

Yes, it’s an improvement on what we had before, and of course there are aspects to this that should be welcomed. However, the Party of Wales maintains that there is no reason why our people shouldn’t be trusted to run their own affairs when the people in Scotland are given much more trust to run theirs.

First Minister, you’ve repeatedly advocated that Wales should be treated on the basis of equality with the other devolved nations within the United Kingdom. In the rest of the common-law world, legislatures have their own legal jurisdictions; Wales is unique in that sense, having a devolved legislature, but for only part of the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Both Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own distinct legal jurisdictions, and yet the Secretary of State still refuses to acknowledge the need for Wales to have its own legal jurisdiction—a move supported by a body of legal experts, academics and politicians. I’d therefore be grateful to know what assessments you’ve made, First Minister, in order to maintain your stance, and that of Plaid Cymru and all the legal experts, that Wales should have its own legal jurisdiction.

Following on from that, the new Bill includes a new section that was not in the draft Wales Bill and neither is it included in the Scottish or Northern Irish dispensations. The section that I’m referring to is section 10 of the Bill—the justice impact assessments. While this section might seem harmless on the face of the Bill, we have concerns that this section could act as a block on the Assembly’s legislative powers. How can we make sure that this is not a watering-down of the necessity tests, and will not act as a blocking mechanism against laws that are made here?

In reaction to this section of the Bill, Professor Richard Wyn Jones, a leading expert on devolution, has said that ultimately the Secretary of State will be able to override a piece of legislation passed by the democratically elected Assembly. It’s a mindset that sees the Assembly as a second-class legislature. There is no similar provision at the Northern Ireland Assembly or the Scottish Parliament. What assessment have you made, First Minister, of the durability that the replacement of this section could have in terms of leading to a veto of Welsh laws by the Secretary of State?

There are other matters that we would wish to cover here. A particular interest of ours, especially since the police and crime commissioner elections, is the devolution of the police, and we will be returning to that question at a later date. But my final question to you, First Minister is: with the devolution of the electoral system, would you be prepared to indicate your personal preference for the electoral system for the Welsh Assembly elections in the future? Would you agree with me that, in order to ensure that future elections are more reflective of the will of people in Wales, the system needs reform? Is this something that you would be prepared to consider at the appropriate time?

Can I thank the leader of the opposition for those questions, the last one perhaps more mischievous than the rest? I can say to her that, of course, parties have very different views on what the electoral system should look like and, indeed, what the size of this Assembly should be, but there is no reason why discussions cannot take place as to what the future might hold once those powers are devolved.

She knows that I’ve said, as, indeed, has she, many times, that there is no justification for Wales to be treated in an inferior way, as a constituent nation of the four nations of the UK. This Bill does not go as far as it should in providing assurance in that regard—there’s no question about that. Why should Wales be treated differently to Scotland and Northern Ireland in terms of approach? I’ve never been one to argue, of course, that, in some way, Wales is different to Northern Ireland with half our population, or, indeed, to Scotland in terms of a differing approach.

On the point of the jurisdiction, one of the things I have to say to Members is that Members should not assume that this Bill is driven in any way by some kind of logic. The reality is that we could end up in a situation where public order offences are created in Wales that are then policed by a police service that is not accountable in Wales and anybody convicted ends up in a justice system and, possibly, in prisons that are not run by the Welsh Government. There is no logic to that at all. If, as seems likely, the vast bulk of the criminal law is devolved bar a few offences, probably about 20-odd, again, we’ll have a situation where, to my mind, the argument for keeping a single jurisdiction becomes considerably weaker again.

We’ve put forward what we think is an entirely rational and practical solution, and that is that the legal jurisdiction would become formally different, as it is in Northern Ireland, as it is in Scotland, or the Isle of Man, Jersey or Guernsey, or at least 50 jurisdictions in the US. It’s not a major step forward in that sense; there’s not some kind of major change, but it makes it easier in terms of law making, but we share the court system. We could, realistically, I believe, have a shared court system with England, where the procedures are much the same, where the costs are shared appropriately, and yet, of course, we would have the freedom to pass laws in Wales. I think that’s a pragmatic and sensible way forward, and I will continue to urge that on the Secretary of State. Unless there is some movement on the jurisdiction or policing, this settlement is a step forward, but it’s not durable and it’s not sustainable.

My fervent hope was that we would get legislation that would settle, in the main, the issue of Wales’s constitutional status for some years to come. She and I will have different views, perhaps, on what the end of the road is, but, nevertheless, it would’ve settled the argument for some years, but that’s not what we will get, even though I recognise, of course, that there has been progress made here. I don’t understand why policing is such a totemic issue. Scotland has it, Northern Ireland has it, London has it, Wales apparently not. Whenever I ask the question, the answer I’m given is, ‘Well, it’s a red line for us’. There’s no logic behind it and it’s for the UK Government to explain.

On justice impact assessments, I don’t see it in quite the same way. I would not be in favour, of course, of the Secretary of State having any powers to veto legislation that is created by this elected legislature, but the justice impact tests are similar, to my mind—I’m not arguing in favour of them—to regulatory impact assessments where we pass a law and we say, ‘Well this is the effect that it will have on the courts’. That’s it. There is nothing else that they could be possibly used for. They’re not grounds for some kind of Westminster veto over Welsh law. It would be a document that would need to be produced, but nothing further could come of it. That’s my interpretation of it and I don’t defend them, but I don’t think it’s quite as difficult a point, even though I wouldn’t particularly be in favour of them as perhaps has been suggested. I don’t think there would be any process—or I can’t see any process—whereby the UK Government could then use a justice impact assessment it didn’t agree with in order to prevent Welsh law being put onto the statute book.

There will be a much greater chance, of course, to look at the detail of the proposed Bill over the next few weeks and months. I do hope that the timetable in Westminster is not so rushed that it becomes highly problematic for amendments to be put down, as there do need to be amendments. Why, for example, if public order is going to be devolved and the law regarding public order, alcohol licensing isn’t devolved, when the two of them, to me, run closely together? Is that just an oversight or is there some kind of logical reason for that? The reason that’s been given to me over the last few months for not devolving licensing is that it’s bound up in public order. Well, if public order is devolved, then so should licensing be as well.

There needs to be more opportunity, of course, over the next few days, for parties to look at the detail of legislation. We need to delve more thoroughly into some areas to see what they mean exactly. That said, the vehicle is not as broken down as the last vehicle we were presented with, but there needs to be a lot of work done to sort the engine out and the seats and the wheels. That is exactly what we need to do over the course of the next few weeks. At least it wasn’t something that appeared without an engine or with any wheels, which is what the last Bill was. I look forward, of course, to working with other parties to make sure that we get something that’s coherent, sensible, fair and, above all, sustainable.

Thank you, First Minister, for your statement. I’d also like to commend the Secretary of State for the way he has engaged in the process before the publication of this Bill, in meeting all the parties in this Chamber and many from outside of the Chamber and up in Westminster, to bring forward a Bill that is a dramatic difference, shall we say, from the draft Bill that was debated and discussed in this Chamber some months ago. I do think that we have a Bill that will dramatically increase the responsibilities of this Assembly and, ultimately, to the benefit of the function of public services here in Wales, but, indeed, the economy and, above all, the reputation of this Assembly. I do think we do need to grasp this opportunity to make sure that this Bill does proceed in a timely manner because some of these provisions do need to be arriving here sooner rather than later.

I hear what the First Minister said about policing, but would he agree that, on policing, that shouldn’t act as a roadblock to find a consensus for this Bill to actually proceed and actually deliver on some of other issues that clearly would benefit, such as the elections, such as energy consents, marine consents, et cetera, which are vitally required to increase the capacity of this place to legislate in favour of the people of Wales?

I do also hear what the First Minister says about teachers’ pay, and I do have a disagreement with him on that particular issue. I’ve sat on many committees and also in hustings where previous Labour Ministers have talked at length about how they would not want teachers’ pay. In fact, Leighton Andrews, formerly of this parish, argued vehemently against the former education spokesperson, Nerys Evans, in the 2011 election as to why there should be no devolution of teachers’ pay to this institution, because it is a step towards regional pay, it is, then. I’d be really grateful to understand why the First Minister is so keen to see the devolution of teachers’ pay. Would he not say that that would be a stepping stone to creating a regional pay structure that could be stretched into the other areas of public service? Again, I would hope very much that the First Minister would not see this as another obstacle that could be put in place to stop the Bill progressing in a timely manner through the House of Commons and House of Lords.

I agree entirely with the fiscal framework that the First Minister has touched on in his statement. That does need to be put in place to make sure that the transition on income tax powers for any future Welsh Government does need to be comprehensive, does need to give reassurance and, above all, does need to make sure that Wales is not left out of pocket. I will work with him on that to make sure that that does not happen, and, any discussions that he would like to have over that and any support, I think that is a vital bit of spadework where all leaders in this Chamber can seek to achieve consensus and, ultimately, go to Treasury and to Government Ministers in a unified way, because actually, what we found in the fourth Assembly, when this Chamber speaks with one voice, we actually achieve a hell of a lot of more. I think the improvement on this Bill was achieved greatly by the unified voice that came from this Assembly when we had the debate here and the whole Assembly voted on the merits, or not, as the case may be, of the original draft Bill that was before this Chamber for discussion.

I do note the move on the distinct jurisdiction. I do disagree with the leader of Plaid Cymru when she says that all legal expertise wants a separate jurisdiction. I might have misheard, but I thought you did say ‘all’. There is a body of opinion that does want a separate jurisdiction, there is a body of opinion that wants the status quo, and there is a body of opinion that is quite happy to move to this ground of distinct jurisdiction while the body of Welsh law evolves and develops. I do think we’ve moved significantly in the right direction, and I do believe that that move should be warmly welcomed, and it is progress that can be further enhanced as the body of Welsh law grows in the coming years.

But, I do, as I say, want to see this Wales Bill commence its progress through the House of Commons and House of Lords so that we can, ultimately, get the increased responsibilities that will enable the Government and the legislature to actually get on with the job of doing what the people of Wales elect us to do, which is seek the improvements in communities and lives across the whole of Wales. I do very much hope that we can work to build a speedy process for the implementation of the Wales Bill that was launched yesterday.

Can I thank the leader of the Conservatives for his comments? I do recognise that the engagement has been far better. I think it’s fair to say that. Certainly, we had far better engagement from the Wales Office, but it was more difficult from departments like the MOJ because, for some departments, their Ministers are elsewhere at the moment, and it’s not easy to track them down for reasons that he will know.

On policing, this is an oddity. How can there be a lasting settlement where you have a police service that’s devolved across the UK but not in Wales, where I suspect all four PCCs would be in favour of devolution of policing—they were all elected—and where the people of Wales voted, in the main, for parties that want to see the devolution of policing? So, it’s not as if there is a groundswell of opinion in Wales who do not want to see the devolution of policing. The police will be asked, over the course of the next 10, 20 years, to police very different laws, potentially, in England and Wales. To me, that doesn’t make a huge amount of sense.

There are some areas that make no sense for devolution: dealing with national security or organised crime—of course not. There are some issues that need to be dealt with, to my mind, across the UK. In fact, the reality is that doesn’t happen at the moment, but it should happen in the future. So, there are some areas of policing that I can see are better handled at a UK and, indeed, European and world level, for that matter.

On teachers’ pay and conditions, he seemed to give the impression that he was against the devolution of teachers’ pay and conditions. That’s not the view of his party in Westminster, which has agreed, in principle, for that devolution to take place. It’s an oddity, again, that everything in education is devolved apart from pay and conditions. There are examples elsewhere in the public sector where pay and conditions are devolved. It’s not unusual. He talks of regional pay. Well, bear in mind, of course, there are no UK pay and conditions—never have been. Pay and conditions are devolved in Northern Ireland and they are devolved in Scotland. If the concern ever was that, somehow, pay and conditions in Wales would be worse than elsewhere in the UK, that is absolutely not what I and, I suspect, everybody else in this Chamber would want to see—of course not. But what it does give us the ability to do is to construct in the next few years a coherent package of training, terms and conditions for our teachers, which isn’t possible at the moment, but which is possible and has, in fact, been done in Scotland. So, for us in Wales, there is an opportunity there.

On the issue of the jurisdiction, as far as ordinary people are concerned, I can see this is not something that has people marching in the streets. This is the only common law jurisdiction anywhere on the planet where there are two legislatures in the one jurisdiction. It doesn’t exist anywhere else at all in the world. Why is that important? Because it leads to confusion. Simon Thomas, in the previous Assembly, illustrated the point when he said that a constituent had come to see him and had asked why a Bill that, on the face of it, applied to England and Wales only applied in England. The reality is that when we change the law, we don’t change or create Welsh law, we change the law of England and Wales as it applies in Wales. It’s a hugely complicated way of doing something actually very simple. It was done in Northern Ireland without question. It was done in Scotland—it’s always been there in Scotland.

The history of the Commonwealth is such that whenever a Parliament is created, whether it’s autonomous or independent, the jurisdiction has always followed, except in Wales. Now, again, the argument that Wales in some way should be different, to my mind, doesn’t hold. I think there is merit in the argument that we don’t want, certainly at this stage or, perhaps, for many years to come to create a separate courts system, like Scotland and Northern Ireland, with the attendant cost that that brings. I think that’s a valid and strong argument, but this issue will need to be dealt with in the years to come. It’s a shame it’s not being dealt with now before it becomes a problem in the next five or 10 years.

But, nevertheless, we’ll continue to engage, of course. I want to get to a point where we have a Bill that takes us forward in terms of devolved powers. I suspect there will be some areas of disagreement that won’t be resolved, but I hope that those areas can be minimised as much as possible.

First Minister, thank you for your statement, and, like you, I give a cautious welcome to the Bill, because my party is a devolutionist party. That’s what our contribution to the debate on the EU is all about: devolution of powers back from Brussels to Westminster or to Cardiff. But, in the context of this particular Bill, as you’ll be aware, clause 16 is about the introduction of tax-varying powers, but removing the requirement that is in the current legislation for a referendum to be held before those powers are activated.

Your statement says that you object to these powers being devolved without the consent of the Assembly or Welsh Ministers and, hence, being imposed by Treasury Ministers. Well, I agree with that to this extent: that if there was to be no referendum then I certainly think that the Welsh Assembly ought to be allowed to make that decision. But I see no reason why the provision, which is in the current law, to consult the Welsh people should not be activated. That was the promise that was given before the last Wales Act was given the Royal Assent. This is now a breach of faith with the Welsh people. It’s a big decision because not only could there be tax-varying powers, but of course there could be tax-raising powers. Nothing would be worse, I think, for the health of the Welsh economy, than to do what many Labour Governments have done in the course of my lifetime—to impose penal rates of taxes, which utterly destroy the wealth-creating potential of the Welsh economy.

The impact assessment that accompanies the Wales Bill blandly says that the debate has now moved on and therefore we don’t need to have this referendum. There’s no justification provided in the impact assessment for this change, and I’m asking the First Minister, supposedly a democrat, to consult the Welsh people before he consents to the activation of tax-varying powers in the hands of this Assembly.

Well, a number of the parties in this Chamber—and his, in fairness—contained proposals with regard to the future of income tax varying powers in their manifestos in the election, and the people of Wales gave their verdict. From my party’s perspective, we said that we would not increase the burden of income tax on people during the course of this Assembly term. People went into the election knowing that. They did not vote in huge numbers for parties who said, ‘We are opposed to partial income tax varying powers coming to Wales’, or indeed for parties that demanded there should be a referendum. The point is this: Scotland has been offered far more substantive tax-varying powers than Wales, with no referendum; Northern Ireland has tax-varying powers on offer to it, particularly with regard to corporation tax, which are hugely significant in terms of what could happen there—again without a referendum. Is there really a need for a referendum every time there is a change in the devolution settlement? [Interruption.] Well, the promise was made by the UK Government, not by us. For the interest of the UK Government to explain its position, all the parties explained their positions in the election last month and the electorate gave their view. The electorate were not of the view that they wished to vote for parties that wished to have a referendum or indeed were opposed to income tax varying powers. The power has to be used prudently. I understand that. He talks of a time when there were penal rates of income tax. I was in the junior school at that time, so I’ll bow to his experience of that. But, certainly, my experience of the Labour Governments of late were not that they introduced penal rates of tax, and nor would be want to do the same. What it does, of course, is give us the opportunity to create a revenue stream against which we can borrow prudently. If we don’t get income tax varying powers, we can’t borrow money and we can’t actually build the M4 relief road. So, actually, income tax varying powers lead to larger schemes that we have no hope of paying for otherwise. In England, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland it is normal, with the borrowing powers that those Governments have, to borrow money for big schemes. If we don’t have access to that, we can’t do anything with major transport infrastructure, although, of course, the powers have to be used prudently and sensibly on behalf of the people of Wales.

I have seven other speakers. If you are all sharp and short with your questions, I hope to go through all of you. Mick Antoniw.

First Minister, I think we have to welcome the tone of the Secretary of State for Wales’s statement because it does indicate a willingness to work to improve to actually achieve a common objective of actually working legislation. If that actually happens, then that will be a good thing. Can I say that I do have considerable concerns about the approach to the jurisdiction issue? Because, for me, it actually goes to the core of the legislation and we do not want a situation where we continually have to try to work out the relationship between our powers, the laws of England and Wales, and the jurisdiction point. That was a problem that the last Secretary of State for Wales had considerable difficulty with. There has been an attempt in this draft Bill to deal with that, but there is this rather strange passage in the legislation, which says the purpose is

‘to recognise the ability of the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers to make law forming part of the law of England and Wales.’

Now, it seems to me that that just perpetuates the fundamental misunderstanding of the jurisdiction issue. There is no mystique to it. There is nothing magical about it. All the jurisdiction of England and Wales is is basically laws passed in Westminster applied to England and Wales as the area in which the jurisdiction exists, but we now have an additional legislature, and that is Wales. If we are going to recognise and create a framework through statute that says, ‘We recognise the specific existence of Welsh legislation’, it cannot be within the law of England and Wales, because you have the UK Parliament, which now sits—and you have English votes for English laws—as effectively an English Parliament passing legislation solely in England, and the legislation passed in Wales is not just what we pass, but it is also the legislation passed in Westminster, but only applies to England or does not apply to Wales. And unless that fundamental contradiction is actually resolved, we are going to continue having these arguments; we will not be resolving this and we’ll be discussing this year on year, which is something that we clearly want to see an end to. And the same issue is perpetuated. I hear what you say in respect of the judicial impact assessments, and I think you’re absolutely right on them in terms of their effect, but if you have one for Welsh legislation, you should have one for English legislation as well. So, it’s getting that balance right.

Now, I think the issue is fudged to some extent, because the proposal from the Secretary of State for Wales is to establish a committee that will actually look into these. Now, my biggest concern is that we have a committee that’s going to consider something that certainly I think and, I think, many people think is fundamental to getting this legislation right, and we need a timescale on it. We need a framework within which it’s going to work, because we need to actually resolve this as part of this legislation. It cannot be something that has to be tacked on later on. I was wondering what discussions you might have had or will be able to have in respect of that particular proposal from the Secretary of State for Wales on the formation of the committee, the timescale and the framework within which it is going to work.

Could I thank the Member for the way in which he has explained the complexity, in his own way, of the current situation? There is no timescale that the Secretary of State has put forward. What is strange is that nobody has argued that the jurisdiction will remain for ever and a day. Everyone says that it will have to change at some point in the future. The question is, should that issue be dealt with now or dealt with at a time when pressure is so great that it has to happen quickly? And the history of Welsh devolution is that, when pressure builds, action is taken, rather than steps being taken before the pressure emerges.

He is right to say that this is not some kind of totemic issue. The UK doesn’t exist as a jurisdiction; it never has done. Scotland has always existed as a separate jurisdiction, Northern Ireland since 1920, England and Wales only since 1536. It’s a long time, but only since 1536, and, since that time, a legislature has been established here in Wales. On that basis, the jurisdiction normally follows the legislature, but that is not the position that they find themselves in now. It’s almost as if they’re trying to make the laws fit the jurisdiction, rather than the other way around. The previous Bill, the problem with it was that the restrictions that were being placed, which actually took us back to a position before 2011, were in order to try and squeeze the law of England and Wales into the jurisdiction of England and Wales. Now it seems we have a situation where the jurisdiction will exist pretty much in name only, but, over the years, in many areas, substantially different laws will be created. To my mind, that’s not a durable solution. Yes, you can manage it in the short term, possibly, but, in the longer term, it’s not going to happen. We are already in a situation—as I’ve listened to judges who’ve told me this—where lawyers, be they solicitors or barristers, have come to Wales and argued the wrong law, because they assume that, because they’re in the same jurisdiction, the law is the same. Now, I would hit them with a wasted costs order—if that sounds too harsh, it’s probably why I’m not a judge—just to get the message across. But that’s a problem now, and unless the jurisdiction issue is dealt with in some way—not necessarily a separate jurisdiction, but a distinct jurisdiction—that problem will only continue in the future.

I thank the First Minister for his statement. I had hoped, First Minister, that this would be the final piece of legislation that the UK, in the Parliament that I occasionally visit, would pass on the Welsh constitution, but it appears to me that we haven’t reached that point as of yet. So, in asking my question to you, and in asking for your support in your response, I’m going to set a challenge for our colleagues beyond Paddington station to use the time between this debate today, which is the first full public debate on this particular Bill, and the Third Reading in the House of Lords at the end of the process and the passing of the Bill, to amend this Bill sufficiently so that it can be full constitutional legislation to change the circumstances of Wales.

I do think that there are enough seeds sown in this Bill to allow that to happen. I will give you one example in a brief question: the recognition of Welsh law. Now, we know that there is Welsh law because we make it here. So, thank you very much, Westminster, for acknowledging that there is such a thing as Welsh law. But we do have to move further. Therefore, can you tell us how you intend to report back on your interesting negotiations with the Secretary of State and the UK Government during the period between what we’re doing now and the end of the parliamentary process so that we reach that point that you and I both want to reach: having a relatively final and clear piece of legislation so that we don’t return to legislating on the Welsh constitution every three years?

Well, may I thank you for the question? It’s true to say that there is a sufficient opportunity here to create a sustainable constitutional settlement. This Bill goes some of the way towards that, but not the whole way. To me, what’s important is that the United Kingdom Government accepts that there are constitutional issues that need to be settled. As I said earlier, I will write to the Secretary of State. I will make sure that the leaders of this house see that letter, and of course any response. It’s important that Members know what the journey of the negotiations over the next few weeks, given that the timetable is going to be very short.

I’m delighted, as the First Minister is, to give a very cautious welcome to this step forward, but it does seem as if it’s always a slightly hesitant step, slightly catching up with where we should be. So, I would certainly urge the First Minister—and I think it seems to be the will of the Chamber today—to push hard in the negotiations, to work with colleagues in Westminster, not only with the Wales Office, but with other colleagues, to try and get more out of this, because, certainly, he was at the forefront, when the last Wales Bill came forward, of criticism amongst Welsh civic society and others. It was unloved, it was undernourished, and ultimately it was abandoned in the constitutional wilderness. This is an opportunity, as the gentleman opposite who also has experience of Westminster has just remarked, to actually make something good for the people of Wales, not just for the good of saving the embarrassment of Wales Office Ministers. I would give him my strongest support in taking that message forward, because there is good in this Bill, but it’s nowhere near where it needs to be yet.

Can I thank the Member for his comments? The difficulty with the last Bill was that, basically, the Secretary of State wrote around to other Whitehall departments and said, ‘What do you think should be devolved?’ Now, they must have thought Christmas had come at that point, and we had the Bill that we had, that ignored even what had happened in 2011, with the resounding referendum result. That’s why we ended up with that Bill. This Bill has reflected on the two major constitutional issues—the consents issue and the issue of legislation and our ability to create legislation freely. That’s been done, and I welcome that. So, the structure of it is far more secure than the structure of the previous Bill, but there’s a lot of work to do on the detail.

Can I welcome the tone of the First Minister, and also his ambition to work with the UK Government to actually now achieve a very comprehensive piece of constitutional law? Should this Bill proceed to the statute book, it will be the fourth Wales Act in 20 years, and I think I’ve said before that most people don’t change their cars as quickly as that, so to have such frequent changes in fundamental constitutional law is obviously not particularly to be recommended.

Can I warmly welcome the end of the necessity test? I did, in the speech on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs report in this Chamber in March—sorry, in January—point out that the Americans dealt with this sort of concept in 1819 and moved on and achieved great stability in their constitution by not acknowledging such tests. I also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State has reduced the number of reservations. This is welcome. We did have over 250—it was very difficult, actually, to count them—but we now are, I think, just about below 200. But, I would recommend that we go back to the fundamental concept of a reserved-powers model, and that’s to reserve to the central Government the powers it needs to function—and I use ‘central Government’ in this context to mean the UK Government. As you hinted, I think the approach has been the other way around in Whitehall, and it needs to change, so that they really acknowledge the durability, the permanence of the devolved settlement. There are still too many reservations and the principle we need to apply has not been yet fully applied. Your illustration was most apposite in relation to licensing. Frankly, if you cannot allow a national legislature to deal with licensing, and you think that’s a fundamental problem, then I think you’ve got great difficulty with the way you approach the whole constitutional question at hand.

Can I finally say that I do think that part of being a grown-up is to live with paradox? It’s a constant challenge. But, it is difficult to understand that the output of this legislature is the law of England and Wales, when it is obviously the law of Wales only. Now, that is the position, and trying to explain the legal technicalities of how we make law, I think, is highly convoluted, and it cannot lead to clear thinking. But I just want to make a practical point here, because I think the First Minister’s words are to be warmly welcomed, indicating he’s going to work with the UK Government to clarify this attempt to make Welsh law more distinct and manage the administrative, the practical, consequences of a growing body of distinct Welsh law. And it does come down to having judges who are competently trained to take cases now in Wales, and the lawyers who argue those cases as well. This is not a trivial matter, because our law is going to get more and more divergent, and over very, very important issues—someone referred earlier in questioning to our new planning law—so this has to be done. And I should say that, as we go down that road, and in fairness to the legal profession they’ve already acknowledged this, the reality of the separation that is now occurring will become more and more difficult to ignore. I suppose at that point we will all acknowledge that we have arrived at a separate jurisdiction.

Can I thank the Member, as ever, for his comments? One of the issues that’s been raised of concern with me is lawyers in Wales saying, ‘Well, if we’re a separate jurisdiction, does that mean we won’t be able to practise in England?’ That isn’t the case. It’s quite normal for lawyers to practise across common law jurisdictions. When I was in practice, it was possible to practise in Northern Ireland as long as you joined the Northern Ireland bar, which was £70, I think, in those days, and then you could practise. As long as you joined the appropriate professional association, there was no bar to practice at all. Scotland’s an entirely different matter, as Scottish law is much closer to the law of Germany, Spain or France, for that matter, than it is to the law of England, Wales and Northern Ireland. So, there is no bar to that and nor would I want to create a situation where it was difficult for Welsh law firms to seek work outside of Wales. That’s important for our economy. That’s not what a jurisdiction does. It just makes it easier for laws to be applied and easier for the public to understand them, but certainly it doesn’t make it more difficult for firms to operate. For example, over the past 10 or 15 years in Belfast, a lot of firms from London have moved in, and Northern Ireland is an entirely separate jurisdiction. They haven’t seen that as a bar to practising in Northern Ireland. So, I think that’s an argument that can be resolved, as far as the legal profession is concerned.

I welcome the changes in the new draft Bill. I don’t think it goes far enough, but I think there has been some progress, so it’s a cautious welcome. I have a few quick questions. I think there’s been general welcome that electoral arrangements are going to be devolved to this Assembly, and I’m looking forward to the time when the Assembly may vote for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds for the Assembly elections. I think that’s one of the great things in the Bill that we shouldn’t forget: that we will have that power. Can I ask the First Minister, would it give us the power to enable local authorities to have votes for 16 and 17-year-olds? So, I also wondered if the First Minister could answer that question.

On the policing issue, I think it’s very disappointing that there’s been no movement on the policing issue and I would ask the First Minister to do everything within his power during the negotiating period for this Bill to try to change the minds of the Westminster Government because it is inexplicable, especially in view of the fact that all of the other devolved bodies have had it devolved.

Finally, I wondered if he could address the issue of youth justice. As I understand it at the moment, the Welsh Government is responsible for youth justice services, but not the youth justice system, which I think is very confusing and is something that could, presumably, be clarified quite simply. Is it possible to do that in the negotiations over this Bill?

Could I thank the Member for her comments? She’s always been a doughty advocate, of course, for votes for 16 and 17-year-olds. That would lie within the power of this Assembly in terms of Assembly elections. In terms of local government elections, my memory of the last Bill, certainly, was that the local government franchise was reserved. Whether that’s been clarified in this Bill I’d have to examine. It’s clear as far as we’re concerned, but it’s not clear as far as local government elections are concerned. I welcome her comments, obviously, on policing. On youth justice, yes, the policy and the system should rest together to my mind and we’ll continue to make that case to the UK Government.

Thank you, First Minister. I think some of the issues in the Wales Bill, which we’re all discussing and we seem to think are very important, to the majority of the people of Wales are not really issues that they’re concerned about. The one big issue that almost everybody is going to be concerned about, and I myself have a fear about, is the tax-raising powers and the possibility of those without a referendum. In 2011, when we had the referendum on further powers, we were told then that is was not about more AMs and it was not about tax-raising powers: it was a tidying-up exercise. We now find ourselves being told that the two Governments—the Government here and the Government in Westminster—have a cosy consensus between them and that they’ve decided that we don’t really need to put this before the people of Wales. Well, Leanne Wood herself has just mentioned that the will of the people of Wales must be adhered to, and Andrew R.T. Davies talked about the fact that here, this house, must speak with one voice. This house does not speak with one voice. There are seven UKIP AMs and we do not agree—[Interruption.] We do not agree that there should be tax-raising powers without a referendum. Next year, there is an election in every single household in Wales, for the councils. In 2017, every council election is up for grabs. If you want to save money, if you want to be democratic and you want to give the people of Wales a say on this crucial matter, why not have a referendum at the exact same time and allow the people of Wales to have their say? Do we want this Government here to have power over their purses and wallets? I personally don’t.

Well, it was the people who’ve elected us here. I stood on the manifesto in my constituency including policies on income tax-varying powers and got elected as did—[Interruption.] I got elected, at the end of the day, in my constituency. [Laughter.] And, all Members, indeed, were elected here. But, the point is this: the people of Wales were asked their view on this last month and they expressed their view. Your party had seven seats—yes, that’s true—but there are 60 Members here and so there was not a groundswell of massive support for your party, even though I recognise that you did, of course, increase your support and it is evident in the fact that there are seven of you here.

I have to say, of course, that your party does not have a sound history of supporting devolution. You and I were together in Blackwood in the 2011 referendum and you opposed the primary law-making powers at that time. Your party, for the first three Assembly elections, at least, opposed the existence of the Assembly. Now, there’s been a change. Okay, I will grant that. But, I know that for many of your members the very existence of the Assembly is not something that they’re comfortable with. Lord knows, we saw many of the letters that some of them sent over the years into some of the newspapers: they weren’t particularly happy with the Assembly, Wales or the Welsh language. That’s changed.

I accept the point that you make today that you are looking to develop a devolution settlement that is more robust, but the point I make is this: in Scotland, there has not been a referendum and nor has UKIP called for a referendum on the extensive tax-varying powers that Scotland will get. In Northern Ireland, where corporation tax is being devolved, again, UKIP have not called for a referendum in Northern Ireland. So, what makes Wales different, especially given the fact that all parties in their manifestos dealt with this issue, and the people of Wales decided that they wished to support parties—overwhelmingly support the parties—that would look to see tax-varying powers devolved, and particularly look to make sure that those powers, when they arrive, are used prudently? But, I say to him again: no tax-varying powers, no M4 relief road; there is no way of having one without the other.

Thank you, First Minister.