The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Paul Davies.

Let’s move on, then, to item 7, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on the Wales Bill. I call on Steffan Lewis to move the motion. Steffan.

Motion NDM6022 Simon Thomas

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the publication of the Wales Bill;

2. Regrets the omission of the devolution of policing;

3. Regrets the failure to establish a distinct or separate legal jurisdiction; and

4. Regrets the lost opportunity to devolve the administration of justice.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer.

It’s a new political term and here we are again with a new Wales Bill from Westminster. And, once again, it’s disappointing that Westminster has decided to refuse to transfer powers to Wales that would improve the policy outcomes for our people, would ensure better accountability and, importantly, would deliver political equality for Wales.

Presiding Officer, I want to concentrate on the policing element of the Plaid Cymru motion this afternoon. Historically, of course, policing in these isles has evolved over the past three centuries: it started with the first police service in Glasgow, and in the seventeenth century that was expanded to the whole of Britain. In fact, professional policing followed a pattern of developing very, very locally, with all local authorities in Wales responsible for policing by the middle of the nineteenth century. Soon, there was a policing framework on a governance level across England and Wales, with separate legislation, of course, for Scotland, reflecting the constitution as it was then. Isn’t it now time for policing in Wales to reflect the constitutional reality and current policy, whilst keeping at its heart the historic element of local accountability?

During the Silk commission process, which I’m sure you’ll all recall, evidence was received on how the policy framework is set out for Wales by Westminster. More and more often, that framework is metropolitan in its outlook. Although emergency services in Wales do collaborate effectively, there was evidence gathered by Silk that it would be even better if policing were to be devolved. Indeed, policing, like the ambulance service and the fire and rescue service, is a part of day-to-day services, such as education and health. They are an integral part of the public service, and it’s an anomaly, therefore, that policing in Wales should be different to all the other main public services in the fact that it is not devolved.

Every one of these public services works closely together, and each has a knock-on effect on the other. For the sake of consistency and improved services for citizens, consistency in their accountability would benefit everyone.

Indeed, the fact that policing is central to public services in Wales is reflected in the fact that the Welsh Government itself contributes significantly to the cost of policing, although it has no direct political power or legal power in the area. The Welsh Government is the only Government in these isles that makes a financial contribution to policing without having any direct power over that policy area.

I would also like to refer to the broader point of the need for a Wales Bill that is sustainable. Despite my disappointment with this latest Bill, as with the previous one, and the one before that, and the one before that, I very much hope that it will be possible for parties to co-operate in order to ensure equality for Wales with the other nations within this state. Indeed, in policing, Wales is falling behind even Manchester and London now.

The Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Lywydd, wrth alw am ddatganoli plismona i’w le naturiol, mae Plaid Cymru yn cydnabod y byddai hynny’n golygu galw am gydweithredu synhwyrol ac aeddfed rhwng Llywodraeth Cymru a San Steffan. Mae’n hanfodol cael fframwaith wrth wraidd y broses ar gyfer cydweithio agos rhwng Gweinidogion plismona yng Nghymru a San Steffan a rhwng heddluoedd yng Nghymru a heddluoedd yn Lloegr, ar ôl ei ddatganoli. Bydd fframwaith clir a chadarn ar gyfer cymorth ar y cyd yn hanfodol ac yn wir mae gennym eisoes enghreifftiau da o gytundebau cymorth ar y cyd rhwng gwasanaethau sydd wedi’u datganoli i Gymru a gwasanaethau sy’n cyfateb iddynt yn Lloegr ac ar draws yr ynysoedd hyn. Mae cytundebau cymorth ar y cyd yn bodoli rhwng yr Alban a San Steffan a cheir cydweithrediad agos rhwng gwasanaeth heddlu Gogledd Iwerddon a’r Garda Síochána, yn enwedig yn dilyn adroddiad Patten. Byddai’r heriau cymhleth iawn sy’n wynebu’r rhai sy’n gorfodi’r gyfraith ar draws y byd yn gwneud cydweithredu yn hanfodol.

Nid yw cefnogaeth Plaid Cymru i ddatganoli plismona wedi’i hysgogi gan ryw freuddwyd gul ynghylch codi Clawdd Offa ar gyfer plismona, ond yn hytrach gan awydd i sicrhau gwell canlyniadau i ddinasyddion, cydlyniant ar draws y broses o gyflenwi gwasanaethau cyhoeddus yng Nghymru a mwy o atebolrwydd. Byddai gweledigaeth Plaid Cymru ar gyfer plismona yng Nghymru yn ceisio adeiladu ar y gorau o egwyddorion Peel ar gyfer plismona drwy gydsyniad a’i egwyddor ganolog mai’r heddlu yw’r cyhoedd a’r cyhoedd yw’r heddlu. Yn yr ysbryd hwnnw, gallwn adeiladu ar y gwaith a wnaed eisoes gan heddluoedd yng Nghymru i fod yn arloesol a rhannu arferion gorau gyda phartneriaid mewn mannau eraill yn y Deyrnas Unedig a thu hwnt.

Yn y ddadl hon heddiw, gobeithiaf y gall Aelodau o bob plaid gefnogi cynnig Plaid Cymru. Rwy’n edrych ymlaen at glywed safbwynt Llywodraeth Cymru, ei gweledigaeth ar gyfer sut y gellir achub y Bil Cymru cyfredol er mwyn sicrhau mwy o ddatganoli i Gymru, ac yn benodol byddwn yn gwerthfawrogi cael esboniad gan y Prif Weinidog ar safbwynt ei gydweithwyr yn y Blaid Lafur yn San Steffan yn dilyn y gwelliant a gyflwynwyd gan Blaid Cymru yn Nhŷ’r Cyffredin yr wythnos hon ar ddatganoli plismona i Gymru. Diolch yn fawr.

I have selected the amendment to the motion, and I call on David Melding to move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Gwelliant 1—Paul Davies

Delete all after point 1 and replace with:

Welcomes the Bill as a foundation for a fuller constitutional settlement.

Commends the statements of both the Welsh Government and the UK Government to cooperate during the legislative process to achieve the best outcome for the people of Wales.

Believes that the Bill offers the opportunity to bring greater balance to the British constitution and so strengthen the Union.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I begin by congratulating Steffan Lewis on a most lucid speech? I think anyone that quotes Robert Peel is going to find some support from these benches. Perhaps there are Tory sympathies that lurk deep, deep within your political soul. I just offer that, by the way; I hope it doesn’t reduce the authority with which I’ve no doubt you will now speak in your group. It was an excellent contribution.

I will return to the point of policing and the administration of justice at the end, but, if I can focus on the content of the Conservative amendment, I think the first place to start is that we do need to work towards a fuller constitutional settlement, and the best way is to take the current Bill as introduced and improve it. It’s already a great advance on the draft Bill, but it will be the fourth piece of constitutional law making that we’ve had in Wales within 18 or 19 years, so it needs to be as complete a settlement as we can find a reasonable consensus for at the moment. I am encouraged that the Welsh Government and the UK Government are working together and seem to share this very noble ambition.

Now, it is true there are still some substantial areas of difference. The First Minister has indeed written to the Secretary of State to outline some of the issues that he still thinks need to be addressed, and he’s referred to the issue of a single jurisdiction. The Bill does suggest a way of moving forward a bit in this area, recognising a body of Welsh law. I think we can argue about the philosophical differences here, but I think it is acknowledging that a body of Welsh law and a legislature is at some point going to be recognised in terms of the legal vocabulary as something approaching a single jurisdiction.

The number of reservations is, in Welsh Government’s view, still too large and I suspect that, as we scrutinise the Bill, that may be the view more generally in this Assembly. There’s been partial progress on UK ministerial consents. Again, anything we can do to have a more complete and logical dividing line in areas like this I think would help the clarity of the constitutional settlement. And, in the First Minister’s view, taxation powers need to be linked to fair funding. I’m not myself convinced that it needs to be automatically linked, but it clearly does inform the debate and, whatever taxation powers come to us, the issue of a fair formula—a needs-based formula, basically—for the distribution of centrally-gathered moneys within the UK state is clearly very, very important. All strong fiscal unions have this; it is an essential part of an effective form of fiscal devolution.

So, I think we do need to work together to improve the Bill as it now proceeds through its parliamentary stages, and of course we will have an opportunity here in the Assembly to do some of that work as well and to send our conclusions up to Westminster. And I think, in being effective in this area, we will bring greater balance to the British constitution and so strengthen the union. Now, I realise this is not a direct benefit as far as Plaid Cymru are concerned, but insofar as we remain in a union I’m sure you’ll want to see the constitutional arrangements as robust as possible.

Plaid’s motion focuses principally on policing and the administration of justice. What I would say here is that this is a debate that needs to be had, but it needs to be had, I think, separately to the current debate on the Bill, because there are major issues to discuss. It is something we need to be aware of is a part of the devolution settlement in Scotland, and it’s now increasingly part of the devolution settlement in Northern Ireland. So, I myself think it should be discussed, and there was indeed a Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report on this under my chairmanship in the fourth Assembly. But it is a big political question. Community policing in most federal states is devolved; I mean, that has to be recognised. But, as our report concluded, if you’re looking at these areas then it really does make sense to address them completely and devolve criminal justice and sentencing policy. And I’m not sure that the Welsh electorate are ready to make that decision. We certainly need to have a full debate about it. It’s one where I have views that may not always be in total accord with some of my colleagues at the moment, but you will understand that, as the official spokesman on the constitution for my group, I cannot go into greater detail on those matters now.

I’m very pleased to participate in this debate on a crucially important issue, and to share some of my concerns, if truth be told. Now, I don’t need to emphasise just how important the law is in our daily lives. It is central to the effective operation of any state in ensuring the safety and security of our citizens.

Access to the justice system is an integral and fundamental part of justice. Without access, this would only be a concept or an aspiration. But, following cuts and a reform programme to the justice system by the Westminster Government, Wales is losing out on having full access to an effective justice system. Between 2010 and 2015, 15 courts were closed the length and breadth of Wales by the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, and since 2015 another 14 have either closed or are earmarked for closure over the next few years. The closure of Dolgellau magistrates’ court, for example, in the constituency of my colleague from Dwyfor Meirionnydd, does mean cases will now be transferred to Caernarfon or Aberystwyth. For those of you who don’t know that part of the world, that means a journey of over an hour in a car, if you happen to have a car. As we know, public transport is inadequate in Wales, particularly in rural communities, and means that it will be impossible for people who are reliant on public transport to reach the magistrates’ court for a 9.30 a.m. start.

The Westminster Government is defending its decisions by claiming that the courts aren’t being used sufficiently, but there is evidence from a number of different sources that shows that court cases are being moved in order to actually justify these figures and justify the closure of these courts. And, if a lack of demand isn’t the justification for this, then one has to come to the conclusion that it’s part of the Tory obsession in Westminster with saving money without giving full consideration to the impact on the population.

The closure of courts in rural Wales will also have a very detrimental impact on an individual’s ability to carry out their business through the medium of Welsh. The closure of courts and the cuts in legal aid, including giving legal aid contracts to local lawyers, will actually worsen this trend where we see small independent companies either relocating or closing entirely. In the heartlands of the Welsh language it’ll be virtually impossible for residents to access legal services and conduct their business in their language of choice. The Welsh language, of course, should be a key consideration in deciding whether specific courts should be closed or not. Indeed, maintaining these services through the medium of Welsh is a legal requirement. But, although the Government at times has accepted that and made a u-turn, it is about time that these decisions were made by our own Government here in Wales, which would be far more responsive to the needs of our communities.

It’s clear that the UK Government reforms have failed and, if access to the justice system continues to be insufficient, then the rule of law will become meaningless.

There was unanimous agreement among a number of legal experts, when evidence was provided to the Welsh Affairs Committee during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Wales Bill, that there should be a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales. But, although the Bill didn’t receive support in the Assembly during the fourth term of the Assembly, the Westminster Government, as we all know, has come back with another Wales Bill that still rejects not only the advice of experts but a right that has already been given to other devolved nations within this union. What sort of equality is that?

Now perhaps I wouldn’t expect opposition Members to support our proposals today, although I hope that some of you will. But I will call on the Government—despite the actions of your colleagues in Westminster this week, I would call on you to support our motion today in order to ensure fairness for Wales, fairness that has already been provided to Scotland, Northern Ireland and even some English cities—fairness that would ensure that decisions are taken by a democratically elected body that is directly accountable to the people of our nation.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak on this again. This is subject matter that we will undoubtedly be discussing line by line in detail, because this is of massive importance really. If we don’t know the framework of our powers in which we operate, how can we possibly develop properly policy for the future and represent the people who elect us?

I do welcome this Bill, in the sense that the last Bill was completely unworkable. I think that was almost recognised across all political parties. This Bill has some very substantial flaws but provides a basis to have something that can be workable and sustainable. So, to that extent, I welcome it.

Can I just make a few comments on the Bill, because there will be many matters of detail that we’ll need to go into at some stage? The first one is that the thing that has always concerned me about the way these Bills have appeared is the lack of being given any proper logic or explanation for reservations that are there—why something is being reserved as opposed to why something is not being reserved. I think that has always been a flaw, because if you’re working collectively to try and achieve workable legislation you have to know what the logic is between those who’ve actually drafted this and where it goes. Well, hopefully, that will become clearer. I’ll just put in the bid I always make on these, which is that I do hope that we actually get gambling and fixed-odds betting machines, the ability to oversee those, because there is a serious health issue with this. There are matters that we do want to have devolved to us because they do raise serious public issues.

Can I also raise one other issue that I’ve raised several times? That is that I still think there may be an opportunity in respect of the issue of fiscal powers—[Interruption.] I do apologise.

I thank the Member very much for giving way. He’s been talking about the reservations and the logic of them and I just wondered if he’d had the opportunity to consider the reservations in the family relationships and children section, which does appear to include adoption and some parts of the Children Act, and proceedings related to the care, supervision or protection of children. It may be that I’m interpreting this wrongly on the surface, but obviously it does cause me some concern and I wondered if he’d had a chance to think of that.

I think the Member is absolutely right that there are sections within the Bill reserved that it’s not quite clear exactly what they do mean. For example, why, in section 175, would you have parenthood, parental responsibility, child arrangements and adoption as a reserved matter when, clearly, there are major responsibilities we have that overlap into those areas? And there are a number of those. That’s why it’s important that those are explored in very considerable detail.

I was mentioning the point about fiscal powers because, as we know, the asbestos Bill, which I brought as a private Member’s Bill in the last session, failed predominantly because of not having fiscal powers. It seems to me that fiscal powers with regard to devolved matters is quite a potentially important area. Of course, many of us were at the very useful Bevan Foundation briefing looking at areas of taxation, many of which would require the devolution of fiscal powers or the use of more complicated powers under the 2014 Act. There is a way of simplifying and clarifying that aspect of law.

Can I just go back to the jurisdiction point, because it is raised and it is important and it is quite fundamental to where we’re going? Just to reiterate the point, this, in many ways, is an administered matter. There is a mystique that’s been attached to a jurisdiction. The jurisdiction is essentially purely the geographical area in which law applies and where court cases are heard. So, the idea, now that we have our own legislature in Wales passing legislation; the logic for having a jurisdiction it seems to me to be unanswerable. It is a matter that shouldn’t cause great controversy. In the last session, I was able to chair a justice stakeholders group, and there’s a report that I would recommend Members read. If I may just read out the part that was relevant there, because I think it is summed up very well. It said, ‘The need to resolve issues relating to the jurisdiction is, in our view, now unavoidable. We do not, at this stage, consider it necessary or feasible to establish a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales, which would involve significant organisational change. What the group favours is making simple administrative changes within the current unified system of courts and tribunals and judiciary of England and Wales through the designation of Welsh cases adjudicated by judges sitting in courts designated as Welsh courts.’

And, if there was any greater authority on this, in a speech by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Thomas, in October 2015, he made it very clear when he said,

‘It is right for me to say that there is no reason why a unified court system encompassing England and Wales cannot serve two legal jurisdictions.’

Now, I hope this sort of fascination with the mystique of jurisdiction actually gets resolved, because it is a simple administrative matter. It could even amount to just a tick box when legal applications are made to the courts: ‘Does this case involve a matter of Welsh or English Law?’ If so, it then gets designated and administered in the correct way. I hope that the working party that has been set up by the Secretary of State for Wales will quickly resolve this, because this particular Bill needs to have the jurisdictional issue resolved before it is able to proceed properly.

Thank you for the opportunity to contribute to this debate, and thank you for the great contributions from Steffan, Siân and Mick recently.

I was going to concentrate as well, fundamentally, on this element of policing and the justice system, because when we started here in 1999, one of the three main 999 services were devolved, and that was the ambulance service. And, the Deputy Presiding Officer will remember, a few years later, we had the devolution of the second main 999 service, which was the fire service. That leaves now just one of those, namely the police. So, rationally, it makes sense also for the police to be devolved here, like the two main 999 services that have already been devolved. It makes perfect sense. And, as we’ve heard, policing has already been devolved in Northern Ireland, Scotland, London and Manchester. Therefore, you have to ask the question, ‘What is wrong with us?’ at the end of the day. Because here we are, an established organisation, and we can make laws, and yet we don’t have the right to look after our own policing system.

At the end of the day, and to bring everything under one building, as it were, we’re very keen to try and avoid reoffending. When I was here before, we had a number of reviews on how to avoid reoffending. When somebody leaves prison, there is a great challenge for that individual and a great challenge for society to ensure that that person doesn’t reoffend and find himself or herself back in prison. Of course, there is a lot of co-ordination work that’s needed to ensure that there is a constructive future in front of that individual. And, of course, that belongs to our housing system, the NHS, our social services, which have already been devolved, but also the probation service, the prisons themselves, and the justice system itself, which have not been devolved. Therefore, there is a fundamental challenge there to co-ordinate those services that have been devolved already and to co-ordinate their work for that particular individual with those services that haven’t been devolved. It doesn’t make sense. There is a need for all of those services to be devolved. That’s what we want to see, and that is what will ensure improved care for our most vulnerable people.

So, at the end of the day, common sense must prevail here. We’re not asking for something that hasn’t happened already in places such as Northern Ireland, Scotland, London and Manchester. Therefore, support Plaid Cymru’s debate. Thank you.

The omission of the devolution of policing from the Wales Bill is welcomed. I took part in two committee reviews of police structure a decade ago here. It reported that criminal activity does not recognise national or regional boundaries. Commenting on calls for police devolution in the Wales Bill, my contacts in both North Wales Police and the North Wales Police Federation told me that they have a closer affiliation with north-west England than the rest of Wales and that there is a lack of competence in Welsh Government to handle the devolution of policing. As they’ve repeatedly reminded me, most people live along the M4 and A55 corridors, separated by a vast rural area, and with very different policing requirements, and their operational priority is working cross-border with north-west England.

As Gwent’s deputy chief constable Mick Giannasi has written,

‘whilst I could see there might be some strategic benefits from the devolution of police, there are also serious operational risk…the list of potential benefits for me is a relatively short one’.

He also questioned whether the Welsh Government had developed the resources or the experience to oversee policing and, although he stated that the relationship between the four Welsh police forces and the Welsh Government has been constructive, he believed that if the role of Welsh Government changed to one of accountability and delivery, that would inevitably result in a change in the nature of its relationship with the police service, and one that might ultimately prove to be less productive.

The introduction of police and crime commissioners marked an act of real devolution, empowering local communities to have their say on policing priorities and to hold an elected representative to account. I wish our former colleague Jeff Cuthbert success in his new role as a commissioner.

Will the Member give way?

One, yes.

I’m grateful to the Member for giving away. He just mentioned the police and crime commissioners. Four of them have just been elected in Wales: two Plaid Cymru, two Labour, and all four in favour of the devolution of police.

We shall see about that once they’ve got settled into their jobs, won’t we? The previous four somewhat modified their views on this.

Labour’s call for devolution of policing, backed by the separatists, would actually deliver the opposite of real devolution. The First Minister refers to the proposed devolution of policing to the future mayor of Manchester as a model for Wales, but of course those are only the powers of police and crime commissioners, and we already have devolution to them in Wales. What the First Minister is therefore actually talking about is taking yet more power from the regions of Wales and centralising those powers in Cardiff, giving themselves control over the appointment of chief constables, the suspension of chief constables, calling on chief constables to retire or resign, setting out five-year police and crime plans, and setting the annual precepts and force budgets. That’s not something I consider an attractive proposition for the Welsh Government, given that Labour’s creeping and often intimidatory politicisation of devolved public services is damning, and the risk of this infecting policing is too great.

Plaid Cymru’s dedication to the devolution of policing provides further evidence that their ideological goal—the destruction of a United Kingdom and division of its peoples—takes priority over the needs of the people across Wales, most of whom live in cross-border crime regions.

If that proposal is one where the objective is the destruction of the United Kingdom, then is the devolution of policing to Manchester aimed at destroying the structure of England?

I’ve actually finished my speech. [Assembly Members: ‘Oh.’]

I apologise to Mark Isherwood. I had thought that you were taking the intervention and I apologise for that, but the point is made and is on the record. I call Rhianon Passmore.

Thank you, Llywydd. In terms of the timescales for the ability to scrutinise the Wales Bill through the recess and beyond, are we convinced that there is enough time for us to be able to do that and produce good legislation? Thank you.

I’d like to focus my contribution on the criminal justice system and the probation service in particular. It’s more than eight years ago now—back in the spring of 2008—that I produced a policy paper for Plaid Cymru, entitled ‘Making Our Communities Safer’. The purpose of that paper was to improve community safety, and it proposed the devolution of the criminal justice system so that Wales could, among other things, pursue an alternative criminal justice system that focused on tackling the causes of crime. I drew upon my experience of working as a probation officer and dealing with offenders, as well as the theoretical knowledge that I had, having practised as a social work probation professional tutor. I had a good understanding of what worked, and what didn’t, to form many of the conclusions that were set out in that paper.

I’m sure that many Members here will remember the Silk commission and that that commission recommended that control over youth justice and policing should be devolved and that other criminal justice powers should follow in future. As we know, Silk has been kicked into the long grass. The lack of action on the criminal justice elements of that agenda has since seen a large part of the probation service sold off and privatised, split up by a Westminster coalition Government that had no mandate to govern from Wales. There was no compelling motive for this reorganisation, and it has been hardly a success.

In 2013, the Ministry of Justice rated all 35 probation trusts in this country and in England as good or excellent. So, there was no justification whatsoever for the reorganisation based on performance. The consequences of this ideologically driven move are far and wide-reaching and they may not even be fully realised for many years to come. Morale among many of my former colleagues is at an all-time low. Staff at the community rehabilitation company—or CRC—in Wales have been warned that they can expect up to 44 per cent redundancies. There’s a division between the CRCs and the staff that work for the national probation service who deal with higher-risk offenders. Before privatisation, there was no such division within the service, and what is worth recognising here is that people can change in terms of the risk that they pose with time. So, it makes no sense to split offender rehabilitation in this way. Shared intelligence between the CRCs and the National Probation Service has become fraught with difficulty, when we should be making communication between professionals, particularly when we are talking about risky people, as easy as possible. I have no doubt that the privatisation of the probation service will lead to poorer outcomes for offenders, as well as poorer outcomes for our communities, which we all have a duty to serve.

I wrote to the First Minister on three separate occasions in the last Assembly about my concerns about the probation service privatisation and the damage that it would cause. He agreed with many of the points that I made. It was just a shame that the Labour Party in Westminster did not agree as well and do something effective about it. I hope that we can learn from this. I would like to think that we can agree that powers on this and everything else are best reserved to the places that are closest to the people that the decisions affect. A great opportunity to protect the robustness and the integrity of the probation service has been missed. We will no doubt pay a price for that, but we should not allow opportunities like that to pass us by again.

Among the questions in this Bill that will feel very far removed from everyday life is the question of legal jurisdiction. It will seem like a concern for academics and lawyers alone, but there are practical aspects of this that should be grappled with within this Bill if we are serious about strengthening the foundations of devolution to deal with the enhanced powers that this Chamber will have.

Yn y ddadl ar gwestiwn awdurdodaeth, nid yw’n glir i mi beth yw’r sail resymegol dros gynnal y status quo. Rwy’n gobeithio nad yw’n deillio o reddf i’w roi yn y blwch ‘rhy anodd’, oherwydd nid yw hynny’n wir. Mae mater cynnal awdurdodaeth sengl Cymru a Lloegr yn wynebu’r risg o fod yn fater sy’n cyfateb mewn cyfraith i’r syniad o oruchafiaeth seneddol—rhyw fath o flanced gysur gyfansoddiadol y daliwyd gafael arni oherwydd ofn neu syrthni ac sydd, a bod yn onest, yn methu â mynd i’r afael â chymhlethdodau cynyddol y trefniadau democrataidd presennol. Newid cyfreithiol cyfyngedig yw awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol benodol ar gyfer Cymru ac mae iddo fanteision ymarferol sylweddol.

I fod yn glir, nid wyf yn dadlau dros wahanu llysoedd a barnwyr yn llwyr. Nid yw’n fater sy’n ymwneud ag adeiladau neu bobl, neu liw y wisg neu’r arfbais uwchben y siambr. Mewn gwirionedd, bydd manteision sylweddol i ymgyfreithwyr a’r cyhoedd os mai’r un unigolion fydd y personél cyfreithiol, boed yn farnwyr neu’n ymarferwyr, yn gweithredu’n ddi-dor yn awdurdodaethau cyfochrog Cymru a Lloegr. Nid yw’n anghyffredin o gwbl yn nhraddodiad cyfraith gwlad i gyfreithwyr fod wedi cymhwyso’n ddeuol yn y ffordd hon, felly nid yw’n dir arloesol. Ond gyda chorff cynyddol o gyfraith ar gyfer Cymru yn unig, ynghyd â daearyddiaeth benodol, byddai’n ymddangos yn synnwyr cyffredin, heb sôn am fod yn ddeniadol yn gyfreithiol, i gael rheol i gyd-fynd â hyn y dylai’r deddfau a basiwyd gan y corff hwn effeithio’n unig ar ddeddfau Cymreig sydd wedi’u datganoli ac nad ydynt yn effeithio ar gyfraith Lloegr—a elwir fel arall i bob pwrpas yn awdurdodaeth benodol Gymreig. Mae hwn yn newid pragmataidd, a bydd yn effeithio’n gadarnhaol drwy helpu i osgoi rhai o’r ysgarmesoedd ar y ffin, os mynnwch, sydd fel arall yn anochel wrth ddrafftio’r gyfraith ac wrth ei gweithredu.

Ond mae yna fater arall i’w ystyried hefyd. Yn y traddodiad cyfraith gwlad rydym ni yng Nghymru a Lloegr yn perthyn iddo, caiff barnwyr eu rhwymo gan gynseiliau wrth ddehongli’r gyfraith. Cânt eu rhwymo i ddilyn penderfyniadau barnwyr llysoedd uwch yn yr un awdurdodaeth. Gydag awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol sengl, gallai cynsail a grëwyd mewn llys yn Lloegr ar fater sydd wedi’i ddatganoli yng Nghymru effeithio ar farnwr sy’n dyfarnu achos yng Nghymru, yn rhinwedd y ffaith ei fod yn rhan o’r un awdurdodaeth. Mewn gwirionedd mae hyn yn fwy tebygol o ddigwydd gyda datganoli arfaethedig agweddau ar gyfraith gontractau, cyfraith droseddol a chyfraith eiddo. Mae’n bwysig iawn fod gennym ffiniau clir ynglŷn â pha ffactorau y bydd barnwyr yng Nghymru yn edrych arnynt wrth benderfynu achosion. Mae hyn er budd y cyhoedd. Y ffordd i ddatrys hyn yw cydnabod, mewn perthynas â materion datganoledig fan lleiaf, fod cyfraith Cymru a chyfraith Lloegr yn wahanol. Ni fyddai barnwyr sy’n penderfynu achosion dan gyfraith Cymru yn anfwriadol yn effeithio ar gyfraith Lloegr, fwy nag y byddai barnwyr sy’n penderfynu achosion dan gyfraith Lloegr yn anfwriadol yn rhwymo barnwyr yng Nghymru. Wrth i gorff cyfraith Cymru ehangu, daw hon yn fwy, yn hytrach na llai o broblem. Nid yw’n anodd ei datrys. Mae’r gwaith a wnaed mewn perthynas â Bil drafft Llywodraeth Cymru, a dadansoddiad y grŵp rhanddeiliaid yn ddiweddar dan gadeiryddiaeth Mick Antoniw, yn cynnig trywydd yma, ac yn bwysig, mae gan y dull hwn o weithredu fanteision i Gymru a Lloegr.

Un pwynt olaf: mae’n ymddangos i mi fod y Bil hwn eisiau rhoi’r argraff fod yna awdurdodaeth benodol heb ei sefydlu mewn gwirionedd. Mae’r gydnabyddiaeth yn adrannau agoriadol y Bil, fod corff o gyfraith Gymreig yn bodoli, yn awgrymu hynny. Credaf fod angen i ni fynd â’r gydnabyddiaeth honno un cam ymhellach a chyflwyno awdurdodaeth benodol i Gymru yn y Bil hwn.

Can I say at the outset that I certainly support the thrust of this motion and also regret that the draft Wales Bill does not provide for the devolution of policing and justice? The UK Tory Government funding cuts to policing in England led to significant reductions in the number of PCSOs there. So, we should congratulate the last Welsh Labour Government on agreeing to fund the employment of additional PCSOs here, despite the cuts enforced on Welsh police authorities by the Home Office. We also suffered the disastrous Westminster-imposed privatisation of the probation services; something that would not have happened here if responsibility for probation had been devolved to Wales. However, I hope, Llywydd, you’ll forgive me if I want to move into one or two other areas of the Bill that I’d like to address, just to get the discussion going on one or two other things perhaps for further debate.

The first is around votes for 16 to 17-year-olds, because I’ve met with a number of young people in my constituency, and I’ve been impressed by their level of engagement and interest in the political process and the work of the National Assembly. And I think it’s vital that we here in the Assembly not only applaud that level of engagement, but also build on it and ensure that it’s fostered and sustained. In the draft Wales Bill, there is the opportunity to take this degree of engagement to new heights, as the Bill gives us the potential to extend the voting rights in Welsh elections to those 16 and 17-year-olds. Some argue that 16 and 17-year-olds don’t have the life experience to take on the responsibility of voting. I’m afraid I don’t agree with that. For example, during this current EU referendum campaign, I’ve witnessed young people coming together to debate the issues. Their discussions have been constructive and have focused on the hopes and aspirations for the UK’s future involvement with Europe, rather than descending into scaremongering and misinformation on issues such as immigration. It would be a massive plus for Wales if we were able to invest that degree of trust in our young people to allow them to participate fully in our democratic, political processes by extending the right to vote to them.

As we know, there are also other areas of the Bill that we need clarification on as we go forward. Colleagues will know that, following the general election last year, the Tory Government in Westminster launched another attack on working people with the publication of the Trade Union Bill—a cynical and vindictive assault on trade unions that particularly targeted those unions like my own, Unison, who organise and represent workers in the public services. So, I want to thank the previous Welsh Government and particularly the former public services Minister for the robust stand taken in not only campaigning against that Bill, but also in making it clear that those parts of this Wales Bill relating to the Trade Union Bill relating to public services would be opposed here in Wales.

Having won the dispute with the UK Government over the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, I’m confident that this current Assembly will take an equally robust stance when it considers its position on those parts of the Trade Union Bill relating to public services in Wales that still remain, despite the Tory Government’s climbdown on many of its initial proposals. We have strong grounds to remain confident of our legal position in this area, and I hope, therefore, that the Wales Bill will ultimately put this issue to bed and will confirm that employment matters relating to public services in Wales are clearly not reserved and are under the absolute control of a devolved Welsh Government.

I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Thank you, Llywydd. May I thank everyone who has contributed to the debate and may I say at the outset that we will be supporting the Plaid Cymru motion on these benches and will reject the Conservative amendment?

May I start by dealing with some of the points raised by Steffan Lewis on policing? Well, we are in favour of the devolution of policing. It’s true to say that, in Westminster this week, the Labour Party had abstained on the issue, but only because of the fact that we believe that this is something that should be dealt with under the Wales Bill and not under another Bill. Why shouldn’t the people of Wales have the same rights as the people of Scotland, Northern Ireland and even London? I have never heard any argument made that would support why that should be the case.

Of course, in terms of jurisdiction, many Members have mentioned that, and the fact that jurisdiction is something that has a mystique, as Mick Antoniw put it, but it is something that’s entirely normal: where you do have a legislature, jurisdiction tends to automatically follow on from that. That hasn’t been the case in Wales, but it has in all other parts of the world, and I don’t see why Wales should be any different.

O ran y Bil ei hun, wel, mae’n welliant ar y Bil blaenorol. Roedd y Bil blaenorol wedi gosod y bar yn isel. Gadewch i ni atgoffa ein hunain—daeth y broblem gydag awdurdodaeth sengl yn amlwg oherwydd bod yr obsesiwn gyda chadw’r awdurdodaeth mor gryf o dan y Bil blaenorol nes ei fod mewn gwirionedd wedi gwthio’r broses ddatganoli yn ôl i fel oedd hi cyn 1999 mewn rhai achosion. Nawr mae gennym Fil ger ein bron sydd â photensial ond mae angen llawer o waith arno. Mae yna lawer iawn o fanylion yn y Bil sydd angen eu harchwilio. Rydym eisoes yn y broses o wneud hynny, er fy mod yn poeni ynghylch yr amserlen a ddyranwyd ar gyfer y Bil yn Nhŷ’r Cyffredin—mae’n ymddangos mai dau ddiwrnod o bwyllgor a ddyrennir. Mae hynny’n peri pryder mawr i ni. Ni ellir rhuthro hyn gan ei fod yn newid sylfaenol yn y strwythur datganoli ac mae angen craffu’n briodol arno, ac ni ddylid ei ruthro drwy Dŷ’r Cyffredin.

Ceir rhai meysydd lle mae’n ymddangos bod yna anghysondebau. Er enghraifft, bydd y rhan fwyaf o’r gyfraith droseddol yn cael ei datganoli, bydd cyfraith y drefn gyhoeddus yn cael ei datganoli, ac eto ni fydd trwyddedu alcohol yn cael ei ddatganoli. Un o’r rhesymau a roddwyd i mi pam na ellid datganoli trwyddedu oedd oherwydd y drefn gyhoeddus. Bydd y drefn gyhoeddus yn cael ei datganoli. Cyflog ac amodau athrawon—ceir cytundeb eisoes mewn egwyddor i ddatganoli hynny, ac eto mae’n ymddangos ar wyneb y Bil fel rhywbeth a fyddai’n cael ei gadw’n ôl. Os yw’n aros yno, yna er mwyn datganoli’r pwerau hynny, fel y cytunwyd i’r sefydliad hwn, byddai angen Deddf i ddiwygio’r Bil ar ei ffurf bresennol.

Wedyn, wrth gwrs, mae gennym y prawf effaith ar gyfiawnder a’r asesiadau o’r effaith ar gyfiawnder yr ymddengys nad ydynt yn cyflawni unrhyw ddiben o gwbl heblaw darparu ymarfer er mwyn i’r Llywodraeth asesu beth y mae Bil penodol yn ei olygu ar gyfer y system gyfiawnder. Ac yna nid oes dim yn digwydd—mae’n rhedeg i’r tywod. Nid wyf yn glir pa reswm posibl sydd yna dros yr asesiadau o’r effaith ar gyfiawnder, na pha ddiben sydd iddynt, gan nad ydynt yn ymddangos yn unman yn y setliadau datganoli eraill.

O ran treth incwm, nid wyf yn fodlon y gall datganoli treth incwm ddigwydd heb gydsyniad y Cynulliad hwn. Er enghraifft, byddai angen—ac mae’r Albanwyr wedi gwneud hyn—cytuno ar y fframwaith cyllidol o leiaf cyn bod datganoli o’r fath yn digwydd. Credaf ei bod yn bwysig cael cydsyniad y Senedd etholedig hon, fel y bydd yn fuan, rwy’n gobeithio, ar ran pobl Cymru.

A gaf fi droi at yr hyn a ddywedodd Mark Isherwood? [Torri ar draws.]

Thank you for giving way, First Minister. I hear what you say on the issue of devolution of income tax, but would you also agree with me that it’s important that we have clarity on the mechanism that will be used to reduce the block grant subsequent to the devolution of income tax, so that Wales isn’t actually short-changed in the long term?

That is the fiscal framework. But there needs to be an agreement in place so that Wales doesn’t lose out, if I can put it in those terms. At the moment, of course, the Bill as it’s phrased could impose a duty on us without a proper framework being in place. I don’t think that’s right, and I’m sure Members will agree that there needs to be a framework put in place so that the people of Wales do not lose out.

Let me deal with Mark Isherwood. Now, he made—[Interruption.]. No, no—he deserves a response, in fairness. The difficulties with the arguments he puts forward are these: most of the criminal law will be devolved. Most of it. So we’ll face a situation, if he has his way, in 20 or 30 years’ time, potentially, where the making of criminal law will be largely for this institution, but its enforcement would be carried out by the police, who’ll be responsible solely to Whitehall. That doesn’t make sense, to my mind. So, in other words, you have enforcement authorities who have no responsibility or accountability at all to the legislature that passes the laws in the first place. That can’t be right, surely? I’m sure he sees that.

He sees this as a separatist argument, well, I don’t recall him arguing strongly that policing should not be devolved to Northern Ireland for that very reason. I don’t recall him arguing strongly that policing should be removed from the competence of the Scottish Government and Parliament because it would lead, inevitably, to Scottish independence. I don’t recall him demanding that the Mayor of London should have his powers removed in terms of the Metropolitan Police because of the undermining of the United Kingdom that that would inevitably cause. This is not a separatist argument. This is an argument that Wales should be treated in the same way as Scotland and Northern Ireland. [Inaudible] Of course.

I’m sorry if I gave you the impression I said it was a separatist argument. I didn’t say it was a separatist argument. I said it was the motivation perhaps for the separatist party, as opposed to the motivation that you might have.

Well, his party in Scotland are in favour of policing being dealt with in Scotland. So, are his party in Scotland then a bunch of separatists, using that argument? I don’t think we can have those double standards any more when it comes to devolution for Wales. As I’ve said before, Wales should be treated along the same principles and the same lines as Scotland and indeed Northern Ireland.

So, for me, the question is this: he makes the point that police and crime commissioners represent an element of devolution, and there’s an element of truth in what he says. But, for me, it’s a matter for this institution as to whether there should be police and crime commissioners or not. In fact, we had no choice; they were imposed on us by Parliament in Westminster, when in fact the decision could have been that of the people of Wales. They may have decided that they wanted them. But that decision was not placed before the people of Wales. I remind him as well, of course, that all those candidates who stood in the police and crime commissioner elections who did not want policing devolved all lost, including of course his own police and crime commissioner in Mid and West Wales who not only did not want policing devolved, but wanted the fire service un-devolved and lost by some margin. That should tell him where the people of Wales are on this issue.

The wider issue of the justice system has been raised. I know that the leader of the opposition has strong views on the probation service, as somebody who worked in the probation service, and I agree with much of what she has said. She will know that the draft Bill that we put forward looked at the devolution of the justice system, but a few years hence. The reason why, for me, that’s sensible is that police devolution can happen fairly easily. That’s just simply taking over a structure that already exists. When it comes to the justice system, particularly the prisons, Wales has never had an integrated prison system, unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland. It would have to be created and that takes time. So, more work needs to be done in terms of how the justice system could be shaped in the future. But I share her concerns about the probation service. I share her concerns that justice is no longer available to people.

I worked in a different part of the system to her, and I remember days when people did get representation. They don’t now. The courts are full of litigants in person now. The law has to be explained to them. That means, of course, that quite often in the family courts, you have people who want to ensure that they’re able to see their children, their children might be in care, they are litigants in person and they’re up against lawyers from local authorities. That didn’t happen in the past because legal aid was available. That’s not fair. We have the criminal courts full of people who have no representation; the law has to be explained to them and they’re up against prosecutors who are lawyers. That’s not fair. It also means that the courts now spend a huge amount of time explaining the law to people and that slows the courts down. So, in fact, if you save money, apparently, by cutting legal aid, it just means more cost in the court system. What’s happened with legal aid has been scandalous. Representation has gone.

The justice system has given the appearance that Wales is some kind of addendum to the justice system. There are far fewer courts and justice is far more difficult to access now. There are arguments, to me, to look at the devolution of the justice system, although I have to say that, from my perspective, this is something that would take some time. The separate jurisdiction would mean a separate courts system. I think it’s an elegant solution to have a formally distinct jurisdiction, but share the court system. But, not share the court system in terms of not having any say in it and not share a court system that’s administered entirely from Whitehall, but a genuinely shared court system that can provide a system of justice to the people of Wales.

Well, we know that there’s some debate to go in terms of this Bill. There are many areas where there will be agreement. There are some areas where, clearly, there’s going to be little agreement. Does the Bill provide an opportunity to take Wales forward in terms of further devolved powers? The answer is ‘yes’, but the sad thing is that it can’t be a sustainable settlement because of the resistance to things like the jurisdiction, the resistance to things like policing. For me, it would be better to take the opportunity now to have a Bill that can last the test of time rather then find ourselves, as I suspect we will, back in five years’ time looking at the issues that this Bill in its current form was unable to address. I think that’s a shame, but I do look forward to the debates both within this Parliament and the UK Parliament in order to make sure that we get the right powers to deliver for the people of Wales.

I call on Steffan Lewis to reply to the debate.

I thank all Members for their contributions today. I thank David Melding for his kind comments, although I have to inform him that my quoting of Robert Peel was purely for historical colour and not out of any sympathy for his party. But, he raises an important point about the need for a level of consistency across the constitution of the United Kingdom, and he is absolutely right to say that whilst we in Plaid Cymru support the establishment of a Welsh state, for as long as Wales is part of the United Kingdom we want it to work as best as possible for the people of this country.

Sian Gwenllian raised the issue of access to justice. A basic foundation of democracy is having access to justice, and she linked that, of course, to the right to access to justice in both our official languages.

On Mick Antoniw’s contribution, I welcome very much his optimism and I agree wholeheartedly that the logic behind the list of reservations from the United Kingdom Government needs some explaining. And we agree, of course, with the explanation he gave for the practical implementation of a distinct jurisdiction.

Dai Lloyd raised the crucial point that, in order to truly address the issue of reoffending, which is still at a high level in Wales, it makes total sense to bring all agencies that are responsible together, as part of a coherent devolved Welsh public service. And, of course, the leader of the opposition addressed the scandal of the privatisation of the probation service, and she spoke about the artificial barriers that exist between different agencies that deal with different offenders, and gave us a sober warning about the future of post-privatisation probation.

Jeremy Miles makes the valid point that a growing body of Welsh law requires a pragmatic updating of our legal system, and the challenge that he raised of the common law system of setting a precedent in one part of the jurisdiction covering all of it. Dawn Bowden broadened the debate on the future of devolution to include extending the electoral franchise to include 16 and 17-year olds. Of course, that is something that I and the Plaid Cymru group wholeheartedly support.

I welcome very much the support from the First Minister for Plaid Cymru’s motion today, although it’s a pity that it seems that Labour’s failure to vote with Plaid Cymru in Westminster this week was down to a technicality more than anything else. But he was right, of course, to highlight the inconsistencies in the current Wales Bill: there are issues that are inextricably linked where some are devolved or set to be devolved and others are still to be reserved. Again, that goes back to the point that was being made earlier about the logic behind the United Kingdom Government’s approach to, particularly, its list of reservations, although we hope that will be addressed.

The justice impact assessments are a tool that will apply, it seems, only to Wales and not to any other devolved administration in the United Kingdom, and the First Minister was quite right to raise doubts about that. I welcome very much the reaffirmation he gave today that he supports Wales being treated as an equal nation within the United Kingdom, and for a devolution settlement to reflect that.

And then Mark Isherwood. The irony of being called a separatist by an anti-EU isolationist was a particular highlight. [Laughter.] But I will say I am at a loss to understand why he’s opposed to bringing Welsh public services closer together in order to improve outcomes for people and for better accountability, when as the First Minister pointed out, that is something that is accepted by his party in Scotland. [Interruption.] I won’t be taking an intervention.

Plaid Cymru looks forward now to working with others to deliver a strengthening of Welsh nationhood that, in turn, leads to tangible improvements to the day-to-day lives of our fellow citizens. And in closing, Llywydd, I wish to pay tribute to police officers today for their work in keeping our communities safe and, indeed, to all members of our emergency services. Quite often in these debates their endeavours are overlooked, but I wish to place on record Plaid Cymru’s gratitude to them and I’m sure the whole Assembly would join me in doing so.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.