The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Simon Thomas.

Therefore, we move to the first item on our agenda, and that is the debate on the Queen’s Speech, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion.

Motion NDM6060 Elin Jones

The National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the content of the UK Government’s legislative programme 2016/2017.

Motion moved.

Formally.

I now call on the Secretary of State for Wales, the Rt Hon Alun Cairns MP to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Madam Presiding Officer. It truly is a pleasure to be here. May I first of all thank you, and congratulate you and the Deputy Presiding Officer on your elections into the roles of Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer of the National Assembly? May I also congratulate all Assembly Members who have been elected, or re-elected, following the recent election?

Mae’n fraint cael bod yma yn Siambr y Senedd unwaith eto. Mae heddiw, fel yr oeddech yn gywir i ddweud, yn ddiwrnod mawr am nifer o resymau. Dylwn awgrymu nad fy mhresenoldeb fel Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru yn y Siambr yw’r rheswm dros hynny. Rwy’n gobeithio o ddifrif mai dyma’r tro olaf, nid oherwydd diffyg parch o gwbl i’r Cynulliad, ond gan fy mod yn credu bod y ddeddfwriaeth sy’n galw am fy mhresenoldeb yma unwaith y flwyddyn yn perthyn i gyfnod yn y gorffennol oherwydd aeddfedrwydd y Cynulliad.

Mae hefyd yn ddiwrnod pwysig am resymau difrifol iawn, megis cyhoeddi adroddiad Chilcot, ond fel rydych wedi ei ddweud yn gywir, mae’n ddiwrnod mawr i Gymru ar nodyn mwy cadarnhaol ac optimistaidd o ran llwyddiant gwych tîm pêl-droed Cymru. Siaradais â’r llysgennad Portiwgeaidd yn gynharach heddiw ac roedd y ddau ohonom yn cytuno y byddem yn cefnogi’r wlad fuddugol heno, pwy bynnag y bydd, yn y rownd derfynol. Dywedais fy mod yn eithaf hyderus mai Cymru fyddai honno.

Rwyf hefyd yn dweud bod Cymru a’r Senedd wedi dod yn bell iawn am lawer iawn o resymau, ond byddwn yn dweud ei fod yn dweud rhywbeth pan fo hyd yn oed ‘The Daily Telegraph’ yn dweud, yn Gymraeg, ein bod ni i gyd yn Gymry, ac rwy’n gweld hynny fel tanlinelliad cadarnhaol o sefyllfa Cymru a’r tîm pêl-droed hefyd.

Mae gennyf atgofion annwyl o fy amser yn y Siambr, yr 11 mlynedd a dreuliais yma, ac mae dychwelyd wedi peri i mi feddwl cymaint y mae wedi newid ers y cyfnod hwnnw. Ers 2011, pan gafodd y Cynulliad hwn bwerau deddfu llawn, mae wedi pasio 28 o Ddeddfau a sawl darn o is-ddeddfwriaeth, gan gynnwys deddfwriaeth arloesol am roi organau, am gynaliadwyedd ac am dai.

Madam Lywydd, rwyf am siarad heddiw am raglen ddeddfwriaethol y DU a sut y mae’n darparu diogelwch ac yn cynyddu cyfleoedd bywyd i bobl ledled Cymru. Ond yn gyntaf, Madam Lywydd, rwyf am grybwyll y bleidlais i adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd a beth y mae hynny’n ei olygu i ni i gyd.

Mae pobl Cymru wedi siarad, ac mae’n rhaid i ni weithredu a rheoli’r ffordd y byddwn yn gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae angen i ni ddangos arweiniad cryf a meithrin hyder mewn busnesau a buddsoddwyr, prifysgolion a cholegau, sefydliadau elusennol ac awdurdodau lleol, ac i deuluoedd a defnyddwyr fel ei gilydd. Byddwn yn parhau i fod yn aelodau llawn o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd am o leiaf ddwy flynedd. Wedi siarad â’r rhai sy’n ymgeisio am yr arweinyddiaeth, mae’n amlwg na fydd erthygl 50 yn cael ei galw i rym yn syth ar ôl yr etholiad. Mae hyn yn cynnig mwy o sefydlogrwydd i’r economi ac i’r rhai sy’n elwa o gymorth gan yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae angen i ni ddefnyddio’r cyfnod interim hwn i baratoi’r genedl ar gyfer gadael.

Cytunodd y Cabinet yr wythnos diwethaf i sefydlu uned Undeb Ewropeaidd yn Whitehall, gan edrych ar yr holl faterion cyfreithiol, ymarferol, rhanbarthol, cenedlaethol ac ariannol y mae angen eu hystyried. Wrth gwrs, byddaf yn gweithio’n agos gyda Phrif Weinidog Cymru i hysbysu’r uned tra bo’r DU yn trafod telerau gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Byddaf yn sicrhau bod buddiannau Cymru yn cael eu cynrychioli wrth i’r Cabinet gytuno ar ein safbwynt negodi ni ac yn dilyn cyfarfod ag Oliver Letwin i drafod rhai manylion penodol yn gynharach yr wythnos hon a’r effaith ar Gymru, gallaf estyn gwahoddiad i’r Prif Weinidog gyfarfod ag Oliver Letwin a minnau i drafod y materion yn fwy manwl, pan fydd y Prif Weinidog yn teimlo fod hynny’n addas. Mae’r un gwahoddiad wedi ei roi heddiw i Nicola Sturgeon ac i’r Dirprwy Brif Weinidog a’r Prif Weinidog yng Ngogledd Iwerddon.

Felly, byddwn yn dweud nad yw siarad yn negyddol ar hyn o bryd yn helpu neb. Mae’r ymateb gan y gymuned fusnes yng Nghymru wedi gwneud argraff fawr arnaf. Cafodd ymadroddion fel ‘busnes fel arfer’ eu defnyddio, a defnyddiwyd un arall, ‘ailenedigaeth busnesau’, yn y sesiynau briffio diweddar a gynhaliais yr wythnos diwethaf. Byddwn hefyd yn dweud mai fy hoff ymadrodd oedd ‘mae entrepreneuriaid yn ffynnu ar newid’ a ddyfynnwyd gan un allforiwr. Mae hynny’n dangos y cyfleoedd y bydd llawer o bobl yn eu gweld yn codi o’r sefyllfa newidiol hon, boed yn sefyllfa yr oedd pobl yn ei dymuno ai peidio.

Rwyf am sicrhau nad yw’r gwerthoedd sy’n agos iawn at galon y gymdeithas ym Mhrydain, gwerthoedd fel goddefgarwch, bod yn agored ac undod, yn cael eu gweld fel pethau a gollir o ganlyniad i’r refferendwm, a’n bod yn ymdrechu’n galetach i gefnogi cydlyniant cymunedol, yn lleol, yn genedlaethol ac ar draws y Deyrnas Unedig. Mae’r mater hwn yn arbennig o bwysig i’r prifysgolion a’r colegau wrth i ni groesawu myfyrwyr rhyngwladol o fis Medi eleni, mis Medi y flwyddyn nesaf a thu hwnt.

Mae economi Prydain yn gryf. Mae cyflogaeth sydd bron ar ei lefel uchaf erioed a llai o ddiffyg ariannol yn ein rhoi mewn sefyllfa dda i allu tyfu. Gadael sefydliad yr Undeb Ewropeaidd a wnawn, nid troi ein cefnau ar ein ffrindiau, ein cymdogion a’n partneriaid masnachu ledled Ewrop. Rwy’n optimistaidd ynglŷn â’n dyfodol a’r dyfodol y mae’n rhaid i Gymru a Phrydain ei greu y tu allan i’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Rwyf wedi ymrwymo i sicrhau bod adnodd Masnach a Buddsoddi y DU ar gael i agor marchnadoedd newydd ac i ddefnyddio’r Swyddfa Dramor i ddatblygu cysylltiadau ymhellach i ffwrdd. Mae Swyddfa Cymru yn barod ac yn aros i roi mynediad at holl adnoddau ac arbenigedd Whitehall ac wrth gwrs, rwy’n awyddus i weithio gyda phob Aelod o’r Cynulliad a Llywodraeth Cymru i archwilio’r cyfleoedd hynny.

Felly, gan droi at ein rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol, diogelwch economaidd yw ein blaenoriaeth. Mae cynnydd da wedi’i wneud dros y chwe blynedd diwethaf, a fi yw’r cyntaf i gydnabod bod yna bob amser fwy i’w wneud. Bydd Bil yr Economi Ddigidol yn moderneiddio’r hinsawdd ar gyfer entrepreneuriaeth ac yn rhoi hawl gyfreithiol i bawb gael band eang cyflym iawn. Bydd y Bil yn cefnogi Cymru, sydd eisoes yn chwarae rhan flaenllaw yn y sector technoleg. Bydd yn cefnogi Cymru i fynd i’r lefel nesaf a datblygu hyd yn oed ymhellach.

Byddai’r Bil trafnidiaeth fodern yn darparu ar gyfer ceir sy’n eu rheoli eu hunain, meysydd gofod a diogelwch mewn perthynas â gweithrediadau drôn ymhlith ystod o bolisïau eraill, a rhai ohonynt, fe fyddwn yn dweud, ychydig yn fwy lleol. Bydd y Bil cynllunio a seilwaith cymdogaethau yn symleiddio cynllunio ac yn rhoi’r Comisiwn Seilwaith Cenedlaethol ar sail statudol. Unwaith eto, mae gan Gymru ddiddordeb arbennig yn y Comisiwn Seilwaith Cenedlaethol. Bydd y Bil twf a swyddi lleol yn hyrwyddo perchnogaeth cartrefi yn Lloegr ac yn datblygu pwerau ychwanegol sylweddol i ranbarthau Lloegr. Mae hyn yn creu cyfleoedd ar gyfer economïau rhanbarthol yng Nghymru i ffurfio partneriaethau cryf, ond mae hefyd yn tynnu sylw at y gystadleuaeth ehangach ar draws y DU sy’n rhaid i ni edrych arni fel her gadarnhaol.

Rydym hefyd yn benderfynol o fynd ymhellach i oresgyn rhwystrau i gyfleoedd. Drwy’r Bil diwygio’r carchardai a’r llysoedd, byddwn yn grymuso llywodraethwyr carchardai i fwrw ymlaen â’r arloesedd y mae ein carcharorion ei angen, gan sicrhau na fydd carchardai bellach yn warysau ar gyfer troseddwyr, ond yn hytrach yn feithrinfeydd ar gyfer newid bywydau. Gwn fod hyn yn rhywbeth y soniodd Dai Lloyd amdano yn y ddadl a gynhaliwyd gennych yn ddiweddar yn y Cynulliad.

Bydd y Bil Plant a Gwaith Cymdeithasol yn gwneud newidiadau i’r broses fabwysiadu i droi’r fantol o blaid mabwysiadu parhaol, os mai dyna’r ateb cywir ar gyfer y plentyn. Bydd y Bil Addysg Uwch ac Ymchwil yn cadarnhau safle’r DU fel arweinydd byd ym maes ymchwil, gan sicrhau ein bod yn gwneud y gorau o’r £6 biliwn rydym yn ei fuddsoddi ym maes ymchwil bob blwyddyn. Mae prifysgolion Cymru yn derbyn mwy nag erioed, a gwn fod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Addysg yn trafod materion eraill sy’n ymwneud â’r Bil hwn gyda’r Gweinidog prifysgolion.

Mae cadw ein gwlad yn ddiogel yn y cyfnod heriol hwn yn bendant yn flaenoriaeth. Bydd y Bil gwrth-eithafiaeth a diogelu yn helpu awdurdodau i darfu ar weithgareddau eithafwyr. Bydd y Bil pwerau ymchwilio yn llenwi tyllau yn ein peirianwaith diogelwch fel ein bod yn sicrhau bod gan asiantaethau gorfodi’r gyfraith yr offeryn sydd ei angen arnynt i ddiogelu’r cyhoedd yn yr oes ddigidol sydd ohoni. Bydd y Bil Heddlua a Throsedd yn bwrw ymlaen â’r cam nesaf o ddiwygio’r heddlu, tra bydd y Bil arian troseddol yn cadarnhau rôl y DU yn y frwydr yn erbyn llygredigaeth ryngwladol ac yn caniatáu ymgyrchu pellach yn erbyn gwyngalchu arian a’r rhai sy’n elwa o droseddu. Ochr yn ochr â hyn, byddwn yn cyflwyno bil hawliau Prydeinig i ddiwygio fframwaith hawliau dynol y DU, a byddwn yn sicr yn ymgynghori’n llawn gyda’r Cynulliad a Llywodraeth Cymru drwy gydol y broses.

Mae’r rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol, Madam Lywydd, hefyd yn gwneud newidiadau pellach a fydd yn berthnasol yn Lloegr yn unig, gan gynnwys diwygio gwaith cymdeithasol a rhoi mwy o ryddid i athrawon mewn ysgolion, yn ogystal ag annog sefydlu prifysgolion newydd. Rwy’n gobeithio y bydd Aelodau’r Cynulliad yn edrych ar y deddfau sy’n gymwys yn Lloegr ac yn chwilio am gyfleoedd sy’n deillio ohonynt—gall hynny fod drwy eu dyblygu, ond gall fod drwy wneud rhywbeth gwahanol iawn—a gobeithio y byddwn yn cydnabod mai’r DU yw’r farchnad fwyaf y mae gennym gysylltiad annatod â hi. Po agosaf y bydd cymunedau’n gweithio, yn cydweithredu, yn ategu, yn cydlynu ac yn cystadlu hyd yn oed, gorau oll yw’r canlyniadau’n tueddu i fod, yn enwedig yn sgil y refferendwm a gafwyd lai na phythefnos yn ôl.

Felly yn awr, Madam Lywydd, rwyf am dreulio ychydig o amser yn siarad am Fil Cymru. Fy nod pennaf yw sicrhau ei fod yn cyflawni dwy egwyddor sylfaenol llywodraethu datganoledig yng Nghymru yn y dyfodol—sef eglurder ac atebolrwydd. Roedd amseriad y Bil i’w weld yn broblem. Gwn fod Rhianon Passmore wedi crybwyll y mater yn y ddadl, yn ogystal â llythyrau gan arweinwyr y Llywodraeth ac arweinwyr y pleidiau yma. Hoffwn ddweud bod yr Ail Ddarlleniad wedi digwydd yr wythnos diwethaf, a ddoe oedd diwrnod cyntaf y Cam Pwyllgor. Gwn fod pryderon ynghylch yr amser a ddyrannwyd, ond ar bob achlysur, daeth y dadleuon i ben yn gynnar gyda llawer o amser yn weddill. Rwy’n gobeithio y bydd hynny’n rhoi hyder yn y ffaith ein bod yn benderfynol o graffu’n briodol. Cynhelir ail ddiwrnod y pwyllgor ddydd Llun nesaf a bydd trafodaeth bellach yn yr hydref wrth i’r Bil gyrraedd y Cyfnod Adrodd cyn y Trydydd Darlleniad. Bydd y broses gyfan yn dechrau eto pan fydd y Bil yn symud ymlaen i’r man arall lle bydd yr arglwyddi’n ddi-os yn dangos diddordeb mawr ac yn craffu fel y bo’n briodol. Wrth gwrs, rwyf am i’r Cynulliad basio cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol, ac rwy’n siŵr y bydd y Prif Weinidog, y Llywydd a minnau’n parhau gyda’n trafodaethau cynnes ac agored.

Bydd y Bil yn datganoli pwerau sylweddol, yn darparu eglurder ac atebolrwydd, ac mae’n ategu fy ymrwymiad i ddatganoli. Nid pethau sy’n ymddangos ar garreg y drws yw Biliau cyfansoddiadol, ond byddant yn caniatáu i Lywodraeth Cymru a’r Cynulliad ganolbwyntio ar y pethau sy’n bwysig i’r bobl sy’n byw ac yn gweithio yng Nghymru: lefelau treth, yr economi, polisi iechyd, polisi addysg, prosiectau ynni, adfywio a chymaint o rai eraill.

Madam Lywydd, cafodd y ddadl ar y Bil Cymru drafft ei dominyddu gan y prawf angenrheidrwydd ac arweiniodd y ffaith i’r prawf gael ei gynnwys at alwadau am awdurdodaeth ar wahân. Credir bod y prawf wedi’i osod yn rhy uchel a galwyd am drothwy is. Ond Madam Lywydd, rwyf wedi mynd gam ymhellach ac wedi dileu’r prawf yn gyfan gwbl pan fo’r Cynulliad yn addasu cyfraith sifil a throseddol mewn meysydd datganoledig. O ganlyniad, dylai llawer o’r dadleuon o blaid awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol ar wahân fod wedi diflannu. Fodd bynnag, rwyf hefyd yn cydnabod dilysrwydd rhai o’r pwyntiau a wnaed yn y cyfnod craffu cyn y broses ddeddfu. Felly, rwyf wedi cynnwys cymal ar wyneb y Bil sy’n cydnabod, am y tro cyntaf, fod cyfraith Cymru yn cael ei gwneud gan y Cynulliad a Gweinidogion Cymru o fewn yr awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol sengl.

Mae angen i drefniadau gweinyddol penodol gael eu cydnabod hefyd ar gyfer cymhwyso cyfraith Cymru, ac rwyf wedi sefydlu gweithgor yn cynnwys Llywodraeth Cymru, yr Arglwydd Brif Ustus a swyddogion y DU. Bydd hyn yn digwydd ochr yn ochr â’r gwaith o graffu ar y Bil.

Nawr, mae’r awdurdodaeth sengl ei hun wedi ennyn llawer o drafodaeth gan Mick Antoniw, yn un, gan Jeremy Miles a nifer o Aelodau eraill yn ystod y ddadl yn y Cynulliad ar y Bil hwn, ond nid wyf erioed wedi clywed am bolisi na ellir ei gyflwyno oherwydd yr awdurdodaeth sengl. Mae’n cynnig symlrwydd i fusnesau ac yn caniatáu i Gymru a chwmnïau cyfreithiol yng Nghymru fanteisio ar gyfleoedd yn Llundain a mannau eraill. Y proffesiwn cyfreithiol yw un o’r sectorau sy’n tyfu gyflymaf yng Nghymru, ac nid wyf yn siŵr pa faich rheoleiddio ychwanegol, biwrocratiaeth a risgiau i fuddsoddwyr ac ysgolion cyfraith y byddai awdurdodaeth ar wahân yn eu creu. Cafodd hyn ei dderbyn, rwy’n falch o ddweud, gan Aelodau Seneddol yr wrthblaid ddoe. Mae dyfodiad meiri metro a datganoli ledled Lloegr wedi ein rhoi mewn cystadleuaeth fwy am fuddsoddiad ac am gyfalaf. Rwy’n awgrymu nad ydym yn diystyru’r ffordd y byddai’r risgiau’n cael eu portreadu gan rai o’n cystadleuwyr. Mae angen i ni fod yn barod am hynny.

Felly, wrth wraidd y Bil mae’r model cadw pwerau, ac rydym wedi lleihau nifer y cymalau cadw ers cyhoeddi’r Bil drafft ym mis Hydref. Mae’r rhestr yn y Bil Cymru wedi’i symleiddio, gyda disgrifiadau cliriach a chywirach o’r cymalau cadw. Credaf ein bod, yn fras, wedi taro’r cydbwysedd cywir, ond rwy’n hapus i barhau â’r ddeialog. Bydd y model cadw pwerau hwn yn darparu setliad a fydd yn ei gwneud yn glir i bobl yng Nghymru pwy y dylent eu dwyn i gyfrif, Llywodraeth y DU neu Lywodraeth Cymru, am y penderfyniadau sy’n effeithio ar eu bywydau bob dydd.

Mae’r Bil hefyd yn datganoli pwerau pellach dros borthladdoedd, prosiectau ynni, cyfyngiadau cyflymder, arwyddion traffig, gwasanaethau trafnidiaeth yng Nghymru, pwerau dros ffracio, mwyngloddio—mae’n anodd credu, hyd nes y bydd y Bil hwn yn cael ei basio, ni allai’r lle hwn roi caniatâd i lofa newydd, yng Nghymru o bob man—yn ogystal â thrwyddedu a chadwraeth forol.

Felly, un nodwedd allweddol o ddeddfwrfa aeddfed, o senedd, yw ei bod yn codi llawer o’r arian y mae’n ei wario drwy drethi. Datganoli treth dir y dreth stamp a threth dirlenwi a datganoli ardrethi busnes yn llawn y llynedd yw’r camau cyntaf tuag at hyn, ac nid yw ond yn deg fod cyfran o’r dreth incwm yn cael ei datganoli hefyd. Mae Bil Cymru yn dileu’r angen am refferendwm i gyflwyno cyfradd Gymreig o dreth incwm. Mae yna faterion ymarferol y bydd angen eu cytuno gyda Llywodraeth Cymru, yn arbennig sut y dylid addasu grant bloc Cymru er mwyn ystyried datganoli treth, a byddaf yn parhau i adeiladu ar ein perthynas gynnes ac yn gobeithio, ar ôl cyflwyno’r cyllid gwaelodol angenrheidiol, y bydd hynny’n rhoi hyder i’r Aelodau yn y cyswllt hwn.

Llywydd, as I noted earlier, the legislative programme is so much more than simply devolution to Wales. It relates to more than the constitution, which has so often taken up so much time in Cardiff Bay. The legislative programme relates to providing security for working people the length and breadth of Wales; it relates to enhancing the life chances of the people of Wales; and it relates to strengthening our national security also. We must now collaborate and work together, as two Governments, to provide a prosperous and united future for Wales. Thank you.

I now call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. May I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Assembly and to this Chamber? The relationship between us goes back many years, due to the fact that we’ve stood against each other twice in elections, and so our relationship goes back 17 years, to the time when we first met here.

A gaf fi groesawu, fel y dywedais, yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn ôl i’r Siambr? Mae wedi fy nharo ei fod eisoes wedi cyflawni rhywbeth y mae o leiaf dau o’i ragflaenwyr wedi methu â gwneud, sef ei fod wedi llwyddo i gyflwyno araith heb gael ei heclo. [Chwerthin.] Gwn nad oedd hynny’n wir am ei ragflaenydd, ac yn sicr nid oedd yn wir yn achos y rhagflaenydd cyn hynny, yr Aelod Seneddol dros Orllewin Clwyd, a gafodd ei heclo, rwy’n credu, gan ei ochr ei hun pan ddaeth i’r Siambr hon.

A gaf fi ddiolch iddo am y cyflwyniad a roddodd i ni ar gynlluniau Llywodraeth y DU ar gyfer y rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol? Wrth gwrs, bydd arweinydd y tŷ yn ymateb yn llawn ar ddiwedd y ddadl, ac felly fy lle i yw gwneud rhai sylwadau. Mae’r Siambr hon wedi treulio amser yn trafod Bil Cymru ers misoedd lawer, a bydd Tŷ’r Cyffredin a Thŷ’r Arglwyddi yn gwneud yr un peth yn y misoedd sydd i ddod. Rwy’n dechrau o’r sail fod y Bil a gyflwynwyd yn y Senedd yn flaenorol mor wallus nes ei fod yn anymarferol i bob pwrpas. Nid yw’r Bil hwn yn y categori hwnnw. Mae llawer i’w wneud arno, ond roedd yr obsesiwn gyda chadw’r awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol sengl yn golygu bod y Bil blaenorol yn Fil a fyddai wedi mynd â phwerau oddi wrth y Cynulliad hwn y pleidleisiodd pobl Cymru eu hunain amdanynt yn 2011.

Mae yna rai meysydd, wrth gwrs, lle bydd anghydfod. Ni allaf gytuno â’i farn ar yr awdurdodaeth. Mae’r Bil ei hun yn datganoli’r rhan fwyaf o’r gyfraith droseddol. Yn yr amgylchiadau hynny, byddai’n ymddangos i mi fod hynny’n cynyddu’r ddadl, neu’n cryfhau’r ddadl, y dylid cael awdurdodaeth wahanol ymhen amser. Fel arall, hon fydd yr unig awdurdodaeth cyfraith gyffredin yn y bydysawd sydd â dwy system gyfreithiol gwbl ar wahân yn gweithredu mewn ardal benodol.

Mae yna broblemau beth bynnag, eisoes, i gyfreithwyr a barnwyr. Mae’n rhaid i gyfreithwyr fod yn ymwybodol, er y gallant fod yn gymwys mewn awdurdodaeth, fod yna wahanol setiau o gyfreithiau sy’n berthnasol yn yr awdurdodaeth honno; yr un yw’r sefyllfa ar gyfer barnwyr. Nid wyf yn credu—

Simon Thomas rose—

He knows that I agree with him completely in his analysis of why we can have a separate or a distinct legal jurisdiction in Wales. Why on earth did the Labour Party oppose it in the vote this week?

He knows my view. It’s unavoidable that there will come a time when there is a distinct jurisdiction—possibly a separate jurisdiction. That is the view of the Welsh Government.

Policing, similarly, is something that makes no sense, in terms of it not being devolved. Otherwise, we end up in a situation where, for example, public order legislation will be largely devolved and the police will be policing laws in Wales despite the fact that will they will not be responsible in Wales for policing those laws. There are anomalies there that will need to be dealt with in years to come.

I know the Secretary of State will not be in agreement with me in terms of the jurisdiction and in terms of policing, but, unfortunately, it does mean that this Bill—an improvement though it is on the previous Bill—cannot possibly be a lasting settlement as far as Wales is concerned, for those reasons and also because of the fact that we know, in the aftermath of the referendum, that the constitutional situation in the UK is quite febrile at the moment and we don’t know what’ll happen to the UK itself in the next three years, and it will need careful handling if the UK is to survive.

There are some areas, however, in which I believe there will need to be further discussion. Why, for example, would the community infrastructure levy not be devolved? It’s a planning tax, in effect. Taxation is being devolved to this Assembly. It strikes me as anomalous that the community infrastructure levy, therefore, would not be devolved.

He also made mention of the planning Bill, where—yes—we have an interest in the National Infrastructure Commission, not out of choice, but because there are those of us who believe that what that commission does should actually be devolved to Wales in any event. So, we have no choice but to be part of what is inaccurately called a ‘National Infrastructure Commission’, because it applies to England and to Wales in some areas.

With the devolution of most public order legislation, it also seems strange that licensing isn’t devolved. Given that we know that alcohol is the cause of much public disorder, on the one hand we will be able to create offences or amend the law with regard to public order, but not deal with one of the main causes of public disorder. Again, the argument that was used with me in years gone by was that licensing was an integral part of public order legislation under criminal law, which is now going to be devolved in the main. So, why, then, keep licensing as an exception?

We have agreement in principle on the devolution of teachers’ pay and conditions—it’s worth re-emphasising that. Further discussions, of course, will need to take place as to what kind of financial transfer will be needed in order for that to be given effect in Wales.

I welcome what he said about the ports. I fail to see why Milford Haven should, in effect, become a treaty port, in the same way that two ports in Ireland did when the Irish Free State was set up. I would welcome further explanation as to why Milford should be treated differently to every other port in the whole of Wales.

Could I welcome, at least, the setting up of the justice in Wales working group? I have to say to him that no invitation has yet been received by me or Ministers to participate in that group, but I welcome what he has said today—that there will be Welsh Government participation. I look forward to ministerial participation being part of that.

In terms of the income tax situation, I don’t disagree with what he has said with regard to the referendum, but he has to be aware—he and I have discussed this already—that I could not recommend that the Assembly gives its legislative consent to the Wales Bill unless there is agreement on a fiscal framework beforehand. As the Bill currently stands, the Treasury can impose a financial settlement on the people of Wales without the agreement of this place, and that is wrong in principle—it does not apply in Scotland. So, agreement on a fiscal framework will be absolutely crucial to the agreement, I believe, of this body with regard to income tax devolution. As I say, I am not against it in principle, but the practice is important to make sure that Wales does not lose out.

Dealing briefly with some of the other issues that he raised, he is right to point out the challenges that exist with regard to the result of the EU referendum. I agree with him that providing confidence for business, and saying to business that Wales is open for business, is hugely important. We know that business hates uncertainty and, unfortunately, that uncertainty is still there. I accept what he says, that it is for both Governments to ease that uncertainty over the next few months.

I strongly agree with what he said about community cohesion. I heard stories last week, when I went to Llanelli and Swansea, of people feeling threatened because of the interpretation that a small minority had placed on the referendum result. It is incumbent on us all to make sure that a genie of prejudice that has been unleashed from a particular bottle is put firmly back into that bottle in the future.

Can I say to him, as far as the EU negotiation is concerned, it’s hugely important that all administrations in the UK are part of any negotiation? It is my view that any settlement, any deal, should be ratified by all four parliaments in order to get buy-in across the UK. There are some areas, of course, like agriculture and fisheries, where the UK Parliament has almost no role, and so it is absolutely right that in those areas, and indeed more widely, the ratification of this place and the other devolved parliaments should be obtained in order for the deal to be fully accepted across the whole of the UK.

Finally, I’m just going to mention the bill of rights. ‘Good luck with that one’, I say to him, because I spoke to the group that was looking at producing a bill of rights and I listened carefully to what Ministers have said about the bill of rights, and to me it doesn’t add anything at all to the current Human Rights Act 1998. So, we wait to see what such a bill of rights will actually say beyond the rhetoric and what it will mean particularly for the devolved countries as well. As far as I can see, I’m not sure what it adds to the legislation that we already have. But we’ll see how that develops over the course of the next few months, and obviously it will be important for not just the Welsh Government but for this place to give its views as to what that bill of rights might look like.

There will be other areas, other Bills, of course, where discussions will take place as those Bills proceed through Parliament. The Wales Bill will no doubt be one of them as we look forward to the future. But, as I said, in the course of the debate today, it’s an opportunity for Members to express their views, and the leader of the house will respond formally on behalf of the Government at the conclusion of the debate.

I have selected two amendments to the motion, and I call on Leanne Wood to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas.

Gwelliant 1—Simon Thomas

Add as new point at end of motion:

Regrets that the UK Government’s proposed Wales Bill falls short of offering comparable powers as those available to, or on offer to Scotland.

Gwelliant 2—Simon Thomas

Add as new point at end of motion:

Notes the Research Briefing: ‘Wales and the EU: What does the vote to leave the EU mean for Wales?’ and believes that following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, provisions should be made to ensure that all legislation giving effect to EU Directives or Regulations pertaining to areas such as environmental protection, workers’ rights, food safety and agriculture are retained in UK and Welsh law unless they are actively repealed by the relevant Parliament.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Diolch, Lywydd. I move amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Simon Thomas.

In the aftermath of the EU referendum, Wales at the UK level is at the custody of a deeply divided Conservative Government. In fact, the entire Westminster establishment is racked by in-fighting, including the UK’s official opposition, the Labour Party. This has a series of implications for Wales, because the 2016 speech sees the continued progress, of course, of the Wales Bill, which sets out the next short-term changes for the Welsh constitution.

Llywydd, as part of my response to the EU referendum result, I stated that Plaid Cymru would move to increase the powers and the responsibilities of the National Assembly. If the EU referendum result was a vote against perceived distant rule or perceived centralised rule, then it was not a vote to concentrate more powers in Westminster. If the EU referendum result was a vote to take control over people’s lives, then it was not a vote for more Welsh laws or decisions to be made outside of Wales. This referendum result, in fact, makes it even more essential that the Welsh Government and the National Assembly are empowered to protect our country’s interests, in line with how those interests have been decided at Welsh general elections.

There have not yet been any significant attempts to link the EU referendum result to a reduction in the National Assembly’s powers or to a pause in the development of Wales as a self-governing country, but we must all remain vigilant and wary of such attempts emerging in the future. We must proactively make the case for ever more decisions about Wales to be taken here in this country. And once those additional powers and responsibilities are in place, we should broaden the debate about their use to include those communities that are not well connected to events that take place in this Chamber at present, including those places where large numbers of people feel disenfranchised and disillusioned with democratic politics.

Our second amendment deals with the EU regulations more directly, and those will be addressed further by other speakers.

Llywydd, the entire future of the United Kingdom is now in a state of flux. There deserves to be a full national debate about future options for us to re-join the European Union in the future, if that’s what people want to do, accepting, of course, that this would require a new, fresh choice to be made by people here. But the Wales Bill is the appropriate vehicle for those immediate short-term changes, which could bring our country up to a similar level of devolved competence as other UK devolved legislatures. And it’s on those short-term measures that I’d like to focus now.

Plaid Cymru regrets that the UK Government’s proposed Wales Bill falls short of comparable powers as those available to, or on offer to, Scotland. We have yet another situation where the Wales Bill has been overtaken by events. The UK Government approach is too narrow, with the Secretary of State failing to attend the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. I share the concern of the Chair of that committee, who is absolutely right to point out that the Wales Bill could take the devolution settlement back in some respects. He’s also right to seek to involve wider Welsh society in the committee’s scrutiny of that Bill, but that scrutiny has been undermined by the Secretary of State’s non-appearance at that committee.

At this stage, we can only speculate how a weak Wales Bill will affect future appetites for more self-government. But in no way will the current Wales Bill end the constitutional debate in this country, and, on that count, it will fail to meet the UK Government’s objectives.

Would the Member give way on that point?

Yes.

I rise because she’s raised the representations that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has made, and that invitation still stands, by the way. The reason it stands is because, in the spirit of the constructive engagement made by the First Minister, by opposition leaders, and also by the Presiding Officer—even to the extent of suggesting amendments—we genuinely feel we can be of constructive help, in scrutiny of this Bill, in making it right. Because it has potential for improvement, but it also has potential to roll back devolution in some areas. So the invitation stands.

I welcome your contribution to that effect, and perhaps the Secretary of State would like to reflect upon that point. Perhaps he would also like to reflect upon the fact that this Bill, if enacted, will be the fifth time that devolution has been altered in Wales. The fact that we’ve had to change devolution five times, that doesn’t reflect some sort of generosity from Westminster, it reflects the fact that the model that we have tried has been unsustainable. When we’ve had successive Secretaries of State for Wales claiming that the next devolution Bill will settle the debate for a generation—and we’ve heard that from at least four Secretaries of State for Wales to date—then settling that never actually happens, something is seriously wrong.

Plaid Cymru MPs at Westminster have taken steps to try to strengthen this Bill. In line with the Welsh Government’s draft Government and Laws in Wales Bill, our MPs laid down an amendment on legal jurisdiction. This position has the democratic endorsement of a majority of voters in Wales in the election several months ago. It’s more than regrettable that the Labour Party in Westminster abstained on that vote and that support for the principle was highly varied amongst those Labour MPs who spoke to that amendment. I find it incredible to hear the First Minister say today that the support of the Welsh Government is there for a Welsh legal jurisdiction, but Labour MPs failed to support that in Parliament yesterday, and I said to the First Minister yesterday: he needs to tell his MPs to get a grip.

There was more support—consistent support—from Labour MPs for the other vote that the MPs forced at Westminster yesterday, on removing the justice impact assessments, and I welcome that. But I only wish that we could have had more of a united front on other issues, especially when it was Labour Party policy.

Now, in many respects, I think that those efforts have fallen victim to the chaos that is within the Labour Party at Westminster, and, as the First Minister admitted to me yesterday, that situation is not stable. But, ultimately, there has been a failure of how this Bill has been structured and scrutinised.

The wider Queen’s Speech has been disappointing for a number of reasons for Wales. On prison reform, the UK Government is effectively proposing its failed academies model to prisons. If we controlled our own prisons policy, this could have been prevented. I welcome the movement on the sugared drinks tax. Plaid Cymru was ahead of the curve, of course, on that proposal, having been ridiculed by others; we called for it first in 2013. But it will be disappointing if the revenues from that tax are not distributed evenly.

As ever, though, the Queen’s Speech is notable for what’s missing. Plaid Cymru’s alternative Queen Speech included a devolution of policing Bill, a Severn bridge tolls Bill, we called for a north Wales growth deal, with multiple proposals ranging from rail electrification and confirmation of the Llanbedr spaceport. The UK Government’s previously announced north Wales growth deal contains no concrete proposals at all. We’ve also proposed an EU funds contingency Bill to introduce and establish statutory contingency alternative funding arrangements at least equal to those currently available to the levels of EU structural funds and common agricultural policy.

We note with interest the statement from the Secretary of State for Wales on the new Prime Minister’s intention of delaying the triggering of article 50. It was somewhat surprising to hear him say this. Do we have any idea how long that is going to be delayed for? Because uncertainty is a big problem now and I can’t see how this delay will help with that. The danger is that it looks as though the UK Government doesn’t have a clue what it’s doing and I very much hope that that is just how it looks.

The Queen’s Speech should be seen as another missed opportunity. What’s missing from the speech, and from the Wales Bill, is of greater significance than what is included. The improvements on offer, such as establishing the permanence of this institution, and control of our own electoral arrangements, are to be welcomed, but have been packaged in a Bill that is incredibly complex, mainly due to the absence of the Welsh legal jurisdiction. I’m troubled at the way the Bill has now moved forward without significant engagement by the Secretary of State with this Assembly.

In conclusion, I believe that this Bill will not bring stability to Wales in anything more than the immediate short term, and that it does not bring us in line with what is happening in Scotland. Why does it seem, yet again, that what is good enough for Scotland isn’t good enough for Wales, and why does the Secretary of State for Wales appear to be content with that?

I welcome the Secretary of State here today. As one who’s sat on the benches with you, I can remember all your ‘hear, hears’ and banging of desks when you were here, but I can see you’re far better behaved now you’ve got to the Secretary of State position. But it is a real warm welcome to you that we extend from the Conservative benches, as it is your first visit as Secretary of State. I heard the comments you made in your speech that you hope it to be the last, but I do recall the previous Secretary of State saying the same words when he was here because of the progress of the Wales Bill.

Whilst many of the commitments today will of course centre on the draft Wales Bill, it is important to approach this Queen’s Speech debate with a focus on the raft of measures that will have an impact on Wales or those that will highlight the Welsh Government’s inaction in many of these areas. The provisions contained within the recent Queen’s Speech will act to deliver economic security for working people and improve people’s life chances. It is a set of legislative proposals with these core principles at their heart, and they should be welcomed. Many reserved laws will have a profound impact on Wales, whilst some England-only Bills emphasise issues the new administration here must consider as it develops its own legislative programme. These plans build on the work already undertaken by the UK Government over the last six years to stabilise our economy and emphasise the progressive agenda that supports our long-term futures.

At the heart of this Queen’s Speech is a focus on improving life chances for the disadvantaged. Where provisions apply only to England, it is important that we hear clear plans from the Welsh Government as to how they will ensure our nation does not fall behind. Indeed, a new care leavers covenant is hugely positive for carers and, as part of the Children and Social Work Bill, will improve those chances. We must ensure those in Wales have their life chances supported in a similar way, and monitor closely how developments in England succeed.

New reporting requirements within the Higher Education and Research Bill will lay down the challenge of social mobility to the higher education sector, and outline clearly the work that needs to be done to support progression rates for all. How such supply-side reforms will be matched here in Wales needs to be outlined by the Welsh Government.

The Local Growth and Jobs Bill also puts business rates in England under the spotlight and I renew my calls today for the Welsh Government to outline when it will bring forward enhanced rate relief for small firms on this side of Offa’s Dyke. There is a monumental risk of us falling behind in Wales on this issue, following other recent business rates announcements made by the current Chancellor.

Security is also a key element of this Queen’s Speech, and many non-devolved issues are at the heart of the agenda to help keep Wales’s communities safe, including stronger powers to disrupt extremists and protect the public. Furthermore, reform to prisons will ensure the right balance between punishment and rehabilitation, and support the ethos of giving everyone the chance to contribute to society—core beliefs for a one-nation Conservative Government.

We also know that this Queen’s Speech paves the way for the establishment of a national infrastructure commission on a statutory basis. This will deliver expert independent advice on infrastructure issues. As part of this debate, I hope the Welsh Government will outline how its own plans for an infrastructure commission—thrashed out behind closed doors with Plaid Cymru—will complement the work of this new body.

The draft Wales Bill is, of course, likely to be the most pertinent of Bills to interest Members in this Assembly. This Bill will deliver a clearer, more stable devolution settlement and I look forward to continuing to work closely with the UK Government as it progresses.

The development process of the draft Wales Bill is important to note. Key stakeholders have been hugely positive about the redrafted Bill, and the UK Government deserves immense credit for the listening exercise it undertook in amending previous proposals. I sincerely thank the Secretary of State for his role in this.

Indeed, my own party here in the National Assembly for Wales discussed at length issues around the list of reservations and consents, and the Wales Office acted constructively and decisively in the search for consensus. A reserved-powers model would be an historic step for the National Assembly, whilst the arrival of further responsibilities offers a clear opportunity to deliver Welsh-specific solutions to the challenges we face, including, and notably, over energy and transport.

Some of the good things about the redrafted Wales Bill are that the Bill does not do what it ultimately set out to do in its draft form and it does enable many areas of life in Wales to benefit from decisions made in this legislature. That is a game changer for Wales, in particular around income tax, and it’ll bring real accountability to the National Assembly for Wales. How these powers are used will shine new focus on this National Assembly and the public’s judgment of the Welsh Government.

Many of the principles contained within this legislation are among its most pertinent conditions. By establishing the permanence of the National Assembly and the Welsh Government in statute, we see enhanced formal recognition of this Assembly within the UK’s constitutional arrangements. I hope all Members will reflect today on how important that is.

It is worth reflecting that this debate takes place only hours after discussing the name of this National Assembly. It is this Bill that will enable us to make that decision and discuss other arrangements, including size, electoral systems, and the voting age. We must not lose sight of this significance.

Of course, the Wales Bill is part of a package of wider reforms that Conservative-led Governments have implemented. One such development is the fair funding floor, which Labour had 13 years to implement and did nothing. That was deeply regrettable. [Interruption.] I’m deeply concerned by the eruption from the Cabinet Secretary—I’m concerned about his welfare. [Laughter.] Are you feeling well, Cabinet Secretary?

Member of the Senedd:

I think he enjoyed his lunch.

He obviously had a very good lunch, I would have thought. I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition of a distinct body of Welsh law on the face of the Bill, within an England-and-Wales jurisdiction. This is a sensible accommodation; and the establishment of a justice working group to look at distinctive arrangements will further inform work in this area. The draft Wales Bill is potentially a landmark one for Wales. It forms part of a Queen’s Speech that seeks to deliver opportunity and prosperity. Welsh Conservatives in the National Assembly stand ready to continue to work with the UK Government to ensure we continue to get things right for Wales.

Would the Member give way?

I certainly will.

I’m grateful to the Member. Can I just take him back a couple of minutes to when he talked about the funding floor, which is a political agreement and is not in legislation as such? But, of course, before we receive the Wales Bill for final approval here and pass the legislative consent motion, does he agree with me that we need to see a fiscal framework in place—an agreement between the Welsh Government and the Conservative Government in Westminster—that ensures there is no detriment to our financial relationships if we then have devolution and further devolution of taxation?

There must be no detriment to the funding formula to Wales—that is crystal clear. I believe the Prime Minister is on record as saying that, and I believe several Secretaries of State, and this Secretary of State, have made that quite clear. We have a very good record on our funding of Wales, in particular in introducing the funding floor, and we will continue those negotiations to make sure there is no disadvantage to Wales—and Scotland offers a model for us to look at.

Finally, I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Wales, who joins us today, and to the work he has done for and on behalf of Wales, championing the interests of Wales in the corridors of power. We have heard quite a lot recently about turkeys voting for Christmas. This Bill is historic: by omitting section 32 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, it will end the Secretary of State’s future participation in proceedings of the Assembly—another noteworthy step in this institution’s journey to a strong empowered legislature at home within a strong United Kingdom. Thank you.

Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lywydd. I too welcome the Secretary of State here, possibly for the last time before he returns to the oblivion of Westminster. He did his best to present the Queen’s Speech as being something significant, whereas, in fact, everybody knows it’s just a rag-bag of relatively trivial and insignificant measures, because the Prime Minister wanted to clear the decks of anything that could possibly be controversial in advance of the referendum. The commentary at the time was virtually uniform in its excoriation of the Queen’s Speech. ITV’s website described it as

‘eyecatching but wholly uncontentious stuff: who could object to spaceports, tighter control of drones or faster broadband?’

Well, I’m sure we’re all in favour of faster broadband considering that most of Wales proceeds at a snail’s pace in this respect. But, spaceports and drones, apart from some of the Members in this house, don’t actually figure very much in people’s imaginations. ‘The Daily Telegraph’ said of the Queen’s Speech that:

‘Traditionally-minded Conservatives packed into the House of Lords for the Queen’s Speech…could be forgiven for thinking they are in the wrong room…. To some Tories, it will sound like a programme the last Labour government could have conceived.’

Iain Duncan Smith accused the Prime Minister of deliberately avoiding controversy ahead of the vote on EU membership, saying:

‘Many Conservatives have become increasingly concerned that in the Government’s helter-skelter pursuit of the referendum, they have been jettisoning or watering down key elements of their legislative programme.’

Well, far from it for me to intrude further upon that private grief. But, the Secretary of State in his preamble to his speech today said, rather surprisingly, and here I agree with the leader of the opposition, that the delays to starting the article 50 negotiating process was somehow going to instil confidence and bring about more stability to the process. That’s the last thing that this will do. Actually, we need to get on with this process in order to resolve such uncertainties as there are. My experience, having been a member of the Council of Ministers—the internal market Minister—for two and a half years is that Parkinson’s law certainly applies and work expands to fill the time available. So, the shorter the time frame the more we are likely to achieve. I personally don’t see what difficulty there is about designing proper successor arrangements to our trading relationship with the EU. The EU has managed, in the course of 50 years, to negotiate only two proper free trade agreements—with Mexico and with South Korea. I can’t see why we can’t use those as templates for our own relationship with the EU in the future. There’s been much talk in this place of the various models that exist for relationships—the Norway model or whatever; these are all totally irrelevant, because there is no way, following the referendum result, that we could accept total free movement of labour within the EU. That’s the whole point of the referendum—we’d never have had one but for concern about the uncontrolled nature of our borders. And anything that is going to prevent us from having complete control of our own immigration policy is going to be rejected by the public at large.

Again, I agree, in the spirit of cross-party agreement, with what the First Minister said in his remarks—and, indeed, the leader of the opposition—about an agreement on a fiscal framework to surround the Wales Bill. I can’t see how it could possibly be acceptable to the people of Wales to have this Bill imposed upon us unless we can be absolutely certain, and it’s there in hard fiscal fact, that Wales is not going to be a penny worse off after the Bill passes than before. And in that respect, of course, the EU compact is subject to the same demand that every penny that the EU currently spends in Wales must come to Wales after we leave the EU.

So, consequently, this Queen’s Speech takes us so far, but actually not very far. I really can’t understand why something like the sugar tax, which the leader of the opposition highlighted in her speech, should be regarded as an advance; it’s an absurd measure, actually, when you look at the nature of the tax. First of all, it’s badly targeted because fruit juices and milk-based drinks are excluded, so that means that some of the most sugary drinks on the market actually escape the proposed levy. For example, a standard Starbucks extra-large hot chocolate contains 15 teaspoons of sugar, which is double the recommended daily maximum for an adult, but because it’s a milk-based drink it’s exempt from the levy. And the same could be said for other kinds of milkshakes, coffee and yoghurt-based drinks.

Do you not think it’s an opportunity to refocus the sugar tax to make sure it embraced all sugar in all foods?

It certainly is an opportunity to do that. I should declare an interest in this, by the way, because I’m a director of a company that specialises in sugar-free products, and so my interests are not actually prejudiced—. I’m not actually prejudiced by this measure, but I suppose technically I ought to declare that interest.

The second objection to the tax that is proposed is it will hit the poor hardest. Consumption taxes always do, of course, because the poorest 10 per cent of households already pay more than 20 per cent of their gross incomes in duties and VAT, which is more than double the average household, and this tax will only add to that burden.

Thirdly, the tax is poorly designed; it’s very crude because the levy is imposed per litre of sugary soft drink, not by grams per litre. So, it means that many drinks that are actually worse for you in terms of sugar content will be taxed at a lower level. The Institute for Fiscal Studies gives the example of Sainsbury’s orange energy drink and Coca-Cola, two drinks that are taxed at the higher rate of 24p per litre. Three litres of Coca-Cola contains 318g of sugar, the same as two litres of the orange energy drink, but because the tax is designed in this way, you pay 72p of tax on the three litres of Coca-Cola, and only 48p on the energy drink which is in two-litre bottles. So, there’s more sugar in the smaller bottle than there is in the larger bottle. So, that tax’s poor design also means it fails to penalise the drinks with the higher sugar content.

The First Minister also drew attention to the proposed changes in the Human Rights Act 1998 in the Queen’s Speech, and I agree with the First Minister that this is largely a cosmetic measure. It’s not going to make any real difference to the scope of human rights legislation, which is beyond the reach of parliamentary institutions in this country, which I think is an objection on democratic grounds. In fact, Lord Sumption, one of the most distinguished of our Supreme Court judges, in a lecture recently said that the European Court of Human Rights exceeds its legitimate powers, usurps the role of politicians and undermines the democratic process. And as the European Court of Human Rights has developed its own jurisprudence over the last 50 or 60 years, it’s aggrandised itself and has actually aggravated the democratic deficit, which, surely as parliamentarians, we ought to be concerned about. As Lord Sumption said:

‘It has become the international flag-bearer for judge-made fundamental law extending well beyond the text which it is charged with applying.’

And

‘has over many years declared itself entitled to treat the Convention as what it calls a “living instrument”.’

Therefore, judges from jurisdictions as far away as Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, who are members of this institution, are making the laws for this country, whether it be Wales or the United Kingdom. As the European convention is drafted in very wide and vague terms of principle—very different from the common-law jurisdiction and statutory law heritage of this country—it means that we have a legal system that is beyond democratic control.

Article 8, which refers to respect for family life, which none of us in principle could object to, has been interpreted in various ways, which we might object to. There’s no time to go into the details of this now, but as a matter of general principle, it cannot be right for judges to have the final say in what is the law of the land. There must be some democratic means of overturning them. In the United States, you have the Supreme Court, but a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress can overturn the decisions of judges. That is not possible under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and the human rights legislation proposed in the Queen’s Speech isn’t going to make any difference to that. So, the country is being sold a pup if it thinks that as a result of what the Home Secretary—who may shortly be the Prime Minister—has been trying to tell us for such a long time.

So, the Queen’s Speech, sadly, is a great wasted opportunity. Now that we have taken the decision to leave the EU, perhaps this one should be torn up and a new one should be presented to Parliament in the autumn with some really significant measures that take us much further along the road to recovering our national independence and restoring the integrity of our parliamentary institutions.

The Queen’s Speech was delivered on 18 May and it seems a very, very long time ago when you think of all the things that have happened since. There’s been the bitter, divisive European referendum campaign, the tragic murder of our colleague in Westminster, Jo Cox MP, the narrow victory for Brexit—and I know the Secretary of State and I campaigned together for the ‘remain’ side on Queen Street—and of course, we’ve had the resignation of the Prime Minister, issues within my own party, now the resignation of Nigel Farage and the possibility of another Scottish independence referendum. So, all those things happening in such a short period of time are just overtaking our political life, and it does make things feel very uncertain and very fluid. So, it’s quite hard to look back to the Queen’s Speech and see, ‘How did that Queen’s speech affect people’s life chances here in Wales?’

Now, the very first sentence of the Queen’s Speech mentioned

‘strengthening economy to deliver security for working people’ and increasing the

‘life chances for the most disadvantaged’.

The Prime Minister claimed that this was a one-nation Queen’s speech for a one-nation Government. Now, I would challenge that emphatically. I believe that the austerity measures introduced since 2010 by the coalition and the now Conservative Government have made the divide between the haves and the have nots even greater. I think that we must consider the Queen’s Speech in that context.

You just have to look at the way the cuts have disproportionately affected women and children and vulnerable and disabled people. In 2014-15 in the UK, there were 200,000 more children in poverty, increasing the number to 3.9 million according to the latest figures from the Child Poverty Action Group in June this year. It said,

‘These grim figures reinforce projections from experts like the IFS and the Resolution Foundation that UK child poverty is set to rise by 50 per cent or more by 2020.’

What was there in the Queen’s Speech that tackled those issues? What was there in the Queen’s Speech that bridged that divide?

In Wales, according to figures from the DWP, after housing costs approximately 200,000 children in Wales are living in poverty. This is 29 per cent of children living in Wales. Obviously, the Welsh Government has got a highly praised anti-poverty strategy, but the main levers are not in our hands. The fact that, in 2016, child poverty is growing throughout the UK is an absolute disgrace and an absolute shame, and this Queen’s Speech did nothing to address that issue.

The Queen’s Speech will increase the life chances for the disadvantaged. I’m sure all of you have your constituency offices filled with people who are facing benefit cuts, particularly people with disabilities since the disability living allowance for people with long-term health problems was abolished and replaced by personal independent payments. We have masses of open cases to do with PIP assessment on our books at the moment. Just to give a flavour, one of my constituents, a young man who suffered injury in a car pile-up some years ago and was in severe pain, despite surgery, couldn’t walk any significant distance, lost his entitlement, lost his mobility car and lost his opportunity to actually lead a normal life. And without this vehicle, he was completely housebound. He was already very depressed about his condition and his outlook before losing his mobility eligibility, but the loss of the car added hugely to his depression. So, he spent five months fighting the decision and, eventually, my office was able to help him to get the appeal reversed. But to think that a young man like that had to spend all that time and all that effort, increasing his depression, and that is in 2016, in this country today.

So, that is the reality of the austerity measures that have been introduced by Westminster. I think it is the duty of our Welsh Government, of us here in the Welsh Assembly, to do all we can to highlight what exactly is happening. This Queen’s Speech has some things that we can commend—I support the tax on fizzy drinks and I think there’re some good things about adoption that need to be introduced in Wales—but they are not addressing the huge issues that we actually see in society today. This Brexit vote, I think, has re-emphasised those issues.

So, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, I think that this Queen’s Speech offers a very blinkered view of what is happening in society here in Wales today—another lost chance and another lost opportunity.

I would like to welcome the Secretary of State, as well as tell him that, although he’s always welcome in this Assembly, this debate today looks extremely pointless, I have to say, not only because the purpose behind the debate is done away with in the Wales Bill, but also, as has been mentioned by many speakers this afternoon, because the political landscape has changed so drastically since the Queen’s Speech that it’s not possible to take this debate seriously in terms of the purpose of the UK Government, as set out in the Queen’s Speech, in terms of a strategy for the next year. We all accept that there will be a change of Prime Minister and a great deal of political change, and that many of the things, even the minor things, in the Queen’s Speech won’t have much chance of being delivered over the next year or two, as the Government as a whole will be concentrating on Brexit and the need to make provisions for that. And that was the purpose of the Plaid Cymru amendments today. I would just like to expand on those amendments, which particularly look at EU law and the continuation of EU law.

In responding to the Queen’s Speech over two months ago, our Members of Parliament in Westminster proposed that the Queen’s Speech should have included a purpose-drafted Brexit Bill. So, our Members of Parliament did want to see a Bill that would set out, if Brexit were to occur, what would happen to the structural funds and what would happen to the funding available through the single farm payments and the common agricultural policy—so, we were prepared for that—and we also said that there should be some legislative provision for a strategy to underpin structural funds and the purpose of developing a new agricultural policy. We all know that agricultural policy is not a common policy across the UK—the policy is different in Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. So, we did want to see such a Bill in the original Queen’s Speech. That didn’t appear, but, during the referendum campaign, there were a number of pledges made by those campaigning for Brexit that the funding would remain in place and that it would still be possible to fund structural funds and the common agricultural policy. So, we do now hope that the Westminster Government will respond to that challenge by setting out how that will work.

The second element of this, of course, is the fact that, over 40 years, we have incorporated EU law with our law. Many people have interpreted that as Europe telling us what to do. Well, I see it as legislating jointly with Europe. It’s not possible to outline all the details in a speech this afternoon, but among those things that are now part of both UK law and Welsh law are a number of provisions in terms of working hours. The Secretary of State mentioned that we are to receive powers over landfill tax, but, of course, landfill tax comes from an EU landfill directive. There are a number of renewable energy developments in Wales that are also subject to European directives, and the Welsh language has a co-official status in the European Union that it doesn’t have in Westminster. And that is something that we should bear in mind. We have a bovine TB policy that has been developed jointly with the European Union, and there is a real danger, not only that funding will be lost but also that Europe will start to look anew at those areas of Wales where bovine TB is prevalent and will start to question whether Wales has clean status. Because, in the European context, we are a country that suffers a great deal as a result of bovine TB at certain times and in certain areas.

So, these things have been part and parcel of the way that we’ve legislated in Wales over the past 40 years, either under Westminster or the Assembly. So, I do think that the Westminster Government is duty-bound to explain how we will now make provision in these areas, and, of course, the simple thing to state clearly is that European law should remain in place until it has been specifically revoked, either by this Assembly or, in terms of relevant legislation, by Westminster.

To conclude, and related to this question, I want to return to the fact that we need a clear, robust message, and the Secretary of State made some reference to it, but we do need a clear statement that European Union citizens are welcome in Wales, that they make a great contribution to our health service and our economy, and that they should be allowed to stay without any barrier and, in terms of individuals and families, for there to be no requirement for them to return to other nations.

When the UK coalition Government came into office in 2010, the need to rescue the economy was urgent. Britain had suffered the deepest recession since the second world war and had the second biggest structural deficit of any advanced economy. Unemployment had increased by nearly half a million. Keynesian economics advocates deficit spending when an economy is suffering, but it also advocates cutting back on Government outlay in the boom times. But Gordon Brown had broken the cycle, pretending there was an end to boom and bust. After all, borrowers borrow, but lenders set the terms: the lesson facing countries that thought they could borrow their way out of bust.

When Gordon Brown opened Lehman Brothers London headquarters in 2004, he said:

‘I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain.’

Of course, their 2008 collapse triggered credit crunch.

The National Audit Office reported that Mr Brown’s Treasury was warned three years before Northern Rock nearly went bust that it needed to set up emergency plans to handle a banking crisis but did nothing about it.

Before the credit crunch, the International Monetary Fund said that the UK banking system was more exposed to sub-prime debts than anywhere else in the world. After credit crunch, the Financial Services Authority reported sustained political emphasis by the then Labour Government on the need for the FSA to be light touch in its approach, and we are all, of course, still paying the price.

Austerity is defined in my dictionary as not having enough money. It is, therefore, an inheritance not a choice. Realistic assessments about the state of the UK economy involve taking difficult decisions to reduce the deficit and control spending. In the real financial world, the solution is to reduce overspend and then generate budget surplus, providing security now and insurance against future down-turns.

If faster deficit reduction had been pursued, cuts would have been higher. If slower deficit reduction had been pursued, interest rates and cuts would have been higher. Thanks to the hard work of people in Wales and across the UK, the deficit is down by two thirds, there are almost 2.9 million more private sector jobs, and there are over 900,000 more businesses. In response to both this and recent developments, we’ve had the classic Carwyn cocktail of bunkum, bluster, bully and blame, when, instead, we need to work together to achieve the best possible outcomes, embrace opportunities and deliver a new and more suitable way of tackling Wales’s poverty, worklessness and prosperity gap with the rest of Britain.

We must tackle the barriers to opportunity and, at the heart of the Queen’s Speech are major changes to help spread life chances to everyone. The Digital Economy Bill, as we heard, will give every household the legal right to a fast broadband connection. The requirements in the neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill, relating to the national infrastructure commission to deliver jobs and growth, will apply to Wales, as will provisions applying to adoption in the Children and Social Work Bill. The prison and courts reform Bill will bring about the biggest reform of our prisons since Victorian times, ensuring they’re not just a place of punishment, but also rehabilitation, so that everyone has the chance to get back on the right track. The lifetime savings Bill will help people to save and make plans for the future, especially the young and those on low incomes.

The counter-extremism and safeguarding Bill gives law-enforcement agencies new powers to protect vulnerable people, including children, from extremist propaganda and to promote shared values of tolerance and respect. The criminal finances Bill will include a new criminal offence for corporations that fail to stop staff facilitating tax evasion.

Although the Policing and Crime Bill relates mainly to non-devolved matters extending to Wales, the Welsh Government has laid a legislative consent memorandum in relation to clauses of the Bill that it considers do relate to devolved matters. This includes strengthening the protections for persons under investigation and further safeguards children and young people from sexual exploitation. I therefore hope the Assembly will support that. The Bill also provides the police with powers to remove a person who appears to be suffering from a mental disorder to a place of safety and prevents the use of police cells as a place of safety for any person under 18 years. Thankfully, however, it does not include the devolution of policing. As former Labour UK Government Minister Kim Howells said on Monday, the idea that Wales is isolated from Britain is nationalist claptrap, and Carwyn Jones is out of touch with how most people in Wales think.

Harold Wilson used to say that a week is a long time in politics. Well, it seems like a political lifetime ago, as has already been referenced, when the Queen’s Speech was delivered to Parliament on 18 May 2016. Outside of the many economic, trade and societal issues we now face, it is inevitable for Wales that attention focuses now on the Wales Bill. There is no doubt that the new Bill is to be welcomed in comparison with the previous draft Bill that was published last October. However, we are once again faced with continuing outstanding issues. Most notably, the Bill does not include the devolution of policing, and teachers’ pay also remains a strong reservation in the Bill, due to continuing discussions on the funding transfer needed to support devolution. This does need rectification. I know that the First Minister and the Welsh Government continue to press and encourage parliamentary debate and scrutiny on these matters. It should not need saying that Wales simply demands fairness and respect from the UK Government—respect and fairness that must be mutually reciprocal.

Equally, it makes little or no sense to mum and dad on Blackwood High Street or to constitutional lawyers that the devolution of powers throughout the United Kingdom appears to be so fragmented and ad hoc. The UK Government, again today, has advocated metro mayors, as has been referenced, that will see invested in the hands of just one person powers over policing. Yet, the entire National Assembly for Wales is to continue to be denied such devolution of powers, and there is no logic to this.

I was struck by the comments in the Chamber yesterday of my friend Huw Irranca-Davies, the Member for Ogmore, Chair of the constitutional and legislative committee. He stated that, despite being invited before the committee, the Secretary of State for Wales had, so far, not accepted the invitation to attend. While it is good to see the Secretary of State for Wales address us today—a right, incidentally, that the Wales Bill will remove—it is important that communication and co-operation between the UK Government and the Welsh Government is the best that it possibly can be, and based on mutual respect, as the Welsh Labour Government has always sought to proceed for the process of devolution through cross-party consensus, where this is possible.

It is difficult to comprehend and understand why the Wales Bill was rushed, especially when you consider that discussions between officials in the UK and Welsh Government had not concluded. Also, the current timetable for passage of the Bill is constricted and rushed and provides very little time for much valuable scrutiny. Rushed legislation, as I’m sure everybody in this Chamber is aware, makes for very poor law.

Today I, along with my Welsh Labour colleagues, will be supporting the Plaid Cymru amendments as a matter of principle. The powers offered to Scotland and Northern Ireland should also be offered to Wales. The First Minister has consistently argued for that position in this Chamber, and Carwyn Jones has led the way in advocating that we need to move to a more coherent and consistent approach by the UK Government, treating each part of the UK with equal respect. It is no longer workable for twenty-first century Wales to be governed on the basis of an unwritten constitution that has morphed into disparity across and through the various members of the United Kingdom, increasingly divergent to the devolution settlement.

Equally, my constituents have not sent me here to the National Assembly for Wales to endlessly be debating constitutional issues of devolution. They have sent me here—as has already been mentioned—to stand up for their hard-working families, to ensure a better future for our communities, to fight poverty and grow jobs, and get the best possible deal for them. This Queen’s Speech does not deliver that. Let’s be frank, the latest Queen’s Speech was another missed opportunity to address many of the big issues facing Wales and the wider UK. It was a ghost Queen’s Speech delivered in the shadow of the European referendum that the Prime Minister confidently predicted he would win. The editor of PoliticsHome.com, Kevin Schofield, neatly summed up the value of the Prime Minister’s predictions:

‘So basically, ever since David Cameron assured us that "Brits don’t quit", everybody has quit. Except Jeremy Corbyn.’

Today and tomorrow, and the next day, and the week after that, and the month after that, I know that this Welsh Government will not quit in its unstinting determination—that the people of Wales are given the respect and democratic process that they deserve, equal to our fellow citizens throughout our United Kingdom. Diolch, Lywydd.

As well as addressing what was in the Queen’s Speech, I think it’s important to consider, as others have done, what was not, and also to note that, of the 30 measures announced, 28 were old announcements. The now obligatory mention of Wales was even shorter than usual, with just one sentence on bringing forward a Wales Bill, something on which we’ve already had pre-legislative scrutiny. It is sad as well to note that neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the opposition at Westminster mentioned Wales once in their contributions to the debate on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Commons. As we’ve heard, there are several England-and-Wales Bills, a few GB Bills, as well as UK-wide Bills. I think that one thing from this Queen’s Speech that needs considering is how we can implement a new process for such laws that are for England and Wales, or for just GB or the UK-wide ones that can bring together Governments, including the devolved administrations, so that it can be joint working on those Bills, even if they still fall in the reserved category in whatever Wales Bill we end up having enacted.

I hope consideration will be given to some of the ideas in Plaid Cymru’s alternative Queen’s Speech. Simon Thomas has already referred to the need for an EU funding contingency Bill, and I hope that is given serious consideration, and many communities in this country will expect such a Bill. It is clear, I think, that we need a Bill to establish an independent commission to resolve funding disputes between the UK Government and the devolved national Governments. The inequities of the Barnett formula were exposed by the independent Holtham commission many years ago, as well as several other commissions before and since, and the failure to allocate full consequential money to Wales as a result of HS2, as well as other examples, would be resolved and should be resolved in future by an independent commission. Establishing an independent commission is also essential in the context of the emerging debate over the fiscal framework within which the forthcoming tax sharing arrangements between the UK and Welsh Governments will sit.

As noted by the Wales Governance Centre, an independent adjudication commission should therefore be an essential component in the UK’s emerging fiscal framework. The Bingham Centre report proposed that this body, or another independent body, be responsible for adjudication in the event of disputes between Governments that cannot be resolved through joint ministerial processes—and if there’s one thing we’ve learned from this debate today, it is quite possible, I would suggest, that, in the future, there may be one or two disputes between two Governments.

In the Queen’s Speech, we would have welcomed a broadcasting Bill that would finally devolve responsibility, or part responsibility, for broadcasting to Wales. That would establish a BBC trust for Wales as part of a more federal BBC at a UK level. And, of course, as part of this broadcasting Bill, we would have welcomed that the responsibility for S4C be transferred to this National Assembly for Wales, as well as funding for the channel that is currently with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at Whitehall.

Other Members have mentioned the responsibility for policing. We would very much have welcomed the devolution of policing as part of the Wales Bill or as part of separate policing legislation. The recent police and crime commissioner election results have resulted in all four of Wales’s PCCs supporting the devolution of policing, as well as a majority of parties in this National Assembly having stood on platforms for the devolution of policing.

Plaid Cymru believes that there is a better way of delivering prison reform, and, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that is something that will be an England-and-Wales matter, an England-and-Wales Bill, and I very much hope that the Secretary of State can give a firm commitment that, if we’re not going to see the devolution of prisons any time soon, this legislature and the Welsh Government are involved in the pre-legislative process as further Bills move forward on policing.

Plaid Cymru would have welcomed, as I’m sure many other parties would have, a Bill to transfer responsibility, finally, for the Severn bridges to the Welsh Government when they revert back to public ownership. As a Member representing the South Wales East region, I can say that that would have been warmly welcomed in our communities. This would have enabled the Welsh Government and the National Assembly to decide on the appropriate level of charge, if any, which is at a current high rate and is a detriment to the Welsh economy.

There are elements that have been mentioned by others that Plaid Cymru welcomes in the Queen’s Speech, including the sugary drinks levy—something that was floated by Plaid Cymru some time ago and ridiculed by people who have now had a Damascene conversion. I hope, in closing, that, over the coming months, Westminster can deliver on its promise of a respect agenda between the two Governments that govern the country. We are yet to see that being fully born, I suspect. Thank you.

If I can just ask about the draft Wales Bill aspect of this Queen’s Speech, Secretary of State, Members of this Chamber will be well aware of my concerns regarding tax devolution, or, rather, the subsequent reductions that will be made to the block grant once tax devolution has occurred. We accept it’s pretty straightforward in the first year, with a portion of income tax being raised here, but, in subsequent years, we do have to have a mechanism, as the Secretary of State will know, for indexing, and factors such as population and inflation will need to be taken into account. So, Secretary State, this is a complex area, and I’ve no doubt that a mechanism will be devised, but I think what this Chamber wants to have is confidence that that mechanism will be one that serves the people of Wales as best as is possible. In Scotland, the issue of population change was taken into account with the mechanism decided on there. It was decided that that should not be part of the risk borne by the Scottish Government in terms of the Scottish proportion of income tax, and I think we would hope for the same arrangements here. I wonder if you could give us some clarity on thinking and discussions with the Treasury in terms of the mechanisms that are being looked at. And, please, take this assurance, Secretary of State: it’s not that we don’t trust you; we just trust you a little bit more than the Treasury.

I welcome very much the Secretary of State here today, and I would genuinely welcome him back again so that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, which I now Chair, can constructively engage on scrutiny and, indeed, help him improve the Wales Bill. Now, they may not discuss this ad nauseam in the Dog and Duck, but I’m more than happy to buy him a pint in the Mountain Hare in Brynna if he accepts our invitation; maybe even two, Secretary of State, and I’ve never bought two drinks for anybody. [Interruption.] Not for all of you. [Laughter.]

None of us, surely, want to end up with a Bill that does, indeed, give some neat steps forward for Wales, but has some worrying unintended consequences that could even roll back the devolution settlement. Our committee—I want to pay tribute here to committee members past and present, and previous Chairs as well—has been taking extensive evidence from expert witnesses, and we’ll continue receiving evidence throughout the summer. There has been a cautious welcome for some of the changes made since the original draft Bill, which was universally derided, but some common and serious concerns are already becoming clear.

Despite categorical reassurances from the Secretary of State for Wales, witnesses to the committee have raised concerns that the new justice impact assessments may, when used in concert with existing powers currently available to the Secretary of State, be used to veto future made-in-Wales legislation. This raises the possibility that this provision extends, or at least reinforces, the ability of the UK Government to impede the will of the Welsh Government and of this National Assembly. It has been proposed that these JIAs serve no useful purpose, or could even be harmful to the interests of Wales, and, therefore, it is proposed that they should be dropped.

The Bill proposes that we move to a reserved-powers model, of the sort that is used in Scotland, but not identical, where the Welsh Government would be able to legislate on any matter not expressly reserved to the UK Parliament. The original draft Bill was heavily criticised for drawing that list of reservations so widely that it reduced, clearly, the ability of Wales to legislate on many matters. But, even now, witnesses are telling us that the full spirit of the reserved-powers model is not self-evident, and there are widespread concerns that some of the reserved powers could actually roll back devolution. That wouldn’t be acceptable, Secretary of State, so changes will have to be considered and made.

To alleviate concerns over how to deal with the ongoing evolution of a body of law that is made in Wales or relates to Wales, and the implications of this for a distinct, though not necessarily separate, jurisdiction, the Secretary of State for Wales has established the justice in Wales working group. Indeed, this approach would, of course, be welcome. But our committee is hearing that the First Minister of Wales and the Welsh Government have not been invited to set the terms of reference and have not yet been formally invited to participate, and the working group will only report to UK Ministers and not to the Welsh Government. Yet, with a rethink, I would say to the Secretary of State for Wales that a standing group considering the growth in Wales’s legislation over time has real merit, but only if the Welsh Government is directly involved.

There is more, of course, and this is why we’ve asked the Secretary of State for Wales to appear before us to share his thinking, I have to say, and to consider what leading constitutional and legal experts have told us must change. One of the expert witnesses told the committee that a Wales Bill needs to be ‘aspirational’. I challenged that and asked why it shouldn’t just be a pragmatic and practical statement of what currently exists. The witness said,

‘Because I think constitutions send messages about what kind of politics you are conducting in a country, what kind of society you want to live in, what kind of aspirations you have for your future generations.’

She went on:

‘And all these messages, symbolic or not, at declarative level or at a very technical level—I think the constitution should go further than just technical and legalistic expressions of political reality.’

There are some welcome parts of this Bill. It is better than the original draft. It has some wins for Wales, but it also has some potential bear-traps that could actually roll back our devolution settlement. I, therefore, extend again a warm welcome to the Secretary of State for Wales—no stranger to this Senedd, to this parliament—to come back again to our committee and help us improve the Bill for the good of Wales, for the good of the people of Wales and for the good of a more durable constitutional settlement.

I now call on the Secretary of State to speak.

Well, thank you, Madam Llywydd. It’s been a pleasure to listen very carefully to the debate.

Bu’n bleser gwrando ar ddadl sydd wedi bod yn barchus ac yn ddiddorol yn fy marn i. Nid oeddwn yn sylweddoli mai fi oedd y cyntaf i osgoi cael fy heclo, fel y nododd y Prif Weinidog. Ond wrth edrych o gwmpas, credaf fy mod yn adnabod y rhan fwyaf o’r bobl yn eithaf da—nid wyf yn adnabod pawb, ond gobeithiaf fod hynny’n gosod cywair ar gyfer y berthynas aeddfed y gall Llywodraeth y DU ei chael gyda Swyddfa Cymru, Llywodraeth Cymru a’r Cynulliad yn eu tro. Ac rwy’n benderfynol o barhau hynny fel deialog, felly hoffwn barhau â llawer o’r pwyntiau a godwyd yn yr ysbryd hwnnw.

Credaf fod ambell thema gyffredin ymhlith y materion a godwyd, ac rwy’n ddiolchgar i’r holl Aelodau sydd wedi siarad. Nid wyf wedi cael cyfle i fynd drwy bob un o’r pwyntiau a wnaed gan bob Aelod yn yr amser cyfyngedig sydd ar gael. Ond os caf dynnu sylw at un neu ddau o’r pwyntiau a godwyd.

Mae’r cyntaf yn ymwneud ag Ewrop. Yn naturiol, credaf fod yna rai cwestiynau, rhai pryderon, ynglŷn â chyfeiriad polisi. Mae rhai’n synnu fy mod wedi dweud na fyddai erthygl 50 yn cael ei rhoi ar waith am ddwy flynedd o leiaf. Wel, mae’n eithaf amlwg na cheir Prif Weinidog newydd tan 9 Medi. Nawr, mae hynny rai misoedd ar ôl y refferendwm i adael yr UE. Mae’n amlwg na fydd y Prif Weinidog newydd yn rhoi erthygl 50 mewn grym yn syth, oherwydd byddant—ef neu hi—am ystyried y goblygiadau, a thrafod gyda’r gweinyddiaethau datganoledig ac Aelodau Seneddol, o bob lliw’n wleidyddol, ynglŷn â’r dull o weithredu yr hoffent ei weld. Felly, mae hynny’n golygu y bydd nifer o fisoedd rhwng y refferendwm i adael yr UE a rhoi erthygl 50 mewn grym.

A dywedaf hyn yn gadarnhaol. Oherwydd, os oes barn wahanol yn y Cynulliad—yn amlwg, gorau po gyntaf yn ôl Neil Hamilton, a chredaf efallai fod y Prif Weinidog wedi dweud rhywbeth tebyg yr wythnos diwethaf, ei fod yn dymuno gweld erthygl 50 yn cael ei roi mewn grym cyn gynted ag y bo modd. Wel, os mai dyna farn y Cynulliad, credaf y byddai’n ddefnyddiol pe bai’r Cynulliad yn arddel safbwynt ffurfiol, er mwyn gwneud hynny’n glir i’r Uned Ewropeaidd, ac i’r Prif Weinidog newydd, o ran ble y mae’n mynd.

I mi’n bersonol, credaf y byddai elfen o sefydlogrwydd, elfen o drafod gyda chenhedloedd Ewropeaidd unigol, er mwyn cryfhau ein sefyllfa, er mwyn cyrraedd sefyllfa lle bo gennym berthynas gref ag eraill, lle’r ydym yn deall bwriadau ac ewyllys cynghreiriaid o amgylch Ewrop, yn ffordd synhwyrol ymlaen. Ac yn y cyfamser, gallwn gryfhau’r Deyrnas Unedig, Cymru, a phob un o rannau cyfansoddol y Deyrnas Unedig, cyn cychwyn y trafodaethau hynny. Oherwydd, doed a ddelo, oni bai bod 27 aelod-wladwriaeth yr Undeb Ewropeaidd i gyd yn cytuno, pan fydd erthygl 50 yn cael ei roi mewn grym, bydd y cloc dwy flynedd yn dechrau tician. Credaf y byddai’n sefyllfa synhwyrol er mwyn deall safbwyntiau Aelodau’r Cynulliad ynglŷn â hynny. Nid fy lle i yw dweud wrthych beth i’w wneud, ond credaf y byddai hynny o gymorth o ran mewnbynnu pa un a hoffech i erthygl 50 gael ei roi mewn grym ar unwaith, neu eich bod o’r farn y byddai oedi yn fwy synhwyrol.

Y thema arall, o fewn yr amser sydd ar ôl, yw Bil Cymru. Mae llawer o sylw wedi cael ei roi i’r fframwaith cyllidol—mae’n well gennyf fi ei alw’n ‘addasiad Barnett’. Oherwydd, yn bendant, yr unig fodel sydd gennym a oedd yn bodoli mewn perthynas â sefyllfa debyg i hon, yw model fel Deddf yr Alban a basiwyd y llynedd. Yn naturiol, ni fyddai Senedd yr Alban yn pasio cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol tan eu bod yn fodlon â’r fframwaith cyllidol. Credaf fod hynny’n naturiol. Rwyf wedi dweud yn glir wrth y Prif Weinidog mai dyna’r safbwynt y byddwn yn disgwyl i’r Cynulliad ei arddel. Felly, gobeithiaf y byddai cyflwyno cyllid gwaelodol yn rhoi hyder.

Cyfeiriwyd at adroddiad Gerry Holtham a’r cyllid gwaelodol o 115 y cant fan lleiaf, ac mae lefel y gwariant yn uwch na hynny ar hyn o bryd. Mae’r cyllid gwaelodol o 115 y cant fan lleiaf wedi ei gyflwyno, ac unwaith eto, cafodd gefnogaeth Gerry Holtham, yn ogystal â llawer o gefnogaeth yn y gymuned ehangach. Mae hefyd wedi cyhoeddi rhai modelau y gellid defnyddio addasiad Barnett ar eu cyfer, ac mae hynny unwaith eto yn sefyllfa ddefnyddiol i fod ynddi. Felly, rwyf am i’r drafodaeth hon, a fydd yn cael ei datblygu ochr yn ochr â’r Bil, barhau yn yr ysbryd hwnnw.

Roeddwn wedi gobeithio trafod llawer o bwyntiau eraill, ond yn anffodus, nid wyf wedi gwneud hynny. Ond o ran yr arian canlyniadol a ddaw yma, hoffwn danlinellu bod symiau canlyniadol HS2 yn bendant wedi cyrraedd y lle hwn, ac mae Aelodau Seneddol Plaid Cymru yn derbyn hynny. Oherwydd arweiniodd symiau canlyniadol HS2 at gynnydd o 16 y cant mewn gwariant cyfalaf, gan ei fod yn swm canlyniadol o gyllideb yr Adran Drafnidiaeth. Felly, roeddwn yn awyddus iawn i danlinellu hynny.

Ac yn olaf, os caf ymateb i’r cwestiynau am fynychu’r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol yma yn y Cynulliad, roeddwn dan yr argraff fod y Cadeirydd a minnau, drwy drafodaeth anffurfiol, wedi dod i drefniant, felly roeddwn yn synnu braidd ac yn siomedig o weld y feirniadaeth a fynegwyd yn y cyfryngau a’r wasg wedi hynny. Rwy’n hapus i barhau i drafod er mwyn cyrraedd sefyllfa sy’n gweithio i bawb ohonom, a gobeithio y bydd hynny’n cael ei dderbyn yn yr ysbryd y’i bwriadwyd. Diolch.

I call on Jane Hutt to respond to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr. I’d like to thank the Secretary of State for Wales for his participation in the debate today, and for his response as well, and Members for their contributions to the debate as well. Of course, as has been said, today, the annual debate on the UK Government’s legislative programme has become a regular fixture in the Assembly’s calendar, but if all goes well, as everyone said, including the First Minister in his opening remarks, these fixtures will surely come to an end. The Wales Bill will sweep away the unnecessary requirements that currently restrict the way we do business in this Chamber, and we welcome that, but, of course, we personally welcome the Secretary of State, as we did indeed your predecessor—I think we said the same thing last year—and also, of course, welcome you not just as a former Member of this Assembly, but personally, sharing the same constituency, the Vale of Glamorgan, and enjoying that opportunity.

I think we can agree that the requirement for the Secretary of State to visit the Assembly, to consult us on the UK Government’s legislative programme, does not serve a purpose now and we recognise that. But, it’s interesting to look back and see that, since June 2008, we have debated 88 legislative consent motions—88 instances where UK legislation made provision in a devolved area, and the Assembly decided whether it should give its legislative consent or not. Our focus, of course, is on our own Welsh Government legislative programme, but we have to be alert to the overlap between our own legislation and the UK Government’s, and enable UK-wide solutions where appropriate to be taken forward through UK legislation, where that is our best option. In fact, the legislative consent process is an important constitutional principle, and I think it’s important to say that in this debate this afternoon. Where the Assembly has legislative powers, Westminster should not legislate without the Assembly’s consent, nor legislate to modify the Assembly’s legislative competence unless the Assembly consents.

The Wales Bill will provide statutory recognition, which is welcome for this crucial convention. For Wales, as is the case, of course, in Scotland, it hasn’t had a statutory underpinning and the Wales Bill will provide that. And that’s an important and welcome change. But, the Bill should make it clear that the convention applies where Parliament legislates to modify the Assembly’s legislative competence, as well as where Parliament legislates on matters that are already devolved. It’s impossible to say at this stage how many times we will need to ask the Assembly for its legislative consent in the coming year. But, I have written to the Llywydd with the Welsh Government’s initial assessment of the UK Government’s legislative programme and its implications for Assembly business. We’ve already laid memorandums for LCMs on the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill and the Policing and Crime Bill; Mark Isherwood has already commented on that this afternoon.

I would like to speak in support of the two amendments that have been tabled by Plaid Cymru. On the first amendment, we agree that if powers can be offered to Scotland or Northern Ireland, they should also be offered to Wales. It’s time for a more coherent and consistent approach by the UK Government, treating each part of the UK with equal respect. On the second amendment, it must be a priority to ensure the continuity of important EU legislation that has been enacted in Wales and the rest of the UK. It’s not clear yet, of course, how this continuity will be achieved, but we must do all we can to ensure that progress made over the years, particularly, for example, as discussed yesterday in this Chamber on environmental issues and on protecting workers’ rights, does not take a backward step.

The Secretary of State returned to this important issue of the response since 23 June in terms of our response to the referendum. I want to, again, follow up on what the First Minister has said in his letter to the Prime Minister, following the outcome of the referendum. We’re doing everything we can in our power to protect Welsh interests, strengthen the economy and unify the nation. It’s important that we recognise, and the First Minister made this very clear to the Prime Minister, that Wales should be fully involved in negotiating the UK’s exit from the EU to ensure that the interests of Wales and its people are taken fully into account so that we can achieve the best possible deal. I am glad that the Secretary of State commented on that and the opportunities in his opening statement.

Just to give you some examples, the Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates, has already announced a series of short-term measures to protect jobs and maintain economic confidence and stability, including, importantly, having a growth jobs event in north Wales, which I think the Secretary of State has also been invited to. Mark Drakeford, the Secretary for Finance and Local Government is doing all that he can to ensure that there is no loss of funding to Wales, following the result of the referendum. That’s what people want to hear in terms of our response. On Monday, the First Minister and the Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths, are meeting key figures from Wales’s environment and agricultural sectors to discuss the implications of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.

I would also like to just draw attention to the letter that the First Minister wrote to Theresa May yesterday and it follows up on Simon Thomas’s point about EU nationals. He wrote to say that he’d been increasingly concerned about the position of EU citizens living, working or studying in Wales. Of course, you’ve also commented, Secretary of State, on the students coming to Wales later in the year and those already living and studying in Wales. Of course, the First Minister said to the Home Secretary that, across Wales and indeed the UK generally, there are many sectors of business, including the NHS, that depend on EU citizens to fill vital posts. Will you confirm, he says, that EU citizens who work and live here at the time of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will retain the right to do so? He also goes on to talk about the negative experience of EU citizens and other immigrants in terms of the impact of abusive behaviour and hate crime, which, of course, we have been addressing as a Welsh Government, and also with the police and the police and crime commissioners, recognising this as a crucial issue, which is unfortunately one of the very sad outcomes of the referendum.

Many Bills have been mentioned today—welcomed or noted and points made. I’m sure that there will be a great deal of interest in Neil Hamilton’s exposition on the soft drinks industry in terms of the Finance Bill’s soft drinks industry levy. Of course, as Jenny Rathbone says, the Welsh Government wants to see a reduction in the amount of sugar that people are consuming and have consistently urged the Secretary of State for Health to deliver stronger action on sugar at a UK level.

Rightly and importantly, I must draw attention to the points that have been made about policing by Rhianon Passmore and Steffan Lewis. They would welcome the amendments proposed by the First Minister to the Wales Bill. This is a very strong message—consistent, I have to say, with the cross-party recommendations of the Silk commission—that the Welsh Government is proposing amendments, focusing on the fact that priorities determined for policing for the whole of England and Wales, under current arrangements, can’t properly reflect distinctive Welsh circumstances, and going on to say that policing is the only major service not currently the responsibility of the devolved institutions in Wales, and, of course, the impact that has in terms of collaboration with other blue-light services. There is clear evidence from Silk, as a result, that devolution would create a better alignment between policies for tackling crime and its causes as well as accountability for policing.

Julie Morgan draws attention to momentous events since the Queen’s Speech was presented in Westminster—indeed, Simon Thomas talks about how the political landscape has changed so much—and she rightly draws attention to the contradictions presented in the Queen’s Speech, which purport to aim to strengthen the economy and increase the life chances of young people, but then she clearly identifies, as I think we can and we have done in this Chamber, the impact of austerity and the impact in terms of inequalities deepening and the cuts to our budget, but also giving examples, as we can, in terms of the impact of policies that are reserved to the UK Government, particularly in relation to welfare, which we all know and understand in terms of the impact on the lives of vulnerable people. I think this is why it’s so vital that we do look at this in terms of the wider perspective, in terms of what we can do with our powers and responsibilities and how we can develop and strengthen them.

This brings me to the all-important point about a fiscal framework, which the First Minister addressed in his opening statement as well. Clause 16 removes the provision in the Wales Act 2014 for a referendum ahead of the devolution of income tax. Well, yes, if we are to go forward with that, we have to recognise this must be accompanied by a full commitment to a fiscal framework that we can agree. At present, the provision would leave it open to the UK Treasury to devolve income tax responsiblities by Order, with no requirement for consultation with the Assembly or Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government is proposing an amendment so that Order-making powers should not be exercisable unless there is in place a full fiscal framework, and that has to cover the points that have been made. Nick Ramsay made the point as well about a fair block grant offset, long-term resolution of fair funding, an increase in the Welsh Government’s capital borrowing limit, and other matters, but they have to be agreed by both Governments. The Welsh Government has proposed that, before making a Treasury Order, the Secretary of State should lay the fiscal framework document before Parliament and the Order should not be made until the fiscal framework has been agreed by both Houses of Parliament and by the Assembly—crucially important in terms of the way forward.

Finally, I’d say that Huw Irranca-Davies has set the tone as the new Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, following on from the excellent work—and, of course, he’s a member still—of David Melding, the predecessor Chair. He does make it very clear that there’s a real opportunity here for us to work together. The committee is now up and running and the invitation has come, not just prior to this debate, but of course questions were raised about whether you would accept that invitation to attend that committee as Secretary of State, and I hope he will do, because there is so much that we can benefit from in that full engagement and the courtesy that we have offered today.

Briefly, to intervene to say I really welcome the constructive response of the Secretary of State for Wales to continue discussing this, and it wasn’t my final offer on two pints; I’m willing to go higher. [Laughter.]

Right, I think on that note we can conclude. I thank the Secretary of State for his attendance today. It may be the last Queen’s Speech debate here, but he can be assured that the Welsh Government, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and the Assembly will work together to monitor the UK legislative programme, promote Welsh interests in the future and go from here today with that positive engagement as we all look to the great fixture of today, to support our winning team tonight in France. Diolch yn fawr.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will take electronic votes on the remaining votes under this item. In accordance with Standing Order 11.15, the Business Committee has decided that any vote necessary will take place at the end of the debate, and, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to the vote.

I therefore call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. For 34, abstentions none, against 11. Therefore the amendment is carried.

Amendment agreed: For 34, Against 11, Abstain 0.

Result of the vote on amendment 1 to motion NDM6060.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 34, abstentions 11, against none. Therefore amendment 2 is agreed.

Amendment agreed: For 34, Against 0, Abstain 11.

Result of the vote on amendment 2 to motion NDM6060.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Motion NDM6060 as amended:

The National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the content of the UK Government’s legislative programme 2016/2017.

Regrets that the UK Government’s proposed Wales Bill falls short of offering comparable powers as those available to, or on offer to Scotland.

Notes the Research Briefing: ‘Wales and the EU: What does the vote to leave the EU mean for Wales?’ and believes that following the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, provisions should be made to ensure that all legislation giving effect to EU Directives or Regulations pertaining to areas such as environmental protection, workers’ rights, food safety and agriculture are retained in UK and Welsh law unless they are actively repealed by the relevant Parliament.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For 35, abstentions two, against 10. The motion as amended is therefore agreed.

Motion NDM6060 as amended is agreed: For 35, Against 10, Abstain 2.

Result of the vote on motion NDM6060 as amended.

I thank the Secretary of State. We now move to our next item of business.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.