We move on to the debate on the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee’s report on its inquiry on the UK Government’s Wales Bill. I call on the Chair of the committee, Huw Irranca-Davies, to move the motion.

Motion NDM6119 Huw Irranca-Davies

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

Notes the report of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on its inquiry on the UK Government’s Wales Bill, laid in the Table Office on 6 October 2016.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I begin by thanking all of our committee members of all parties, our excellent clerking team and the support team around us and also those who’ve contributed with expert evidence to our report?

Constitutional issues are often considered to be dry, incidental matters of little consequence to the average person in the street. But if Brexit has taught us anything, it is that constitutional issues do matter and they do engage. So, we should not be surprised that the Wales Bill has been a source of much discussion, not just between politicians, but also when people use our laws on a daily basis. The Wales Bill will determine the laws we can make to improve the prosperity and quality of life of all citizens in Wales. Our role as legislators in scrutinising the Bill is to make sure that the Assembly has the best possible framework in which to make those laws. It is also to ensure that the constitution is accessible to all.

This is not constitutional navel gazing as some would have you believe; it is about making sure that the Assembly has all the necessary tools to make laws that deliver for the people of Wales. And that is why, even though this is the fourth Wales Bill in the last 20 years, we must speak out if the Bill makes the job of legislating more complicated and if it does not deliver what was promised.

There are elements of this Bill that we welcome. In principle, we agree with the move to a reserved-powers model. We also welcome the removal of the necessity test in relation to private and criminal law, giving the National Assembly greater freedom to legislate. We welcome the ability to remove and modify some UK Minister functions without consent, with bodies such as the Food Standards Agency and the Electoral Commission having been carved out from the consent requirements. We also welcome the listing of all the main Welsh public authorities in the Bill, removing any doubt that these bodies are within the National Assembly’s legislative competence.

However, our overall assessment of the Bill is that it is a complex and inaccessible piece of constitutional law. It will not deliver the lasting, durable settlement that the people of Wales had expected. That is disappointing and it is regrettable. The Bill certainly does not offer the progressive, ambitious and aspirational settlement that many in Wales hoped for and believed is needed. Neither does it befit a modern legislature and an equal partner within the family of nations that make up the United Kingdom.

This Bill is better than the draft Bill, and we welcome the changes made by the UK Government. However, of greater importance, this Bill will not improve the devolution settlement overall, as it stands. The complex way in which the Assembly’s legislative competence is expressed, including the number and the extent of reservations and restrictions, is far too restrictive. It is out of touch and it is out of date.

In addition, the National Assembly is being prevented from taking on responsibilities that would be expected of a mature legislature. It is clear that unless the Bill is amended significantly in the House of Lords, the Assembly will lose the power to make laws in certain areas. It does not, in our view, reflect or respect the democratic will of the people of Wales as expressed in 2011.

Before discussing in detail the conclusions of our work, I would like to use some examples to explain the practical effect of the Bill and how it fails to fully empower the National Assembly as a modern legislature. So, for example, the health committee and the First Minister raised concerns about the reservation of the sale and supply of alcohol, which could impact on the ability of the Welsh Government to tackle alcohol-related health issues. We’ve also heard concerns expressed about the loss of competence in relation to the protection of children and adoption policy, and—

Will the Member give way?

I will indeed give way.

I thank the Member very much for giving way. Does the Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee believe that any of the reservations listed would affect the ability of this Government and this Assembly to remove the defence of reasonable punishment, which is one of the aims that have been in the programme for government?

I thank Julie Morgan for that intervention, and, indeed, that is one of the areas of concern that have been raised by authoritative experts on the constitution and legislation who have given evidence to the committee. So, it is one of our areas of concern, unfortunately.

These highlight some simple examples. It would take too long to explain how the complexity of the tests and the reservations work together and impact on the ability of the National Assembly to make laws. However, we have published an example of the difficulties that would be faced in relation to a hypothetical Bill, an example we shared with the House of Lords Constitution Committee last week. I would encourage anyone with an interest in the Bill to read that.

While the Bill actually needs a complete overhaul, it would be too complicated to attempt to rewrite a Bill of this nature through amendments. It’s a general point of principle highlighted in our predecessor committee’s ‘Making Laws in Wales’ report. So, faced with the challenges I have outlined, as a committee, and working constructively with stakeholders, we recognised that our role must be to suggest amendments that would make the Bill more workable than it currently is, reduce the bureaucracy that it introduces and, at the very least—at the very least—return the National Assembly’s legislative competence to that set out in the Government of Wales Act 2006. On this latter point, I would point out that the judgment on the Agricultural Sector (Wales) Bill should be viewed as the Supreme Court’s view of the UK’s Parliament’s intention in relation to that 2006 Act. This is an important constitutional point.

So, our approach was to identify and support amendments previously suggested by the Llywydd or the Welsh Government that delivered the objectives I have just referred to. In particular, we supported amendments that: in relation to clause 2, would make it much more explicit about the circumstances in which the UK Parliament would legislate on devolved matters; in relation to clause 3, would remove necessity tests to ensure that the Assembly’s current—current—level of competence was maintained; and, in relation to clause 18, sought to ensure that the executive functions of Welsh Ministers in devolved areas aligned with the legislative competence of the National Assembly.

We also suggested our own amendments, most notably an amendment to permit the National Assembly to consolidate, without modification, all the legislation relating to the Welsh constitution in our official languages. Such an approach is transparent and will make sure that the legislation is accessible. In a healthy democracy, this is vital so that citizens are clear about which parliamentary institution is responsible for law making in a particular policy area. But the complexity and lack of clarity within the Bill as currently drafted, calls into question the long-term durability of the settlement. Another factor impacting on this durability is the failure to provide for a distinct or a separate jurisdiction for Wales. As we heard at a stakeholder event, practical pressures—practical pressures—will inevitably arise for those practising law or giving advice on the law in Wales. So, the case for such a jurisdiction will continue to arise. It is regrettable, therefore, that this Bill is likely to perpetuate rather than resolve constitutional uncertainty.

A durable and a workable settlement is crucial to the constitutional integrity of the UK as well as to Wales. For that reason we do consider that politicians in the UK Parliament and the National Assembly will have to return to the Welsh devolution settlement sooner rather than later.

The Presiding Officer took the Chair.

To be a success, constitutional reform necessitates full and open engagement by all: this builds a consensus across political parties and wider society that will underpin a durable settlement, but, unfortunately, this Bill has been characterised by a Whitehall-driven process under tight control by the UK Government, which has lost that opportunity of wider support and consensus. We believe there needs to be a new approach to considering constitutional Bills. This should be an agreed means of co-operating between the National Assembly and our committees and the two Houses of Parliament and their committees. We recommend the development of these new ways of working as a matter of urgency. They should be in place before major constitutional legislation is brought forward—for example, in response to Brexit—and we stand ready to contribute to this work.

So, in concluding these opening remarks, I look forward to hearing other contributions to this debate, and to see what other Members thought of the report that we have brought forward. Thank you.

I’d like to thank the committee for the very detailed and comprehensive work that they’ve done on the Wales Bill, and particularly thank the Chair for outlining so clearly, I think, the concerns that the committee has with the Bill, and that are related to the Bill in going forward, if the Bill had not been amended in the way that the committee has recommended.

We’ve had a pledge, of course, that this will be the Bill that will give a long-term constitutional settlement for Wales. Unfortunately, for the reasons that Huw Irranca-Davies has outlined, the Bill falls very short of achieving that aim. We will certainly be looking at a fifth devolution Bill within a very short period of time.

I think that the Bill extends the opportunity to move forward with devolution on one hand, in terms of this idea of reserved powers, while, at the same time, it stymies the Government’s ability and the Senedd’s ability in the way that it has kept powers back and has created a very mixed picture of what lies where.

There are positive things in the Bill. The fact that the National Assembly is acknowledged as a permanent institution is important; it’s important for a mature way of discussing the constitution of the UK. It’s possible to build on that in the way that the Chair has started to outline, I think. I’m very interested in seeing that there’s some sort of parliamentary protocol established between this place and the Parliament in Westminster, where we can have that joint discussion that the Chair outlined. As we are established now—once the Bill turns into an Act—as a permanent institution, then we can build on that.

There are other positive things in the Bill with regard to changing our own internal processes. As Chair of the Finance Committee, I look forward to having the opportunity to develop new fiscal processes, where we can take a finance Bill through this Parliament and we can genuinely look at the way that taxes are raised in Wales and put that in the context of expenditure. Now, that in itself will add to the maturity of this place, and also to the maturity of the Welsh Government.

But—and it’s a very significant ‘but’—for the first time, we’re seeing a devolution Bill that claws back powers to Westminster and London, and that’s a great shame. First of all, powers that have been recognised by the Supreme Court, as has been mentioned, in the area of wages in the agricultural sector—they’re being clawed back. But, more than that, there’s been an attempt, clearly, in putting together this Bill, by going through the different departments in Westminster, for every department to try and get their mitts on the Bill and to leave their trace on it. Even though there have been improvements since the first draft, the traces of different departments—some of which have never even understood devolution—remain on this Bill.

There are several examples of legislation in the past—the First Minister has outlined them before the Assembly previously—that have been passed by this Assembly that will not be possible, or will be challenged, at least, in the Supreme Court, under the auspices of this proposed Bill.

Now, there’s no doubt about it, as Huw Irranca-Davies said: the referendum was a very clear statement. We’ve heard over the past few months how important it is that you do listen to a referendum and listen to what the people tell you. The referendum back in 2011 was a very clear statement: over 60 per cent of people said very clearly that we want to build on what you’ve been doing as a parliamentary body, and we want you to have full legislative powers, and we want you to implement that. In that context, this Bill goes against that principle and sets a very dangerous precedent, therefore, for the relationship between the different legislatures of the United Kingdom, especially with this additional challenge that we have now of dealing with Brexit—what legislation will be devolved to this place, what legislation will be devolved to Westminster, what funding will come here, and what funding will be kept back by Westminster. This Bill is a very unfortunate template for moving forward on those matters.

Roedd dyfyniad enwog iawn gan genedlaetholwr Gwyddelig, Charles Stewart Parnell, a ddywedodd yn glir iawn nad oes gan unrhyw ddyn—neu fenyw, y dyddiau hyn, ond nad oes gan unrhyw ddyn; Oes Fictoria—

Nid oes gan unrhyw ddyn hawl i ddweud wrth ei wlad “Dyma pa mor bell y cei fynd a dim pellach”.

Nid oes gan San Steffan hawl i ddweud wrth bobl Cymru na chânt fynd ddim pellach. Mae gan bobl Cymru hawl i fynegi eu hunanbenderfyniad ym mha bynnag ffordd sy’n briodol iddynt. Gwaith San Steffan, fel ein Senedd unedol ar gyfer y Deyrnas Unedig, yw paratoi’r llwybr deddfwriaethol ar gyfer llais pobl Cymru. Nid yw hynny wedi cael ei gyflawni yn y Bil hwn.

Can I start by congratulating the new Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on leading the committee and the secretariat to produce what I think is an outstanding report? It had to be done very quickly in the earliest days of this Assembly. I think it stands as a powerful document, and I particularly am grateful to all the officials that helped us draft the report. It’s an outstanding sign, I think, of the quality of the Commission’s staff, if I may so, Presiding Officer.

Can I just start by saying that the Bill is actually generous in several respects? The declaration of permanence, I think, takes us as far as we can go in our quasi-federal constitution to establish fundamental law and that the Assembly and the Welsh Government is a fundamental institution.

I think the competence regarding Assembly elections, including franchise and electoral systems, is also really important. We’ve had several references this afternoon to STV in local government and the possibility of reducing the voting age to 16. Well, we will soon have the power to actually determine these matters. Also, the removal of the necessity test in relation to private and criminal law was a very welcome change from the draft Bill. However, as the committee highlights, the Bill could be improved in some key ways to meet the aspiration for a fuller and more durable settlement. I remember, when I was Chair of the committee and we had the then Secretary of State before us, we commended him for that vision of a full and durable settlement—a high aspiration. But, in some respects, as we’ve heard, we have not quite achieved that standard yet.

I think the necessity tests that remain in reserved areas should be replaced by some other test, such as one allowing us ancillary powers to alter the law of England and Wales. This is a technical thing in many respects, but it’s really important to allow our law-making competence to work effectively. Without that scope and flexibility, you can lack the energy to use what appear to be your quite broad powers over, say, housing, education or health. I do fear that we could end up back in the Supreme Court, or bickering with the UK Government, to get that elbow room to have really effective law. The list of reservations is still far too long and it includes, as we’ve heard, the licensing of intoxicating liquors or premises that sell them. As K.O. Morgan, the great historian, points out, Wales controlled its pubs before it controlled its church, or at least disestablished the Anglican church, and now we are going to see a settlement that is not going to give us that power. I do remember, as an aside, Presiding Officer, taking part in the last set of referenda on Sunday opening. There was a vote in Cardiff in 1989, and I believe, in Ceredigion, that was when they finally decided to go wet on Sunday, despite the pleas of the Aberystwyth students union, which found Sunday a particularly profitable day and was very happy with the more restricted arrangements. But, I mean, it is a nonsense, I think, for us not to have powers over licensing. Also, the transfer of Executive powers should go along the lines of the Scotland Act. I’m still mystified why this is not fully the case even now.

But can I just lay a marker as a member of the committee and a former Chair? The real obstacle to a final settlement is the lack of political consensus on the question of a Welsh jurisdiction. We are in this most peculiar and irregular position in regard to the Westminster model, where we have a legislature that doesn’t have a jurisdiction. One does wonder what we are supposed to do here if it is not to pass laws for the benefit of the people. Or, to put it another way: we’re in a single jurisdiction that has two legislatures. This is a very peculiar way to proceed, and it does make a real reserved-powers model very, very difficult to deliver. This reluctance to deal with this question is seen most vividly, I think, around policing powers, where community policing in nearly all these centralised systems is given to the devolved institutions, and then higher policing functions are held by the state. This is what happens in Northern Ireland and Scotland, and is about to happen in the principal cities of England. So, we are going to get overtaken even in our own settlement.

Can I just finish with that I do believe this Bill is workable? I do also believe that it is probably going to have to be replaced. It is not going to be ‘the fourth Bill and it’, as one very senior member of the judiciary put it. We’re going to have to, probably, have a fifth Government of Wales Bill. But, for this Bill to work, it will require the most effective joint working between the Welsh Government and the UK Government to allow this legislature to exercise the powers that the people of Wales want us to possess. Thank you.

I would first like to thank the committee for their work on the Wales Bill and for the comprehensive report produced by the committee. In principle, the move from a conferred-powers to a reserved-powers model is a positive step. However, as pointed out by the committee, the Bill is complex and inaccessible. The move to a reserved-powers model is therefore undermined by that complexity and by the number of reservations included in the Bill. The powers reserved to the UK Government are so extensive as to leave one wondering which areas of legislative competence are left to the Welsh Assembly after all the reservations have been taken into account. The way that the reservations have been drafted lends them to disagreement between the Assembly and the UK Government regarding what is within the competence of the Assembly. The inevitable delay while such issues are being resolved will not aid good or effective government in Wales. That the reservations in some cases do not make sense speaks of a lack of attention and forethought on the part of the UK Government. That legislative competence is being rolled backwards in some cases is particularly alarming. I completely agree with the committee that this Bill does not present a lasting constitutional settlement for Wales. Perhaps if the UK Government had properly consulted this Assembly on the Wales Bill, instead of imposing a new devolution settlement on Wales as if from above, we would not now be greeting this Bill with a big question mark.

However, the repatriation of legislative power from Brussels to the UK gives Wales a golden opportunity to have a mature conversation with the UK Government about the proper apportionment of legislative competence between the UK legislature and the Assembly. The committee was presented with a sow’s ear, and the recommendations valiantly tried to sew it into something meaningful. I would urge the UK Government to give the committee’s recommendations serious consideration. Although, in my opinion, what is required is a root-and-branch rethink and rewrite of the Bill.

My sympathies go to the Presiding Officer, who has the unenviable task of navigating us through this dog’s dinner of a statute once it’s in force. Thank you.

I’d like to first of all acknowledge the work that was done within the committee by my colleagues. We put in a great deal of effort, but I’d like to highlight Huw Irranca-Davies and just congratulate him on the chairmanship of this committee and the work that he’s done—very professional, and I’m very impressed with it. Thank you, Huw.

As you mentioned, this is the fourth Bill in 20 years, and the question that I think we’re all asking is: will this be the last? Certainly, Simon Thomas and David Melding have pointed out that there’s going to be a fifth Bill. Well, actually, I think that’s a reality; that’s something we can all see. Now, my reasoning behind that is something that maybe hasn’t been touched on, but, of course, we all acknowledge what happened on 23 June and the fact that Wales voted for us to leave the EU, and I’m sure that you’re all groaning about the fact I’m bringing that up again, but the reality is that this Bill does not really acknowledge that fact. Nowhere in it is there an acknowledgement of the fact that we’re going to get some of the areas that are devolved to Wales, hopefully, coming back to us, whether it be fisheries, farming or food production. One of the things that we need to do, certainly, is: as a legislature, we need to be looking at those areas and deciding how we want to move forward with them, what areas we want to change and what EU legislation we wish to, through the great repeal Act, see got rid of and use this as an opportunity for change for all of us for the positive.

The committee report acknowledges the decision taken on the twenty-third, and the First Minister yesterday, in a response to a question that I gave him, said about the fisheries policy that there is a need for Wales to develop its own fisheries policy when the UK leaves the EU to safeguard the future prosperity of Wales’s fishing industry and our coastal communities. Now, we’re leaving the EU, and this is a golden opportunity for us to develop our own policies and laws and to pursue Welsh interests and Welsh prosperity. So, really, as far as I can see, and I think most of us acknowledge, this Bill will need to be amended within a matter of months, really, in order for us to start, once article 50 is invoked.

There is one other area that I myself, personally, have a bit of a beef about, and I’d like to quote from Hansard, from Lord Hain, who, when he was talking about the Bill, said:

‘Meanwhile, my other major objection is that Clause 17 of this Bill removes sections of the Wales Act 2014—just two years ago—that retain the requirement which has existed since 1997 that a referendum will be required to implement the powers to vary income tax under that Act.’

And then he goes on to say that there was no second question in the referendum as to whether or not people wanted income tax devolved. He further goes on to say that

‘to devolve income tax powers to Wales would therefore need another referendum like Scotland had on income tax.’

I wholeheartedly agree with Peter Hain in his assessment of that. Thank you.

‘I don’t see this settlement as being any more permanent than any of the others…. Until we reach the point of having some sort of jurisdiction for Wales, then I don’t think that the process of devolution will have been concluded. But, again, I do feel that the way in which these matters are to be reserved are dealt with in this particular Bill is something that can only be a temporary solution rather than a permanent one.’

Those are not my words, but the words of the pre-eminent constitutional lawyer in Wales. And how do I know that he is pre-eminent? Well, he is emeritus professor of law at Bangor and Cardiff universities, and you can get no higher than that.

Professor Thomas Glyn Watkin and others who provided evidence to the committee on this Bill have demonstrated clearly all the deficiencies that have been repeated in this Bill, because it was clear from the outset, when the original draft Bill was proposed, what path we were taking; namely, it was moving from a conferred-powers model to a reserved-powers model. But to me, that wasn’t the question. The question was always how many reservations and exceptions there will be. The crucial thing for me is to compare the reservations in Scotland’s devolution settlement and Northern Ireland’s settlement and to see the rationale, and to ask the question—and I still ask the question: what is the constitutional reason as to why Wales must be treated differently? Now, I asked that question of the previous Secretary of State and asked him whether he had read the appropriate clause in the Northern Ireland Act that includes exceptions and reservations, because, as the First Minister will know, there are but a handful of these. Those in Northern Ireland, in terms of the conferred powers, do provide additional powers to the Government and Assembly of Northern Ireland so that they can deal with the republic on the same terms. So, these aren’t barriers to prevent them doing things, but are enablers.

Therefore it is clear to me that the model that we have followed in developing devolution—. I congratulate the new Chair on his work, and fellow members of the committee, when I was a member, and I was pleased to hear him make this point, and this is a crucial point: we must reach a position where we can legislate jointly with Westminster. If I may say so, we did that the other week, when, under the leadership of our Chair, we met with colleagues who are members of the Constitution Committee in the second Chamber at Westminster. I’ve never felt prouder of being a Member of this Assembly—and I happen also, because of my past, to be a member of the upper House at Westminster—because our performance at that committee was as good a performance as any politician or legislator in the UK or anywhere else in Europe—anywhere I have been, anyway. But again, here we are being restricted from doing that legislative work ourselves.

I have taken advantage of the work of this committee and have tabled a number of draft amendments that will be discussed at the Committee Stage in the upper House the week after next. My colleague Baroness Morgan of Ely will be there with me. I don’t know what her feeling is, but I am not particularly hopeful that the Government will listen. I’m not particularly confident, in terms of the conversations that I’ve had with the Government, that they are truly interested in responding to what we have said, which raises a very grave question in terms of the prejudice against this house in the rest of the UK. We must seek a totally different way of dealing with constitutional issues, and that must mean that the National Assembly for Wales, in my view, must be able to legislate jointly on its own constitution with Westminster and anywhere else.

I call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I thank Members for their contributions to this debate and also acknowledge the ground that UKIP has shifted? I put that in terms that are entirely neutral for a party that, at one time, was not in favour of devolution. Today, we heard UKIP saying that the Bill was not sufficient and truly saying that this institution needs to have more clarity and more powers. And that I acknowledge.

We have to remember, of course, that this Bill must be compared with the original Bill. The original Bill drove a coach and horses through the 2011 referendum result. It is said that referendums should be respected, and I agree with that, but apparently for some in Whitehall, they are respected when it suits them.

That Bill originally would have meant that we would’ve lost the power to legislate according to the very strongly expressed will of the people of Wales in 2011. This Bill is better; it would be difficult for it to be worse, but it is, nevertheless, better. There are some parts of the Bill that Members, I’m sure, would agree with. We get substantial control of our constitution as far as the Assembly is concerned, in terms of the numbers, in terms of the method of election and, of course, in terms of us being able to govern ourselves as an institution, rather than be told how we should govern ourselves by others. It contains a substantial amount of devolution of the criminal law; it makes progress in terms of water—some progress—energy and other areas that Members will be very familiar with. But, of course, there are other areas that are not properly dealt with, which means that it is absolutely inevitable that there will be another Bill that will have to be dealt with in the future. And it’s a shame, because instead of acting like an over-fussy mother hen, the UK Government could actually show the vision of bringing forward a settlement that would be more lasting and more durable. That is not the way they operate in Westminster, sadly.

Two of the issues in particular that have caused Members concern are the issue of jurisdiction and the issue of policing. It is not coherent to have a single jurisdiction with two legislatures in it. This is the only place in the world that has a system like this and it is not one that is durable. Why do I say that? Because with the devolution of the substantive criminal law, it will mean that it will be perfectly possible for somebody in the future to be arrested in Cardiff for an offence that is not an offence in Wales. It will be perfectly possible for somebody to spend time in prison in England for an offence that is not an offence in England. Already, I’ve been told—the Lord Chief Justice has said this to me—that lawyers have come into courts in Wales and argued the wrong law, because they believe single jurisdiction means a single set of laws. This confusion can only continue in the future. We also find ourselves in the situation, because of the failure to devolve the police, where most of the law governing public order will be devolved—indeed, most of criminal law will be devolved—but the agencies responsible for enforcing and prosecuting that law will not be devolved. Now, that makes no sense at all, as Members will see in the future.

On the issue of licensing, the opinion of the Welsh Government has always been that licensing is a health issue. That wasn’t accepted by the UK Government; they said it was a public order issue. Yet, now, most public order legislation is going to be devolved, but licensing isn’t. So, the reasoning behind the failure to devolve licensing disappears. That’s the problem: there is not logic in this Bill at all. Why should Scotland get control of air passenger duty but Wales not? I know the answer to that question: they regret the fact that they gave Scotland air passenger duty in the first place. They are damned if they’re going to make sure that we have the same rights. Why is it that the ports are devolved, except the treaty port of Milford Haven? The reason, actually, is because of the flow of liquefied natural gas to the port. I’ve been told that by the UK Government: ‘Well, it controls 25 per cent of the LNG’. As if we would cut that off. Why is there an intervention power in water, which negates anything the Assembly might want to do in the future? That intervention power would mean we could not have control over our water resources; it would mean that another Tryweryn could be imposed on us. That is not right in terms of the need to have a mature relationship between Governments. Again, it comes back to the fact that they are obsessed with the fact that we will, in some way, turn the taps off if we have control over water. I’ve had experience of this. When I was environment Minister, we wanted to put the political border in place when it came to flood defences. The argument that was thrown back at us was, ‘Yes, but you might do something to the Severn in Newtown that causes Gloucester to flood.’ Now, why we are seen as some kind of hostile power, I don’t know, but that is the way, sometimes, the UK Government sees it. It’s a shame, because, as I say, there is an opportunity here to get things right.

It is inevitable, I think, that we will end up back in the Supreme Court, and that, again, undermines the argument that this is a durable settlement based on the St David’s Day agreement, which isn’t an agreement and never was. Again, we are in a position where there is no logic behind why some areas are reserved and others are devolved.

On the issue of reasonable chastisement, I don’t believe it’ll interfere with our ability to deal with that, because it’s quite clear to me that the offence of common assault will be entirely devolved and so the defences follow that. We will be able to chart our own course when it comes to that offence.

It is right to say that there are some areas where devolution goes backwards—areas such as employment, for example, and areas where Minister of the Crown consents are still needed in areas that are not really that important, and why they seem important to Whitehall is difficult to fathom.

On some of the other issues that Members raised, the issues that Nathan Gill raised are important ones. The issue of sea fisheries—again, because of Brexit, a number of issues now have to be addressed. First of all, with sea fisheries, we have control over the 12-mile limit, but not beyond. Everyone else does: Scotland does, Northern Ireland does, England does, but Wales doesn’t. Now, in the days of the common fisheries policy, it didn’t really matter. It does now, because it interferes with our ability to have a proper fisheries policy that enables the Welsh fishing fleet to have access sustainably to Welsh waters. That will not be possible as things stand as they are. The UK Government will take the view that where powers come back from Brussels, they will end up in Westminster. That is not the case. If they’re devolved, they’ll bypass Westminster and come straight here, and the concern that some of us have is that, somehow, an attempt will be made to stop that from happening with farming and fisheries. Otherwise, of course, they would be automatically devolved.

On the issue of the referendum, my argument has always been this: that, in some ways, the argument has moved on. Scotland has far, far stronger fiscal powers than we have, and that’s happened without a referendum. As a result of that, I don’t see the need for a referendum now in Wales, given what’s happened in Scotland and the powers that have been devolved there.

We have to understand that we are not yet in a situation in the UK where, bluntly, the UK Government is mature enough to treat the other Governments in the UK with respect. In this Bill, there are many things that can be supported; there are others that will cause Members great concern. We will be putting down amendments as a Government to reflect the concern of Members in a genuine attempt to improve the Bill, to make it clearer for us to understand properly what the boundaries are between what is devolved and what is not, whilst respecting the result of the 2011 referendum. We wait to see what view the UK Government will take on that. Our support of the Bill is still conditional on what we will see coming through the various stages in the House of Lords. I hope the UK Government take on board the views not just of the Welsh Government, but of others, in other parties around this Chamber, and work genuinely to ensure that this is a Bill that meets Wales’s constitutional needs, that recognises the view expressed by the people of Wales in 2011 and, more than anything else, means we don’t have to come back again in a few years’ time and argue the same points over and over again. That’s been missed so far and I hope it’s not missed in the future. The message has gone from this Assembly today, from all sides of this Assembly: there is still work to do in order to produce a Bill that is acceptable.

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

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I thank everybody who’s contributed to this debate? I’m struck by the degree of consensus. There may be differences in emphasis and nuance, but the consensus, as expressed by the First Minister then, is that, first, we will be back here again, and in our report, we’ve said sooner rather than later. But, also, I note that the First Minister said it’s inevitable we’ll be back in the Supreme Court. Surely that is not the purpose of a good and clear legislative and constitutional settlement.

Just on one item of detail, Llywydd, in terms of the issue that was raised by Julie Morgan, it may be something again that we want to seek clarity on because, certainly, the evidence that we received from people such as Emyr Lewis was—well, I’ll quote him:

‘it’s quite clear now that the National Assembly has the power to abolish the defence of reasonable chastisement when a child is struck. Now, if this Bill were to become law, I do think that that would disappear, because of the changes in relation to criminal law.’

But the simple fact is that we shouldn’t be having to dance around this and, in this confusion, to try and clarify what is happening. That’s what this Bill does to us.

But I thank all those who have contributed. Simon Thomas, with the contribution here, touched on the issue of the respect between two mature institutions. We may be a young institution, but we are capable, we are confident, we have a body of law, and we have a body of legislators. In the development of constitutional law—it’s a point that we made very clearly—we need to act in greater parity in developing it, and greater parity in the outcomes between the two Governments, and the Assembly and Parliament, and so on. He highlighted, as others did, the danger of rollback, which is something that we have highlighted. He mentioned the Charles Parnell quote. If I have time, I might trade him a quote in a moment from somebody else.

Could I pay my great tribute to the former Chair of this committee, David Melding, and also for his contribution to this as well? I’ve been very fortunate to have a very engaged committee. All of the committee members have contributed, but certainly the experience of some senior Members who have chaired this committee, or who have long experience within constitutional matters, has been a great asset to it. I echo his remarks, and about our support team and the clerks as well, and also on the good elements of the Bill. I’m absolutely convinced that if this Bill can be modified as it goes through, it is worth capturing the good elements of this Bill. But there is a big onus on those people—in ‘the other place’ as we used to call it in Westminster—in the House of Lords and in the Commons in the final stages to make those necessary improvements. But it can be improved. It is worth improving in these remaining weeks ahead.

I thank as well Michelle Brown who was here for most of the duration of this Bill, and she touched on the need for collaboration in developing constitutional settlement. It’s a key theme of our work. Nathan said that, quite presently, a fifth Bill is a reality. That is absolutely right, and there is a consensus around that from all the contributors today. This is not the long-lasting, durable settlement. It isn’t close to it, but we may be able to take a few steps forward if we can just get these improvements in place.

Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas, who will continue his engagement on this at the other end of the M4 or the Great Western rail line, said, ‘If we’re going to have a reserved model, let’s have a proper reserved model’. I won’t mention who it was, but I’m sure that one of my committee members, when we went to the House of Lords constitutional committee said, ‘Let’s have that reserved-powers model, not a reversed-powers model’.

There has been strong consensus today. Let me just, in closing, very briefly say that one of the interesting examples is to do with road traffic. It’s an example that highlights so much that is inadequate in the Bill. It would appear that the Assembly could pass legislation that sets the speed limit on a road, but it could not specify the road traffic offence for breaking that speed limit. That’s preposterous. So, in closing, could I just share with you the thoughts of one witness, Dr Diana Stirbu, whose eloquent comments resonated with the committee? She said,

‘a constitutional settlement should be also aspirational. And I think what we fail to see is a clear ambition and aspiration for the constitutional status of Wales and for how Wales will be constitutionally repositioned within the UK.’

This echoes the comments of the First Minister, previously, and others. And she said,

‘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. 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.’

I genuinely, and all the committee members, wish this Bill well. We hope it gets the improvement it needs, but we will be back here sooner rather than later, and we need to work collaboratively to deliver that clear, workable, lasting settlement that not only Wales needs, but the UK needs as well.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

The next item is voting time. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to voting time.