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.