Now we move on to item 4 on the agenda, which is the legislative consent motion on the Wales Bill. I call on the First Minister to move the motion—Carwyn Jones.

Motion NDM6203 Carwyn Jones

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales, in accordance with Standing Order 29.6, agrees that provisions in the Wales Bill, in so far as they fall within or modify the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales, should continue to be considered by the UK Parliament.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. May I move this motion to allow the Assembly to give its consent to Westminster to proceed with the Wales Bill?

Some of us have been here since 1999, and you are one of those people, Deputy Presiding Officer, and remember those days when we were in a very intimate Chamber—a very small Chamber—and it was a common occurrence to see the cameras turned off because someone had jumped the wall between the public and the Members and was running wild around the Chamber despite the efforts of the former Presiding Officer to control those people. At that time, we were arguing over things such as Orders on potatoes imported from Egypt, and we were dealing with Orders in relation to the size of cod and all sorts of other fish on the floor of the Chamber.

Things have now changed. We are now able to make legislation in those areas of policy where we have those powers. Now, one can’t imagine what it was like during days when we had no chance of making any legislation, although we did have responsibility for health, education and so on and so forth. In 2011, the people of Wales gave their very clear consent for us to move on to the next stage of devolution. Therefore, we are now looking once again at the next step.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

Pan edrychodd Llywodraeth y DU ar Fil Cymru am y tro cyntaf, roedd ymagwedd yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol ar y pryd yn seiliedig ar ofyn i adrannau Whitehall beth yr oeddent yn ei feddwl y dylid ei ddatganoli. Yn ddigon siŵr, cawsom y Bil cychwynnol a oedd yn seiliedig i raddau helaeth iawn ar anwybyddu canlyniadau refferendwm 2011 a cheisio sicrhau nad oedd y gyfraith yng Nghymru yn ymwahanu o gwbl bron oddi wrth y gyfraith yn Lloegr. Roedd yn Fil hynod oherwydd y ffaith na chafodd gefnogaeth, yn llythrennol, gan neb y gwn i amdano, mewn unrhyw fan yn y Siambr hon na’r tu allan iddi.

Felly, rydym yn canfod ein hunain nawr yn edrych ar y Bil presennol. Nid wyf yn mynd i esgus wrth y Siambr hon bod y Bil hwn yn bopeth y byddem yn ei ddymuno. Y Bil a oedd yn fy marn i yn Fil llawer gwell, yn Fil llawer cliriach, ac yn Fil a oedd yn adlewyrchu barn pobl Cymru, oedd y Bil drafft a luniwyd gan y Llywodraeth hon. Yr hyn sydd gennym yn hytrach na hynny yw Bil sy'n anfoddhaol mewn llawer o feysydd, ond sy’n gwneud cynnydd mewn eraill—ond Bil sydd wedi gofyn am lawer iawn o ystyriaeth gan grŵp Llafur Cymru yma o ran pa un a fyddem ni yn ei gefnogi ai peidio.

Roedd yn drafodaeth hir, fanwl a chytbwys. Gwnaethom benderfynu edrych ar y Bil fel pecyn. Oes, mae rhai meysydd sydd yn anfoddhaol, ac mae yna feysydd sydd heb gael sylw eto y bydd angen rhoi sylw iddynt yn y dyfodol. Ond, ar y cyfan, rydym wedi penderfynu cefnogi'r cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol y prynhawn yma, er nad oedd y penderfyniad hwnnw yn un hawdd.

Mae'n bwysig, Lywydd, bod pobl Cymru yn cael y gair olaf ynghylch dyfodol y sefydliad hwn a'r hyn y mae'n ei wneud, ei fod wedi'i ymgorffori yng nghyfansoddiad y DU, ac mai pobl Cymru sy'n penderfynu sut y mae’r sefydliad hwn yn gweithio, yn penderfynu faint o Aelodau sydd ganddo, ac yn penderfynu beth yw system etholiadol y sefydliad hwn.

Mae hefyd yn bwysig bod confensiwn Sewel, sydd, yn yr Alban, wedi ei ymgorffori mewn statud, hefyd yn digwydd yma yng Nghymru. Nid pwynt cyfansoddiadol disylw yw hwn; mae’n taro tant, yn enwedig ar ddadl Brexit. Mae'n bosibl, er enghraifft, y gallai'r Goruchaf Lys ddweud, 'Wel, a dweud y gwir, mae’n rhaid i Senedd yr Alban roi ei chydsyniad i'r broses erthygl 50, oherwydd bod ganddi gonfensiwn Sewel sydd wedi'i ymgorffori yn y gyfraith. Nid oes gan Gymru hynny, felly nid yw'r Cynulliad Cenedlaethol yn yr un sefyllfa'. Mae angen inni wneud yn siŵr bod ein sefyllfa gyfansoddiadol yn union yr un fath â'r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon cyn, yn ôl pob tebyg, y 10 mlynedd nesaf o ddadl y byddwn yn ei chael dros Brexit. Felly, mae’n bwysig sicrhau bod y tir cyfansoddiadol yn gadarn o dan ein traed.

Rwy’n croesawu'r symudiadau a wnaeth Llywodraeth y DU ar ynni, ar drafnidiaeth, ac ar ddŵr, ac maent wedi symud ymlaen mewn meysydd eraill. Rwy’n croesawu'r ffaith y bydd y rhan fwyaf o'r porthladdoedd yn cael eu datganoli, ar wahân i Aberdaugleddau, am resymau a eglurwyd gennyf yn gynharach. A bydd angen ailymweld â rhai meysydd yn y dyfodol. Ceir pryderon ynghylch cwmpas cyfyngedig ein pwerau ac effaith y cyfyngiadau yn y model newydd. Mae pwysau'r pryderon hyn yn dibynnu ar asesiad risg ynglŷn â'r prawf 'ymwneud â' a'r prawf anghenraid, ac i ba raddau y mae uchelgeisiau deddfwriaethol y Cynulliad yn y dyfodol yn debygol o daro yn erbyn cyfyngiadau’r profion hyn.

Bydd Llywodraeth y DU yn honni bod y Bil hwn yn rhoi mwy o sicrwydd, ond byddai'n tanseilio'r sicrwydd hwnnw pe byddem, o fewn rhai misoedd neu flynyddoedd, yn canfod ein hunain yn ôl o flaen y Goruchaf Lys yn gofyn i’r Goruchaf Lys wneud penderfyniad ynghylch ble mae’r ffin o ran pwerau datganoledig.

Ceir agweddau cadarnhaol, gan gynnwys ffin ddatganoli clir o ran awdurdodau cyhoeddus datganoledig a rhyddid penodol i ddeddfu ar y gyfraith breifat a’r gyfraith droseddol. Mae caniatâd Gweinidogion y Goron, er ei fod wedi’i ostwng yn sylweddol o fod yn annerbyniol yn y Bil drafft, yn dal i gynrychioli cyfyngiadau newydd ar y setliad presennol, er nad oes rhyw lawer o gynnydd wedi’i wneud i leihau nifer y materion a gedwir yn ôl: 217 yn y Bil drafft i 193 nawr—ac mae rhai o'r rheini’n eithaf arwynebol. Mae meysydd o hyd lle nad ydym yn gweld y symudiad y byddem wedi ei hoffi: gwerthu a chyflenwi alcohol. Nid oes rheswm rhesymegol wedi’i gyflwyno ynghylch pam y dylid datganoli cyflenwi a gwerthu alcohol yn yr Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon, ond nid yng Nghymru. Nid oes dadl resymegol wedi ei chynnig o blaid hynny heblaw, 'Dyma’r ffordd y mae wedi bod erioed, anlwcus.' Ac nid dyna’r ffordd o ymdrin â phethau yn y dyfodol.

Rydym yn gwybod am fater cymhwysedd cyflogaeth a chysylltiadau diwydiannol sydd gennym ar hyn o bryd. Gwelsom yr hyn a ddigwyddodd i hynny yn Nhŷ'r Arglwyddi yr wythnos diwethaf: cyfartal o ran y bleidlais. Nid yw'n rhywbeth yr ydym yn ei groesawu—gweld yr hyn sy'n ymddangos i fod yn gyfyngiad ar gymhwysedd. Efallai y cafodd ei greu ar ddamwain gan y Goruchaf Lys ond, serch hynny, mae’n rhywbeth sydd wedi bod gennym. Ac nid yw'n bosibl dod i'r casgliad bod y model cadw pwerau—er bod croeso iddo, yn ddamcaniaethol—yn addas i’w ddiben yn y tymor hir, ac un o'r prif resymau dros hyn yw cyfiawnder a'r awdurdodaeth.

Nid wyf yn gwybod am unrhyw wlad arall lle mae dwy ddeddfwrfa yn bodoli yn yr un awdurdodaeth. Nid oes neb wedi clywed am hynny yn unman arall ac mae’n cael effaith ymarferol bwysig. Mae'n bosibl, yn y dyfodol, y gallai rhywun gael ei arestio yng Nghaerdydd am rywbeth nad yw'n drosedd yng Nghymru. Mae'n bosibl y gallai rhywun gael dedfryd i fwrw tymor mewn carchar yn Lloegr am rywbeth nad yw'n drosedd yn Lloegr. Nid yw hynny, i mi, yn gwneud unrhyw synnwyr o gwbl cyn belled ag y mae’r dyfodol dan sylw. Mae hefyd yn achosi dryswch i'r cyhoedd ac i'r proffesiynau. Eisoes, rwy’n clywed gan yr Arglwydd Brif Ustus am enghreifftiau o gyfreithwyr yn cyrraedd llysoedd Cymru ac yn dadlau’r gyfraith anghywir, oherwydd eu bod yn cymryd yn ganiataol bod y gyfraith yr un fath yng Nghymru a Lloegr. Cyfeiriodd Simon Thomas, ychydig fisoedd yn ôl, at etholwr yr oedd wedi siarad ag ef. Roedd yr etholwr wedi cyflwyno deddfwriaeth—Deddf Seneddol—iddo, a oedd yn dweud bod y Ddeddf Seneddol yn berthnasol i Gymru a Lloegr. Ond, wrth gwrs, dim ond i Loegr yr oedd yn berthnasol. Mae'r dryswch a achosodd hynny ym meddwl etholwr—mae hyn yn ffordd gymhleth iawn, iawn o ymdrin â rhywbeth sydd, mewn gwirionedd, yn syml iawn. Ond, wrth gwrs, mae’r cymhlethdod hwn yn rhywbeth y mae Llywodraeth y DU wedi dewis ei wneud.

Mae methiant Llywodraeth y DU i ateb y cwestiynau sylfaenol am gyfiawnder a’r awdurdodaeth yn golygu na all y Bil fod yn setliad cynaliadwy, hirdymor. Mae dyfodol cyfiawnder yng Nghymru, â’r corff cynyddol o gyfraith ddatganoledig Cymru sy’n darparu awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol ar wahân yng Nghymru, yn rhy bwysig i'w anwybyddu. Dyna pam y buom yn dadlau drwy gydol hynt y Bil bod arnom angen comisiwn i ystyried y trefniadau y mae angen eu rhoi ar waith, a chyflwyno adroddiad amdanynt, i sicrhau bod gennym system gyfiawnder yng Nghymru sy'n addas i’w diben ac, wrth gwrs, yn addas i’r setliad datganoli newydd. Gan fod Llywodraeth y DU wedi bod yn amharod i wneud y dasg honno, fe wnawn ni hynny. Bydd Llywodraeth Cymru yn gwneud mwy o gyhoeddiadau am hyn dros y misoedd nesaf.

Mae honno, fodd bynnag, yn ddadl ar gyfer diwrnod arall. Dyma rai pryderon mwy uniongyrchol i'r cyhoedd: y fframwaith cyllidol—rwy’n talu teyrnged fawr i Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Gyllid a Llywodraeth Leol am y gwaith y mae wedi'i wneud i lunio fframwaith ariannol sydd, ar ei gwaethaf, yn niwtral ac ar ei gorau, yn ôl ein hasesiadau ni, ychydig bach yn gadarnhaol. Ond roedd hi’n hynod bwysig, cyn inni weld unrhyw ddatganoli sylweddol o ran treth incwm, ein bod wedi sicrhau nad oedd Cymru mewn sefyllfa waeth o ganlyniad. Mae ef wedi sicrhau hynny, ac mae hynny'n rhywbeth sy'n rhoi llawer o ffydd i ni ynglŷn â’r dyfodol. Ac, wrth gwrs, ceir y goblygiadau Brexit. Nid ydym ar sail gyfartal â gweddill gwledydd y DU o hyd. Mae risg parhaus gwirioneddol o ymweliadau â’r Goruchaf Lys yn dal i fodoli, ac rwy'n credu'n gryf y bydd hyn yn wir tan y caiff mater yr awdurdodaeth ei ddatrys.

I’m just seeking a little clarity on the issue of Brexit, because I think you’ve just intimated that we’re not in the same position as the other nations within the United Kingdom. Does the Bill have any provision at all that would safeguard any further attempts by the UK Government to take back powers as a result of Brexit, for example?

The issue with Brexit has been the issue of Sewel for me. The Prime Minister herself said today that there will be no roll-back of powers, and I have to take her on her word, but if it is enshrined in law that there’s a requirement of consent from a devolved parliament or assembly, then that obviously carries more weight than if it’s just a convention. So, enshrining that in law is important, not just in terms of Brexit negotiations, but in terms of negotiations on a number of issues in the future where the UK Government will not be able to say, ‘Of course, in Scotland it’s the law, but in Wales, it isn’t, so we don’t have to pay Wales the same regard as Scotland.’ That is important not just in terms of presentation, but in terms of the law as well. So, we will have an imperfect reserved-powers model, but on balance I believe that it’s in the best interests of Wales, as we look at dealing with the issue of Brexit, that we take what is on offer today, and see it as another step on what is a long journey of devolution. Remember where we were in 1999 and how we persuaded the people of Wales to move from grudging support for the principle of devolution in 1999, to overwhelming support for primary powers in 2011, and understand that this is a Bill that will take Wales forward as a package. There are some areas where there’s a need for improvement, and some areas where there is a need for change. Why should it be the case that people in Wales have to pay air passenger duty and people in Scotland don’t? That makes no coherent sense at all.

I’m grateful. Three hours ago, the Prime Minister stated that no decisions currently taken by devolved administrations will be removed from them. Does the First Minister take any confidence from that, or does it imply areas that are devolved but currently dealt with by the EU may actually move to Westminster?

If you look at agriculture, we take the decisions on agriculture. If you look at fisheries, we take decisions on fisheries. There is no question of there being some kind of UK-wide agricultural policy that’s not devolved on the basis of what the Prime Minister said. That is quite clear to me. The point that I have made on many, many occasions is that it is hugely important that, where we do need to have common frameworks across the UK—and there are arguments for those common frameworks in some areas—that it’s done by agreement, not by imposition from Whitehall. Replacing Brussels bureaucrats with Whitehall bureaucrats is not what the people of Wales voted for, and we need to have a proper mechanism in the UK to achieve agreement on common issues, rather than it being seen as an imposition.

On that basis, then, I do recommend, as you might expect, that today the Assembly votes for this legislative consent motion, but that it does so noting strong reservations, it does so with some reluctance, and it does so knowing that this is another step on the journey of devolution in Wales, but understanding that in the future there will be more steps to come. Thank you.

I call on the Chair of the Constitutional Affairs and Legislative Committee—Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I thank the First Minister for laying out his summation of where we are and his recommendation of support for this LCM today? Let me begin with some simple matters of process. The Welsh Government tabled the initial legislative consent memorandum in relation to the Wales Bill on 21 November 2016. The Business Committee referred it to us, and we reported on this LCM on 13 December 2016. We made it clear at that time that it would be unlikely that we’d be able to properly consider a late supplementary LCM whilst the Bill was still in progress in the UK Parliament, and the related fiscal framework that we’ve discussed today was at that time also unresolved. Whilst the latter has indeed been resolved, and I’ll return to that, the short timescale has meant that we have indeed been unable as a committee to consider in full the supplementary or revised supplementary consent memoranda that were laid by the Welsh Government on 10 and 13 January.

However, it is worth reminding Members of our response to that initial LCM, and also the findings of our report on the Wales Bill published in October 2016. In the latter, we express concern that that the space provided by the Bill to enable the National Assembly to legislate is difficult to delineate, and potentially more restrictive than at present. We noted the complex way in which the National Assembly’s legislative competence was expressed, including the number and the extent of the reservations and restrictions. We recommended possible amendments to improve the Bill based on some of those suggested by the Presiding Officer and the First Minister, or developed by the committee itself. Our subsequent legislative consent memorandum report acknowledged that whilst positive changes had been made to the Bill, with further amendments scheduled after that time for Report Stage, they didn’t alter the fundamental problems with the Bill. We noted that these problems are likely to cause difficulties for the ability of the National Assembly to make coherent, accessible law for citizens in Wales, and we restated our view that the Wales Bill remained complex and impenetrable and it would not deliver that lasting, durable settlement that everyone wishes to see.

So, whilst the committee has not been able to consider fully the latest LCM, I suspect most would agree that our more substantive constitutional and legislative concerns remain. So, I will now venture to comment personally on the substance of recent changes, and invite other Members to do likewise in this debate and vote today. This is a significant moment in the devolution journey, whatever decision we come to today. It is not the end of the journey, as the First Minister has said—not by some distance—but it is a significant staging post, and it is made more significant by the uncertain times in which we live. With the backdrop of Brexit, the shifting sands of international and domestic politics and economics and the pressing need to make our politics here relevant to the people we represent, we should make our decision, as an elected Senedd, with the weight of that upon us.

Some, no doubt, will argue that this is a sorry little Bill; that this should be a siren call for thwarted devolutionary ambitions and a call to the barricades. Now, others, perhaps some in the deep-carpeted rooms of Gwydyr House, no less, will argue that this is a triumph. The truth, I believe, is that this is neither a cause for celebration nor for hurling ourselves off the Devil’s Pulpit on the Bwlch mountain. We need a sober assessment. It is true, undoubtedly, that, at times, this has seemed like a timid little Bill; it’s been shy of its own shadow. It’s tried so hard to be inoffensive and to find the lowest common denominator that, in doing so, it has caused many to be offended by its very timidity. Those who brought it into the world, weak and staggering, must have been shocked to find that their offspring has been so brutally maligned at every twist and turn.

Yet, the long history of devolution has been fraught and progress has been hard won. There has always been an eye to where the main political parties are and what they would agree at any given point in time, as devolution was put in place; an eye to where the Parliaments and the Governments of Westminster and Wales are at that given moment; and always, always, always a keen understanding of where the people of Wales are on this matter. Rushing ahead of the people we represent without persuading them of the rightness of the course has never been truly wise.

If I were to be scrupulously fair—and I consider that I normally am—this is probably what the two Secretaries of State for Wales have tried to do with this Wales Bill: they’ve tried to triangulate and to treat and bring forward a creature of compromise. Compromise was inevitable, yes, but it’s better and more likely to gain consensus if it rests on an essential early agreement on fundamentals agreed between UK and devolved Governments and UK Parliaments and devolved Parliaments. That’s far more likely to be durable. This agreement was too focused on Whitehall; too little on Wales. And, on that point, I draw attention to the inquiry we have launched: ‘A stronger voice for Wales: engaging with Westminster and the devolved institutions’.

Let’s not pretend that this was borne out of any St David’s Day agreement. There was no agreement with the Welsh Government, as we’ve heard, which, indeed, countered the Wales Bill with its own clear, simple, bold proposal of a Wales Bill as an example of a clear, lasting and durable settlement. But that said, we must fully commend the work of the UK Parliament, and particularly those, including colleagues here, who worked double shifts, who toiled in the second Chamber there, not least Baroness Morgan, or Eluned, as we know her. There has been progress; it has not transformed this Bill into the Bill that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee argued for, not the Bill that the Welsh Government, ideally, wanted, nor, I suspect, the one wanted by the Presiding Officer or the majority of Members here today, but there have been improvements.

Moreover, the context has changed: new powers for the Assembly and Welsh Ministers, including powers over elections and the electoral system; self-governance; consenting for energy projects up to 350 MW; fisheries and fishing boats; increased powers over water; Welsh tribunals; embedding the Sewel convention in Wales; and embedding the permanence of the Assembly in our constitution. Whilst the UK Government has failed to align executive powers as we wanted, we have the promise of the transfer of functions, and thereby powers, on elections, transport, teachers’ pay and conditions and other matters. It still leaves us far short of the demands of the Welsh Government or of Silk over justice, trust ports, broadcasting, rail, emergency powers, anti-social behaviour and much more. Yet, the new powers on offer are not easily dismissed.

The number of reservations is still too large, and the reduction from 217 to 193—many through removing repetition rather than substantive changes—is small beer, but we have to acknowledge the narrowing in scope of some of these reservations and the exceptions added to some. As such, whilst recognising hard-won progress, the committee’s original concerns that the benefits of moving to a reserved-powers model were compromised by the number of reservations and the ‘relates to’ test—despite ministerial assurances put on the record in the Lords recently, and other fundamental matters—are not ultimately resolved.

As we heard from the First Minister, as well, on justice and jurisdiction, no ground was ceded. So this, balanced against the progress, all makes this a matter of fine judgment as to whether to support this. But then we add the additional factors: the fiscal framework negotiated with great skill by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government, and which appears, indeed, conditional on the passing of this LCM, and the threat of being exposed, through the existing conferred model and the current absence of the embedding of the Sewel convention, to a Brexit and other matters where powers could drift or be torn away from Wales. So, on balance, I would argue we must capture the benefits of this Bill now, while it is in front of us and whilst knowing it is not the final chapter by a long shot.

The devolution settlement is shifting in the United Kingdom, not only here in Wales, but in Scotland, of course, and in England. This is driven by growing demands from the nations and the regions of the UK for devolution of power and greater localised autonomy within a redistributive UK political economy. At another pivotal moment in devolution, we could send this Bill scurrying back to Westminster with its tail between its legs. But if we did so, it’s possible we will not see another Wales Bill in the next five years, maybe 10, or even more. If we did so, there is much we would turn our backs on. Wiser people than I have suggested that this Bill will not be the durable, once-in-a-generation settlement promised by Secretaries of State for Wales, and that the complexity and conditionality involved means we may potentially be ceding some ground. But there is no doubt that the ground on which we stand will be firmer and surer as a result of moving to a reserved-powers Bill. It stands us in good stead as we face a transition to Brexit and other external shock factors. That, and the fiscal framework alongside, are enough to say that we should capture the gains in this Bill, support the LCM in the full knowledge we will have to return to this, as this is not that lasting, durable settlement. It is not the coherent, accessible law that the people of Wales aspire to. But I will support this LCM today because, on balance, I believe it is in the interests of this Parliament and it is in the interests of the people of Wales.

Today’s legislative consent motion represents the latest step on a convoluted and complicated devolution journey for Wales. Plaid Cymru accepts that the Wales Bill gives with one hand but takes away with another. We are of the view that the very basis of this Bill is flawed. It gives us one step forward whilst restricting our ability to legislate, which is a significant step backwards in our view. I acknowledge the good faith with which a majority of Assembly Members are supporting this LCM, and I’m not here today to criticise anyone who votes in favour. The blame for the flaws in this Bill lies clearly with Westminster and with Whitehall. We welcome those aspects of the Bill that enable the future devolution of income tax, control of our own elections and the provisions over energy and fracking. But let there be no doubt: we in Plaid Cymru want to go much, much further than what is on offer here.

I also want to note that our reasons for voting against this LCM are the polar opposite to those held by others in this Chamber voting against, those who don’t want Wales to have any extra powers at all. Plaid Cymru did not approach the process of drawing up this Wales Bill with a view to rejecting whatever was offered. We’ve always been willing to support incremental progress towards a more democratic and self-governing Wales. But this Bill has been a lesson in how not to write a constitution.

As leader of the Party of Wales, I’ve been involved in the process of developing this Bill from the start. I participated in good faith in the St David’s process, as did my Members of Parliament. We wanted the process to end up with a Wales Bill that could command widespread support, end confusion, and we wanted it to build on the 2011 referendum result. But the process was a failure. It’s resulted in the most substandard piece of legislation since the advent of devolution. It was a process that was disrespectful to Wales and to the 2011 referendum result, which this Bill now undermines. We were not subjected to an open debate about autonomy and democracy, but to a line-by-line veto from Whitehall departments. It was a lowest common denominator approach.

We were told that a reserved-powers model would be delivered, and this has been one of the key demands for Plaid Cymru for many, many years, yet it quickly became apparent that the list of reserved powers would contain more than 200 reservations, and that anything relating to that list could be out of bounds by this Assembly in the future. Compared to the conferred-powers model, that represents a roll-back of our powers, and in our judgment it would therefore represent a roll-back on the 2011 referendum result.

The politics of this are clear to me. Following its Supreme Court defeat on the agricultural wages Bill, the UK Government wanted to remodel the Welsh constitution to avoid further defeats. Am I being sceptical to suggest that the good and positive elements within this Bill are there to increase the chances of getting this defensive measure through? I don’t think I am.

The politics behind this Bill aren’t about generosity or fairness or what is right or sensible, and this dishonest approach on the part of the UK Government has caused a dilemma. This LCM will pass, but I am keen that those of us who want to protect the Welsh legislative position can move quickly now with any Bills that could be implemented before the new reserved-powers model kicks in. And Plaid Cymru would be willing to support any action along those lines, and we look forward to seeing how the Welsh Government will bring forward legislation in this important period ahead of us.

Some excellent scrutiny has taken place, both here and in Westminster, and I commend the members of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in particular for their work, as well as those who have scrutinised the Bill in the two chambers as Westminster. The members of the committee found that the Bill would increase tape and complexity, and that the promise of a more accountable and clear devolution settlement would in fact result in new uncertainties being introduced into the system. I was also struck by the words of Lord Elystan-Morgan, when he described the Bill as imperial and regressive, and as unworthy of the people of Wales.

Plaid Cymru has made every possible attempt to improve this Bill by tabling amendments in both chambers at Westminster. Where possible, we co-operated with other parties on those amendments, but it’s an unfortunate fact that that support was not always available from Labour MPs, even when the position we were pushing was Labour policy. But there were some amendments that were backed by both of our parties.

Through the parliamentary process our support could have been earned. There could have been movement on a statutory justice commission, for example, there could have been movement on air passenger duty, progress was promised on water and on substantially reducing the overall number of reservations. But in the end, the UK Government would not move on justice, or on those other points, and we were not able to improve the Bill sufficiently in order to win our support.

On the fiscal framework and the removal of the need for an income tax referendum, we in Plaid Cymru support what has been negotiated. When the opportunity arises to trigger the devolution of those income tax powers, Plaid Cymru will offer our support. But the UK Government did not have to tie the fiscal framework to a Bill that would restrict our ability to make laws. The public finances of Wales should not be conditional on accepting a worsened legislative framework. We would also welcome the overall control over our electoral arrangements and on the size of the Assembly, which will be devolved by this Bill. Some significant progress can be made if those powers are transferred, and Plaid Cymru would approach those new responsibilities with a view to improving the capacity of this Assembly to hold the Government to account But we cannot vote for an LCM that allows us to increase our capacity, but risks limiting our capability.

Now, Llywydd, there are some in this Chamber who would vote against this LCM for the opposite reasons to Plaid Cymru. When Plaid Cymru says that we don’t want to accept crumbs from the table of Westminster, we know that one of the political parties here would be happy to hand powers back to Westminster if given a chance, and that would be a backward step in our view. Instead of looking backwards, we need to look to the future. Professor Glyn Watkin, speaking to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, argued that this settlement—if we can even use that word—will last no more than four or five years. It could be argued that it’s already out of date, that there’s already a need for a new Wales Bill. Depending on how the process for leaving the European Union unfolds, there may well be opportunities to accelerate the pace of change here. The next steps have to be the devolution of justice, and we should be pushing for that with immediate effect. We also need to be pushing for welfare devolution and to grasp those opportunities that have already been made available to Scotland.

In advance of any further legislation, I want to endorse a line from the CLAC report on the Bill. Addressing the process as to how this Bill was developed, the report says:

‘This cannot be allowed to happen again on a Bill of such constitutional importance.’

That message has to be conveyed to Westminster today. This is not the way to legislate, and it should never be repeated.

Plaid Cymru will therefore vote against today’s LCM, and we will do so with a heavy heart. We never want to see Wales backed into a corner like this ever, ever again. For the future, we in Plaid Cymru will now redouble our efforts to secure positive self-determination for Wales, and it is people here who should decide our next steps, not politicians in Westminster. Decisions about Wales should be made in Wales. Changes are afoot throughout these islands, and this Bill, as it proceeds, will not and cannot be the final chapter in the development of Welsh democracy, and Plaid Cymru will make sure of that.

David Melding.

Thank you—[Interruption.]

David Melding.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I start by commending all involved in gathering support for this Bill and making it a better Bill? We’ve heard it’s been a long process. I particularly want to mention the Secretary of State, Alun Cairns, Lord Bourne in the House of Lords, and the First Minister for, I think, his genuine statecraft to make a judgment that you will accept the whole because of the better bits in it, but still having some real reservations about aspects of the Bill. Can I also commend you, Presiding Officer, for the work you’ve done in terms of highlighting the need to look at our own electoral arrangements and matters that should really be resolved in Wales? I think this has produced a powerful body of support across traditions for this Bill.

I’m sorry that consensus will not extend to Plaid Cymru and to UKIP, but I do want to put on record that the speech that we’ve just heard from the leader of Plaid Cymru was measured and nuanced, and I think more powerful for that. I’m prepared to take you at your word in terms of constitutional development and taking forward parts of what are likely now to happen in terms of an Act that will emerge, and ensure that the institution that we all have the privilege to be part of does strengthen. Likewise, with UKIP, they have, themselves, been on a journey, and they’re now, I think, broadly supportive of devolution, and there is an argument that can be made—I don’t agree with it, but there is an argument about the tax-raising powers requiring, in some people’s views, a referendum.

The First Minister said that this has been a long journey, and I think nine of us—or 10 of us, perhaps—have been here from the start. This is not the time to give an old uncle’s speech. [Laughter.] You’re not going to get that. But it is appropriate, I think, to look at the whole development in perspective. The First Minister was quite right: when we started, we didn’t even have the separation of powers in this institution. We were a corporate body. That itself led to all sorts of convolutions. We had no responsibility for raising revenue and, really, only—which I think were important—secondary powers over secondary legislation.

So, we didn’t exactly start as robustly as they did in Scotland, or even in Northern Ireland. I think the progress we’ve made has really been based on a remarkable level of consensus. All parties, really, have been contributing to our constitutional development. Now, today, we are, inevitably, in this debate going to focus on some of the differences. But I do want to put on record the appreciation I have, as a Welsh Conservative, that we have been a part, when most of us actually opposed the principle of devolution back in the 1990s, but we have worked hard to produce a more robust settlement.

The 2006 Government of Wales Act prepared the path for primary legislative powers, and owed much to the genius of a former Presiding Officer, Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas. Of course, those powers, which we could get bit by bit with the consent of Westminster, were then turned completely on by the 2011 referendum. It was a very subtle way, I think, of advancing the constitutional settlement at the time and, of course, it did separate legislative and executive powers, which is the core, really, of the way we do politics in the Westminster model.

I do want to say a word in favour of the St David’s Day process because I do think it took the whole debate on. I realise that not everything has been delivered to the satisfaction of all who are even supporting the LCM this afternoon, but I do think it was a good way to work. Between the publication of the draft Bill and now the Bill that is going forward and likely to become an Act, there has been much movement. Again, I do commend all those who have worked to achieve that progress.

Can I just say something about the Westminster model? It’s really important. It’s remarkable, I think, in many ways, that the even more radical devolution settlement in Scotland still takes the Westminster model. The way that Parliament is constituted is very much part of that tradition. I think it’s a great resource, and it has given real life and endurance to politics in many parts of the world. It was always my disappointment, if devolution were going to happen, that we didn’t have a more robust form of establishing an Assembly in accordance with a Westminster-type model. That’s why I’ve always thought that primary law-making powers were necessary. I thought that from day one of being an Assembly Member, despite my initial opposition to devolution. It’s also why I think we have to accept the responsibility to raise some of our own revenue. It does seem to me to go with the legislative function and, indeed, with the executive function. The Welsh Government has always been fairly powerful. I always thought it was odd that some Conservatives didn’t quite see that: that we’d given power to Government, but not very much power to the scrutiny of that Government, or to the legislation it would require through which, of course, we get maximum level of control. So, I do think that the way that we are progressing, towards a fuller form of the Westminster model, is to be welcomed.

There are areas where consensus was not possible. I think it is true what the First Minister said: that this has principally been caused by a desire on the part of the UK Government to preserve a single unified legal jurisdiction. But I would say here, despite my own private opinions, which I won’t rehearse as they are pretty well known, that there is little evidence amongst the public that they want us to move forward in this area to form a separate jurisdiction. And both my party and, it has to be said, the Labour Party—if you look at the Labour Party both here and in Westminster—are themselves somewhat divided. We simply have not had a consensus to argue the case for a separate jurisdiction and, particularly, the devolution of policing powers and powers over sentencing policy and such matters. However, if you refer back to the report of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee on this subject of a separate or distinct legislation that was issued in the fourth Assembly, it is quite clear that what we do in making law creates a body of law and, at some point, the substance, the volume of that legislation, is going to be such that there probably will be a formal recognition. There’s already a recognition in the administration of law, and you only need to talk to a senior judge about how dramatically their own procedures have changed to ensure that the judiciary understands the constitutional settlement in Wales and is able to interpret Welsh law properly.

The direct consequence of not having a separate legal jurisdiction is that the number of reservations within a reserved-powers model has been much higher than would otherwise have occurred, and you only need to compare our settlement with the one in Scotland. And this, in my view, will require the two Governments—the Welsh Government and the UK Government—to work hard to ensure that the settlement we now do have does not restrict our ability to legislate over devolved areas, because that really would be a poor outcome. But I do believe the UK Government is sincere in not wanting to roll back powers, and I do, from all the heat and bluster we occasionally get, think there are pretty good relations between the Welsh and UK Governments on matters clearly in the Welsh interest, and I’m sure that will continue.

Can I say that the Wales Bill is generous in places, in the view of all of us? And I was grateful that Leanne Wood mentioned some of the areas, as did the First Minister, in terms of the electoral arrangements, energy, transport and some other matters as well. I think these are a prize and they are worth having, because it puts much more of the constitutional settlement within our control. We could look at the issue of the franchise and whether it should be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds, we could determine the size of the Assembly and the electoral arrangements, subject, of course, to a supermajority. These are very, very important advances. To conclude, Presiding Officer, I think we can now move forward with a stronger devolution settlement, which will give the Assembly and the Welsh Government the scope to meet the political challenges ahead, and I urge Members to support the LCM.

I’m delighted to follow old uncle David, because he was quite right in saying that my party has made a journey, and probably is still in the process of making that journey. I was, like him, originally opposed to the devolution settlement, but I’ve grown over the years to appreciate its wisdom. Not everybody in my party takes the same view as I do, and I hope I’m helping to nudge it in the same direction as most of us in this Assembly want to go. So I think that the leader of Plaid Cymru was quite wrong in saying that, when we vote together against this legislative consent motion today, we’re doing so for reasons that are the polar opposite of each other. The only reason that we are going to oppose this is because of the provision to remove the requirement of a referendum to trigger income-tax-raising powers, which we think is a breach of faith with the Welsh people. It’s been enshrined in legislation and it should not be just tossed away as something that is of no importance. I think it’s a very important question of principle.

Much of this debate today has been on the basis of the success of the devolutionary settlement being based upon consensus, and we’ve moved with the spirit of the times, with the people of Wales, not against them. I think Huw Irranca-Davies was quite right to refer in his speech to not rushing ahead of the people. And I recall the basis upon which we went into the European Economic Community, as it then was, back in 1973, when the then Prime Minister, Edward Heath, said that that was something that should be done only with the full-hearted consent of both Parliaments and peoples. That full-hearted consent was never actually sought, let alone achieved, and that’s one reason why the European Union project never had the full acceptance of legitimacy that it has in other member states. And one major reason why I am personally opposed to Britain’s membership of the EU is that it actually takes powers up to a more remote level and away from the people, and the Brexit process gives us the opportunity, not just to restore to Westminster legislative powers that it had previously, but also to pass on to Cardiff and, indeed, to Edinburgh, of course, and to Belfast as well, further powers that we ought to have here. So, speaking for myself, I regard this Bill, the Wales Bill, as unfinished business. There is nobody, I suppose, in this Assembly today who imagines that this is the end of the story by any means. I think it is actually a very imperfect vehicle for achieving what devolutionists want. I think the reserved-powers model is actually confusing and bound to lead to legal battles ahead, as the First Minister said in the course of his speech.

I welcome the declaratory statement in the Bill that the Assembly is a permanent part of the British constitution. It is only declaratory, of course; any Parliament can undo what its predecessors have done, but I don’t suppose there is the slightest chance that that is going to happen. I think the Assembly is a permanent part now of the constitutional structure of the United Kingdom, and I personally embrace that with enthusiasm. There is a kind of iron law to these things, whereby, having been created—and we saw this in the European Union, which devoted itself to aggrandising itself and to increasing its powers without ceasing during the whole time of our membership—it is inevitable, therefore, that the devolution of powers to Wales in the years ahead is going to increase, not just in scope, but possibly also in pace, but, I hope, still within the context of a United Kingdom.

The Bill itself, actually, doesn’t take us, except in the case of taxation, very much further in the direction of devolution. When you look at the ragbag of powers that are specifically devolved to us—ports policies, speed limits, bus registration, taxi regulation, local government elections, sewerage and small electricity generating projects, et cetera—none of these in itself is terribly exciting, but the move to the reserved-powers model in itself, whilst constitutionally, I think, imperfect and legally imperfect, nevertheless does contain a broad statement of principle that does take us further along the devolutionary journey.

I do believe that the devolution of tax powers is a step change, and even though they’re limited and are bound to be built on in the years ahead, that is a major change of constitutional principle, which has enormous repercussions. I, personally, am quite relaxed about income tax powers being devolved to this Assembly. I believe in tax competition between jurisdictions. We referred to this earlier on in First Minister’s questions, where I referred to the advantages that the Irish Republic has obtained by its ability to have lower corporation tax rates than its neighbours, and how important that has been in helping the economic regeneration of what was a very backward part of the European Union at the beginning, in the 1970s. I believe, personally, that we could use such powers intelligently in Wales to compensate for some of the disadvantages of geography and history that have limited our power to increase our economic potential, and this is something, I know, that Adam Price has frequently referred to in debates since we’ve been here, in the last six months, and with which I’ve got a great deal of sympathy.

Bringing government closer to the people is an important principle, in my view, and, broadly speaking, this Assembly has, I think, managed to achieve that. Whether the people at large would agree with my assessment, I don’t know, and if there were to be a referendum today on extending the Assembly’s powers still further, I don’t know what the result would be. I don’t know what the view of the people of Wales is upon us collectively, as an institution, and the way in which we’ve conducted affairs in this Assembly. But, nevertheless, I do believe that, whilst the broad principles of the Bill are worthy of support, the way in which this has been handled has been very far from perfect, and, in regard to the removal of a referendum provision in relation to the devolution of income tax powers, I believe that that is a constitutional deficiency that we ought not to ignore.

So, I agree, broadly, with the approach that was taken by the leader of Plaid Cymru in her speech, that it’s with a bit of a heavy heart that we will be voting against this legislative consent motion today, because I accept what she said about the sincerity of all those who’ve been involved in bringing forward this imperfect vehicle.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Thank you very much for taking the intervention. You’ve welcomed quite a lot that’s in the Bill today, and I remember, at the end of last term, in response to challenges raised by Lee Waters in our debate on the autism Act, that you countered him by saying,

‘Don’t make the best the enemy of the good’.

I’m wondering—devolution can’t stand still; that’s the reason why we have this Wales Bill in the first place—whether you think process is a sufficient reason for you not to take your own advice on this particular matter.

I think it’s a different question altogether. The point at issue in relation to the autism Bill was, and the points that’ve been raised today by Andrew R.T. Davies, for example, were just about why have a trade union Bill rather than an autism Bill. That is a choice that has been made. In relation to what Lee Waters said—[Interruption.] I’m not going into the merits of that decision, I’m merely making a question about process. In relation to an intervention from Lee Waters in an earlier debate about the autism Bill, I think this is rather a different proposal, because this is an obligation to consult the people, not just a decision that is made by us as Members of this Assembly. This is a major constitutional change, the devolution of income-tax-raising powers. The people were promised, and it was enshrined in legislation, the right to decide for themselves, not us deciding on their behalf, whether this should be proceeded with. I think removing that provision is a constitutional deficiency so great that we are going to make a protest by voting against this motion today. Of course, we know that the motion will be passed, so our decision is not going to have any great effect in constitutional terms. But, nevertheless, I think it is an important principle that politicians should keep their promises and should be held to their word, and no reason that I’ve seen has been advanced for this decision. Nobody has made a positive case for not allowing the people to decide this issue—if so, I’d be happy to give way now. [Interruption.] Yes.

Isn’t the reason we’re not having a referendum because they know that, if they did have a referendum, they would lose?

Exactly. Mark Reckless, I think, is absolutely right. All lawyers are told never to ask a question unless you know the answer, in cross examination, and I’m sure that that is so in this case.

So, just to conclude my remarks today, we broadly welcome the provisions that are in the Bill, with the exception of that one, and it’s with a really heavy heart that we shall be voting against it today. This is not the end of the story. We shall be back once again, I’m sure, to debate these issues further and to take the devolutionary story further down the line.

In 2011, along with a number of Members of this Assembly, I took part in the ‘Yes for Wales’ steering committee, along with Leanne Wood and Paul Davies and Leighton Andrews and Rob Humphreys. We worked on a cross-party basis to deliver a referendum campaign that promised that laws that only affect Wales should be made in Wales. Two thirds of the people of Wales endorsed that principle. Since then, we’ve become a legislature, and, of the 22 laws passed, we would find that, once this Wales Bill becomes an Act, only eight of them would be able to be passed in the future. Now, we hear a lot from the hard Brexiteers in this Chamber that the results of referenda should be respected, and I would suggest to them that that principle needs to be applied consistently, and the results of the 2011 referendum should also be respected, and not simply the result of the referendum that they are obsessed about—

Will the Member give way?

Indeed.

Does he recall that on the ballot paper for that 2011 referendum was written an assurance that a ‘yes’ vote would not lead to the devolution of tax-raising powers?

Absolutely, and, fast-forward a few months, he might remember that, when he was a Conservative Member of Parliament, his Government introduced the Silk commission and it was the Silk commission that took the debate forward, not the referendum of 2011. It was the Silk commission that came up with the report saying that this place should have tax-raising powers. That was a decision that he was part of setting in train when he was a Conservative Member of Parliament.

Since then, events have moved on. That very same Government ignored a referendum in Manchester to create a mayor. That same Government has imposed powers of policing over parts of England without a referendum. I do think that the argument that there should be democratic accountability for decisions passed is a compelling one. After all, why should Carmarthenshire County Council be able to raise revenues and taxes and the National Assembly for Wales not? So, the argument I think he makes is not a rigorous one when the context is properly reflected upon. But it gives him some comfort, so that must be good enough.

I recall the words of Theresa May that her party had become the ‘nasty party’, obsessed with Europe and anti-devolution. In light of this Wales Bill, that assessment does seem to be rather prescient. This is not a stable and lasting settlement. The version of the reserved-powers model is inherently unstable and it’s a matter of time before judges, once again, decide where power lies, which is one of the reasons this Bill came up in the first place, and it will fail its own test.

I was underwhelmed by the argument of moral courage that Neil Hamilton put forward, that he was able to advance these arguments because it had already been decided by our group and the Conservatives to support this. I was disappointed too that Plaid are taking a similar position, comfortable in the knowledge that these powers won’t be lost to Wales, but allowing themselves to take the moral high ground in opposing it.

None of us on this side are happy with this Bill and, if all other things were equal, we would, I’m sure, be rejecting it. But all other things are not equal. We face a hard Brexit. The reserved-powers model, confounding as it is—it’s not the reserved-powers model I thought that we were arguing for, and civil society in Wales that I was part of was arguing for. The reserved-powers model at least offers us some protection against the hell that’s going to be unleashed upon us.

Also, I think the arguments made by the First Minister earlier on enshrining into law the Sewel convention and also the delivery of the fiscal framework—. I take Leanne Wood’s point that we shouldn’t have been held to ransom on this. These things shouldn’t have been tied together, but they were. And I think the agreement that the finance Minister has achieved is a considerable one, one that Gerry Holtham would have found very pleasing when he set out on his report. Those victories are significant ones and I think ones we would be reckless to walk away from. In uncertain times, we deliver some stability. I think that’s what this Bill offers, imperfect as it is.

But I do resent Whitehall’s attitude, which is imbued in this negotiation and this piece of legislation. The idea that the Welsh Government cannot have responsibility for the port of Milford Haven because we might interfere with the supply of natural gas to England is arrogant, insulting nonsense. I’m disappointed that Alun Cairns, a former Member of this Assembly, would put his name to such a settlement. There’s an arrogance within Whitehall that we need to confront. This Bill doesn’t do it. It’s not the Bill I want to see. It’s not a position that will be durable. It’s not a Bill that respects the 2011 referendum. But defeating it would be a pyrrhic victory and one we’d regret as the consequences of Brexit become clear.

Yes, I’m somebody who was here in 1999 as well, but I won’t dwell on past events. I’ve tended to support devolution settlements over the years, however inadequate they were, but at least they didn’t lose us any powers. This one loses us some powers and that’s why I can’t support it. With all the talk over recent months, as we’ve heard, of respecting the Brexit referendum result—and I do—can I remind people, and the Secretary of State for Wales, in particular, of the need also to respect the result of that earlier referendum in March 2011, when the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly—it’s an adjective we’ve heard a lot recently—overwhelmingly for this National Assembly to have more powers? And that overwhelming ‘yes’ vote was, as we’ve heard, 64 per cent. That does constitute ‘overwhelmingly’—64 per cent of the people of Wales in favour of more powers.

So, we have the Wales Bill before us: the reserved model, which is meant to bring clarity by stating for definite what the Assembly can and cannot legislate on. As we’ve heard, there are around 200—193 down from 217—specific reservations on the reserved list, far, far more than on the reserved list for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Why are we treated differently? This is also complicated by the fact that our current ‘silent’ subjects on which we’ve been given some laxity to legislate on also now shift to being reserved, and further complicated by the ‘relates to’ section, meaning if something merely relates to those reserved matters—200-odd of them—however remotely, then that is also deemed outside the competence of this Assembly.

All this means a significant roll back of powers to Westminster from this place: a significant loss of powers from what we can currently do, as Lee Waters has just said. And, because of that ‘relates to’ capability, any future Supreme Court disputes involving Welsh Government and UK Government—. As we’ve heard, Welsh Government is in the lead at the moment, 1-0. Any future disputes, though, are always likely to find in favour of the Westminster Government. Much of this is because, as we’ve heard also from the First Minister, policing and criminal justice is still not devolved to Wales, unlike Scotland, unlike Northern Ireland, Manchester even. What’s wrong with us? What’s wrong with policing being devolved here, let alone no consideration for Wales to be a single jurisdiction? I won’t enhance any more on that: we’ve heard a lot about that from the First Minister, and also the Minister of the Crown Consents, the so-called Henry VIII powers. It might be a little bit in the margin but, basically, that’s where the UK Minister or Secretary of State for Wales can amend Assembly legislation without recourse to this Assembly—minor changes, we are reassured by the Secretary of State. Presumably, if it’s minor, we don’t need to know about it, which you could accept. However, on the other hand, any minor detail in legislation from here related to a reserved power will become reserved, even if it’s minor. And Westminster must know about it, even if it’s minor. There’s an inequity in the argument: an unequal, unfair argument, disdainful of this National Assembly, biased against this Assembly, and a way of enacting legislation for Wales by bypassing the National Assembly for Wales.

As a current member of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, well-versed in the critical view when I commend the Chair for his comments, countless amendments were put forward from Welsh Government and the Llywydd, mostly failing. The Secretary of State consistently failed to appear in front of the committee. So, in this new Wales Bill, unsatisfactory, with a heavy heart we sought clarity, simplicity, stability and durability. We have not got it. We sought more powers as voted for by the overwhelming majority of the people of Wales in that referendum in 2011. That referendum decision deserves Westminster’s respect as well. Diolch yn fawr.

I welcome the opportunity to contribute in this debate today on the legislative consent motion, and especially the tone in which the debate has been conducted so far, as someone who as was there, shall I say, at the start, when, in 2011, I became leader of the Conservative group here and speaking with the then Secretary of State, Cheryl Gillan, in the setting up of the Silk process, and the process that she engaged in by taking all parties with her and having nominations on that Silk commission. It is important to reflect on the way that the Westminster Government has undertaken these discussions over a considerable period of time, not just with this particular Bill but its predecessor Bill, and obviously that referendum that has been alluded to many times here this afternoon on primary law-making powers. David and others and the First Minister have touched on the point about being here in 1999 and some of the debates and discussions that were undertaken in those very early years. For my part, I and many of my colleagues who sit in this group came into this Assembly in 2007, and have only ever sat in that Chamber once, and that was last April—in the other building—when the steel crisis was discussed and debated. Just by standing in this very building, we can see how devolution has moved on and has been embraced by the people of Wales. There is an acceptance in every part of Wales, as the referendum of March 2011 indicated, and a willingness and acceptance that there are more decisions and more responsibilities transferred to this institution and the politicians who sit within this institution. That is why I, through my position, have engaged fully and wholeheartedly in this process, unlike some of the characters that have been drawn about me, who most probably have thought of myself as a roadblock to some of this devolution and some of the processes that have flowed through the Silk commission. I do welcome—[Interruption.] I can hear the Member for the Rhondda chuntering away from a sedentary position. I’ll gladly—

You were a block. You were the block on policing powers. You said, ‘I make policing powers a red line’, and they weren’t touched after that. You were the block.

And I readily admit that I stood in the way of criminal justice and policing coming to this place. I made sure that that was not the case in this particular instance, but where powers made sense to be transferred, I argued for those powers to be transferred. I am particularly pleased to say that income tax will be coming to this institution to make sure that we do have greater accountability in the way the money has been spent in this institution and by the Government. And I do thank the Member for the Rhondda for highlighting the importance of the role that the Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly have played, working with colleagues in Westminster, to make sure that we have brought forward this second Bill that sees a huge transfer of power and responsibilities to this institution. We will never be able to meet your aspiration because we wouldn’t want to meet your aspiration of independence. I will say the word ‘independence’, but what we will make sure we deliver going forward is that this institution and the decisions of this institution are respected and enhanced where they need to be enhanced, and that the will of the people of Wales is carried out by the politicians who sit within this institution.

Alun Cairns deserves a huge amount of credit for the work he, Guto Bebb and Lord Bourne have undertaken over the last weeks and months that they have been in office in Gwydyr House to make sure that this Bill has moved considerably on from where it was back in 2014, I think, if my memory serves me right, when it first came forward. I am more than happy to pay credit to the First Minister as well in the way that he has engaged in the process, and indeed the Presiding Officer and her predecessor, Rosemary Butler, in the way that she conducted the discussions around the way this Bill has come together.

Is any Bill perfect? No, it’s not. But this Bill offers a huge opportunity to actually take responsibility—[Interruption.]—I’ll take the intervention in a minute—over energy, over transport, over electoral arrangements, over income tax: the list goes on.

No Bill is perfect, but what is his view of the almost unique imperfection that the former Lord Chief Justice pointed out—that there is in this Bill the ability for a Minister in Westminster to strike down through ministerial diktat, effectively, primary legislation passed here? That’s not just an insult to devolution—it’s an insult to democracy itself.

I don’t accept that point that the Member has put, but he’s perfectly entitled to make the point. Also, the Bill does contain the ability for work to be done as the body of Welsh law increases, going forward, to make sure that the jurisdiction is responding to that body of law—as it increases, going forward. But I do think it is a very sad day when Plaid Cymru, in this Chamber, chooses to vote against a vehicle, an opportunity, for a huge transfer of responsibility and sovereignty. I think that is just the ultimate irony of the position they have taken today. They are perfectly entitled to do that, but I do think that they are missing the opportunity here.

I fully expect that there will be further discussions; I fully expect that there will be further changes, as we go forward, around the Brexit negotiations and discussions. We are in a different place to where we were when this Bill was first presented back in 2014. But it is a huge opportunity for this Assembly to rise to the challenge of these responsibilities; it is incumbent that we accept these responsibilities and use them to benefit the people of Wales within the United Kingdom. I urge Members to support this LCM.

The debates here on legislative consent motions are a key part of our constitution and emerge from the practice that also exists in Scotland, through the Sewel convention, as we heard earlier, of ensuring that Westminster is able to legislate on issues where elements are devolved.

The case is different in this regard. We are giving Westminster permission to legislate on our own powers, including those issues that are impacted by the way in which this Bill has been drafted. By the way, may I say in passing that this is a ‘Bil’ in Welsh? ‘Bil’ is a totally different thing that was legislation in this place in the past. I don’t want to see ‘Mesurau’, or Measures, returning.

I am not going to say too much today because I have been discussing this issue, as you know, at both ends of the railway line for 30 years. I hope to do that again tomorrow, when we complete the third reading of this Bill in the second chamber. I don’t see the development of devolution in the same light as Members of my former party, I’m afraid. I have sought over the years to try and take all opportunities to enhance and develop devolution, however those opportunities arose, and along that route, I have made a number of friends. I am very grateful to David for his kind comments earlier. I see Kirsty there; we first met on the night of the referendum and we were out all night. As they say in other places, nothing happened because there was no time; we were too busy. But that meeting was an important meeting for me, because when we came to this Assembly we got to know each other. My relationship with Jane Hutt goes back a lot further. We have had an opportunity to collaborate in different parties, and that has brought us to a point of consensus.

And here we are today in a surprising place, where my former party and a party that I will never become a Member of are voting together against this next step on the devolution route. Whatever the reasons set out by the two parties here, they haven’t yet convinced me, and certainly, they wouldn’t convince the people of Wales. What the people of Wales want to see is politicians working together constructively in order to create change. That change is change that occurs because of the response of the legislature here in Cardiff, the legislature in Westminster, and the Governments in the two places, to what the political debate produces.

There is one further point that I think is crucial in this situation. I said in Westminster, as we were concluding the Report Stage on this Bill, that I thought that we had got to the end of a chapter in the way in which we dealt with devolved issues—namely, that we must ensure now that we don’t see Westminster conferring powers upon us, but that this Assembly should be an equal legislature within the UK. Therefore, my plea this afternoon once again is that we should be willing to play our part in jointly legislating from here on out, and the way to achieve that is through passing this Bill.

The wise words of Dafydd Elis-Thomas. I do rather feel that Plaid is taking a purist position, confident in the knowledge that others are going to do the heavy lifting, and ensure that this legislative measure is passed.

I’m very pleased to read Theresa May’s assurances in her speech today that no decision currently taken by the devolved administrations will be removed from them in the Brexit process, and I feel that that’s a very important statement. But, that is the statement of today’s political leader, and we cannot know for how long that political leader will be here. Therefore, that is the reason why I feel that we need to support this imperfect Bill, because we need to batten down the hatches in terms of ensuring that the powers that the Welsh Assembly has are enshrined in law so that we can enter the discussions and negotiations about Brexit full in that knowledge that we have these powers. I think that is the context in which we must look at this imperfect Bill and that is the reason why I will be supporting it.

I welcome very much the devolution of energy planning powers for all generation projects up to 350 MW, and the concessions that have been exacted by our colleagues in the House of Lords over the control of low-voltage lines. But I am disappointed that the amendments to permit the Assembly to legislate on all aspects of the generation, transmission, distribution and supply of electricity—which would have excluded nuclear energy, quite rightly, but included legislation to permit private wire distribution rather than everything going via the national grid—that those clauses have not been permitted by the UK Government because, I think, there’s an incomplete understanding by the UK Government of just how the world is moving on technically. Devolved generation, distribution and storage of energy has been shown to stimulate innovation and enterprise across communities, as was captured by the smarter energy inquiry in the fourth Assembly.

This Bill is a curate’s egg, and most definitely is not the permanent framework for the devolution settlement that we had hoped for. But we must accept what we have on the table. I acknowledge the excellent efforts of Eluned Morgan and Dafydd Elis-Thomas, and others in the House of Lords, to improve the Bill. I don’t think—as others have said, we cannot rush ahead of the Welsh people, but we equally, unfortunately, cannot rush ahead of the considered view of the members of the Tory party, and indeed some of the colleagues in my own party, who have yet to fully understand the importance of devolution.

I do not think the Wales Bill is fit for the twenty-first century, particularly around energy and the environment, with the technology moving so fast and the climate change challenges that we face. I do not think that it gives us sufficient powers. We only have the carrot on energy conservation; we don’t have the stick that needs to go with it. It is disappointing that we don’t even have the powers that they have in Scotland on these matters. But, we can only push ahead as fast as the people will allow us to do, and I very much welcome the concessions that are there—that, I’m told, the channel for reflecting on the energy powers that we are currently being devolved hasn’t been closed off. I understand there will be an opportunity for dialogue between the two Governments, and I’d be grateful if the First Minister might be able to say a little bit more about that in his summing up.

Today, as has already been set out, the Plaid Cymru group will vote against this legislative consent motion for the reasons clearly set out by Leanne Wood, and reasons that I recollect Dafydd Elis-Thomas setting out in a Plaid Cymru group meeting as well. I will be voting with my group, as I respect that decision and the process and the discussion by which we have arrived at that decision. However, there is a strong Plaid Cymru and nationalist case for voting for this LCM, and I wish to set that out, if only for political students of the future.

The first thing to say is that this Wales Bill is already a relic of the past. As a lasting settlement, it is as redundant as the Christmas tree I took to the recycling last week. It’s a bright and shiny Westminster bauble, tempting, flimsy, but ultimately empty. The Bill really suffers from a disease that I think we should now call ‘Westminsterism’, because it’s a condition that affects all the unionist parties and isn’t just confined to the Conservatives alone. Welsh Labour are sadly not yet cured of this condition, as we’ve heard of the amendments in their own party policy that they refused in Westminster, though it is encouraging to see a number well on the way to recovery in the present Welsh Labour group in this Assembly. But for too long, Westminster has assumed that sovereignty in that institution, and not with the people. So, rather than a lasting settlement, both Westminster and Whitehall have scrimped and paired the reserved-powers model, granting us only the minimal possible settlement at all times in order to enact and ensure ongoing Westminster superiority. Powers have come in, powers have gone out, they shook it all about and a game of constitutional hokey cokey has been played with the future of Wales.

But in the same year as taking this rather gothic approach to our future, Westminster itself unleashed of its own volition the dark forces that will ultimately destroy the unitary British state. The genie is out of the bottle, and no impotent talk today of national values, British values, coming together will save the current United Kingdom.

Much talk has been made of this being the last opportunity to secure further devolution for at least a decade. That may be true, but it’s not the same as saying that Westminster will be unchanged for a decade. Hard Brexit, which is what we are likely to get, will lead to the dissolution of the British state. Scotland will seek independence, the island of Ireland will come together, and we in Wales will be faced with a stark choice: become the appendix of a withered English political entity or seek our own independent path. So, in many ways, and in the long run, this Bill is irrelevant. The last gasp of Westminster pretending it decides the future of the nation of Wales and not the people of Wales deciding our future.

I think, however, there can be given three reasons for moving ahead with the Bill in order to give us powers to guide us in the next five to 10 turbulent years. Firstly, the Bill will help prevent further land grab by Westminster, by ensuring Sewel in statute, and by ensuring that the reserved-powers model gives us some defence against further land grabs—though the Bill itself is a land grab—after the Brexit vote. Secondly, in devolving to the Assembly the power to decide future arrangements, the Bill allows us to deepen and strengthen our democracy. This is our opportunity to extend the franchise to 16 and 17-year-olds, to introduce the single transferable vote to local and then national elections in Wales, and to attain the recognition of the Assembly as Wales’s sovereign Parliament. And finally, by facilitating fiscal devolution and some control of our natural resources, the Bill will make any Welsh Government more responsive and accountable to the people of Wales.

Without the tax powers that this Bill permits, we will not mature as a democracy, and we will not prepare ourselves fully for the challenges of leaving the European Union. While Welsh Government remain in an infantile relationship with Westminster, that so-called mother of parliaments, not yet weaned off Whitehall, blaming their failures on insufficient funding, passing the political buck at every opportunity, we will never be prepared and ready enough to take responsibility for our own futures. So, as this Bill today looks like becoming an Act, we should use the limited powers that it gives us in these three areas to prepare the way for the real constitutional future of our nation, towards a time when we once more will share responsibility and joint endeavour with our European partners, but this time as an independent state.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate today. I’m very pleased that it’s a Bill that we are discussing that is going to confer more powers upon this Assembly, and that that Bill is being delivered by a Conservative Government at UK level and a Conservative Secretary of State. I want to pay tribute to them for standing by their words to deliver a Bill that is going to confer additional powers upon us. And I will say this: the Bill doesn’t as far as I would like in some areas, but it’s with joy that I am going to be voting for the Bill today, because of those additional areas in which we will be getting powers so that we can do something positive with those powers, and use them to great effect. I want to confine my comments today to one particular part of the Bill where I’m delighted that, through amendment, these additional powers have been added, and that is subsection 58 of Part 2 of the Bill, which devolves responsibility to Welsh Ministers for licensing gaming machines where a maximum stake is more than £10.

Now, as Members of this Assembly will be aware, I’ve never hidden my personal disdain for fixed-odds betting terminals and their link to problem gambling here in Wales. They are a scourge on Wales that have inflicted a significant personal and social damage on individuals, their families and communities the length and breadth of this country. And, of course, a recent independent report published by the Institute for Public Policy Research in December found that problem gambling is costing the Governments of Wales, England and Scotland up to £1.2 billion every single year. But we must remember that it’s the act of gambling and the pressure that the industry puts on individuals to gamble that are the fundamental areas where blame should be apportioned, not to those individuals, necessarily, themselves, because we have to remember that this is a disorder, an addiction that people are having to deal with, one that is equally as powerful as alcohol or substance misuse. Now, I stated, when wearing a previous portfolio hat, that given the power of gambling addiction, I think it should be viewed and treated as a public health issue, because of the impact that such a disorder has on the health and well-being of the affected individuals, their families and their loved ones, and it’s a significant impact.

Now, we know that, while gambling is not a new phenomenon in Wales, it is an issue that Wales has a particularly serious problem with. Despite our country being the only home nation not to gather statistics about problematic gambling and gambling disorders, the population as a whole is staking an amount that is equivalent to £1.6 billion per year of the nation’s gross domestic product into fixed-betting-odds terminals alone. As a comparison, that is £675 for every single adult here in Wales. Moreover, if you factor in the associated variable costs, such as the decline in work performance, potential unemployment, indebtedness, housing problems, et cetera that gambling causes, it demonstrates that gambling not only impacts on our nation’s health, but also on our nation’s economy as well.

So, I’ve been extremely pleased to champion this issue, along with other AMs here in this Chamber, and, indeed, some parliamentary colleagues at the Westminster end, by bringing a variety of stakeholders together to try to educate and influence everybody in this Chamber, and policy makers more widely, that this is something that requires urgent attention. Now, whilst there are some elements of public policy that we can change, in collaboration with some excellent organisations in the third sector, such as Beat the Odds, which, of course, is an organisation that was put together by CAIS, which is based in my constituency, and Living Room, down here in Cardiff, I don’t believe that we can really get to grips with this problem as a nation unless we have this legislative competence being bestowed upon us. That’s why I’m very, very keen to ensure that this LCM today gets a positive response from everybody across this Chamber, because it enables us to deal with this issue and other issues in areas of competence that will be coming to us. I was very pleased to see Eluned Morgan’s contributions in the House of Lords on this very issue while the Bill was making its passage through Parliament, because I think, personally, that this is something that we can all get around the table together on and deal with once and for all.

So, I want to encourage every Member in this Chamber to think very carefully about the opportunities that the Wales Bill presents to us. I appreciate that it doesn’t go as far as everybody in this Chamber would want, but these are important steps with important powers being conferred upon the National Assembly that we will be able to use to improve the quality of life of everybody in Wales, and, therefore, I will be supporting it.

Lywydd, over the past few months, I and Members of other parties, including Dafydd Elis-Thomas, Dafydd Wigley, Members of the Lib Dems and members of different cross-party groups have been doing what we can to correct the Wales Bill as it has gone through the House of Lords. I would like to pay tribute first of all to you, Llywydd, for your work on this Bill, and to the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, which helped us with some of the arguments that that we needed to make in the house, but also I think it has helped us to succeed in convincing the UK Government to compromise in so many areas and to accept our point of view that they had gone too far in trying to keep powers in London. But, of course, there are a number of matters in this Bill that do still cause us concern. May I be clear: the Wales Bill is complex, it’s unclear, and we can be sure that it won’t settle this question of Wales’s relationship with the United Kingdom for a generation, as was intended? The Bill isn’t based on any constitutional principles. There’s no clarity in the legislation, which means that we can’t guarantee that there won’t be any reference to the Supreme Court in future to decide where legislative powers lie.

Members of the House of Lords and, indeed, the Conservative Government have made it clear that they won’t be content to pass the legislation without the support of the majority of Assembly Members. The question therefore is whether we should pass this Bill.

Credaf fod y cwestiwn ynghylch a ddylem basio'r cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol yn un cytbwys o’r diwedd. Rwy'n meddwl bod y Bil yn parhau i fod yn ddiffygiol ac yn gymhleth iawn. Serch hynny, rwy’n credu y dylem basio’r cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol hwn, a hoffwn wneud fy rhesymau dros hyn yn glir. Yn gyntaf oll, rwy’n meddwl mai dyma’r unig fargen yr ydym yn debygol o’i gweld yn y dyfodol agos. Dyma'r pedwerydd Bil Cymru ers i’r cyhoedd yng Nghymru gefnogi sefydlu'r Cynulliad ym 1997. Nid yw Theresa May wedi dangos unrhyw ddiddordeb o gwbl yng Nghymru, ac mae Llywodraeth y DU yn debygol o fod yn canolbwyntio bron yn gyfan gwbl ar Brexit yn y dyfodol agos. Mae’r penderfyniad Brexit hwnnw, gyda chyhoeddiad y Prif Weinidog heddiw i fynd am Brexit caled, yn golygu bod angen inni fwrw iddi yn gyfansoddiadol cyn i ni gael ein colbio yn y ffrwd wleidyddol sydd ar fin ein llyncu. Mae angen inni sicrhau nad oes unrhyw ymgais ar ran Llywodraeth y DU i adennill pwerau o’r UE, ac i gadw'r hyn sy’n feysydd dilys o gymhwysedd Llywodraeth Cymru yn Llundain.

Mae'r Bil newydd yn cadarnhau confensiwn Sewel. Mae’r confensiwn hwnnw yn dweud na fydd Senedd y DU fel arfer yn deddfu ar faterion datganoledig heb ganiatâd y Cynulliad. Mae hynny wedi'i ysgrifennu mewn statud. Y Bil cyfredol: nid yw yno. Mae hwn yn gam diogelu sydd ei angen arnom. Oni bai ein bod ar yr un dudalen gyfansoddiadol, ac o dan yr un system model a gedwir yn ôl â'r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon, rydym yn llawer mwy agored i gael ein taro pan fydd y pwerau’n cael eu hadfer dan Brexit. Mae hyn hefyd yn wir am y Bil diddymu mawr a addawyd, lle mae cyfle’n amlwg i Lywodraeth y DU fachu beth sydd yn gyfreithlon yn bwerau ein Cynulliad ni . Nid wyf fi, yn un, yn barod i gymryd y risg honno.

Nawr, mae'r fframwaith cyllidol a fformiwla Barnett, fel y clywsom, yn rhoi gwarantau na fyddwn yn waeth ein byd, o’n cymharu â Lloegr, os bydd gwariant cyhoeddus yn codi pan gaiff canran o bwerau treth incwm i Gymru ei ddatganoli. Mae'r cytundeb hefyd yn golygu bod gennym £500 miliwn ychwanegol y gallwn ei fenthyg er mwyn buddsoddi. Rwy'n credu bod hyn yn mynd i fod yn allweddol bwysig wrth i gyni barhau i frathu, wrth i ni weld crebachu yn yr economi a thynnu arian strwythurol yr UE yn ôl.

Rwy'n siomedig bod y Bil yn parhau i fod yn gymhleth, yn anhygyrch ac yn aneglur. Ni lwyddwyd i ymgorffori unrhyw egwyddorion sylfaenol neu gadarn yn y Bil, megis eglurder, sefydlogrwydd, cyfreithlondeb a datganoliaeth. Fel y dywedodd y Prif Weinidog, drafftiodd Llywodraeth Cymru ei Bil ei hun, a gyflwynwyd y llynedd. Byddai hwnnw wedi darparu llwyfan llawer cadarnach ar gyfer y setliad cyfansoddiadol, ond nid ydym yn y sedd yrru yn San Steffan. Gadewch i ni gofio: Bil y Torïaid yw hwn.

Yn Nhŷ'r Arglwyddi, argyhoeddwyd Llywodraeth y DU gennym eu bod wedi mynd yn rhy bell drwy geisio adfachu pwerau sydd eisoes gan y Cynulliad mewn meysydd fel mabwysiadu, cynllunio rheilffyrdd a darparu rhyddhad y dreth gyngor. Awgrymodd un o'r tystion arbenigol i'r pwyllgor cyfansoddiad, dan y model presennol o lywodraeth a roddwyd, fod pob dim oni bai sinc y gegin wedi’i gadw. Ond wrth symud tuag at y model cadw pwerau, roedd hyd yn oed sinc y gegin erbyn hyn wedi’i gadw. Trwy wthio yn ôl yn Nhŷ'r Arglwyddi, rydym bellach wedi adennill rheolaeth dros y rhan fwyaf o reoliadau adeiladu, gan gynnwys sinc y gegin. Rydym hefyd wedi argyhoeddi’r Llywodraeth i ehangu'r meysydd lle nad oedd gennym bŵer o'r blaen, gan gynnwys pŵer dros gyflogau athrawon, terfynellau betio ods sefydlog, gorchmynion prynu gorfodol a’r ardoll seilwaith cymunedol, i enwi ond ychydig. Ac rydym yn amlwg yn siomedig iawn bod pleidlais gyfartal ar gysylltiadau diwydiannol yn y sector cyhoeddus yn golygu bod Llywodraeth y DU yn mynd ar ei phen at ysgarmes gyfansoddiadol, hyd yn oed cyn i’r Bil hwn gael ei dderbyn.

I’ve been very generous with time. You do need to bring your remarks to a close.

Thank you very much. I think it is important, however, to underline that we failed to convince the Government to ensure that legislative and executive powers in all areas in the devolved settlement should be devolved.

This Bill comes at a momentous time for our country—a time when our nation, our continent and the world seem more unpredictable than ever before. It’s far from ideal, but it’s this or nothing. I believe that, because of our vulnerability as a nation at this point, the only responsible action is to support the Bill.

Nothing would give me more pleasure than being able to vote today for the implementation of a Wales Bill that would empower the people of Wales, that would enable this Assembly to mature further as a Parliament for our nation, and that would give the Welsh Government the necessary tools to stabilise and strengthen our economy, to create a healthier Wales, and to strengthen our education system in the way in which we here in Wales would want to prioritise. But that, for me, is not what this Bill that we are asked to give consent to today entails. This is not a Bill that gives me confidence that it will give the people of Anglesey and the rest of Wales the kind of assurances that they should have that their National Assembly has the rights to plough its own furrow, where necessary, without any of the arbitrary barriers put in place by the UK Parliament.

Credaf yn gryf y dylai datganoli ei hun gael ei ddatganoli—y dylem ni yng Nghymru benderfynu ar y meysydd hynny lle dylem gael cyfrifoldeb. Credaf yn angerddol y dylai unrhyw Fil ar ddyfodol cymhwysedd Cymru ddod o Gymru. Ac mae'r Bil diffygiol iawn y gofynnir i ni ei gymeradwyo heddiw, rwy’n credu, yn ymgorfforiad perffaith o bwysigrwydd yr egwyddor honno. Nid wyf am ailadrodd pwyntiau manwl a wnaed gan rai o’m cydweithwyr am y rhestr afresymol o amheuon. Gallwn siarad am y penderfyniad cadarn i wrthod datganoli plismona, y penderfyniad anfaddeuol ac anesboniadwy i wrthod symud tuag at awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol Gymreig wahanol—mae'r rhestr yn ddiddiwedd. Ond o ran ein pwerau i ddeddfu ar ran pobl Cymru, rwy'n credu bod y Bil hwn, er gwaethaf consesiynau sydd wedi cael eu gwneud, yn parhau i fod ychydig yn fwy na briwsion San Steffan a rannwyd gan Lywodraeth Geidwadol ddi-hid y DU i Gymru sydd i fod i ystyried ei hun yn ddiolchgar i'w derbyn.

Wrth gwrs, ceir elfennau cadarnhaol yma, a dyna pam, fel y dywedodd Leanne Wood, mai gyda chalon drom yr ydym yn pleidleisio yn erbyn cryfhau pwerau i'r Cynulliad hwn, fel sefydliad, dros ei faterion ei hun—dros drefniadau etholiadol, ac yn y blaen. Rwyf i, wrth gwrs, yn dymuno gweld cychwyn datganoli treth incwm yn ein harfogaeth trethi. Cymeradwyaf waith a wnaed ar y fframwaith cyllidol. Rwyf i, wrth gwrs, yn dymuno gweld fformiwla ariannu newydd. Rwy’n deall pam y gallai pobl eraill ddod i'r casgliad ei bod yn werth cefnogi hyn oherwydd y pethau cadarnhaol hynny. Dywedodd y Prif Weinidog ei hun fod y grŵp Lafur wedi dod i benderfyniad anfoddog.

Ar y pwynt hwnnw, i'r rhai hynny sy'n awgrymu ein bod ni ym Mhlaid Cymru yn pleidleisio yn ei erbyn, rywsut yn y wybodaeth, oherwydd y cysur bod Llafur yn ei gefnogi, fel y dywedodd Simon cawsom ninnau hefyd drafodaethau manwl, fforensig. Cafodd yr achos ei wneud i gefnogi hyn. Gan fy mod yn cydnabod y pethau cadarnhaol, roeddwn efallai yn ystyried mai ymatal egwyddorol hyd yn oed oedd y peth gorau i'w wneud y prynhawn yma. Ond, yn y diwedd, roedd yn rhaid i mi ofyn i mi fy hun i ba raddau y mae’r pethau cadarnhaol yn fawr mwy na melysyddion i'w cymryd ochr yn ochr â'r hyn sydd fel arall yn bilsen chwerw iawn o ran Bil Cymru. Mae’r elfen gadarnhaol ar gyflwyno model cadw pwerau, mewn egwyddor, er enghraifft, sy’n rhywbeth yr ydym wedi galw amdano ers amser hir, yn cael ei ddadwneud, braidd, onid yw, gan y rhestr chwerthinllyd honno a gyfansoddwyd gan Whitehall ei hun? Mae Plaid Cymru—

Would the Member give way on that point?

Yes.

Thank you for giving way, Rhun. I fully understand that you have issues with this Bill. As other Members have said, it’s not perfect by any means. However, to dismiss the fiscal framework that we discussed earlier in the Cabinet Secretary’s statement as merely a positive—come on, we’ve been calling for Barnett reform for as long as I’ve been here, and for as long as you’ve been here. Here comes a positive, a very positive change to that financial situation. That will fall if this doesn’t go through.

I understand the question that you asked, but you are unfair in suggesting that we are dismissing the work that has been done on the fiscal framework. The question that has been asked today by Leanne Wood, amongst others, is: why on earth was that commendable work on the fiscal framework tied in to what is otherwise a set of powers that is a retraction in terms of the powers that we have? And I’ll also answer your point in this conclusion. Plaid Cymru is often wrongly accused of seeking devolution for its own sake. Well, today, we say a clear ‘no’. We want the devolution that is right for Wales. So, let’s begin work now, working together as a nation, across parties and across communities, to build a future Bill—a future for Wales made in Wales.

A nation’s reach should exceed its grasp. Those are the words of Elystan Morgan, encouraging Westminster to adopt an ambitious approach to this Bill.

Ond, wrth edrych ar y Mesur yma, rwy’n gweld diffyg uchelgais—diffyg y math o uchelgais a oedd ynghlwm wrth y sylw hwnnw. Mae ystod o bwerau yma sydd yn bwerau defnyddiol, ond nid rhestr eang o bwerau y byddwn i wedi hoffi ei gweld yna. Mae’r Ddeddf, ar amryw o seiliau, yn gam yn ôl, fel yr ŷm ni wedi clywed yn y ddadl eisoes. Fe fyddwn ni’n cyflwyno Mesur ar gyfer undebau llafur na fyddai’n bosibl o dan y setliad newydd. Yn fy marn i, ac rwy’n siŵr bod lot yn y Siambr yn ei rhannu, dylai datganoli fod yn broses ‘incremental’, cam wrth gam, graddol, ond mewn un cyfeiriad. Felly, mae colli’r egwyddor honno yn beth pwysig iawn.

Nid dyma’r Mesur y byddwn i eisiau iddo fod o’n blaenau ni heddiw; byddwn i’n moyn gweld Mesur Llywodraeth Cymru a gyflwynwyd y llynedd ar lawr y Siambr heddiw, gydag ystod o bwerau sydd yn deilwng o Gymru, gyda safbwynt eglur yn nhermau’r setliad, a hefyd yn ein symud ni ar lwybr i gyfartaledd gyda seneddau’r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon. Ond, gwrthodwyd y Mesur hwnnw gan yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol a gan y Llywodraeth Dorïaidd.

Felly, nid oes dim brwdfrydedd gyda fi heddiw yn dod fan hyn i edrych ar y Mesur hwn, ond mae cryfderau yn y Mesur, ac mae’n rhaid inni gydnabod yr elfennau positif sydd yn y Mesur hefyd. Mae symud o fodel rhoi pwerau i fodel cadw pwerau yn gwyrdroi’r man cychwyn cyfansoddiadol. Rŷm ni’n dechrau o safbwynt hollol wahanol er gwaethaf rhestr faith, rhestr hirfaith, o gymalau cadw sydd, ar amryw seiliau, yn hollol anaddas. Mae’r egwyddor newydd honno yn cynnig sylfaen i ni allu adeiladu arni yn y blynyddoedd sydd i ddod—yn nhermau awdurdodaeth, yn sicr, ond hefyd yn nhermau tynnu nôl y cymylau cadw yna sydd yn gymaint o fwrn ar y Mesur.

Yn fy marn i, am wn i, ni fyddai hynny yn hollol ddigonol oni bai am y cwestiwn sydd yn gyd-destun i’r drafodaeth yma, ac i bob trafodaeth wleidyddol yr ŷm ni’n ei chael yma yng Nghymru, sef y cwestiwn o Brexit. Rwy’n credu ein bod ni’n tanystyried ar ein peryg—er gwaethaf y sylwadau rŷm ni wedi eu clywed heddiw, y bore yma, gan Theresa May, sydd wedi cael eu crybwyll yn y Siambr eisoes—rŷm ni’n tanystyried y risg i’r setliad datganoli a ddaw yn sgil y broses o adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Nid wyf yn credu am eiliad fod greddf Llywodraeth San Steffan, na greddf y Prif Weinidog hon, o blaid unrhyw broses a fyddai’n caniatáu yn rhwydd i Gymru gael y pwerau o Frwsel rŷm ni’n haeddu eu cael, ac sydd yn hawl i ni.

Mae arweinydd yr wrthblaid wedi sôn am y ddelwedd o Brydain ac o Gymru y mae’r Prif Weinidog eisiau ei gweld, ac ni fyddai neb ar yr ochr yma o’r Siambr yn moyn gweld hynny. Dyna pam mae mor bwysig ein bod ni’n cryfhau ein sefyllfa ar gyfer y drafodaeth honno. Dyma pam mae mor bwysig bod gyda ni’r confensiwn Sewel, sydd yn rhoi cyfartaledd i ni gyda’r Alban a Gogledd Iwerddon, a chyfle cryfach i ni allu dadlau ein hachos yn erbyn y Llywodraeth yn San Steffan.

I think this is an imperfect Bill. It’s imperfect because it fails to recognise the maturity of the Welsh constitutional settlement, and it fails to recognise the potential that Wales can deploy with these extra powers that we have asked for over some time. But, I believe that at its core is the correct principle, of moving to a reserved-powers model, and that on balance that equips us better for what is going to be a much bigger set of battles ahead.

Wouldn’t it be great if we were all cheering for this legislative motion today taking us forward to getting the Wales Bill on the statute? Sadly, we are not in that position today, and I think that is largely because the Secretary of State for Wales has failed to convince his Cabinet colleagues and the Whitehall departments of the need for Wales to be treated in a similar way to Scotland and to Northern Ireland. I do very strongly feel that Wales has been treated with disrespect. And what is the reason for Wales to be treated differently than the other devolved nations? After the vote in 2011, which many people have referred to today, two thirds of the Welsh people voted for us to have primary law-making powers. There was a clear message from the people of Wales that they wanted us to make the laws, and that is a very changed situation, because I was in Westminster in 1997 when we passed the first Government of Wales Bill, and I can tell you that there wasn’t much enthusiasm for that from anywhere. The situation in Wales, I do think, has been transformed, and I do think that those feelings are being ignored by the Westminster Government and by the Whitehall departments.

I will be voting for this legislation today. It will be with gritted teeth, because I don’t think it does us justice, but I’ll be voting for it because of the reserved-powers model—I think that’s very important, that we do have that there, enshrined in law—because of the Sewel convention—again, I think that is vitally important—and because of the financial settlement. I do feel that we have, for many years, struggled to ensure that the Barnett formula is addressed. In setting up the fiscal framework that the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government has discussed earlier in this Chamber today, I think, overall, it would be wrong of us to reject that framework. It would be wrong to reject the progress that has actually been made. For those reasons, I will be voting for this legislation today. But, as I said, it is with gritted teeth.

The unwillingness of many Government departments at Westminster to concede significant requests for amendments, I think, is an indictment of perhaps how low the prestige of the Wales Office under the current Secretary of State has sunk and how the current Secretary of State for Wales has not been batting for Wales. And, you know, if you just—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

I do think it’s slightly regrettable that you seek to deprecate the current Secretary of State, who has worked tirelessly, along with colleagues, to deliver this Bill. But I will pose the question to you—you were a Member of Parliament in 2006, which voted for the then Wales Bill that gave us the LCM process; I don’t think your record in Parliament really stacks up against the transfer of responsibilities to this place that has happened under the Welsh Conservatives.

I’m talking about today, and I do feel that Wales’s case has not been made well in Westminster. I think that we would have come up with a better solution, a better Bill, if it had been done so and I commend what Eluned and her colleagues have done in the House of Lords to try to improve the situation, but you couldn’t really do the whole thing without having the Secretary of State for Wales there behind you.

Again, if you just look at the list of things that we can’t do—. No to air passenger duty powers. Why Northern Ireland? Why Scotland? What’s wrong with Wales? No to anti-social behaviour powers. No to alcohol-licencing powers. No to youth justice powers. Fifteen years ago, I was on a select committee in Westminster that recommended that youth justice powers should be devolved. I cannot conceive why youth justice powers cannot be devolved. No to industrial relations in devolved public services. No to non-for-profit bid for rail franchise powers. We could go on.

It is a very frightening thought that, in the draft Wales Bill, 21 of the 22 Acts passed by the Welsh Assembly would be ruled outside the competence of the Assembly or requiring a Minister of the Crown’s consent. And, even after the negotiations that have taken place, still 10 out of the 22 would be outside of our ability to legislate. This is for a Wales Bill that is meant to simplify the devolution model and enable this Assembly to be a fully-fledged legislature.

I believe that the passage of devolution has been a bit move forward and a bit move backwards. I’m voting for this LCM today because I think, overall, it is a bit of a move forward, but I wish that we could be here with a much better LCM, with a much more fully-fledged Bill ahead of us that would really satisfy our desires.

Today, I will be joining my Labour colleagues and voting for this legislative consent motion on the Wales Bill. Indeed, as said by many, it is what it is. For this, we have a Conservative UK Government, which has once again let down the people of Wales in this stated imperfection—. In October 2015, the then Secretary of State for Wales, Stephen Crabb, stated that the Wales Bill was:

‘a once-in-a-generation opportunity to draw a line under this ongoing, endless debate…about devolution’.

We fast-forward to January 2017, and we have the leader of the Welsh Conservatives here in the National Assembly for Wales saying that this won’t be the last Wales Bill but the last one of this parliamentary session. Wales, as has been stated, required a Westminster Wales Bill that offered clarity, simplicity, and a recognition, as Eluned Morgan has said, of the Welsh devolution journey of the last two decades.

The present Bill, though, will indeed give Wales more constitutional certainty, and the accompanying stronger fiscal framework affords an important incremental step in the right direction. It does deliver a fairer deal for Wales and I wish to pay full tribute to the finance Secretary, Mark Drakeford, for his considerable efforts in this regard. Let nobody be in doubt, however: the present Wales Bill is not a Bill that the Labour Party would have authored in its imperfect entirety.

The tortuous gestation of the Bill from conception to birth might be the stuff of lawyers’ dreams, but, for the ordinary person in the street, it has been a complex procedure. There is a fear held by many that the UK Government have not come to this process with clean hands. Whilst Tory politicians have talked of ending constitutional uncertainty between Cardiff Bay and Westminster, their actions have led many to believe their intention is to stunt, as others have said, the growing maturity of this place.

Welsh politicians elected by the Welsh people, and not Whitehall mandarins, should be driving the orderly organisation of the separation of powers between the UK and the Welsh Governments. We know from Theresa May’s earlier speech today that Brexit is still going to dominate UK politics for the next decade. Westminster will, as others have said, have no time and no inclination or even interest to look to Wales. Therefore, the reality is that this small and in some ways very unsatisfactory step forward for Wales is all that is on the table. As such, for the good of the Welsh people, we will not place an obstacle in front of what is less than a perfect Bill.

I want to place on record my appreciation of the work of my friend, Baroness Eluned Morgan, who represents Mid and West Wales, for her sterling work here in the Senedd and in the Lords. She has sought to mitigate the worst aspects of this imperfection. This has resulted, in many areas, the UK Government conceding on positions and points that once were non-negotiable. But, as Eluned Morgan told the House of Lords, the Bill continues to be complex, inaccessible, unclear and will not settle the devolution issue for Wales, as was the intention.

With hard Brexit coming down the track, it is imperative that we here in the National Assembly for Wales do not allow uncertainty in Wales’s devolution settlement, and to offer any opportunity for the UK Government to retain powers in London that should rightly be repatriated to Wales once the United Kingdom leaves the European Union.

May I finally comment on the important achievements within the strongly negotiated fiscal framework, including partial tax devolvement, a fair Barnett reform, improved financial access and permanency in the funding floor? These are things that we have talked about for a very, very long time, and it is here. Wales will not be worse off relative to England according to our needs with this Bill. Indeed, with a Tory UK Government addicted to failed policies of austerity, everything—everything—that we can do here in this Chamber to strengthen the hand of the Welsh Government to stimulate the economy is to be welcomed. The additional £500 million borrowing permitted will be of use to the people of Wales and Welsh Government.

So, yes, this Wales Bill is indeed imperfect. It is what it is. It has shown and demonstrated the weakness of the Secretary of State for Wales in standing up for Wales. As such, I will support, however, the legislative consent motion today, but I deeply regret the missed opportunity of the Tory Government’s attempt to play politics with the devolution settlement at the expense of Wales. Diolch.

I call on the First Minister to reply to the debate.

Diolch, Lywydd. Can I thank Members for their contributions to what has been the most important constitutional debate that we’ve had in Wales for some time? We’ve had a lot over the years, and no doubt we’ll have more to come in the future. Could I thank my colleague, Huw Irranca-Davies, for emphasising again, strongly, the points that I made, pointing out the flaws in this Bill, but the approach that we have taken on balance in terms of our support for it?

I listened very carefully to the speakers from Plaid Cymru. It seems to me that there’s no dispute between us as to our analysis of the Bill. We agree that the Bill has some good parts, that there are some areas where there appears to be a rolling back of the devolution settlement, and that it is inadequate when compared particularly to the Bill that was drafted by the Welsh Government. The difference is mainly in terms of the assessment of what the outcome would be if the LCM were to be rejected by the Assembly. For me, this opportunity wouldn’t present itself for some years in the future. That would leave us with a conferred-powers model, leave us with the inability to control our own democracy and our own devolution here in Wales, leave us with the inability, via the raising of income tax, to be able to borrow, which we know is hugely important and puts us on a par with other administrations in the UK, and there’s no knowing when such an opportunity would arise again. So, even though, as it were, what’s being presented is not the sleek Ferrari that we thought but a car that is somewhat below the level that we thought, it’ll still run, if not with the speed and the sleekness that we originally thought. Apologies to Lee Waters there for the analogy of cars; I know that’s something that never gets his approval. [Laughter.]

But, from our perspective, we went through the St David’s Day process, called an agreement. I don’t know who the agreement was with exactly, but it was a process to identify areas that could be devolved. There was no agreement as part of that process. We then saw, of course, the first Bill, which was so flawed that it was not supported by literally anybody outside of a very small group in Westminster.

It’s also right to say that there is a link between the fiscal framework and the Bill, but only because we made it absolutely clear to the UK Government that we would not support the Bill, nor the income tax provisions within it, unless the fiscal framework was addressed. If the fiscal framework had been unsatisfactory, the position that we would’ve taken today would’ve been different, because it would not have provided the financial security that Wales needed with those powers being devolved.

I listened carefully to what David Melding had to say. Again, his analysis of the constitutional issues is robust. There was one issue I did disagree with him on, however, and that is that it’s not so much a case of making the case for the jurisdiction to be created, but rather the alternative: it is normal for a jurisdiction to be created when a legislature is created. It is abnormal for that not to happen, so we have an abnormal jurisdiction—a uniquely abnormal one that cannot stand the test of time in the future. I thought that the solution that was alluded to by the Lord Chief Justice was an elegant one, where we had a formally separate jurisdiction, but we shared the court system, therefore not having the costs of a separate court system. I thought that was a very good solution. We even suggested to the Ministry of Justice that we would contribute towards it—if we shared it, there would be a financial cost for us. They even turned that down. So, it shows the intransigence that exists in terms of the jurisdictional issues, and we must carry on with a situation that is wholly unsatisfactory in that regard.

I listened to what the leader of UKIP had to say. He asks the question: what has changed in terms of the referendum on income tax? I give him the answer: time’s moved on. Scotland had substantial devolution, well beyond what was envisaged by the 1999 referendum in Scotland, without a referendum—powers well beyond what was envisaged then. Northern Ireland: corporation tax devolution without a referendum. My argument is that a referendum is to be used for major constitutional change—Brexit was one of them; it’s perfectly right that that should be decided through a referendum. Independence: if there were to be an independence referendum in the future, clearly, that would need a referendum. But the devolution of a part of the taxation system, to me, does not require a referendum. If it’s true for income tax, it must be true for corporation tax; it it’s true for corporation tax, it must be true, seeing as we’re leaving the EU and the Azores judgment would not apply in the future, for VAT. So, I think this is a pragmatic solution where we have guaranteed that the fiscal framework will not let Wales down. We went into the election in May being plain that we would not support a referendum at that stage as long as the safeguards were put in place.

My colleague Lee Waters from Llanelli: again, his analysis is correct. One of the questions he posed was over the timing and the context. If I thought that there would be an opportunity soon for a friendlier Government to exist at Westminster that would deliver the people of Wales what they required, then I would not support what’s before us. But it’s a question of what we know now, and, of course, what we know will be the case, certainly up until 2020, when, hopefully, enlightenment will be visited upon Westminster.

Dai Lloyd raised two points. Again, he’s right to say—I don’t argue against this—that there are some areas where there’s a rowing back of devolution, not as envisaged originally by the legislation, by the Government of Wales Act, but devolution as it’s developed because of the Supreme Court judgments. Again, the point I make is that I have looked at this as a package and looked at it overall in terms of what it delivers, as opposed to what it removes.

He did raise an important point in terms of the ‘relates to’ test. I can give him comfort, I hope, on that. The statements made by the UK Government during the passage of the Bill did provide reassurance on the operation of the purpose test. Our position is reinforced by the case law in relation to the Scotland Act, so an Assembly Bill provision will only fail the ‘relates to’ test where that provision has a reserved matter as its purpose, not simply because it touches a reserved matter, or brushes a reserved matter. The purpose of a provision in the Bill has to be to change something that is reserved. So, it’s not the case—and this was a fear that I had when I saw the original Bill—that if it touched on any kind of reserved competence then an Assembly provision would be outside of competence. That isn’t what we’ve seen in terms of what has been said in both Houses of Parliament and looking at the case law in Scotland.

I listened to the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. He should be careful what he says to the press, because many of us saw his comments in the press after the referendum talking about taking powers away from the Assembly, particularly in the field of agriculture. If he was misquoted, then it’s a matter for him to explain that, but that’s exactly what the rest of us read and I don’t remember there being—[Interruption.] Well, he had the opportunity to correct his position then; there’s no point doing it now, quietly. He had the opportunity to correct his position then. He has accepted and admitted that he does not support the devolution of policing to Wales, but he does to Manchester. He may well do to the north-east of England, or the devolution of the justice system and the jurisdiction, even though I’m pretty confident the people of Wales would support that if they were asked that question. He defends, as he must, the Secretary of State for Wales. I don’t doubt the efforts of the Secretary of State for Wales. I disagree with him on many points, but it shows the influence that he had, that he was not able to secure the devolution of air passenger duty, even though an airport in his own constituency would have been a major beneficiary. And that is a sad reflection of the influence that existed as far as his position was concerned, though I don’t doubt the effort that he put into this.

For me, this is not about nationalism or separatism or anything else; it’s about parity, about equality. It’s about making sure that, in the future, Wales is treated with the same respect and the same level of parity as Scotland and Northern Ireland, and making the UK a true partnership. I’ve listened, of course, to what Dafydd Elis-Thomas had to say in his analysis of the situation. Jenny Rathbone raised the issue of energy; those discussions will continue. We are seeing the substantial devolution of the energy consenting process, taking us well beyond where we are now, but, of course, that’s not to say things cannot change in the future. Listening to Simon Thomas, he coined a new phrase, which will be picked up by students of politics in the future: Westminsterism—saying the genie is out of the bottle. I don’t quite share his analysis as to where that would inevitably lead. It wouldn’t inevitably lead to Scottish independence, and the issue of the unification of Northern Ireland and the Republic is far trickier than perhaps he made out at the time he made that comment. But the point that I think is worth emphasising is this: the UK cannot continue as it is. If it leaves the EU, there has to be a mechanism put in place for agreeing common frameworks, perhaps in the field of agriculture, economic development, fisheries, in the future, by agreement, not by imposition from Westminster. And that’s why Westminsterism, if that’s what it means in the future, has to be resisted, if that is something that it tries to do.

I listened carefully to Darren Millar, who made a powerful moral case on fixed-odds betting terminals. My colleague Eluned Morgan again makes the point that the primary purpose, initially, of the tax-varying powers is to enable us to borrow. As a party, we have committed not to change the rate of income tax during the course of this Assembly term, but the ability to borrow is hugely important for us. Why should Wales not be able to do what everyone else is able to do, and that is borrow, especially when market rates are so low? I listened, finally, to Rhun ap Iorwerth and the points that he made. Again, I think it’s indicative, what he said, what Simon Thomas said and others have said, of the debate, the honest debate, I think, that took place in Plaid Cymru, as it did in my own party, as to where we should go in terms of supporting this LCM. The one thing I have to say is this: the old Britain as a unitary state is long dead. The old Britain where Britain meant England and bits added on is long dead. The time has come for a new Britain, a proper union, which I support, but a union of four equal partners. The UK is four nations—those are not my words, those are the words of David Cameron, who said that at the time of the Scottish referendum, and I agree with him. But for the union to succeed and to prosper in the future, then Westminster has to accept one thing, and that is that powers do not reside in Westminster to be doled out to Wales as and when Westminster sees fit. Powers rest with the people of Wales, and it’s for the people of Wales to decide what powers they wish to be exercised by Westminster. If that principle is adhered to and learned quickly, then Westminster will avoid the situation that it created for itself in Ireland at the time of Home Rule, that it created in 2014 and almost messed up in terms of Scotland. I think that is a more powerful Britain, a Britain of partners, a Britain of partner nations working together as the EU exit process continues.

But this Bill is not an example of that. If there’s one thing that must be learned in Westminster, it’s this: there must be proper respect for the four nations of the UK. The people of Wales deserve the powers that they themselves choose to have, and this process must never be repeated.

The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.