We now move to item 5, which is a statement by the First Minister on constitutional policy, and I call on the First Minister, Mark Drakeford.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I wish to make a statement on the constitutional policy of the Welsh Government. On Thursday 10 October, we published our new policy document, ‘Reforming our Union: Shared Governance in the UK’.

When the new Prime Minister came to Cardiff in July, I told him that Brexit represented a threat to the future of the union. I said that the union was under greater threat than at any time in my lifetime. But, in terms of the response by the UK Government, there is just silence. That’s why we are publishing this new document. If the UK Government is not prepared to give this issue serious thought, the Welsh Government must do so. We believe in a strong Wales within a strong United Kingdom. So, we are calling for fundamental reform, namely reform of the institutions, processes and culture of the United Kingdom.

And, Dirprwy Lywydd, there can be no question, I think, that Brexit poses a fundamental threat to the governance of the UK. But there is so little evidence of any serious thinking on this by the UK Government itself. That is why the Welsh Government is setting out our proposals for the fundamental reform that is required.

We propose a fundamental recasting of the way in which sovereignty is conceptualised in the United Kingdom; an entrenched constitutional settlement, with reform of the Sewel convention to secure much greater clarity in the relations between the UK Parliament and the devolved legislatures. And we call for a reformed upper House of Parliament, with a membership, largely or wholly elected, that takes into account the multinational character of the union. So far as the devolved administrations are concerned, we argue that the allocation of governmental responsibilities within the UK should be based on the principle of subsidiarity; that relationships between the four Governments should be based on a partnership of equals in a spirit of mutual respect; and that there must be a root-and-branch reform of the existing inter-governmental mechanisms, including improved dispute resolution procedures and parity of participation in the way those mechanisms operate. We call for the involvement of devolved administrations in forming the UK Government’s policy on international relations and trade, and for fair funding across the four UK nations.

Dirprwy Lywydd, all of these proposals are based on a conception of the United Kingdom as a voluntary association of nations that co-operate together to advance our common interests. So, we are fundamentally concerned with how the UK as a whole should be governed, based on a recognition of our mutual interdependence. That requires a degree of shared governance. But the arrangements for that shared governance have to be radically reformed if we are to be able to serve our citizens well. And we must stop making ad hoc adjustments to individual settlements without regard to the wider UK context.

Dirprwy Lywydd, this is a time when traditional constitutional conventions and understandings are breaking down. So, in this document, we repeat our call for a constitutional convention to address the issues, with particular consideration of the future relationship between the devolved institutions on the one hand and Westminster and Whitehall on the other. Such a convention should not, we say, be confined to those who work already within these systems. It must be amplified and informed by the collective voice of citizens as well. And such a convention would need to consider, at this time of potential constitutional fracture, whether it is now right to move towards a written or codified constitution for the United Kingdom.

So, Dirprwy Lywydd, we are putting an ambitious agenda on the table. If the United Kingdom is to survive the challenges thrown up by the debate around Brexit, this is a debate we cannot avoid. I know that, here in the Senedd, there are Members who already recognise the seriousness of this challenge and the seriousness with which it needs to be approached. And of course, I welcome hearing all Members' views on these issues.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

But, Llywydd, let me make this final point: the format of this document is important. We want to stimulate an urgent debate, but we do not claim to have all the answers. So what we have put forward is a set of propositions, and we want the UK Government, and of course others, to engage with them. It is the proper purpose of politics to argue out competing propositions and different views of our futures. In this document, we say, 'Here is our version of how that future should be saved.' To others here in Wales and in other parts of the United Kingdom, we say, 'Please let that debate begin.' Diolch yn fawr.

Can I thank the First Minister for his statement this afternoon? Britain is now in an unprecedented constitutional process, and the UK's withdrawal from the European Union will change the relationship between the constituent parts of the United Kingdom. As Britain moves further along this process, the inter-governmental relations between each part of the UK are profoundly critical in providing constitutional stability to the union. It is clear that the Welsh Government's 'Reforming our Union' report calls for a root-and-branch reform of the existing inter-governmental mechanisms, including memoranda of understanding, to meet the new challenges of a post-Brexit world. Therefore, my first question to the First Minister is to ask what immediate inter-governmental talks have taken place between himself and his counterparts across the UK on this specific issue, because effective inter-governmental relations are essential in order to achieve a smooth transfer of competencies from the European Union to the devolved administrations.

Today's statement on the Welsh Government's 'Reforming our Union' report rightly acknowledges that the principles underpinning devolution should be recognised as fundamental to the UK constitution. The UK Government currently has unlimited legislative competence across the UK, and I think there's weight to the argument that a new settlement could be introduced to ensure that future UK Governments do not legislate on matters within devolved competence. In outlining this cause, the First Minister has reiterated the concept of subsidiarity, acknowledging popular sovereignty in each part of the UK, and that concept was also favoured by the House of Lords' Constitution Committee in its inquiry into the union and devolution. However, that report also concluded that powers should only be devolved to a particular nation when doing so would benefit the people of that nation, and without detriment to the union as a whole. Therefore, in light of this, can the First Minister tell us his views on how the subsidiarity principle can be tested effectively when seeking to devolve further powers, so that future Welsh Governments, of any colour, can't simply seek the devolution of powers on whatever they want, based on their own political will?

There are also concerns over the development of common frameworks for when Britain leaves the European Union. There is still a wealth of discussions to be had over the nature of some of those frameworks—for example, whether they'll take shape in the form of legislation or perhaps by memorandum of understanding. Perhaps in his response the First Minister could take the opportunity to update Members on where we are in relation to the development of common frameworks.

Of course, no discussion on constitutional reform is complete without considering the fiscal responsibilities of devolved legislatures. Today's statement confirms that fiscal responsibility has become an increasingly important part of recent changes to the devolution settlements across the UK. And we, on this side of the Chamber, have long called for financial reform that would see the balance of power and resources more fairly shared across Britain. And so, I'm pleased that the Welsh Government is advocating the replacement of the Barnett formula with a needs-based system. The First Minister makes it clear that he believes the legitimacy of a UK fiscal framework can only be properly secured if it is jointly agreed and independently operated and assured. And perhaps the First Minister could provide some more specific information about this proposition.

At the crux of any constitutional reform must be a commitment from all legislatures, across the UK, to respect the devolution settlement. I agree with the First Minister that the relationship between the four Governments of the UK should be based on mutual respect, and I can certainly see the merit of a constitutional convention as a vehicle for bringing forward future constitutional developments. Of course, Wales must have a seat at the table when it comes to developing new constitutional policy, but we must be careful that any new constitutional set-up doesn't compromise the devolution settlement, and, indeed, the union of the United Kingdom. Therefore, can the First Minister tell us how he envisages this new convention operating? And how confident is he that the devolution settlement can be safeguarded by this new constitutional vehicle?

As Britain's constitutional future begins to change in the wake of withdrawing from the European Union, it's more crucial than ever that the people of the UK are engaged fully in a debate about the structure of the UK. I think it's fair to say that, on the whole, people are more concerned with the quality of their public services and the accountability of their governments, and so we, as representatives, must do more to engage with the people of Wales on its future. The First Minister talks about the voice of the citizen being involved in this process, and so perhaps he could tell us a bit more about the Welsh Government's consultation and engagement plans with the people of Wales on how they want to see our country's constitutional position in the future.

So, with that, Llywydd, we, on this side of the Chamber, share the First Minister's commitment to see Wales thrive in a strong United Kingdom, and I look forward to working constructively with the Welsh Government and Governments right across the UK to respect the devolution settlement and protect the union of the United Kingdom for the future.

Well, Llywydd, can I thank Paul Davies for that thoughtful and constructive contribution, and many points on which I think we have some agreement? I'll try and deal with his questions as best I can. He asked for an account of the latest state of play in relation to discussions on inter-governmental relations. And I'm sorry to begin with a less than positive note, but he will know that a review of inter-governmental relations was agreed at a JMC plenary 18 months ago—agreed between my predecessor, Carwyn Jones, and Prime Minister Mrs May and Nicola Sturgeon. Responsibilities were shared out amongst the nations to lead on six different themes within that review, and yet that review is still to conclude. And, without any JMC plenary in the diary, there's no mechanism for it being able to report even on the progress that has been made. And, to be fair, I hear through officials that some progress has been made in some of those strands—the principal strands that the Welsh Government has led on, and some more recent progress in relation to independent forms of dispute resolution, and that would be a genuine step forward, if we were to be able to make progress in that area. But the progress is desperately slow. It has nowhere near the sense of urgency that is necessary, given the fact that we may be about to leave the European Union within a matter of days. And it's a reflection of the frustration that we have felt that even when you get an agreement with the UK Government that work is needed to be done, it stretches out to infinity before you get any sense of resolution. 

Llywydd, I was very glad to hear what the leader of the opposition said about overlapping abilities to legislate, because at the heart of some of the proposals in our document is a separation of those responsibilities and a rowing back of the ability in the current settlement for a UK Parliament to override the legislative competence and responsibility, and indeed decision making, of devolved bodies.

We put forward proposals for the Sewel convention. Sewel is meant to be the defence against the UK Government legislating arbitrarily in devolved areas, but, as the Supreme Court said in the Miller case, it is an entirely political convention and it needs codification at the very least, in the way that we set out. Because, at the moment, the way that Sewel operates is that it is entirely in the hands of the UK Government to decide when a 'not normal' set of circumstances have been arrived at. They make that judgment; they decide how to act. They have to report to nobody on how they came to that conclusion, and we set out ways in which Sewel could be codified. It could be set out in a set of rules that at least would be challengeable by those who take a different view. We proposed that the House of Commons and the House of Lords would have separate responsibilities in having reports on the operation of Sewel, and where, if a UK Government decided to try to legislate in an area devolved to us, against the will of the National Assembly, we would have, or the National Assembly would have, rather, the ability to make representations to the House of Commons and the House of Lords to put the alternative point of view. That, I think, is a way of reforming the status quo, but we go beyond that in the paper and propose a future in which there is just clear separation of responsibilities and the ability of the UK Government to intervene would be removed.

I agree very much, Llywydd, with what Paul Davies said about devolution for a purpose. When we decide on the principles of subsidiarity, where powers should rest, it should be because there is a rationale behind that. There's a theme in the paper that he will have seen where some of the ways in which powers are dispersed across the United Kingdom lack any sense of coherence. And therefore, we argue for that sense of rationality in the way that powers are distributed, and powers distributed because there is a reason for them being located where they are.

In relation to fiscal responsibilities, we argue for a UK fiscal framework; we mentioned this earlier this afternoon. But if there is to be a UK fiscal framework, then its implementation has to be supported by a dispute resolution mechanism that is independent of any of the four parties. So, we're not asking for it to be in our hands, but nor should it be in the hands of the Treasury, and at the moment it is entirely in the hands of the Treasury—judge, jury, executioner: all the parts are played by just the one player. Now, we set out ways in which a new level of independence could be introduced to that.

In relation to how a new settlement could be safeguarded, well, we will look with interest at the report of Lord Andrew Dunlop, asked by the former Prime Minister, Theresa May, to carry out a piece of work about the future operation of the United Kingdom. I met Lord Dunlop here on 17 September, I enjoyed my conversation with him. He plans to report in November, and we will look at that report to see for a sense in which an entrenched devolution system that is genuinely safeguarded against depredations by others can be put onto the statute book.

And finally, in relation to citizen engagement, I think it's very important to say that the type of convention that we suggest in the final proposition in the paper is a UK-wide convention. It's not a Welsh convention in which we just rely on the Welsh Government or Welsh citizens. It has to be a convention that involves the whole of the United Kingdom—the four constituent parts—and where citizen engagement would take part right across the United Kingdom, we would want to play our part here, but it would rely on others beyond Wales.

First Minister, thank you for these 20 propositions on reforming the union, which make interesting reading, much as Luther's 95 theses nailed to the door of that church in Wittenberg did all those years ago. Many of the implicit or explicit criticisms of the union we would agree with; we agree on much of the diagnosis. We differ, of course, on the solution. Now, as Martin Luther even eventually concluded, we believe the dysfunction that is laid bare, actually, in the pages of this document is so deeply embedded that the subject of the propositions, really, is simply beyond reform. We have to start afresh.

Now, you quote, I think, in your foreword to the document that famous line from Lampedusa's The Leopard:

'If we want things to stay as they are, things will have to change.'

That line is actually spoken by Tancredi, an impoverished young aristocrat who joins the radical republican Garibaldi—possibly the Jeremy Corbyn of his day—in his uprising against the Bourbon kings who ruled Sicily in the lead-up to the unification of Italy. The problem that the novel hints at is, yet again, on the cusp of that externally driven change—the external rulers of Sicily change but, actually, nothing really changes at all for the people of Sicily. The leopard never changes its spots. 'Meet the old boss, same as the new boss', to quote an entirely different literary genre.

Now, I think there's much to welcome in the document in terms of some of the specific proposals. I would like the First Minister just to explain the interrelationship between what he sets out and the work that he's asked Alun Davies to conduct and the report that will be forthcoming, I believe in the spring, about the future of the United Kingdom. We obviously now welcome, as has been referred to, the proposals for a separate or distinct legal jurisdiction here in Wales to join those in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and for the devolution of policing and justice powers. I'm sure that the powerful, indeed unarguable, case will also be made for this by Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd when his Commission on Justice in Wales reports next week, I believe.

We welcome your recognition that the population-based Barnett formula for the distribution of funding across the UK must be replaced by one based on an independently assessed basis of need, and indeed the wider changes in terms of the fiscal framework that you referred to earlier, and that this principle should be applied to non-devolved funding areas as well.

Above all, I welcome your opening proposition, really, that parliamentary sovereignty at Westminster, the idea of the supremacy alone of Westminster as a concept, as a principle, as a value, even, is long past its sell-by date, and that popular sovereignty rests with the people of Wales. Indeed, they have the right to assert their independence through a referendum, and you refer in section 3 of the document that it is

'the Welsh Government’s view, provided that a government', in either Scotland or Wales,

'has secured an explicit electoral mandate for the holding of a referendum, and enjoys continuing support from its parliament to do so, it is entitled to expect the UK Parliament to take whatever action is necessary' to ensure that it happens. In terms of its immediate and, indeed, long-term impact, I suppose that last principle of moving to a system of popular sovereignty, based on nationhood in our case, is probably the most far-reaching of all. But of course it's one thing to declare sovereignty and it's quite another to insist on it in the teeth of continuing Westminster opposition—a Parliament that still believes it's supreme. I remember when the devolution of policing was last proposed by your predecessor, he was given—I'm quoting the Western Mail—a 'roasting' by Labour MPs from Wales. So, there certainly was opposition there.

It raises another point, I think, because in some senses the kind of problem of London or Westminster centricity that actually bedevils the British constitution as a whole is also a problem, isn't it, within the British Labour Party? We've seen in the last few weeks, on this question of the right to hold, by Scotland or Wales, an independence referendum, which you're now supporting, that Richard Leonard, your counterpart in Scotland, has said there will be an explicit clause in the next UK Labour Party manifesto ruling out an independence referendum for Scotland under all circumstances. John McDonnell has said that he is minded to support it, whereas Jeremy Corbyn has said it's a case of wait and see. It was ever thus. What is the status, really, of this proposition within the Labour Party?

Though I would like to tempt the First Minister even further—you're not obviously with us in terms of the independence of Wales as a whole, but surely even to achieve this agenda for the reform of the United Kingdom, maybe one of the best things that you could do to achieve that is to declare independence as a Labour Party in Wales, in order, then, to actually create a new political dynamic within your own party and more widely. I know we disagree about the desirability of independence as a political end. We have a different interpretation, I think, of the effectiveness of the union as a means of redistribution. You referred to it as a framework for pooling reward and risk. I have to say, with some exceptions, most of the time Westminster has been more risk to Wales than reward, and I think the most powerful arguments I've seen made in favour of this sometimes are made weekly by yourself, First Minister, at the despatch box. We both share, I think, anger at a Government in Westminster that plays us like a puppet on a string, controlling us, denying us fair funding and treating us like second-class citizens.

Now, in some senses, as often happens, popular political culture is ahead of formal politics. We've seen it on the streets of Merthyr and elsewhere, and my one question is: on this issue of the constitutional convention, I think absolutely that's the way to engage properly with these deeper questions, but why can’t we lead the way? Why do we have to wait for Westminster to decide to create an UK-wide constitutional convention? Why can’t we be prefigurative? Why can’t we begin here to have the very kind of engaged discourse that he’s just laid out for us, beginning here in Wales, and hopefully acting as a catalyst for wider discussions across these islands?

I thank the Member again for a very interesting and engaged contribution. As he says, there are things in the document that we do agree with across parties. Let me agree with him that the most radical proposition in the document is its reconceptualisation of sovereignty. I don’t think there’s any doubt that 20 years ago, when devolution was first thought of, it was in the minds of the people who debated it a belief that devolved institutions existed to be able to flex national policy to meet local circumstances, and the default position was that powers rested in Westminster and that some of them had been let out on a conditional basis to others to exercise. Now, 20 years into devolution, I simply don’t think that that stands up to examination any longer. And that’s why in this paper we talk about popular sovereignty, dispersed in each part of the United Kingdom, endorsed by referendums, of course, from which devolved institutions obtain and retain their legitimacy. And that in future, what we need is not a sense of parliamentary sovereignty that has some apparently unlimited character in which Westminster is always able to exercise legislative competence in respect of the whole United Kingdom, but that idea of dispersed sovereignty where sovereignty is not handed down. Even the word 'devolution', I think, is misleading 20 years on, because it still has at its core that sort of sense of things being handed down—held here and handed down—whilst what we argue for in this paper is a sense of sovereignty located in the four nations and then pooled back upwards voluntarily for purposes that we agree are best discharged on that wider footprint. And I suppose the biggest disagreement between us is that Plaid Cymru doesn’t believe that there is a case for that pooling upwards—you don’t believe there is a set of common purposes that would be better discharged on a UK basis, while we continue to believe that that is the case, and that in order to be part of that greater club, you have to be a member of that greater club, as we have always argued in relation to the European Union. But that’s a proper matter for debate and difference of view and persuading one another and others of the merits of that case. But I agree with what Adam Price said in his contribution that that is the most radical change of the way we conceptualise, as I say, the way that the four parts of the United Kingdom operate with one another. And then we argue, as he knows, for that to be entrenched—for it to be beyond the ability of one part only of the four constituent parts to overturn that. It has to be entrenched in the four parts of the United Kingdom.

He asked about the relationship between this and Alun Davies’s work, and this, of course, is predicated on the continuation of the United Kingdom. It talks about the way the United Kingdom can continue to survive and thrive, but as I said in my statement, that survival is at greater risk today than any time in my political lifetime, and that other parts of the United Kingdom have choices that they can exercise. And what Alun will be looking at are the options that there would be for Wales in different circumstances than the ones envisaged in this report. That’s why this is a Government report, and that’s why he’ll be carrying out his work in the freer way that he will be able to do.

Thank you for the advice on the future constitution of the Labour Party. [Laughter.] Let me simply say here what I said in the speech that I made to the Labour Party conference, where I outlined, prefigured, some of the things here and said there that my views on devolution and its entrenchment in the United Kingdom are mirrored by my views about the way the Labour Party needs to operate. So, I don't believe in independence from the Labour Party, but I do believe that the principles that we outline here apply to the Labour Party, just as they apply to our constitution more generally.

Finally, to deal with the issues of risk and reward and the constitutional convention, I think the difference between us is simply this—that I think in Plaid Cymru's view of the United Kingdom it's never possible to have a calculation in which rewards outweigh risks. Whereas, for me, while there are times when I think that the calculation is adverse, I think the possibility exists for it to be otherwise, and that on the whole it has been otherwise, and on the whole that our membership of a United Kingdom, with a national health service, with a social security safety net, with a national approach to meeting the welfare needs of our people—that the calculation has been on the side of the people of Wales, and that the people of Wales have benefited from that calculation. It isn't always as clear cut as I would like it to be, and it's under strain, not just because of Brexit, but because of a decade of unparalleled austerity as well. But I believe the potential exists for it to be otherwise, and a Labour Government with the sort of prospectus that we would lay out would once again tip that calculus firmly in the direction of a United Kingdom where the rewards are far greater for Wales than they otherwise would be. 

I don't want to end on a negative note, but we are keen for a constitutional convention on a UK basis. It's what I said to Paul Davies—that to start it by ourselves is, in some ways, to undermine the whole purpose of the paper, which is to draw into the conversation others. Now, I don't want to sound like I rule out the idea that, if we cannot engage other people in it, if this attempt to draw other people in doesn't get us anywhere, we wouldn't still want to have some conversation of our own. But to start with one of our own I think starts at the other end of where this paper would like it to start. We need to draw others in, because, if we don't have others in, we won't achieve what we want to achieve in this paper, and that's why our efforts at this point are directed at trying to stimulate that wider conversation, because it is on the basis of that wider conversation that the future of the United Kingdom, which we want to secure, will be achieved.

I commend you, First Minister, on this document and your interesting propositions, and also your desire to engage in a UK-wide debate rather than narrow this to the specifics of Welsh devolution. You say Plaid Cymru will never see the risks as outweighing the rewards of independence—at least they do, potentially, to 2030, which I think is the date they vaunt for their referendum. But you've given a very full-throated defence of the United Kingdom today. I have felt some of your Ministers and certainly backbenchers have shilly-shallied on that issue, but you didn't today, and for that I would thank you. 

The body of your document starts by saying, whatever its historical origins, the United Kingdom is best now seen as a voluntary association of nations taking the form of a multinational state whose members share and redistribute resources and risks amongst themselves to advance their common interests. It's quite an instrumental description of the union, but also does it recognise the role played, at least factually now, however you might like it to be, by the UK Government and the UK Parliament and the extent to which they are redistributing financial resources, at least, from England to the other three nations? And isn't that a perspective that looms over the debate?

I find your document most convincing when you talk about the specifics and some of the frustrations that you have faced as a Welsh Government in dealing with the UK Government on the joint ministerial architecture that you faced, and in particular the promises 18 months ago on which there appears to have been little, if any, movement. But the document as a whole emphasises a convention, equality, and you speak from general principles. And I think that is much harder when you consider that the UK Government and UK Parliament are not just the equivalents of the Welsh, the Scottish and the Northern Ireland institutions, but speak both for a nation, England, which constitutes over five sixths of the population of these isles, and also for a United Kingdom Government that has all those non-devolved functions. And while I'm not arguing against you, I just wonder as to how realistic it is as an approach to demand equality from first principles, and wonder if you would be better advised to focus on some of the very persuasive arguments you have on the specifics of how the current system isn't working and could be improved. 

Could I also just slightly question, technically, one of the areas where you've been going? You refer to the Government of Wales Act 2006, and footnote the relevant bit. You say that our institutions

'are a permanent part of the United Kingdom's constitutional arrangements'— that's stated in legislation. But you then say that this may not be the permanent protection that a simple reading of it might imply. And you go on to say:

'it is further declared that the devolved institutions "are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales/Scotland voting in a referendum".'

Can I just question: does that also come from the Government of Wales Act, and are you proposing to change that? Because, elsewhere in the document, the condition you put is not a referendum of the people of Wales, but the agreement of this institution. Does that reflect your experiences in the EU referendum? Is it an intentional move from allowing a referendum of Wales to decide on the future of this place to saying that, irrespective of what the people of Wales may think in a referendum, this place could never be abolished, except by its own decision?

Could I also just ask a little bit about the courts and legal parts you have—I think 18 and 19 of the paper? We have Lord Thomas launching his report at, I think, breakfast time next Thursday, and I very much look forward to hearing what he has to say. Do you prejudge anything of what he says in this report? Previously, and Adam referred to it just now, there was a debate on whether we should have a separate jurisdiction, and then there were people who referred to it as a distinct jurisdiction. In this report, you refer to a discrete court system and discrete jurisdiction. Is that an important distinction of meaning? Is it an adjective that is mid way between the previous two adjectives, or am I reading too much into that?

I also just encourage you to look not just at the outcome in terms of who the judges are. You refer, I think persuasively, to the case for having someone with knowledge of Welsh law as a member of the Supreme Court, but there is also the issue of how the most senior judges are appointed. We have a panel, I think, of five, and it will be two of the most senior judges, the Lord Chief Justice, the Master of the Rolls, the President of the Supreme Court, and then the heads of the three judicial appointments commissions. So, there's just one for the whole of England and Wales, from that perspective, one for Scotland, and one out of the panel of five for Northern Ireland. It does seem to give an awful lot of weight to Scotland and particularly Northern Ireland and really very little weight to Wales, and I just wonder: as well as looking for that one Supreme Court justice, should we also be looking at reviewing the way in which senior judges are appointed?

Llywydd, I thank the Member for those points. I'll take his last point first. I believe that there is a wider case for a reform of the way that judicial appointments are made. I think it needs to come into line with the twenty-first century. It needs to look at the outcomes that it secures in terms of diversity of people who get appointed to these very important jobs. So, I think he raises a more general point than the specific one, which deserves wider consideration. 

I've tried to respect Lord Thomas's report by not trespassing too much into that territory today. I wouldn't read too much into adjectival exactitude and we'll only have to wait a week before we see Lord Thomas's report and we'll be able to debate these issues on the basis of it. 

He is right to say that there is a relatively instrumental sense of a union in this paper. I have very little sentimental attachment to the United Kingdom myself. I don't believe in the future of the United Kingdom from that premise. I believe in it because I think it works for Wales, I think it works for Welsh people, and that that's the case that we have to make for it. The politics of identity has moved a long way in my lifetime, and my sentimental attachment is to Wales. I've always thought of myself as Welsh first and then a member of the United Kingdom after that, but I also believe that being a member of the United Kingdom is right for Wales. So, you're right—it's the practical case for the union we make here, rather than an appeal to something as evaporative as British values or arguments of that sort. 

I think the Member made a very important point about the English question and how that gets resolved. It's beyond the scope of this paper, but it is a very real issue. We don't argue in the paper for equality on the basis of Wales having a vote, Scotland having a vote, England having a vote, Northern Ireland having a vote. We don't think that is credible in a union when five sixths of the population belongs to one of the four participants. What we argue for is equality of participation, parity of engagement, equality of respect—those qualities I think would go a great deal towards making the institutions of the United Kingdom work effectively in the future. It's all the things that we've rehearsed on the floor here before that get in the way of that—why our joint ministerial forums can only ever meet in London, can only ever be chaired by an English Minister, why a UK Government alone can set an agenda, can write the minutes, can—. You know, those are not parity of participation principles, and those are the things that we argue for in this paper as consolidating a sense of an United Kingdom in which everybody has an equal stake, while not arguing that everybody is of an equal size and can therefore expect to have, as I say, participation on the basis of one card in everybody's hand. 

As to how the National Assembly could be wound up, well, in the end that is in the hands of the Welsh people. That's how we were established—by a referendum—and, if we were ever to be undone, it would have to be by the decision of the people who put us here. This institution would have a part to play in shaping that decision, but the sovereignty, in the popular sense that we outline it here, belongs in the hands of the people. 

First Minister, can I very much welcome the paper and also the extent to which the paper also draws on, I think, considerable amounts of work and debate that's gone on within the various committees and this Chamber, and also the various constitution committees across the various UK Parliaments? You'll be aware of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee report, 'UK governance post-Brexit', where one of its key recommendations then was to advocate fundamental reform of the JMC and to recognise the need for collaboration not just between Governments but, importantly, collaboration between Parliaments as well. And, yesterday, we had a round-table, an open and public round-table, of some of the UK's leading constitutional experts to actually talk about many of these key issues that are before us.

One of the fundamental issues that emerges from the paper—and has been common, I think, in all the debates—is that, if there is to be any significant constitutional reform taking place, then sovereignty is at the core of it, and placing limitations on sovereignty and on the ability of Westminster to override or disregard the exercise of responsibilities devolved by Parliament. So, there must be a radical reform of the way in which parliamentary sovereignty can be exercised and, without that, it is difficult to see that there can be any substantive constitutional change.

One issue that is obviously of some concern is that we need to be careful that what we are not talking about are engagements between Parliaments, but we recognise that the issue of the constitution, as you have just said, is in the ownership of the people of Wales, and also the people of the UK as a whole, in terms of the nature of what reform may or may not take place. Now, the role of the committees and this Chamber is very important. I'd be grateful if you could make some comments as to how you see the nature of these debates and engagements developing to ensure that there is full participation of this Assembly within those processes as they develop.

And then, fundamentally, the key thing is we have made these points time and time again, often with very little response at UK level, and the question is: how do we make change happen? There was a very famous philosopher, an economist, who said philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways, but the point, however, is to change it.

The Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has proposed a Speaker's conference, as happened, in fact, in 1920. So, not a new idea, but a means of starting and commencing a constitutional debate, perhaps outside the toxic atmosphere that exists within UK politics. And one of the obstacles to this has, of course, been that the current Speaker of the UK Parliament is regarded by some as a controversial figure, and movement in this direction has not been capable of taking place. But we are shortly to have a new Speaker in Westminster and the imminent appointment of the new Speaker may provide an opportunity for this to happen. So, I wonder what steps the Welsh Government will take to promote action and kick-start this necessary debate. Will you take seriously and consider the opportunity of, perhaps, representations being made so that the initiation of a Speaker's conference, as recommended by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, might be one means of actually starting this process? 

Llywydd, I thank Mick Antoniw for those comments. He's right, of course: it is not just the Welsh and, indeed, the Scottish Governments who are frustrated by our inability to get responses out of the UK Government. The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee called for a clear statement from the UK Government on its policy for the union, and in September last year, 2018, the UK Government committed to producing such a statement, and they and we are still waiting for it.

I completely agree with what Mick Antoniw said that there's a real richness of debate and contribution to be found in reports both of committees here and in the House of Commons, and indeed in the House of Lords. A great deal of interesting stuff written there, and we are all struggling in a way to get purchase on a UK Government, as I often think of it, overwhelmed by Brexit and just unable to find any space—thinking space, time space, political, capital space—to grapple with the issues that we've been talking about this afternoon.

Mick said, 'How can we make change happen?' Well, I'm afraid that the question might be slightly different to that. Change is going to happen. Change is happening all around us. Leaving the European Union introduces enormous amounts of change. It's not how change should happen in the sense of, 'Should there be change?', but, 'How do we get a grip of change so that we are in charge of change, rather than being driven along by it and faced by its consequences without having made the necessary effort to make the change happen in the way that we have talked about in different ways across the Chamber?'

The Speaker's conference idea is, of course, a very interesting one. It started its work exactly 100 years ago this autumn. When the proposition of a Speaker's conference on devolution was voted for on the floor of the House of Commons, Wales was the only part of the United Kingdom where not a single Welsh Member voted against setting up that Speaker's conference. And as some Members here will know, when it reported, it advocated a strictly federal approach to the United Kingdom and even solved the English question in its own time as well. So, the precedent in terms of the effectiveness of the conference is not great, but in terms of some of the richness of its debate, it is worth revisiting, and I'm agnostic about how to get the conversation going. We suggested a constitutional convention. If a Speaker's conference could be got off the ground in a different way and could do the sort of engagement that we've talked about, I'd have no trouble with that at all. 

I must say, First Minister, that I feel a very deep emotional attachment to Britishness and to Welshness, and I do believe the union is much more than a constitutional arrangement. So, that's the first remark I'd make about the attitude you're taking to undoubtedly needed constitutional reform.

I do welcome reforming our union. I think it is an interesting document and I give it two cheers, broadly. But there's a very big flaw in it and that's the handling of the concept of sovereignty. Sovereignty in terms of conceiving political associations is the trickiest concept in political philosophy, but it does require really deep thought, and we can't avoid doing this because it has very practical consequences. We see that in much of the Brexit argument at the moment. So, I think when you say in the document that

'it is accepted that sovereignty (some of which should be shared) lies with each part of the UK',

I think you need to be really careful about syntax here. It lies 'in' each part of the UK, I don't have a problem with that, because I do think our institutions should be embedded, but it also is embedded at the UK level and that's a crucial distinction.

I note that your distinguished predecessor wrote last week:

'End Westminster sovereignty and give it to the four nations.'

From which, presumably, some form of pooling for defence, foreign affairs, macroeconomic policy and the like takes place. But, I cannot support this concept because it is not a federal principle. It is a mistake to see federalism as characterised by such radical decentralisation. Rather, federalism seeks to create a central and effective sovereign authority, albeit one limited in scope.

It is sometimes said that Alexander Hamilton accepted federalism as the price to create a central government. They were, at the time of the US constitution being ratified of course, suffering from the anarchy they'd had in the articles of confederation. So, that was the nature of federalism: to create a central authority that had the power to act.

However, I do believe that these ideas could be tested and examined in a constitutional convention and for over 10 years I've thought this necessary. And I do note with approval the Welsh Government's call for the principle of subsidiarity to be primary in a written constitution. I think that does lie at the heart of federalism.

Finally, House of Lords reform is surely overdue. It's been imminent, as the joke goes, since 1911, and surely it should become the House of the Union. But let me finish on this issue of sovereignty. Popular sovereignty I think is, when used loosely, a very dangerous concept. Sovereignty certainly is drawn from the people, but it is nearly always expressed in political institutions. There are occasional exceptions to that like referendums. And I think that we need a lot of care and precision when we're looking at the fundamentals of our constitution, but this debate has to be had, and it's well begun.

Could I thank David Melding for that? I recognise, absolutely, the length of his engagement in these matters, together with the former First Minister. Some of us here remember waiting on a monthly basis for the latest chapter in a Charles Dickens-like effort to build up the case for federalism. We don't use the word 'federalism' in this paper, and that was deliberate, although of course a federal approach would be part of a constitutional convention, as it was 100 years ago. And some of the points that David Melding has made about the need for a precise understanding of sovereignty, including where it's located, how it's understood and how it's exercised, would have to be part of that debate.

Of course, it was interesting to hear David Melding's first opening remark, because we know that there are a huge plurality of identities here in Wales. Anybody who follows the work of Professor Richard Wyn Jones will know that people who live in Wales describe their identity in a huge variety of ways, but that's partly why I think rooting your defence of the United Kingdom in an identity description is—the shifting sands are underneath you and it's not where I start from in my attachment to the United Kingdom.

The House of Lords, absolutely, is ripe for reform. We put it here as one of the building blocks because a different United Kingdom, one that has the components of success, has to include reform of the House of Lords. And while the Senate in the United States is not an exact parallel for us, we argue for a non-population-based make-up of the House of Lords so that it is better able to represent the constituent parts of the United Kingdom.

Can I very much welcome the statement, First Minister, and welcome the document you published? It was, of course, only right and proper that you speak to this matter when giving the Keir Hardie lecture. Keir Hardie's first election manifesto was rooted in home rule—home rule, a minimum wage and temperance, in fact. I'm not sure that there'll be wholesale support for all of those different issues, but certainly it roots home rule and a sense of place in Wales, and a sense of self-government in Wales into a historic perspective, which I think is important.

I welcome the way that we've had a very serious and informed debate on these matters this afternoon. These are serious matters about how we govern ourselves. I do not share David's concerns about sovereignty. Sovereignty is exercised, of course, by the cantons in Switzerland, and they do so in an effective way to ensure the self-governance of that confederation. We will, over the years, look at different models and seek inspiration from different ways of governing ourselves to ensure that we reach where we wish to be, and in doing so, we do, I hope, also unify the country.

The history of home rule, of course, is rooted in Merthyr—we couldn't talk about home rule without mentioning S.O. Davies as well—and it is rooted in a sense of place in Wales, and the different threads bring together the history of Plaid Cymru with even the history of the Conservative Party. Of course, Gladstone's nemesis Joseph Chamberlain left the Liberal Unionists in order to join the Conservative Party, so this is not the ownership of any particular tradition, or any political organisation. It's about where we are as a country and where we want to be as a country. As we face these very uncertain times, it is more important than ever that we root these debates and we root these conversations and we root these discussions that we have in a sense of who we are and the place we want to see Wales play in the world.

I'm also pleased that the First Minister has—I hope I'm quoting him correctly—dismissed the word 'devolution'. I have to say that I hate the word 'devolution', a dreadful, technocratic thing that means very little to anybody, and I wish Kilbrandon had never thought of it. But it is important that we look beyond the technocratic elements and the processes of governance to look at what we seek to achieve. For me, it is the freedom of this Parliament to take the decisions that are required to represent the needs of the interests of Wales, that we root our sovereignty, that we pool our sovereignty with our colleagues across the border in England and Scotland and across the water in Northern Ireland for the benefit of all the peoples of those countries, not only the benefit of the people of Wales, but for their benefit as well, so we actually reach out, I hope, and we pool sovereignty where that is required in order to deliver better governance for the people of all of these islands.

I hope that in years to come—. The First Minister, when he was a finance Minister, concluded the inter-governmental agreement on Brexit. I think that was an outstanding achievement, and one that has been poorly understood, sometimes in this Chamber, but certainly outside this Chamber, in changing the nature of the understanding of how the Governments and Parliaments and the institutions of Britain will work together in the future.

I couldn't allow this opportunity to go without mentioning my great hope that this will be the end of the Wales Office, an institution that has long outlived its usefulness. I once sat in one of the offices there that is loaned to us, as a Minister, and I sat amongst a whole series of Christmas cards on the desk there. The meeting was in July. That always stays in my mind when I think about the Wales Office.

I hope that, also, we will look at reform of this place. We cannot continue to preach reform elsewhere without practising it here. We had what I thought was a very good debate last week over some matters, but we can't—I say this to our Conservative friends: you can't demand reform elsewhere, but not reform here where it affects us. I say to members of my own party: that reform has to include electoral reform, and not simply reform that benefits us, but perhaps is perceived to be not of our own benefit. So, we need to be honest with ourselves about the sorts of reform that we want to see.

I'll finish by saying this, First Minister: I think this has been an outstanding document. There are some issues where I would suggest that we need to look further. The issues around international treaties and international trade, I think we need to look further at that. The debates we had yesterday at the round table, referred to by Mick Antoniw, were very clear that there are very good examples elsewhere of institutions such as ours having a very clear say, and perhaps also a veto, on some areas of international trade, and I think that is a matter that we need to debate and discuss further, but also the issue of finance and financing the union. The irony is that in talking about the continuation of the United Kingdom, we need to create institutions that are in the ownership of the United Kingdom but not necessarily in the ownership of the United Kingdom Government. And I think one of the failures that we've seen over the years to reform the United Kingdom is to confuse the governance of the United Kingdom with the United Kingdom Government, and I hope that we'll be able to move beyond that.

And finally, I say to my own colleagues in my own party, some of whom are, no doubt, absolutely terrified by this debate, that the greatest weakness we've seen in the constitutional politics of the United Kingdom, down and throughout the last century, since Keir Hardie's radical rallying cry for home rule, has been that we've too often confused unionism with centralism, and we need to move beyond that where we are strong and we see a strong, effective union. That doesn't mean centralism, doesn't mean uniformity; what it means is Parliaments that are able to work together, deliver for the people we represent, and pool the sovereignty so that we can all work together for the benefit of the people of all of these islands.

Diolch. Llywydd, George Bernard Shaw stood as the Labour candidate in the St Pancras ward of the Greater London Authority in 1904. He stood on a platform of republicanism, vegetarianism, atheism and teetotalism. [Laughter.] Now, I offer those as a menu rather than a recipe for the Member for Blaenau Gwent, because I have to tell him that George Bernard Shaw was not elected on that occasion.

But I want to thank Alun Davies for reminding us of the long history of all of this. When I gave the Keir Hardie lecture last week, I tried to bring together Keir Hardie's argument for trade unionism with his argument for home rule all round, and to argue from trade union principles as to why I believe that Wales is better off in the union of the United Kingdom and in the union of the European Union as well.

Devolution—I think the term has outlasted its usefulness and we should be trying to think of different ways of expressing the future arrangements that we see for the United Kingdom. I agree that the IGA—the inter-governmental agreement—is a good example of how you can voluntarily agree to act together in what you perceive to be a common interest. And Alun Davies is right, of course: this is a starting point. We say in it that we think there are ways in which the debate will take it further and, certainly, that is true in international trade. I said I wasn't sentimental about the United Kingdom, but who could believe that I would already be feeling sentimental about the days of Dr Fox in charge of international trade? [Laughter.] [Interruption.] Indeed. But that makes Alun Davies's final point, that what we have here are a set of institutional arrangements that move beyond individuals—that we cannot have a system where you have a Government Minister who understands things, you make some progress, that person leaves or moves to something else, and you're back to square one again. We have to have institutional arrangements that entrench these things and go beyond the chance of who you happen to be in the room with on any particular day.

Finally, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. And could I, in welcoming the statement and also the tone of the contributions here today, say—this is a concise statement, it's not the longest we've seen in this place—how profound and far-reaching it is to have a First Minister of Wales stand up and say, with some clarity, some detailed proposals, but also to frame the debate around constitutional reform with such clarity as well? And as somebody who has come here as a former Member of Parliament, as I sat here listening to the First Minister and the contributions, I was trying to imagine the day in which a Prime Minister would stand on their feet in the other chamber in Westminster and say, 'We need a constitutional convention; we need to engage with the devolved nations and regions of the United Kingdom; we need to fashion a future, which, as framed within this short but profound statement today, delivers a strong Wales within a strong United Kingdom, but recognises as well that this is a voluntary association of nations that co-operate together to advance our common interests.' That is, I would suggest, a radical reframing of this dialogue, a very timely one, and I would welcome the opportunity—and I hear the words from Paul, the leader of the Conservatives, a moment ago on his support for a convention, a citizens' convention. If we, Paul, could argue collectively here across the parties with our colleagues in Westminster to actually deliver that, whoever is sitting in the Prime Minister's seat in a few weeks' or months' time, then we would have progress indeed.

But there are some significant telling propositions within here, issues around a different way of imagining sovereignty within these nations and regions of the United Kingdom; a reformed upper House of the UK Parliament, the Westminster Parliament, that was indeed properly representative of those nations and regions; embedding deeply the principal of subsidiarity and knowing what that means; and, in effect, the potential of a citizens' convention to look at this quite differently and to say, 'Here is a compact, an agreement from the nations and regions, to say these are the powers, this is the authority we invest in the centre of the United Kingdom, and this is what we should be getting here.' And there is a parity of esteem, and a parity between the Executive function and the scrutiny function within those institutions. This is a question of growing up within the United Kingdom.

I only have one question, and it's been phrased already in a different way, but there is definitely a benefit to giving this clarity in order to start the debate, and there are others who are also starting this debate. There is work going on with King's College in London, and former colleagues of mine who are involved in this. A very slight criticism would be it's slightly Westminster-centric, as you might imagine, in the membership of that and the focus and the terms of reference. But my question to the First Minister would be this: if we can engage on this and we can start the debate, how do we actually then move it forward so that we have traction within Whitehall, within Scotland, within Andy Burnham in Manchester, within Sadiq Khan in London, and those institutions as well? Is there something that we can do collaboratively to work with others who are out there in different parts of England, let alone Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, to drive this agenda forward? Because what we have to plan—. I agree with him in saying—this will happen whether it is planned or not. Something will change because it is starting to fracture and break. So, how do we actually get ahead of the game here? What can we do to actually bring others to support us in establishing this convention? I won't say yet the magic master plan for doing it, but surely part of this is actually establishing that convention, and we might have allies around England as well as other parts of the UK who would support us in doing that.

I thank Huw Irranca-Davies very much for that, and can I just echo what he said at the very beginning, that I think the tone of this whole debate has been one that should give us some optimism about the ability of this institution to debate, discuss, shape complex ideas, but in a way that is collegiate and where we respect the different contributions that we make. I think if we can be confident about our own ability there, then we shouldn't despair of our ability to draw others into this debate as well. I want to just quote somebody for a moment.

'our Union rests on and is defined by the support of its people. It is not held together by a rigid constitution or by trying to stifle criticisms of it. It will endure as long as people want it to—for as long as it enjoys the popular support of the people of Scotland and Wales, England and Northern Ireland.'

Well, that was Theresa May in a speech that she made in the last week or so of being Prime Minister, in Edinburgh. I think if you read that speech, it's a bit like Adam Price said to me—I read Mrs May's speech and I agree with quite a lot of the analysis. I disagree with her conclusions and the prescriptions that she draws from it. But it's quite a remarkable speech by a UK Conservative Prime Minister, and it’s very hard indeed to imagine her making that speech in the first week that she was Prime Minister, but it’s a sign, I think, of the way in which, when people have to engage with the reality of change, and when they make an effort to engage with the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, people’s views can change and can deepen.

And how do we move it forward? Well, I think I’ll just take the point that Huw ended with that it’s got to be by a broad church, that we have to think not simply of ourselves or not even simply of our colleagues in Scotland who are willing to take part in this, but that there will be allies elsewhere in England as well. And in the mayors, who we work with on other things—we might find allies there. In those groups that exist already, in the constitutional reform group that I know some Members of this Chamber are involved with, with colleagues in Westminster. There may be vehicles that we can use in the universities, in the circles where these things are talked about already. And in that way, we might just succeed in doing what this paper aims to do, which is to build up a debate amongst ourselves, but crucially with others, to secure the future of the United Kingdom in a way that works for Wales.

Thank you, First Minister.