The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Darren Millar, amendments 2, 5 and 6 in the name of Neil Hamilton, amendment 3 in the name of Gareth Bennett, amendment 4 in the name of Rebecca Evans, and amendments 7 and 8 in the name of Neil McEvoy. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2, 3 and 4 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendments 3 and 4 will be deselected.

Item 18 is the Plaid Cymru debate: an independent Wales. Before I ask Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion, can I just say I have many more speakers than it's going to be possible to call? Those that I do call, please stick to time limits, otherwise I will be able to call fewer than I intend to. It's obviously a very popular and important subject. Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Motion NDM7356 Siân Gwenllian

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes that the people of Wales have welcomed the ability for Wales to act independently during the coronavirus crisis.

2. Recognises the success of independent countries of a similar size to Wales in dealing with the virus.

3. Believes that independence would give Wales greater agility and resilience in responding to future challenges.

4. Notes the increased support for an independent Scotland and a united Ireland.

5. Affirms the right of the people of Wales to decide whether Wales should become an independent country.

6. Calls on the Welsh Government to seek the constitutional right to allow the Senedd to legislate during the next term to hold a binding referendum on independence.

Motion moved.

Thank you, acting Presiding Officer. It's my pleasure to formally move this motion and it's a pleasure to open this debate, which, for me, asks the Senedd to give the seal of approval to a fundamental democratic principle. As much as I am personally quite clear in my own mind that Wales could prosper as an independent nation, we are not asking the Senedd to support independence today, but asking the Senedd to support the principle that the people of Wales should decide.

I’m grateful to a constituent of mine who sent a letter to me this morning sharing her view that it's the right of the people of Wales to decide on whether Wales should become an independent nation. And she goes on to say that the power to call a referendum should be in the hands of the Senedd; after all, it's the right of any nation to determine its own future.

The last clause of this motion asks the Welsh Government to seek the constitutional right to allow the Senedd to legislate during the next term to hold a binding referendum on independence.

Yes, we're calling for Welsh Government to seek the constitutional right to allow the holding of a binding referendum on independence. Now, I've been a passionate supporter of independence all my life; passion can sometimes suggest an emotional drive to this, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't have a very emotional attachment to my country and its future. But I consider myself to be a pretty pragmatic man: independence, to me, isn't an end in itself, but a means to allow my country to provide a better future for its children, to be able to express itself as an open, outward looking, partnership building, welcoming, go-getting country, with its restrictions removed. Challenging? Goodness me, yes, and do you know what? If we're not up to the challenge, we can just carry on as we are: dependency, stagnation, poverty, poverty of opportunity, lack of investment. None of these do it for me, but that's Wales now: bubbling with good people, full of good ideas, a real sense of self, a sense of community and common venture, but unable to use all of those to anywhere near their potential.

Now, the context now, of course, is the pandemic. The UK currently has the third-highest number of deaths in the world, behind the USA and Brazil. Combined, they've formed a sort of axis of incompetence, accounting for over 250,000 deaths, almost half the global total. I've been critical of Welsh Government for much of its response to the pandemic, but I hope Ministers consider that I've tried to do that constructively and will have noted that there is much that I've welcomed from Welsh Government's approach too. And I think it's arguably been strongest where it has been ready to diverge—by sticking to the messaging to stay at home, for example, for longer, taking a generally more cautious approach.

Now, I think Welsh Government may privately admit that the biggest mistake it made was aligning too closely with the UK four-nations strategy. It led to mistakes such as restricting testing, backing away from test-and-trace early on and, of course, failing to lock down sooner. There are also plenty of examples of where the UK Government has actually undermined Welsh efforts: the hijacking of the Roche testing deal, suppliers of PPE being told not to supply Welsh care homes or dentists, a failure to adequately communicate the differing lockdown rules in Wales, the failure, as we've heard from the First Minister, to have regular enough communication between the Prime Minister and devolved leaders. 

Now, I've no doubt that we could have done more were we in possession of the kinds of tools that independent countries have: the ability to devise and get the timing right on our own furlough scheme, allowing earlier lockdown—and, as a result, as we've seen from other countries, I think, an earlier exit, an earlier resumption of economic activity too—the ability to control borders, perhaps, to restrict transmission at key periods, as other small European nations were able to do; our own Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies would have tailored advice to Wales's needs right from the start. It's a long list. 

To those who say we couldn't afford it, only the UK had the resources, I'm sorry to break it to you, but whilst the UK has vastly increased its borrowing to respond to the crisis that's our debt too. Surely much better would have been to do our own borrowing, tailoring the size, the terms and, again, the timing of that borrowing to suit our priorities. 

In their statement on stabilisation and reconstruction in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic, issued yesterday, the Counsel General and the finance Minister said:

'We...do not have enough money.... Unlike the UK Government, we do not have the flexibility to increase our borrowing at times of urgent economic need.'

Well, exactly. I say: let's seek that flexibility, the kind of flexibility that independent countries have. 

Wales hasn't performed as well as many other small independent nations. Look at Norway, Czech Republic, Croatia, Serbia, Lithuania, Iceland, Uruguay—they have death rates a tenth of Wales's death rates. But many will, of course, understandably and quite properly compare the Welsh and the UK approach, and, for so many people, this period has changed the way that they view Wales and the way we are governed, the way we can be governed. There's been a new realisation of the fact that we can do things differently, that there is real value in doing things differently—perhaps doing things differently can save lives, even. 

I got an e-mail from a constituent yesterday—not a lifelong independence supporter; one who has come around to it in recent years—he was pleased that we were having this debate. This is what he said: 'I suppose that this will very much mark the cards for other Members that will knee-jerk support the union. I'm surprised by Lee Waters siding with Andrew R.T. Davies', he said, 'as more and more comes out about the general incompetence and duplicity of the Westminster Government handling of the COVID response.' I looked into this. On social media—where else, of course—the former Conservative leader in Wales had rubbished Plaid Cymru's support for independence. He said that we're

'spending too much time in the Nat Twitter echo chamber'.

A bit ironic, given his regular echoing around social media himself, but he's welcome to his views. Lee Waters stepped in—Deputy Minister—to say that he agreed with him, but another individual then asked him,

'what should Wales do when Scotland votes for independence and NI reunites with rest of Ireland?'

The response Lee Waters gave was 're-assess'. Now, I think that says a lot. Should we discuss our future as a nation after other countries discuss theirs? Is that what we want: to be a nation that tries to design its own future based solely on what others decide for theirs—a nation that will only even consider what's best for us if others put us in a position where we have to? We need to have that debate now, proactively, and that's why more and more people Wales wide are joining that debate. And it's pure democratic common sense that the choice should be ours, as a nation, through our national Parliament, to put that to a vote: our future in our own hands.

Eight amendments have been selected to this motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2, 3 and 4 will be deselected. I call on Darren Millar to move amendment 1, tabled in his name. 

Amendment 1—Darren Millar

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Supports Welsh devolution.

2. Recognises the benefits to Wales of being part of the United Kingdom. 

3. Welcomes the significant support made available by Her Majesty’s Government to assist in the response to the coronavirus pandemic in Wales, including:

a) £2.8 billion allocated to support interventions in devolved matters;

b) support for more than 316,500 jobs via a Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme;

c) support for more than 102,000 people via the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme;

d) emergency finance for the steel industry;

e) a Job Retention Bonus to encourage employers to protect the jobs of furloughed workers;

f) a Kickstart Scheme for young job seekers;

g) a reduction in VAT for tourism and hospitality businesses;

h) an Eat Out to Help Out scheme to help cafes, restaurants and pubs; and 

i) funding to decarbonise UK Government public sector buildings in Wales.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to continue to cooperate with Her Majesty’s Government to protect lives and livelihoods in Wales during the coronavirus pandemic.

Amendment 1 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer—or temporary Presiding Officer—I'm delighted to see you in the Chair today. I move the amendment tabled in my name. 

Now, I have to say, I'm rather surprised that Plaid have chosen to table a debate on independence on today of all days. It's the last Plenary session before the summer recess and we could have been debating a whole host of more pressing matters—matters such as the Welsh Government's COVID-testing fiasco, the sluggish response to reopening the economy in Wales, or the need to extend the use of face coverings. But, instead, we're here navel-gazing, frankly, about independence as some sort of romantic notion to solve all of Wales's ills. 

I must say that I find it very ironic that Plaid Cymru, who've spent four years arguing that Wales is stronger and more secure as part of a union of nations, the European Union—against the will of the public, might I add—is now calling for Wales to go it alone in the world and to divorce itself from the very union that protects our nations collectively.

We've spent too long in recent decades, in my view, debating the constitution in Wales. Every hour that we spend debating the constitution and constitutional tinkering is an hour that we're not debating how to raise standards in our schools, in our hospitals and to make our economy wealthier. So, instead of rowing about more powers constantly, let's use the powers we've already got and let's improve people's lives with them. The next decade of devolution needs to be devoted to delivering for the people of Wales, not more constitutional soul searching.

Now, we know that, over 20 years, support for independence has largely stagnated. The only political party in favour of Welsh independence that stood in seats—not all seats—at the last general election in Wales secured less than 10 per cent of the vote. That's a smaller share than Plaid actually won in the 1970s. So, ymlaen, comrades, let's see where this argument actually takes us.

And it's not just Plaid that's in a pickle on devolution either. Labour is in a mess too. You lot claim to be a unionist party. The First Minister himself has said that socialism is incompatible with Welsh nationalism. Yet he leads a party here in Wales that is home to a group called 'Labour for an Independent Wales'. Now, if Facebook likes are to be believed, this group has at least 600 members. So, if the First Minister really believes his own rhetoric and his mantra on devolution, then why isn't the Labour Party taking action now to expel these insurgents? Surely, that would send the sort of clear signal and strong message that a unionist party would want to send to people?

My party remains committed to the United Kingdom. We're not prepared to entertain those who actively campaign against it within our membership, and I challenge the Labour Party to make the same commitment. 

Now, for the record, let me be clear: I am a staunch supporter of devolution, but I am no fan of an independent Wales. And for those who point to the last 21 years and say that devolution has failed Wales, I say, 'No, it's not devolution that's failed Wales; it's the Labour Party, along with their little helpers who've been in Government, Plaid Cymru included, and the Liberal Democrats and some of the independents that we've seen along the way. It is they who have failed Wales.'

Devolution is the settled will, in my view, of the majority of the people of Wales. Wales voted in 1999, albeit by a small margin, in favour of establishing devolution. They voted again in 2011 to extend the powers of this Senedd. And I find it extraordinary that some of the people who no doubt will contribute to this debate today will call for a further referendum on this institution's existence, or, even worse still, to scrap this institution without a referendum or any democratic mandate to do so. And it's probably going to be the very same people who said we should respect the Brexit referendum back in 2016 that are going to be making that argument. 

Independence would be bad for Wales and it would be bad for the United Kingdom. It would make us less resilient to global events and catastrophes. We would be less secure. And, of course, we do know that, as a net beneficiary of the UK Treasury, Wales would be poorer. For every £1 spent in England on devolved matters, the Welsh Government currently receives £1.20. In 2017-18, Wales had an estimated fiscal deficit of nearly £14 billion. That's almost the total sum of the Welsh Government's annual block grant. So, an independent Wales would have a very difficult choice to face: massive cuts—[Interruption.] I will. Massive cuts in public spending, or huge increases in taxation or a combination of the two. I don't think that that is the sort of recipe to get our country bouncing back from the coronavirus pandemic.

Thank you very much. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendments 3 and 4 will be deselected. I call on Neil Hamilton to move amendments 2, 5 and 6, tabled in his name.

Amendment 2—Neil Hamilton

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the Senedd:

Believes that:

a) by any reasonable measure, devolution has failed; and

b) support for scrapping the Senedd exceeds support for Wales' political independence from the UK.

Amendment 5—Neil Hamilton

Add as a new point at end of motion:

Believes that the Senedd should be scrapped.

Amendment 6—Neil Hamilton

Add as a new point at end of motion:

Calls on Welsh Government to seek the constitutional right to allow the Senedd to legislate during the next term to hold a binding referendum on its disestablishment.

Amendments 2, 5 and 6 moved.

Thank you, temporary Presiding Officer. Well, I'm very surprised to hear Darren Millar agreeing with what Carwyn Jones said to me the last time we debated these matters, that devolution was the settled will of the Welsh people. Because, of course, if the 1975 referendum on membership of the EU had been the settled will of the British people, Darren Millar would not have been campaigning to have another referendum in 2016. And the truth of the matter is that, in a democracy, nothing can ever be the settled will of a people, because one generation can't be bound by its predecessors, and it would be quite wrong to attempt to constrain it.

So, to that extent, I'm in favour of Plaid Cymru's approach that, if there are a large number of people in Wales who want to vote for independence, why should they not be allowed to express that in the democratic way, by having a referendum upon it? So, I've no objection to that happening. I've no doubt that it would be rejected by the overwhelming majority of the people. But what we have seen in recent years is that, after 20 years of Labour and Plaid Government in Wales, there is no great affection for the devolution settlement that we've currently got. The Assembly never actually reached 50 per cent turnout in an Assembly election, and I doubt very much whether it will get to that level in the election next year if it takes place. So, there is no such thing as the settled will of the Welsh people, because the Welsh people themselves change, generation upon generation.

The most extraordinary thing about Plaid bringing this motion forward today is that, although they call themselves a nationalist party, they don't actually want an independent Wales at all, as Darren Millar pointed out. They're against the devolution of powers over agriculture, fisheries and environment, et cetera, to Cardiff, because they still strive to constrain Wales within membership of the European Union. Their idea of independence is that the major political decisions that Wales has to observe are made in Brussels; that our laws' final arbiters are based in Luxembourg; and our monetary policy and interest rates should be determined in Frankfurt. So, the idea that Rhun ap Iorwerth would have infinite borrowing powers in an independent Wales is absurd unless Wales were to have its own independent currency. So, is that now the policy of Plaid Cymru? I doubt it very much indeed. That was the hurdle over which Nicola Sturgeon couldn't jump in the Scottish referendum on independence.

And, of course, if Wales were to be politically independent from England, it would mean a hard border with England, because Plaid Cymru believes in open borders, immigration and making Wales into a nation of sanctuary, accepting all comers, which would certainly not be acceptable to the majority of the people of England. So, I'm not quite sure how that would play out with the Welsh people, either.

And as Sir Darren Millar pointed out effectively, the fiscal gap in Wales is vast; it amounts to nearly a third of Wales's GDP. The taxpayer subsidy from London and the south-east and eastern England to all parts of the UK, apart from those three, is huge and amounts in Wales to £4,289 per annum, per person. So, the idea that there would be infinite largesse that a Plaid Cymru Government of an independent Wales could dispense is absurd. Actually, what you would see is a massive contraction of the Welsh economy and all the poverty and deprivation that that would imply.

But I think what we have seen in the last 20 years is the comprehensive failure of devolution to deliver on the promises that were made for it at the time. Wales is the poorest nation in the United Kingdom, with an average income of 75 per cent of the UK average. We've got three quarters of the population covered by health boards that are either in special measures or targeted intervention. We've got the worst education results in the United Kingdom, according to the PISA tables. Devolution powers have been used by the Welsh Government in the last 20 years, but not in the direction that could have made devolution a success.

They haven't used these powers to try to secure some kind of competitive advantage over other parts of the United Kingdom; quite the reverse—they've added a ball and chain to the legs of the Welsh people. Over-regulation, the nanny state, we've seen it again this week in the Welsh Government's responses on coronavirus and the slowness of relaxation of the lockdown. The nanny-state attitudes of Labour and Plaid are there for all to see in trying to ban people from smoking outside restaurants and pubs now. Their virtue-signalling woke agenda is all they're interested in. Meanwhile, the interests of the Welsh people have stagnated, and relative to the rest of the United Kingdom, have actually declined over the last 20 years. Northern Ireland was at the bottom of the heap 20 years ago; today, it's Wales.

Now, that's not to say that a small country like—

Order. Neil, I have asked—[Inaudible.]—

Hello?

—a couple of warnings. Well, it's a logical place for you to conclude. Thank you very much.

Ah. Sorry.

If amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 4 will be deselected. I call on Gareth Bennett to move amendment 3, tabled in his name.

Amendment 3—Gareth Bennett

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Notes that the different lockdown policies introduced by different governments across the United Kingdom have led to confusion.

2. Recognises that the only real economic resilience Wales enjoys is as part of the United Kingdom.

3. Notes the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, which resulted in Scotland voting to remain as part of the United Kingdom.

4. Affirms the right of the people of Wales to decide whether Wales continues to have a devolved government.

5. Calls on the Welsh Government to seek the constitutional right to allow the Senedd to legislate during the next term to hold a binding referendum on whether we keep or abolish the devolved government and parliament of Wales.

Amendment 3 moved.

Thank you, Chair, and thanks to Plaid for bringing today's debate. We often hear speakers say at this point, 'On this important subject', well, today's debate, if we look at all the amendments, really is on an important subject, which is: should we continue to have an Assembly or Senedd at all? And the simple answer to that is, 'Yes, we should continue to have it, if it has the democratic backing of the Welsh people.' If it doesn't have that backing, then we shouldn't have it. Democratic consent is everything.

But we do need to hold referendums roughly every 15 to 20 years, so that we can ascertain what the public actually think, because, sorry, Darren Millar, there is no such thing as the settled will. Opinion changes over time, so we do need to measure it. I would say that the amendment I'm moving today, for the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party, is simply following the logic of Plaid's motion. Plaid assert in their motion that, I quote:

'the people of Wales have welcomed the ability for Wales to act independently'. 

Well, who are these 'people of Wales'? Does everyone in Wales think the same? Plenty of people in Wales think that coronavirus has exposed the massive confusions that arise when you have four different Governments operating within the United Kingdom. Plenty of people have been discovering that they don't really want four Governments; they don't want four different NHSs across the UK, they want one NHS. They don't want four different sets of Government rules or four different furlough schemes; they want one set of rules and one furlough scheme, and so on. An awful lot of the people of Wales now see devolution for what it is, a costly inconvenience, and those people of Wales should be entitled to have their say.

Plaid's motion further states that independence would give Wales greater agility and resilience. Well, an independent Wales would certainly need agility since we would be running a massive budget deficit, and without the UK Government, who would we get to subsidise us? Who would Mark Drakeford and his Cabinet colleagues take their begging bowl to if we were not part of the UK? If Wales is going to prosper as an independent nation, as Plaid seem to think, then can they tell us precisely where the annual £15 billion English subsidy to Wales is going to come from once we are no longer part of the UK? Because the people of Wales might just want to know that.

Can we turn our attention to the two referendums that have addressed the issue of whether or not we should have a devolved body here in Wales? In 1979, Wales voted against devolution; in 1997, Wales changed its mind and voted to have an Assembly. That was fair enough; 18 years had passed in between and there was a strong case for asking the Welsh public again. We are now 23 years on from the 1997 referendum, which created this place. In addition, we have had 21 years of devolution. The public can now make an informed choice, based on the actual experience of devolution, as to whether or not they want it to continue. That is all we are asking, that the people are consulted.

In my party, of course, we want to abolish this place since we think it is a waste of public money, but we do not say that our ideas are more important than what the Welsh people want. Of course they're not; we simply say that we should have a referendum and then do precisely what the Welsh people tell us to do. After 23 years, it is high time that the people of Wales are allowed to have their say once again. That is why I'm moving this amendment today. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Thank you. I call on the Deputy Minister and Chief Whip to move formally amendment 4, tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Amendment 4—Rebecca Evans

Delete all and replace with:

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Welcomes the Welsh Government’s strong and effective leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic;

2. Considers that co-ordinated decision-making and messaging by the four administrations within the United Kingdom will most effectively address the challenges the pandemic presents for our citizens and businesses; and

3. Believes that Wales’s interests are best served by its continuing membership of a reformed United Kingdom, allowing co-ordinated governmental action to be pursued.

Amendment 4 moved.

Formally.

That's formally moved.

I call on Neil McEvoy to move amendments 7 and 8, tabled in his name.

Amendment 7—Neil McEvoy

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that Wales should have its own constitution and bill of rights.

Amendment 8—Neil McEvoy

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that Welsh sovereignty should be exercised at a community and national level, including use of binding referendums through a public right of initiative.

Amendments 7 and 8 moved.

Diolch, acting Presiding Officer. This is the third time we have debated a sovereign Wales in just over two years. It took 19 years to get the first debate, so we're making progress—we're making progress.

I'm really proud of Wales, I'm really proud of what we've achieved, and I'm even prouder when we go on to achieve more things when we have the powers. I support an old-fashioned concept, and it's called democracy. Decisions for Wales should be made in Wales.

I can't say that the Welsh Government has done a particularly good job over the last 21 years. It's not surprising, because we've had one-party rule, propped up by Plaid Cymru and the Liberal Democrats, so I would agree with statements that we've not done well over the last 21 years. But we have to differentiate the institution and the political cartel that is running devolution and the Senedd at the moment. In a healthy democracy, Governments change, and I think that it will be a sign of political maturity in Wales when Wales is governed by a different party.

I also believe that in a healthy democracy people should directly have the opportunity to make the laws that govern them, and that's why I've put amendment 8. Introducing modern direct democracy is a key initiative of the Welsh National Party. It's something that many countries have, such as Switzerland, and rather than just having a vote once every five years and letting your Government take every decision for you, modern direct democracy means that people can take decisions for themselves. If enough signatures can be secured, then a local or a national referendum could take place that would be binding. It's government by the people.

As a member of the Petitions Committee, I've seen first-hand how, when given the opportunity, the public put forward insightful proposals. But, at present, they can only secure a debate in the Chamber by securing 5,000 signatures. I think that maybe if 100,000 signatures are secured, then they should be able to have a referendum, and I trust the people of Wales to do that and improve our democracy. Things like local development plans should be voted upon. If a corporation wants to put an incinerator in your community, the community should have a vote on it to decide whether or not things happen.

We also need a constitution and a bill of rights to ensure that minorities in our country are protected, along with the rights of individuals, and that's why I've introduced amendment 7. I've called for a Welsh constitution and a bill of rights.

The UK famously has no written constitution, but I think one is badly needed, and we can take the lead here by introducing one for ourselves in Wales. I'd like to see that happen with a national convention set up, with a citizens' assembly tasked with drawing up a constitution and a bill of rights before they're voted upon by the public. I see a constitution as a really, really positive thing, because people can look at—. Well, we can discuss, first of all, as a country, and we can say, 'What is Wales? What are we? Where are we going?' Guaranteed freedom of expression, a guaranteed right to a home, a right to a free education. These are all the kinds of things that we could discuss in a constitution, and then we could say, 'Right, that is us. That is Wales. If you come to Wales, you sign up to the constitution and you are Welsh.' That's something that the Welsh National Party is really keen to take forward.

I put the amendments because I want to see Wales move forward as a democracy, and we want to put the sovereign power back in the hands of the people who live in Wales, in an individual sense, in a community sense, and in a national sense as well. So, I'd ask everyone here to support two, I would say, fairly sensible amendments to the overall motion, which I will be supporting. Diolch yn fawr. 

Now, this COVID crisis has also shown the clear constitutional tensions that exist, and is leading many to question the long-term viability of the current settlement. Unfortunately, the crisis has shown the UK Government to be actively working against Welsh interests in certain areas. During the early stage of the pandemic, with nations from across the world racing to secure sufficient supplies of COVID tests, we were informed that a Welsh Government deal with a private company, Roche, to supply 5,000 daily tests in Wales had collapsed. Why? Because the UK Government kicked Welsh Government efforts into touch to ensure that England got what it needed. Welsh interests were of secondary importance. So much for this United Kingdom.

Only a few weeks later, we found that Welsh interests were again being relegated, with private suppliers of personal protective equipment being told by the UK Government agency Public Health England that they should limit the distribution of PPE to care homes in England only. Key orders of coronavirus protective masks, gloves and aprons were being refused to care homes in Wales and Scotland. Again, the United Kingdom not quite delivering for all.

Now, I have been generally supportive of the Welsh Government's cautious approach to easing lockdown, and generally it shows that when Wales has the freedom to act, it can make positive choices. We have shown that we can take a different path, and with Wales's per capita death rate lower than England's, I believe that the different path is justified. Recent estimates show that, during the pandemic period, had England matched Wales's lower rate of excess deaths, it would have resulted in 24,000 fewer deaths in England between March and June this year, according to the Office for National Statistics. David Cameron once pinpointed Offa's Dyke as the line of life and death, and these stats show that it truly is, though not in the way Cameron thought.

Now, Wales's constitutional future has never received so much attention, with focus on and support for independence at an all-time high. We are at a crossroads after the Brexit vote. At the ballot box next year the people of Wales will have a clear choice. We need to ask ourselves some fundamental questions. Just as in Scotland, where opinion polls now show a majority in favour of Scottish independence, it's only a matter of time until Wales needs to decide what is next for us. With Scotland gone, Northern Ireland too, there will be no UK. People in Wales will face a binary choice: Wales or England. Are we happy to become a county of England, as UKIP, the Brexit Party and other English nationalists want us? Or are we going to grow a backbone and decide that we are finally going to stand up for ourselves and take our place among the free nations of the world? One thing is clear: it should be the right of the people of Wales to decide whether Wales should become an independent country, and the Welsh Parliament should have the constitutional right to legislate to hold a binding referendum.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, some want to abolish Wales. I cannot betray centuries of the national history of Wales, of suffering, of sacrifice, of achievements of its people and its glories over 2,000 years. The pursuit of national freedom is a noble cause, for Wales as any other country. The dragon is stirring. Diolch.

I listened carefully to the arguments put forward by Neil Hamilton and by Gareth Bennett. I was unconvinced by them, I have to say.

May I first of all turn to what Plaid Cymru have said in their motion today? There is a constitutional convention already, which states that if a party stands on a manifesto commitment in favour of a referendum on independence, then there should be such a referendum. We've seen that in Scotland. So, in a way, we don't need to have this debate today, whatever your view on independence, and I speak as someone who isn't in favour of independence, but isn’t either in favour of the UK as it currently exists, and I’ll go on to explain that.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I listened to Neil Hamilton. I have to say, he seems to forget his role in destroying the Welsh economy in much of the 1980s and 1990s. If I had stood here and said 18 years of Conservative Government were an absolute disaster and that is a reason then to get rid of the UK Government, he would say, 'No, no, no. It was because people voted for the Conservative Party in Government', and that's a legitimate viewpoint. In the same way, it's a legitimate viewpoint to say that people have voted for a Labour-led Government in Wales over the past 21 years, otherwise the risk lies in saying that somehow people are too stupid to understand how they voted, and that is the reality of it.

Now, I very much welcome what Darren Millar said, in some ways, because I think it's important that the Welsh Conservative Party becomes a proper Welsh Conservative Party with a proper leader, which you don't have yet, with a proper leader, and then outlines and puts itself forward as an alternative government, whilst accepting the institutions of devolution. I think that's very fair—as long as you remain an alternative government, from my perspective, but I think that's absolutely what is right for the Welsh body politic. I try to be as objective as possible.

What I did disagree with, and I'll come back to it in a second, is his view of the constitution as tinkering, and I'll explain why. I listened carefully to Gareth Bennett, and if he'd only realised it, he was making the case for another Brexit referendum, because if you say, 'Well you have to have a referendum every 15 to 20 years', well that applies to any subject. We'd have another referendum on AV, for example, on the voting system. We would continue to have referendums on Sunday opening. They were every seven years, of course, up until 1996, but that is the argument, essentially, he was making, that generations change therefore you must have a referendum every now and again to make sure that people are supportive of an institution, whereas I would say you judge that through an election. If a party, or parties, were elected to this place with a majority and said, 'We want a referendum on abolition', well there it is, then. That's the way you win an argument, by winning an election, not by demanding something that—especially from somebody who sits for a party that he did not get elected to this Chamber to represent—is not an attractive democratic argument.

If he listened to himself, he was making the case for the abolition of the Scottish Parliament. Now, if there was ever anything that would drive neutral voters in Scotland towards independence, that would be it. And he also implied that we'd see the abolition of the Northern Ireland Assembly. Now, 25 years of war led to the establishment of peace in Northern Ireland and that Assembly and its Executive. To simply dismiss it as an irrelevance is an act of gross irresponsibility. Now, I remember what Northern Ireland was like. Nobody would want to go back to what it was in 1992, believe me. My wife grew up in the middle of it, and to suggest somehow you just get rid of the Northern Ireland Assembly as if there were no consequences, in a society where there is no shared identity, is frankly—and I use this word advisedly—barmy. 

But we have to remember, of course, that independence, in itself, can often be a cataclysmic event. Yes, there are examples of independence that was peaceful—the Czech Republic, the Slovaks, Iceland, Norway, going back more years—but quite often independence is accompanied by a great deal of bitterness and sometimes war—Yugoslavia, Ireland. Ireland had two years of civil war straight after independence, and there was then a low-level war that was fought in Ireland for at least 70 years that hugely affected its economy and hugely affected its people's identity. Thankfully those days are behind it. 

And so my argument is basically this: I think there's an alternative. Now, for those of you who have trouble sleeping, you will know that I've given some lectures on this, recently in Aberystwyth University and elsewhere. The point is this: I believe in a sovereign Wales, but I believe that we can share that sovereignty with the other three entities within the UK. It's a kind of confederation. Now, I grant you that shared sovereignty doesn't have the same resonance electorally as 'Free Wales' or 'Rule Britannia', and it's a difficult concept to explain, but I say this to Darren Millar in the spirit of debate: I think we've moved well beyond constitutional tinkering; this is fundamental to the future of the UK. It's because of the constitutional inadequacy of the UK that we have these tensions. We have an opportunity now to set things right, get a constitution that works, where everybody understands where they stand and who does what, an equal partnership of four nations and one where sovereignty is held by each of the four nations but shared for the common good in areas where it is right to do so. I do fear that, if we don't go down that path, in 10 years' time, the UK will be a memory, and that is something, personally, that I'd regret.

The COVID crisis has clarified so many things: what's important to our society, what we want to change, why decisions should be made close to the people they affect, and the crisis has also given us glimpses into different futures, because this debate about independence isn't a remote constitutional question for tomorrow; it is grounded in the urgency of now. This week, the First Minister confirmed that the Prime Minister of this so-called United Kingdom had not picked up the phone in a time of pandemic to him since the end of May. We are halfway through July. Last week, the Prime Minister said he was willing to tarmac over the Gwent levels and devolution in a brazen show of arrogant entitlement. And even now, in the dark corridors of Westminster, convention is being ripped up to ensure we crash out of the EU without a deal. Millions are being earmarked for border controls and barriers, and all the while the Tories plot their next assault on the powers of the devolved nations. That is the future of this beleaguered union. 

Our motion offers something different, a glimpse, a hope of a future where the people of Wales decide our own destiny, a future that opens doors instead of closing them. Llywydd, the people of Wales are pushing at that door. Support for independence has reached levels many thought impossible. Yes Cymru activists are winning the argument on the ground, and the All Under One Banner marches show a confident nation on the move. We do not see independence as the end of a journey but rather its beginning, because independence is the only political answer to the question of how we can build a nation that reflects our values and realises our dreams. Given the tools, we in Wales can build a resilient nation, a progressive economy, a place that cares for young and old, where our environment can flourish and our people can build something better.

In an independent Wales, child poverty could be eradicated through investing in our education system, our workforce, alongside a benefit system that answers need. There is nothing intrinsic about Wales's poverty—it is a poverty of ambition that keeps us this way, a poverty of ambition writ large by this Welsh Labour Government's decision to delete our entire motion, instead of grappling with what's proposed, an attempt to close a door if ever there was one. 

Llywydd, it is my great honour to be my party's shadow Minister for the future. There is a crude graphic from a Labour MP doing the rounds that screams about Welsh debt, ignoring conveniently the fact that the UK's debt currently stands at £2 trillion. Surely, the biggest debt we owe is to future generations, because politics is currently failing those generations. We've known for more than 40 years that a carbon dioxide catastrophe is facing us because of the levels that we are releasing into the atmosphere, and still we are releasing 40 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide every year. We can't control what happens in other countries, and trying to get Westminster to see the light is a fool's errand, but what we can do is take responsibility for ourselves. Through harnessing rather than burning our natural resources, we in Wales could lead the way and become a beacon of an enlightened economy facing the future proudly. 

This motion is not asking Members to vote on independence; it is affirming that the people of Wales should have the right to decide. I spoke of different futures, and I know that many Members on the Labour benches share the vision I've set out of a globally-responsible nation espousing hope, equality and prosperity. I'd say to them that without independence, no other path will point us toward that future. For as long as we remain part of the union that impoverishes our people and follows economic policies designed to benefit the wealthy centre at our own people's expense, we will never reach our potential and all paths will fork back on themselves. If we want to build something better after COVID, our future cannot be decided in the ramshackle ruins of Westminster. So, I'd ask all Members of this Senedd to show their belief in the people of Wales, I'd ask them to keep that door ajar, and I'd ask them to vote for our nation's future, not its past.

Llywydd, I welcome this debate, which, despite its pejorative title, is really about the future structure of the UK and Wales's relationship with the other three nations of the UK. Now, during the COVID pandemic, we have moved significantly beyond our former concept of devolution, to a version of four-nation government. Devolution is a reform that has had its time, and we must now look to a modern and radical constitutional reform, to make Wales and the UK fit for the twenty-first century and beyond.

There isn't time in this debate to develop complex arguments around Plaid Cymru's various concepts of independence and what it actually means in a global, capitalist economy. This is a common problem with this debate—terms are often used that mean different things to different people, and without definition. Independent from whom, how? And there are many other questions. But rather, in the short time available, I would like to confirm my commitment, and that of Welsh Labour—and I think indeed that of UK Labour—to a constitutional convention, which will also need to address the issue of democratisation and reform for England, and to tackle the English question, which is vital in this debate.

It is important to restate, I think, a fundamental, international, United Nations and, indeed, socialist principle, mainly that all nations have the right to self-determination. The type of Government in Wales, and its relationship with the rest of the UK, must always be a matter of choice for the Welsh people. And as long as that is the free and democratic choice of Welsh people, then Wales is indeed independent. Choosing to share sovereignty, however that is defined, if freely made, is not contrary to independence. The UK was no less independent by being part of the European Union, and Wales would not be any less independent by freely being in a constitutional and financial relationship with the UK.

But reform must, in my view, happen soon, or the UK risks breaking up, or at the very least a process of fragmentation by default, and with adverse social and economic consequences for the people—[Inaudible.]—vital. Now, the cross-party, inter-parliamentary forum, which is a body of all the constitutional and legislative committees in the various Parliaments of the UK, including the House of Lords, has stated on numerous occasions, in solid agreement, that the current constitutional arrangements are not fit for purpose.

Llywydd, I'm not a nationalist, and I reject nationalism as a negative and divisive ideology. I prefer an approach that is based on the decentralisation of power, bringing power as close to people and communities as possible. Now, we recognise the common interests that working people and communities in Wales have with their counterparts in England, Scotland and in Northern Ireland. I'm also not a unionist. It's simple: I'm a socialist. And the guiding principles of a constitutional convention should be to develop a constitutional framework, acceptable to all four nations, to be approved by referendum, based on the principles of justice, equality and the fair distribution of wealth for the benefit of all four nations, and all the people of the UK.

The Deputy Minister, Jane Hutt.

I'd like to thank Plaid Cymru for tabling this motion in the last session of this Senedd. It's provided a very lively debate, which I think has focused on the positive impact of devolution for Wales, with the Welsh Government's response to the coronavirus pandemic. And I think the debate has provided the opportunity to highlight the many ways in which we've used our powers, with growing strength and confidence, led by the First Minister, in the handling of this terrible virus, to protect and safeguard our citizens and public services. And I have to say that the robust scrutiny of the Welsh Government by this Welsh Parliament, in the Senedd and our parliamentary committees, has stood us in good stead. And I do thank the Llywydd and her officials for making this scrutiny happen from the earliest days of the lockdown and onwards.

But this is the democracy we sought for Wales, with a House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee noting in 2018 that

'Devolution is now an established and significant feature of the UK constitutional architecture and should be treated with respect to maintain the integrity of the United Kingdom.'

The current pandemic, as has been said in this debate, has drawn attention to the way in which our constitution works, both its strengths and its weaknesses, and our ability to pursue our own approach, as Rhun ap Iorwerth acknowledged, and the need to co-operate with others. Self-rule and shared rule, and the propositions in 'Reforming our Union: Shared Governance in the UK', published by the First Minister last year, have set out the Government's position.

Regarding the proposition for a referendum, and following Carwyn Jones's points, our view is that, if a Welsh Government has secured an electoral mandate to hold a referendum on a fundamental constitutional question, it is entitled to expect the UK Parliament to make the necessary arrangements. Provision for a legally binding referendum on Scottish independence in 2014 was made by the UK Parliament, following a clear majority won by the Scottish National Party in the 2011 election. But that precondition is essential. For Westminster to be asked to make the arrangements for a referendum on the constitutional status of Wales—that request must come from a Welsh Government with a mandate to do so, and no such mandate presently exists. But those who seek a referendum in the next Senedd, whether to secure independence, or, indeed, abolition, can make their case to the people of Wales next May. But the view of this Welsh Government is clear: we believe that Wales's interests are best served by a strong devolution settlement within a strong UK, and the United Kingdom is better and stronger for having Wales in it.

The current settlement isn't perfect. Our current constitution is outmoded and inappropriate. The four Governments of the United Kingdom should operate as equal partners—each respecting the legitimate identity and aspirations of the others, whilst co-operating for the benefit of the union as a whole. And as Mick Antoniw has stated, the constitutional convention, long called for, could take us forward in achieving this. And nothing illustrates the need for this case to be made so acutely than our current experience. Viruses do not carry passports, nor do they respect national borders. Our businesses are not only dependent on Welsh customers; our economy is inextricably linked with the rest of the United Kingdom and beyond. The health needs of our citizens are no different from those elsewhere, and tackling COVID-19 calls for more co-operation between Governments, not less. 

If we look at our engagement with the other Governments of the United Kingdom since the beginning of the pandemic, they've been largely positive. Expeditious—[Inaudible.]—of the coronavirus has actually led to close co-operation between all four Governments and it's an example of what we can achieve when we work together. But unfortunately, as we move into different phases of response and recovery, it's the UK Government that appears to be pulling away from the four-nation approach. 

I do welcome Darren Millar's statement today of being a staunch supporter of devolution and I hope you, Darren, will raise your voice, as will the Welsh Conservatives, to get the UK Government to help remove those unreasonable restrictions on our budget so that we can use our fiscal powers more effectively. 

The support for jobs and businesses initially announced by the Chancellor was welcomed. And the resources and levers available to him are far greater than would be available to us, if we were standing alone. But we face the deepest recession in living memory—[Inaudible.]

I think we—

—in living memory and that, I think—

Jane Hutt would bounce back, wouldn't she? [Laughter.] Jane Hutt, carry on.

Okay. The steps that were outlined last week by the Chancellor don't go far enough to meet the scale of the challenges we face. We need more extensive and far-reaching action to tackle this crisis head on, and to build back better.

I'll say finally, Llywydd, that our priority for the Welsh Government today, and every day in the coming weeks, is to respond to the coronavirus pandemic, and the people of Wales would expect no less. But it is relevant to say, in responding to this debate, that, more than ever, we need to jointly establish those inter-governmental mechanisms to ensure we can address the many challenges that lie ahead. 

The former First Minister, Rhodri Morgan, subscribed to the 'powers for a purpose' model of devolution. Our First Minister, Mark Drakeford, today spoke of 'assertive devolution', and he has demonstrated the positive impact of this assertive devolution in Wales and in the UK, as our First Minister.

But with our powers, what people want to know is what can we do? We've given key workers free childcare during the lockdown, approved a £500 payment for our care workers, delivered an economic resilience fund over and above UK Government consequentials, granted £20 million to end homelessness, we've worked with local authorities to co-ordinate free school meals and to bring our children back to school, and we've supported those with no recourse to public funds, working with our partners in the NHS, local government, business and the third sector to safeguard and protect Wales. That's been our priority, Llywydd, and I urge you all to support our amendment and reject all the other amendments. Diolch yn fawr. 

I now call on Adam Price to reply to the debate. 

Diolch, Llywydd. At the heart of this historic first debate, this parliamentary session's last debate, is the simple but fundamental proposition that the decision on whether Wales should become an independent nation must rest alone with the people of Wales. We believe that Wales's right to determine its constitutional future, including the right to become an independent country, should the people of Wales vote to do so, should be enshrined in law. Specifically, this requires conferring on this Senedd the power to choose when and whether to call a referendum on Wales's constitutional future, giving practical effect to the right of the people of Wales to choose the form of governance best suited to their needs, and also how, and who with, they want to pool their sovereignty.

Democracy is by definition government by the people. But then we have to decide who the people are, and for us the answer is obvious. The people are the people of Wales, who live within its borders and collectively form a nation that enjoys the right to self-determination that is a basic tenet of international law, a founding principle of the United Nations charter and, as Mick Antoniw said, of the Socialist International. So, we hope many Labour Members will join us in supporting our motion tonight.

This sovereign right of the people of Wales to determine their own future is the cornerstone of this Senedd. But currently our accumulative legitimacy, the powers we hold, are not ours by permanent right in a formal sense, but loaned to us by another Parliament that describes itself, without irony, as 'supreme', even as it crumbles slowly into the Thames. That is a constitutional conceit with which the Labour Welsh Government has said it firmly, firmly disagrees. In its White Paper 'Reforming our Union: Shared Governance in the UK', the Welsh Government said this:

'Parliamentary sovereignty as traditionally understood no longer provides a sound foundation for this evolving constitution…it must be open to any of its parts democratically to choose to withdraw from the Union.'

So, when we affirm in this motion the right of the people of Wales to decide whether Wales should become an independent country, we should reasonably expect this Government to support Wales's claim of right. But what we have from the Government is a parliamentary wrecking ball tonight, a 'delete all' amendment that removes all reference to the right to determine our own future. It says nothing about the voluntary nature of this union, and it introduces the lion and unicorn mythical pairing, so beloved of progressive unionists—a reformed United Kingdom.

The Welsh Government's position is the constitutional equivalent of St Augustine's plea, 'Make us sovereign, Lord, just not yet.' No, let's give the idea of a reformed UK, which would allow for co-ordinated governmental action to be pursued, one last heave, even though we've seen, over the last few months the catastrophic mistakes of a dysfunctional, incompetent, shambolic—the First Minister's words, not mine—Westminster Government that has treated the Welsh Government and the Welsh nation in a manner that has oscillated between benign neglect and outright contempt, led by a political and administrative elite that still believes that Westminster knows best, even as Britain registers amongst the worst death rates in the world.

When it comes to reform in any area—the First Minister mentioned earlier today the limbo in social care since the Dilnot commission—Westminster makes Godot look positively punctual. We will never make change by waiting for others to change things for us. We can either assert our right to determine our own future, or else we will find the future determined for us—whether it's the tarmacking of the Gwent levels, or the latest state-aid power grab by the Chancellor.

Whatever we decide tonight, it's important for our Welsh democracy that the debate in here reflects the debate happening already out there. And whatever our view on the question of independence, the right of the people of Wales to ask it should be inalienable. For us in Plaid Cymru, the answer to both those questions is 'yes'—yes to having a say, and yes to 'yes'. The people of Wales are on the move, and they are where they should be—in the vanguard, in the driving seat, leading the debate and listening to ours tonight.

When the story of our independence is written, these last few years of crisis and upheaval, from Brexit to COVID, will, I think, loom large, and for this reason, because, rather than causing people to cleave to the old certainties, these times of crisis have opened people's minds to new possibilities. That slogan, 'building back better', resonates for us all now in different ways. We have lost so many, but we have gained an understanding of what we truly value. That is the golden thread, the silver lining from the dark cloud of this time. We, the people of Wales, are the builders of that better Wales. No-one else will build it for us, but, if we believe in ourselves and in each other, there is nothing we cannot achieve.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There are objections, therefore I defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.