National Assembly for Wales

The first item on our agenda is questions to the First Minister, and the first question, Mark Isherwood.

Our framework for action on independent living sets out our plans to assist disabled people in Wales. We will work together with disabled people and public sector bodies across Wales to refresh the framework this year.

Diolch. Further to the Welsh Government announcement it was transferring the Welsh independent living grant to local authorities, a campaigner in Wrexham, Nathan Davies, who actually presented a certificate to the Enabling Wales north Wales graduation last month, expressed concern that they felt that disabled people had been ‘sold down the river’, and that all they could see was yet more fighting. And Disability Wales expressed disappointment that the Welsh Government didn’t follow Scotland in setting up an independent living fund, administered by Inclusion Scotland, which Northern Ireland has also commissioned its ILF from. How, therefore, will you engage with such concerns to ensure that not only local authorities and the health boards, but the Welsh Government itself, is complying with the intention of the Social Services and Well-being (Wales) Act 2014, placing a duty on public authorities to promote the involvement of people in the design and delivery of care and support services?

Well, the decision was taken to enable payments to be made uninterrupted to former recipients in Wales. It was an interim decision, designed to last until 31 March this year, while we considered which arrangements were appropriate to provide support in the longer term. And, following advice from the stakeholders advisory group, which does include organisations that represent disabled people in Wales, we are introducing, from this April, a two-year transitional arrangement, whereby support in the future will be through normal social care provision.

I want to highlight the importance of sign language to the deaf community. For many deaf people, it is a major method of communication. I should perhaps declare an interest as my sister is profoundly deaf. Will the First Minister join me in supporting the creation of GCSE first-language sign language, and for it to be treated as the equivalent of first-language Welsh and English at GCSE?

Well, it’s a matter, ultimately, for Qualifications Wales. They are responsible for the development and approval of qualifications in Wales. That said, I think it is important—and I take very much on board what the Member has said—to promote British Sign Language and also to promote the availability of qualifications in British Sign Language. It is a matter I will take up on his behalf with Qualifications Wales.

There’s been a great deal of talk of the possibility that the attendance allowance is to be devolved to Wales from Westminster. Some 100,000 people in Wales receive this benefit at a cost of some £400 million per annum. Now, if these benefits are devolved to Wales, we will then have to decide what the role of local authorities will be. Plaid Cymru, of course, always welcomes additional powers residing here in Wales for the benefit of the people of Wales, but there are concerns that this move is a money-saving mechanism ultimately. So, how can you ensure that older disabled people in Wales won’t lose out if this change were to occur?

There is an unfortunate history in this place, where benefits have been devolved but without all the funding to follow. That happened with the council tax benefit. So, we’re not in favour of receiving any powers without the agreement of this Assembly, and we’re not in favour of receiving powers without the full funding to follow. So, if that was offered to us, we would consider it, but we would never wish to take any new powers without the funding being made available and without the assurance in the long term about the source of that funding.

First Minister, in March last year, as part of the Getting Ahead 2 programme, Learning Disability Wales were given £10 million over five years to transform the lives of over 1,000 young people aged 16 to 25 who have a learning disability or learning difficulty, and that is through undertaking a paid work placement lasting between six and 12 months. What does this commitment demonstrate about the Welsh Government’s determination to assist people with disabilities in Wales, and how is this actively helping to change people’s lives?

Well, we can see the results for ourselves, and I can say that we are working with our learning disability advisory group to develop a learning disability strategic action plan. That will go out to wide consultation later this year in order to build on the good work that’s already been put in place.

The Welsh Government is working to support the farming industry in Pembrokeshire, as in all parts of Wales.

First Minister, as I’m sure you are aware, a number of farmers in my constituency are hugely concerned about the possibility of the introduction of nitrate vulnerable zones, which will have a huge impact on their businesses and on the rural economy more generally. Your Government’s consultation has now been concluded, so can you tell us when you will take a decision on this issue? In the meantime, can I urge you to look at this issue again and to consider introducing a voluntary approach to improve water quality, because that’s the way to support our farmers, by working with them, rather than introducing burdensome regulation?

Well, the responses to the consultation will be considered in detail over the ensuing weeks, and, of course, there will be a discussion with the agriculture industry over those weeks, as part of the review that has taken place.

What will you do now, First Minister, to protect farmers in Pembrokeshire and the length and breadth of Wales now that the Prime Minister, Theresa May, has decided that we are going to be outwith the single market, that there will be tariffs on Welsh produce under the World Trade Organization rules, and that there is to be a free trade market with New Zealand, from where lamb can come in and undermine the quality produce of Wales? So, what will you, as a Government, do now to protect the interests of Wales in the face of a decision taken by the Conservatives in Westminster to make farmers in Wales poorer and less able to compete on a global basis?

I now call on the party leaders to question the First Minister. The leader of the Welsh Conservatives, Andrew R.T. Davies.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. First Minister, last October, one of the most passionate debates was held within this Chamber, and the chamber upstairs was full up with people with an interest in the autism community and wanting to see legislation brought forward from your Government. We were led to believe there was consensus around this, in the Assembly election—that all the political parties believed that there should be an autism Bill brought before the Assembly to improve rights for people who suffer with autism. Yesterday, you brought forward your Trade Union (Wales) Bill. Many people will find it difficult to comprehend why you are standing in the way of bringing forward an autism Bill that could greatly improve access to services and give a legal right to people who have a diagnosis of autism over the trade union Bill that you’ve decided to bring forward. Why have you prioritised the trade union Bill against people with autism?

There are two reasons: first of all, we want to protect workers’ rights. His party—his party—want to remove competence from this Assembly over employment rights and regulations. It’s his party’s fault. We wouldn’t have to bring this forward at the speed that we’re having to take it if it wasn’t for the Wales Bill. So, he can’t sit there and try to claim it’s nothing to do with him. And we will stand up for workers’ rights as his party presses down on them, and that’s why we will introduce a trade union Bill to this Chamber, we will look for support from this Assembly to protect the rights of workers, and let’s see what happens, if the competence changes. But we will stand up for Welsh workers, even as his party tramples all over them.

I believe it’s the Conservative Party that are delivering for Welsh workers, as they are for UK workers, by delivering an economy that has delivered record rates of employment, opportunity and prosperity. But I notice you did not dwell on the reasons why your Government stood in the way of delivering an autism Bill, as opposed to the trade union Bill, where people upstairs after this debate were genuinely in tears and disgusted by the outcome from this Labour Government and the betrayal, as they saw it, of your Government’s commitment in the Assembly election vis-a-vis the words that were spoken in this Chamber in that debate. What is unreasonable—what is unreasonable in the Trade Union Bill about informing employers when strike action’s going to be taken? What is unreasonable about seeking a threshold to get a majority of people who participate in that strike action? There is nothing unreasonable about that. It is your party that is taking us back to the 1970s and moving away from empowering workers to get on in this country. So, what is unreasonable in that Trade Union Bill that demands that your Government bring forward a separate piece of legislation?

It is odious that the leader of the Welsh Conservatives tries to use people who are dealing with young people with autism, using that as a way to attack workers—[Interruption.]—attack workers in Wales and the rest of Britain. The reality is that unemployment is lower in Wales than it is in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland because of the actions of the Welsh Government. He talks about a threshold. I don’t remember him arguing for a threshold in the Brexit referendum. Do you remember that? I don’t remember that at all. Thresholds weren’t important at that stage. I don’t believe in thresholds. I didn’t believe in a threshold for the Brexit referendum. I don’t believe in a threshold as far as strike action balloting is concerned. What I believe in is that we stand up for the rights of workers in Wales, despite what is being imposed on them by a hostile Tory Government. Fifty of his own MPs—50 of his own MPs—were calling for strikes to be banned in the public sector. What, are you going to arrest strikers now, are you? Going back to the 1970s—he’d take us back to the 1930s. [Assembly Members: ‘Hear, hear.’]

You definitely want beer and sandwiches back in Cathays Park, don’t you, First Minister? The people you are repaying are the union general secretaries who have funded Labour up to the tune of £11 million since Jeremy Corbyn became leader. I challenged you to bring forward that autism Bill, which people were genuinely asking for. I have not heard people calling for a trade union Bill here in Wales because they feel they’re discriminated against. The real—[Interruption.]—the real danger is that you will be trailblazing regional pay by bringing this Bill forward, because you will be lowering the threshold for strike action here in Wales, vis-a-vis other parts of the United Kingdom. Most times, when strike action is taken, it is around terms and conditions and pay. So, you will be the trailblazer for regional pay if you continue to push this trade union Bill through the Assembly. But, equally, you should apologise to the people in the autism community—[Assembly Members: ‘Oh.’]—who feel they’ve been let down by you and your legislative programme.

It is odious—I use that word again—to suggest that those people who are dealing with autism and who are dealing with and caring for those people with autism should be set against people who want to have their rights as workers. Isn’t it typical that the Tories’ attitude, as it always has been, is, ‘Set people against each other. Divide and rule.’ We will do all that we can to help those people with autism and those people caring for people with autism. We’ve done that through previous legislation. We have done that through the funding we have put in place. We haven’t cut social services spending by 6 per cent as he has and his party has in London. Delayed transfers of care—up in England, and the disaster of the NHS in England at the moment were all caused by a lack of spending on social services. I make no apology at all for standing up for the rights of workers in Wales and their representatives, and if he doesn’t like that, he can go and explain to voters in Wales why he wants people to be in a position where they no longer have the ability to exercise their democratic right to strike. He yaps away, doesn’t he? He yaps away like an untrained dog in the back of the Chamber there—

There’s been a lot of yapping during this question and answer.

From our perspective, we will stand up for the rights of workers, even if he is indifferent to them.

Plaid Cymru leader, Leanne Wood.

Diolch, Lywydd. On 15 December last year, figures on the performance and the value of the Welsh economy were published. Now, they haven’t received a huge amount of attention, but they show that the Welsh economy now stands at 71 per cent of the UK index, down from 71.4 per cent in 2014. Now, we need to be closing that wealth gap and not presiding over it widening. Aside from the risk that we face from losing the funds currently received by deprived communities, there’s also a risk to businesses and jobs from the decision to leave the European Union. It’s vital from a safeguarding jobs perspective that Wales continues to participate as much as we possibly can in the single market. First Minister, do you agree with Plaid Cymru that it is in the Welsh national interest to continue to participate fully in the single market without tariffs or barriers?

It’s a position we’ve held for many, many months. The phrase we’ve used is ‘full and unfettered access’. Single market participation amounts to much the same thing. What we have to avoid in the next few months and years is anything that impairs the ability of businesses to export from Wales and therefore makes it more difficult for them to employ people. It’s right to say that GDP needs to increase. The way to do that is to invest even more heavily in skills. As people have more skills, they’re better able to attract investment that leads to better-paid jobs. That is exactly the direction that we want to move in. I—and I’m sure she would have done the same thing, of course—listened to the Prime Minister’s speech this morning. Some of it was welcome. I think the tone was better. It wasn’t as aggressive as the nationalist wing of her party—Theresa May’s party—tends to explain it. There were issues about recognising the rights of the devolved nations, which I welcomed, although there is a contradiction in saying that the British Parliament decides the final deal without the devolved parliaments having their own view as well. Leaving the single market I don’t agree with. This half in, half out of the customs union needs more explanation. And, of course, how you have control over immigration with a large open border has never been explained either. So, there is some clarity, not all of it welcome. Some of it is better from the Prime Minister, but there is still a lot of work to be done to make sure that we have the best outcome for Wales.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. Plaid Cymru would argue that Wales is now facing a made-in-London plan for withdrawing from the European Union. I’m glad that you mentioned the question of exports. On this map, the risk to Wales from a hard Brexit is illustrated very strongly, I think. The Welsh economy is the most dependent part of the UK on exports to the EU. Manufacturing economies like ours rely the most upon that market. We’re talking about industrial jobs, jobs in the food industry, in tourism, jobs that are vital to people in Wales, which cannot be put at risk. Now, we also know that much of the non-European investment into Wales has been attracted here because of our position in the single market. Another risk to this country, beyond losing our position in the single market, is that we are heading for neoliberalism—ultra-neoliberalism—based on deregulation and privatisation, based on slashing workers’ rights, based on watering down environmental regulations that keep our country and our landscape clean. We face losing so many of the hard-won gains, and none of us should be prepared to put those at risk easily. First Minister, will you commit to exploring how we can avoid taking this path of economic and social vandalism, and will you champion the need for continued participation in the single market and for the highest possible standards for workers, consumers and for businesses?

I will, as I’ve done consistently since June. Of course, there’ll be nothing to stop this Assembly from implementing EU directives if it wishes to. If that’s something that the Assembly wants to do, there shall be no ban on doing that. It’s a matter of the democratic process. One of the contradictions that were expressed by the Prime Minister was that she said that the British Parliament should have a vote on the final deal. Fine, but a lot of that will involve devolved areas. There has to be at least a legislative consent motion through this Assembly before the British Parliament can take that vote. So, there are a number of issues that will need to be resolved there. I was concerned at the Chancellor’s remarks on Sunday when he said that the British economic model would have to change if there was a particularly hard Brexit. He mentioned lowering corporation tax. That was, I think, just one thing out of many things that he would like to do that are not to the taste of either her or me. I don’t believe in, as they would put it, deregulating the employment market. That means slashing workers’ rights and slashing workers’ pay. I don’t believe in destroying environmental protections that have been put in place, that have not just helped in terms of the environment but have helped to promote tourism over the years. Yes, I share with her a concern that there are some in the Conservative Party who see this as an opportunity to introduce radical, right-wing thinking, without any kind of restraint at all, and that is something that I and, I’m sure—I know—she would resist at all costs.

Yes, First Minister, and Plaid Cymru has stated that we are not prepared to sign up to a negotiation plan that has been hatched by Westminster elites if there is no regard to the devolved administrations. We both know that it makes sense for Wales to work closely with the other devolved governments. Scotland is prioritising single market membership and their economy ahead of any other constitutional aims that they might have, but they are prepared to hold an independence referendum if their compromise options are not met by the UK Government. The situation, as you are aware, in Northern Ireland is very sensitive at the moment, too. Will you confirm that you will work with the Scottish Government and the next Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that the Prime Minister of the UK is deterred from pushing through a plan for more deregulation and more privatisation, which would, of course, be very harmful to people here in this country?

We do work with the Scottish Government. We don't, clearly, have the same view on the final destination, as it were, but we do work with them and talk to them with a view to forming common ground where we can, and that is sensible diplomacy. Northern Ireland is more difficult, because, in Northern Ireland, the First Minister and the deputy First Minister had very radically different views on Brexit. We see the situation in Northern Ireland, and part of the dynamic of the problem in Northern Ireland is Brexit. It's not the main problem at the moment, but it sits there, because of the peace agreement that was put in place, and the only identity that people in Northern Ireland shared was a European one; they don't have another shared identity. So, that must be managed very, very carefully. But it's hugely important that, whatever the outcome of the election in Northern Ireland, we're able to work with Northern Ireland and with Scotland to remind Whitehall that this isn't just about the Whitehall bubble; it's about all four nations of the UK.

The leader of the UKIP group, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Lywydd. The First Minister is trying to compete with the leader of Plaid Cymru as a sort of Jeremiah of Wales today in relation to Wales's future outside the EU. I’m sorry to hear him say that he is against lower taxes on business, because the Irish republic has very successfully used a lower rate of corporation tax to attract a huge number of firms into Dublin, particularly in the financial services sector. So, it seems to me wholly counter-productive to Wales's interests to rule this out for the future.

Last week, the First Minister said, in relation to the single market:

‘I don’t believe you can have access to the single market and, at the same time, say that you want full control over immigration.’

Well, that's exactly what we do have with the South Korea trade agreement; why isn't that going to be possible for us in Britain?

How can you have full control over immigration when you have a large, open border with the EU?

Sorry, I missed that.

How can you have full control over immigration if you have a large, open border with the EU?

Well, Theresa May referred to this in her speech this morning. We did have a common travel area with the Irish republic long before either of us were members of the EU. This is a practical question that does need to be solved, and there's no reason to think it can't be solved. But what I'm interested in, as a result of—[Interruption.]

Let's allow the leader of the UKIP group to be heard, please.

Thank you for your protection, Llywydd.

As a result of Theresa May's speech at lunchtime today, she has clarified a number of issues—not all, I accept, and what the First Minister said about the customs union certainly needs further clarification—but she has clarified the Government's position. Can the First Minister now clarify: what exactly is the Labour Party's policy on managed migration from the EU?

I've explain the policy, and that is freedom of movement to work; something close to what the Norwegians have. It takes away the fears of some people that people move to a particular country in order to claim benefits. Whether that's true or not, we know the perception was there. And it is, I think, a reasonable position to take that most people in the UK would accept. Now, I mean, he is right about the situation in Ireland; it does need to be solved. Unfortunately, no-one knows how to solve this. The reality is, and my concern is—and he’s right about the common travel area—but then, for the first time ever in history, there will be wholly different immigration policies on both sides of that border. Ireland, it is true, is not part of Schengen, but it will have freedom of movement. If you want to come into the UK, go into Ireland; you can get into the UK without any checks at all, without any kind of control, and that is the reality of the situation.

In terms of customs, are we then to see the return of the customs posts on that border, and customs posts in our Welsh ports? That issue hasn't been resolved at all—and the effect that would have on the throughput of vehicles and people through those ports. What I fear more than anything else is that, somehow, Northern Ireland gets a better deal in terms of customs than Wales does. That will channel traffic through Cairnryan, and possibly through Stranraer, in the future, at a cost of jobs in the Welsh ports. So, whatever happens, the situation, whether it is the Welsh ports or the Northern Ireland border, has to be the same in order to ensure that fairness of treatment.

Well, the First Minister is talking about all sorts of transitional points, which, inevitably, have to be considered. We had similar difficulties when we entered the EU 40-odd years ago. There were problems with the transition; these can be dealt with. But, what I'm concerned with is that the First Minister is always looking on the black side of things and imagining the worst. He did this in relation to Donald Trump in the United States—and I’ve raised this with him several times—when he said that Donald Trump believes in America first, and it would never be possible to agree a free-trade agreement with the United States. What is clear is that it is not going to be possible for the EU to agree a free-trade agreement with the US, but Donald Trump himself has said in the last 24 or 48 hours that he would move very quickly to make a new trade deal with the UK:

‘I’m a big fan of the UK. We’re going to work very hard to get it done quickly and done properly. Good for both sides.’

Can I not persuade the First Minister to have just a glimmer of optimism for the future?

Well, I do not believe that the American Government will want to have a free-trade agreement with anybody that is anything other than very, very positive for the US and negative for the other party to the agreement. Donald Trump has said he wants to tear up the trans-Pacific partnership. He wants to tear up the North American free trade agreement and have an agreement with the UK. Does that mean, then, that we will see beef full of hormones coming into the UK market and undercutting our Welsh beef farmers? Does it mean that we will see, for example—and his party was campaigning against TTIP, saying that it was a bad deal—does this mean that, if TTIP was back on the table, he would now support it? Would the party now support it? Does it mean, for example, that the UK will collapse at the knees if the US Government says, ‘You must open up your public services to privatisation’? Because that’s what they’ll press for.

I have to say that I am in favour of good relations with the US. Of course I am. I’m in favour of good relations with all countries. But I am sometimes touched by the sweet naivety of the leader of UKIP and his fellow traveller, the leader of the Welsh Conservatives, when they think the world will be an easy place and that free-trade agreements are easy to negotiate. They are not. The free-trade agreement between the EU and Greenland took three years, and that was just about fish. The agreement with Canada was seven years. Other agreements take 10 years.

I’ve looked at the list of tariffs that are involved. I mean, there are tariffs on hats and umbrellas, for goodness’ sake. Agriculture is always excluded from free-trade agreements. Almost always. It’s not there with Canada, it’s not there between Norway and the EU. The agricultural tariff is nearly 50 per cent. Welsh farmers cannot live with a tariff on Welsh lamb and Welsh beef of 50 per cent, and anybody who thinks that they can is letting Welsh farmers down.

Food waste in Welsh households has decreased by 12 per cent from 2009 to 2015. We as a Government fund the Waste and Resources Action Programme Cymru ‘Love Food, Hate Waste’ consumer campaign.

You’re right, First Minister, that food waste has reduced by 12 per cent, and it has saved 105 tonnes of carbon a year over that same period. However, even with that 12 per cent reduction, there has been 188,000 tonnes of food worth £70 million thrown away by Welsh households in 2015. Given that 50 per cent of that food waste comes from households, it is clear that reducing the amount of waste here will have a significant financial benefit for both individuals and for the environment. What is interesting going alongside that is that 60 per cent of people who were questioned thought that they were not wasting any food whatsoever. So, given those facts, First Minister, what do you think the Welsh Government could do in terms of at least educating people about the food that they are wasting to the tune of £35 million a year?

Well, I can say that the ‘Love Food, Hate Waste’ cascade training is available for communities and businesses. To date, WRAP Cymru have trained over 3,400 people in Wales and that helps consumers to make the most of the food that they buy. It’s a start. There’s more to do, but we can do more. We have already reduced the amount of food waste in Wales. Some 24,000 tonnes has been reduced so far. We know there’s further to go, but that work is now ongoing.

Of course, it’s not just households; it’s public services as well where this needs some attention. The Waste and Resources Action Programme, WRAP, which your Government funds, is now working with Abertawe Bro Morgannwg university health board to identify how to reduce food waste in hospitals. That’s one thing. But last week, ABMU confirmed that admissions to them from malnutrition were at their highest for five years. So, WRAP and ABMU can work together with other parties to identify and share good ideas—in fact, I’m hosting one of those Love Food Hate Waste advice sessions in Bridgend this Thursday; you may want to come—but do you think that food waste is just part of a bigger issue for Government and society, about nutrition and attitudes to food, which we need to take more seriously, rather than fragmented responses to things like obesity, packaging, nursing care, animal health, carbon footprint, and so on?

Part of the problem, of course, is that cheap food is not healthy food. For so many people, they’ve seen a squeeze on their income since the crash of 2008 and they will quite often say, ‘Well, I’d love to eat healthier food, but the reality is I can’t afford to.’ The Member’s right, it’s not just about targeting health issues, it’s about ensuring that people have the skills they need to get into the jobs they need to increase their incomes so they can eat healthier in the way that they would want to. And that’s precisely the way that this Government operates, looking at holistic solutions to issues rather than doing it via a compartmentalised formula.

Welsh Government support for the Tomorrow’s Valley project, based in Llwydcoed in my constituency, could see food waste providing enough power for 1,500 homes, by generating over 1 MW of green electricity. What interim evaluation has the Welsh Government made of this project?

Our priority is to reduce the amount of food waste, obviously, produced by households. We are working with the local authorities involved in the Tomorrow’s Valley hub to provide targeted campaign support to increase the amount of food waste that is captured by local authorities for recycling. Once completed, that campaign will be evaluated to determine its success by looking at the food waste recycling data.

I can say that the procurement of this contract has started and we have made it clear that we expect to see higher quality rolling stock introduced as part of that process.

Travelling on the Rhymney to Cardiff line at rush hour on the Valleys lines is a grim experience. I know that from journeys I’ve taken myself, and the Valleys lines generally, I’m told, are the same. Arriva have told me several times that there is simply no rolling stock available to ease the overcrowding. They told me that a new diesel train would take approximately three years to procure from the procurement to the receipt of the stock. That means that, if new diesel stock is ordered as part of the new franchise agreement, rail passengers may not see new carriages until 2021 at the earliest. What is the Welsh Government currently doing to ease the problem in the short term with regard to rolling stock? Moreover, is there any way the Welsh Government can order new rolling stock today or in the coming months? The new operators, when they take over the franchise, may have rolling stock of sufficient quality and number to ease the overcrowding problem.

The problem we’ve had historically is not having control of the franchise. We still won’t be able to put in place a public sector agency in order to run the franchise, unless there are changes at Westminster, even though the Scots can, of course, but we won’t be able to do that. The difficultly is that the current model involves operators that lease their rolling stock in the main. So, when they do face capacity problems, they haven’t got the stock. In the days of British Rail, the stock was there. That’s the problem with the model that we have at the moment and its weaknesses compared to the British Rail model that existed before the early 1990s. But we are making it clear, as part of the procurement for the new contract, that we expect to see higher quality rolling stock. It’s not going to be good enough in the future simply to say, ‘There’s a limit on what we can procure’ or ‘There’s a limit on the quality of the rolling stock that will be running on the Welsh railways.’ We want to make sure, as the metro rolls out, it stands amongst the best in Europe.

Similar concerns to Hefin David, but concerning the Heart of Wales line from Swansea to Shrewsbury—with travellers feeling that the present contract is a long way short of being fit for purpose. Can you assure passengers that you’re looking to provide more trains, faster trains and better trains as part of the next franchise agreement?

We intent that no railway line in Wales is left behind. We want to make sure that the travel experience for people is as good on a heavily used line as it is for the Heart of Wales line, which is an important artery for so many communities in Wales. It’s said, of course, the reason why it’s survived is because it runs through six marginal constituencies—so the urban myth has it—but it’s good to see it there. It’s an important part, not just of our passenger rail network, but it’s an important freight diversion line as well when the main line is closed.

By January 2020, rolling stock in Wales will need to comply with the new UK-wide rules on disability access. As it stands now, the majority of the Wales and borders rolling stock would not meet these standards and we’ve got evidence to suggest that securing new rolling stock could take, of course, up to four years. Are you confident that the fleet will be modernised in time for this approaching deadline?

There are expectations that we will place on those who are bidding to run the Wales and borders franchise contract, and as part of the expectations that we will have, we will want to make sure that they have proof not just against the law as it currently stands but, of course, ensure that they are able to comply with the law in the future.

Given that the new rolling stock is an essential demand within the franchise decision, is the First Minister in a position to specify to any interested parties whether, and to what extent, light rail stock will be required as opposed to standard rail stock, given the implications of the proposed metro system?

These are issues that are being considered as part of the process. It’s right to say that, certainly in the future, we will be looking at light rail in terms of providing new services. It’s easy to do that than through heavy rail. And, of course, we’re examining very carefully what the most effective way of providing rail services will be in the future. I do emphasise that whatever model is chosen for any particular line, the terms and conditions of those working in the railway service will, of course, be protected.

Well, I met with her in October and I spoke to her this morning prior to the speech she made this morning. She didn’t tell me much about what she was going to say, apart from saying that the United Kingdom would be looking outwards to the rest of the countries of the world and, of course, would maintain a good relationship with the countries of Europe.

Whilst I’m pleased to hear that the First Minister has spoken to the UK Prime Minister this morning, I’m not surprised that he didn’t get much light on these matters. But having understood what she said in that speech, does she understand that it wouldn’t be appropriate for her, as the UK Prime Minister, to try to negotiate along with the rest of the European Union on issues devolved to this place?

Well, I noted that she said that there would be no change with regard to devolved powers and that laws would be made in the Parliaments of the United Kingdom. She also said that she wanted to strengthen the union between the nations of the United Kingdom. I don’t know exactly what that means. If that means that we will have a system where there is a mechanism of securing agreement between Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland about some of the common issues between us, then I would welcome that. If that is some kind of a message to say that some things would be determined by the United Kingdom Government, on behalf of all of the other home nations, then, no, I would not welcome that.

First Minister, no doubt you were as appalled as I was last week when Tory MPs in Westminster talked for four hours to talk out the private Member’s Bill from Melanie Onn MP, which would have safeguarded every aspect of employment legislation currently protected under EU law once we leave the European Union. And I note that in stark contrast to the actions of her MPs last week, the Prime Minister in her statement this morning gave certain assurances on workers’ rights. But does the First Minister agree with me that this demonstrates that there is a clear split in the Tory party on this critical issue of workers’ rights, meaning it’s going to be more difficult than ever to ensure that workers are protected in a post-Brexit Britain, and does he further agree with the TUC that we will need to know exactly what the framework for workers’ rights and jobs will be?

Well, I did note what she said. I welcomed what she said. In fact, she said that not only would rights be protected but extended in the future, which I didn’t expect but is something I welcome. This was undermined, of course, by the leader of the Welsh Conservatives this afternoon who shot a very large bullet through that argument. I hope this is a sign she’s prepared to face down the rabid right in her own party and to fulfil the promises that she made today, because we know there are some in the Conservative Party who take the view that the best way forward is to make the UK a model of deregulation, along the lines of some countries in the world where there are no workers’ rights, where people live in fear of their job security and whose quality of life is far lower than that than even exists in the UK at the moment.

I was interested in the First Minister’s earlier comments regarding our future relationship with the EU, in particular the implications for Welsh ports. He suggested that it would be unacceptable for Northern Ireland to have more favourable customs arrangements than Wales. So, in that context, in that scenario, would he be arguing against such terms for Northern Ireland, or would he seek a similar differentiated approach for Wales in order to defend our ports and our economy?

I wouldn’t want to see customs at all between any point in the UK and any point in the Republic of Ireland. What I fear is that a deal will be done where there will be no customs posts at all on the border between Northern Ireland and the republic, but yet there will be in the Welsh ports. If you were an operator, the last thing you would want is to have to go through customs physically, and instead of going through Holyhead you go through Cairnryan to Larne and into Northern Ireland, which gives Northern Ireland a significant competitive advantage over the Welsh ports. That would represent, for me, an unfair outcome.

First Minister, I think a clear Brexit was always the most likely outcome, given what people voted for in the referendum, but now what happens afterwards has to be our main focus. Do you agree with me that we should seek arrangements that are based on respect for our EU neighbours? There should be no part of wishing the EU to fail; that will cause huge problems for us directly. A strengthening of the role of the World Trade Organization—I am very concerned that American policy may turn on this issue now, whereas I think much of what people who argued for Brexit predicated their view on was that we would move to World Trade Organization rules, if that was what was required. Finally, the role of NATO—we remember the very successful summit here in Newport—is a way of projecting to the world that Britain still seeks to fulfil its international obligations, and to be a good neighbour.

That’s absolutely true. Brexit is a bit like standing in a restaurant and somebody saying what they don’t want from the menu, then trying to guess what they do want without them necessarily expressing a view on it. As politicians, we’ve all been trying to guess what they want. There are so many different models. For me, it’s always been about making sure that we preserve, protect and enhance the Welsh economy—that is utterly fundamental to my mind—and it is about being a good neighbour. Europe doesn’t do disputes very well; history tells us that. We’ve always been far stronger when we’ve worked together. The European Union was the framework for peace—it was the framework for peace in Northern Ireland, for that matter—and it’s hugely important that that goodwill and co-operation that’s been built up over so many years since the end of the war is not lost as we seek a new relationship with the EU in the future.

I discussed the issue with the chief executive officer of Tata Steel UK yesterday in the meeting that I had with him, and I’ve today written to Koushik Chatterjee who is the CEO finance of Tata, who is greatly influential on these matters. I’ve made it clear that it’s hugely important that Tata should explain very clearly to the workforce what the implications of the changes are.

In his meeting with Bimlendra Jha, was he able to outline the nature of the concerns that we’ve expressed in my party, but are also widely shared among the workforce, about the highly uncertain nature of the commitments on investment and employment, and also the potential consequences of the proposal to de-link the British Steel pension scheme and Tata effectively creating an orphan fund? And was he able to seek some assurances or concessions from Tata Steel in relation to these concerns?

What we do know from Tata is they are committed to at least the next five years to Port Talbot if there is agreement on the pension scheme. We know that they’ll be committed in that time to two blast furnaces. The money that we have made available potentially for Tata is conditional; we want to see certain guarantees put in place if that money is going to be released, as Members would expect us to. But I think it’s also fair to say that difficult though the decision is for the workers there, there is nothing else on the table. The choice is accepting what’s there, difficult though it might be, or we’re back to square 1, effectively: great uncertainty. It’s a difficult choice, I accept that, but that is the choice that workers face. Nevertheless, we’ve come a long way from where we were in March when the situation was grim indeed, I have to say. If you’d asked me then whether the heavy end of Port Talbot would remain, I think the answer would probably have been ‘no’; it was unlikely. Because of the hard work that’s been put in by Welsh Government officials; the hard work that’s been put in by representatives such as David Rees; and because of the hard work put in by our officials, the money has been put on the table and we are in a position, now, where Tata are able to offer an opportunity to Welsh workers that workers must now consider.

Thank you for that answer, First Minister. I met with the trade unions and steelworkers last week, again, to discuss some of the issues around the challenges they face. The proposal was one of the issues that came up, and what was clear was the lack of confidence, as I think has been highlighted, in Tata itself at this moment in time. I’ve passed that on myself to Mr Jha, but will you actually raise it now with the new chair of Tata and Sons, Mr Chandrasekaran, because it’s important that a voice from the top of Tata is there to say, ‘We support this deal, we’re going to honour this deal, it is going to be on the table and we will deliver it’? I think that voice from the top is important to the workers to gain that confidence that they’ve lost in the last 12 months.

I think that’s an interesting suggestion. As I say, I have made it clear to Tata that it’s hugely important that they communicate as effectively as possible to the workforce what is on the table here and their own commitments, of course. I have no reason to doubt the commitments that Tata has made. But, of course, it’s important to repeat these things in order for people to understand that those commitments are being made.

First Minister, you said that there’s no other offer on the table and I accept that position as well. But can I ask what initial discussions you’ve had, as a Government, with the UK Government, the unions and other interested parties, on developing an alternative strategy in the event that the current proposal is rejected?

The UK Government is not interested, and hasn’t been interested since the change of Prime Minister. We are in a situation where the issue of energy-intensive industries and the price of electricity in the UK are still an issue. It was raised with me by Tata yesterday; they are still saying that the UK is an expensive place to do business because of its energy prices. We have yet to see sufficient action from the UK Government in order to support the good work that’s been put in by the Welsh Government.

We are currently reviewing the responses received to the draft orders that were published in August last year. We will be making an announcement on the next stages shortly.

I met yesterday with the contractors for this programme—Jones Brothers and Balfour Beatty—and they are hugely concerned that no date has been announced for a public inquiry. That, in turn, will lead to a delay unless moves are made very shortly in that regard. The proposal has already been delayed by 12 months, as you will well know, because of arguments about bats. Certainly we don’t want any further delay. Can you give us an assurance that the contractors can proceed with this proposal early in 2018, which is according to the current timetable?

We are going through the issues that were raised in the environmental statement in August to ensure that they are all resolved. As regards Welsh Government’s commitment, may I tell the Member that the commitment to build the bypass still exists, although there has been delay? It wasn’t possible to avoid that delay. But, no, it’s crucially important that the road is built as soon as possible.

Support is available to all businesses, including new businesses, through a variety of funds, including our recently introduced repayable fund for SMEs and the growth and prosperity fund.

Thank you, First Minister. We know full well the problems that businesses in some areas of Wales are facing with the huge hikes in business rates this April. This is particularly difficult for newer businesses. While I welcome the commitment of extra support in the budget, there’s still a lack of clarity over how that money is going to be distributed, and some businesses have told me that they’re in limbo, particularly those that need to sign up to longer term leases. When will the Welsh Government be publishing full details of the new funding package available to businesses and how businesses will be able to apply for it?

That will be published soon. It was important, of course, to get the budget through the Assembly in order not to prejudge the outcome of that. And, of course, I can reiterate that a new permanent rate relief scheme for small businesses will be introduced from next year onwards.

Thank you, First Minister.

I have accepted two urgent questions under Standing Order 12.66 and I call on Bethan Jenkins to ask the first urgent question.

I thank the Member for her question. NSA Afan is subject to an ongoing Welsh Government investigation into allegations of possible misuse of funds. We’re working with relevant authorities, including the police, at this time. It would inappropriate for me to comment any further.

There are elements of what has happened at NSA Afan that are currently under police investigation, as you mentioned—and I think, obviously, we need to be sensitive to that—but it is your Government’s involvement and looking into a series of allegations made by a whistleblower in December last year about financial irregularities, which are currently, as I understand it, not the subject of a police inquiry, that I am interested in. On the basis of these allegations, your Government has taken the step of stopping its funding fully to NSA Afan, and what this means is that in five days’ time, some of the 16 staff will not be paid at all, and senior officers at NSA Afan have told me that they’ve requested that you reinstate that pay while you continue to look at this process. They’ve also said that this should be fully referred to the police so that they can look at this independently, and I would echo that call for it to be passed to the police and for the independent Auditor General for Wales to look at this. Because, Cabinet Secretary, while I don’t doubt your personal integrity, you have an interest in this as a Government, because you yourself have audited NSA Afan, and in the past you have not shown there to be concerns in those particular audits. I would therefore urge you to refer this to the auditor general and to the police so that we can have a full and independent investigation of that which is happening at NSA Afan at the moment.

My final plea to you, as Cabinet Secretary, is that you are minded to discontinue Communities First and there is an ongoing consultation. I would strongly suggest that these matters be investigated fully before you commit to bringing any of your national policies to an end with regard to Communities First. All of the information with regard to NSA Afan should be fully and independently investigated, so that us as Assembly Members, the public and the people who use those services can be assured that governance has been followed and that the money has been used effectively in Communities First in this area, and show the rest of Wales that the funds are being utilised effectively.

Llywydd, I thank the Member for her contribution. The Member makes many assumptions during her contribution, some not factually correct. NSA Afan is subject to an ongoing Welsh Government investigation, and we are working with other authorities, including the police, at this time.

Thank you for that answer, even though it was very brief, Cabinet Secretary. I’ve met with the chief executive and members of the trustees board on several occasions since the announcement to suspend funding on 12 December. My concerns are, perhaps: what was the Welsh Government doing in these audits beforehand? I think, as has been highlighted, it’s a Welsh Government audit. Why wasn’t this spotted earlier? Because there are clear issues there that seem to have been going on for quite a while. But also, there is a funding question as to the point from 1 December to 12 December when suspension occurred. What’s happening to the funding for the delivery of services during that period of time? But, also, what alternatives will be put in place? You’ve suspended funding, but there are people out there waiting to go on programmes who are basically not having access to those programmes, because I understand that NSA Afan has actually suspended its delivery of programmes. And there are staff, as has been pointed out, that are likely to be losing their jobs as a consequence of that. What alternatives are you putting in place or setting up to ensure that those individuals do not pay the price of, perhaps, an investigation that should have spotted something earlier?

Again, I’m grateful for the Member’s contribution. I thank him and others for raising this issue with me at an earlier point in time. This is being investigated by Welsh Government and the police and I’m unable to give any further details on this to the Chamber today, but when and if we raise the ban on support for NSA Afan, or otherwise, I will inform the Chamber.

I think one of the things you can tell us about though, Minister, is the effect of this on partner organisations who’ve been working with NSA to deliver a range of programmes for some time now. This isn’t the first potential scandal that’s got through audit with a clean bill of health—we’ve had the All Wales Ethnic Minority Association. One of the big consequences of AWEMA was for those partnership organisations, some of whom had to wait up to a year under the threat of investigation themselves as a result of what had happened there. So, first of all, can you give us some indication of the timing of the audit that you’re undertaking within Government, but also what you’re doing to support those partnership organisations through a period of time that is going to be very difficult and possibly, fundamentally, the end of them, if you don’t deal with it quickly?

I thank the Member for her question. I am hoping that my team will give some recommendations on the future of NSA and the programme, to me, by the end of this week. My team has already started discussions with NSA Afan, and also with the local authority in terms of any potential future consequences.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

I now call upon Mark Reckless to ask the second urgent question. Mark Reckless.

Llywydd, our position is that tolling should stop immediately and the crossings revert to public ownership, given the barrier that they represent to the Welsh economy and jobs and growth.

I’d like to ask why the Government in Wales isn’t doing anything about that position. The Silk commission said there’d be close co-ordination between the two Governments on the future of the Severn crossings; the St David’s Day agreement said the UK Government would work with the Welsh Government to determine the long-term future of the Severn crossings; and the Department for Transport ’s own road investment strategy rightly recognises that the UK Government only has the right to recoup its own cost from the construction, maintenance and management of the bridges, and only until 2027. It went on to say that, therefore, the DfT would work with the Welsh Assembly to examine the future of the crossings in detail.

We passed unanimously my motion on 16 November that the toll should be abolished following the return to public ownership. The Cabinet Secretary wrote to me on 12 December, and the First Minister copied and pasted a section of that into his letter to the Deputy Presiding Officer on 9 January, saying a trunk road charging scheme under section 167 of the Transport Act 2000 in relation to the Severn bridges themselves could therefore be made by the Secretary of State in his capacity as the traffic authority for the bridges, notwithstanding that they are not wholly in England. Does the Cabinet Secretary now recognise that that’s not the UK’s legal position, and that they are seeking only to charge for the half of the Severn bridge that is in England? And will he consider that what he wrote to me about the transfer Order of 1999 has actually been superseded by section 122 of the Local Transport Act 2008, which is inserted into the Government Wales Act under Schedule 5 on the devolved matters, matter 10.1:

‘the making, operation and enforcement of schemes for imposing charges in respect of the use…of…Welsh trunk roads’?

Whoever is the highways authority, is it not the case that half of that Severn bridge and the tolling plaza are in Wales, and that provision gives the power to his Government and this Assembly to make those decisions, not to the UK Government? Is that not why they’re only charging for half the road? And how does he suppose they can use the tolling plaza in Wales when primary legislation specifies that the operation and enforcement of such schemes using tolls in Wales—and that is in Wales—are matters for the Welsh Government?

Will you also consider that the Severn Bridges Act 1992 is very, very clear, in primary legislation, that the UK Secretary of State may only charge a toll until a certain sum has been raised, which UK Ministers state to be approximately £80 million, and with the reduced toll would be raised by the end of 2019? After that, the continuation of tolling is unlawful on that primary legislation. Does he really think the UK Government should be allowed to get away with using secondary legislation—an Order—to continue tolling when that tolling is prohibited by primary legislation under the Severn Bridges Act? Given what we have done in this Assembly, does he understand that renaming a toll—charging a toll and calling it a charging order—is not going to convince the courts—the effect is the same; it is to make people pay to cross the bridge—and that what the UK Government is proposing is, in my view, unlawful? Certainly there is a strong arguable case that it is unlawful. Therefore, may I ask him that in order to give some effect to what he states his Government’s position is, and the unanimous decision of this Assembly on the 16 November, will he meet with me and his lawyers to explore these issues in more detail? If he accepts that there is at least uncertainty as to the position, will he instruct a Queen’s Counsel to give definitive external advice to the Welsh Government on this matter? If that advice is that there is at least an arguable case that the UK Government is acting unlawfully, will he take that forward, challenge the UK Government, if it doesn’t rescind, to ensure that our rights here in Wales and the law are respected?

Can I thank the Member for his question? I am sorry that the Member has failed to observe our position, which I think has been very consistent. We have persistently opposed the existence of tolls when the crossings revert back to public ownership, and we have made our position very clear to the Department for Transport, at both ministerial and official level, and repeatedly in the media. I would be happy to meet with the Member to discuss what I think is a very complicated and complex area of legal work, and I would also be happy to provide Members with a comprehensive briefing of the various Acts that the Member refers to.

I think he raises a number of important points, but, principally, we have a legal argument versus an economic argument, essentially. We have a legal argument that is being proposed by the UK Government; we have an economic argument that clearly shows that removing the tolls would be beneficial to the economy of Wales. Now, I’m also disappointed, I have to say, that the UK Government is not considering writing off the debt, which stands at something in the region of £36 million, given the UK Government wrote off the debt for the Humber crossing. It’s my view that what’s good for the Humber should be good for the Severn, and I’m baffled, I have to say, by the rationale that’s being given, especially as the Severn crossings are strategic routes, and not part of local authority networks, as the Humber crossing is.

It’s my view that the Welsh taxpayer—and, indeed, other taxpayers—have already paid off that debt, through considerable sums in general taxation over many years. Now, we were not given any advance notice of the consultation. However, I have written to express my disappointment at this, and I’d be more than happy to provide Members, through a written statement, my response to the consultation.

The Member raises a number of points concerning the Severn Bridges Act 1992. As he alludes to, it’s our understanding, based on the advice—the legal advice—that I’ve received, that the UK Government is proposing to continue tolling by virtue of a road charging scheme, as the Member mentions, under section 167 of the Transport Act 2000. Whilst we don’t think there’s any reason to consider that this is not legally possible, I am more than happy to discuss this with the Member, with lawyers. And, indeed, I revert back to the point that I made earlier: regardless of the legal merits of the UK Government’s position, I think it is entirely unjustifiable to maintain a position of taxing businesses, and of taxing commuters, across the Severn.

It would be great if the Chamber was as enthusiastic about decreasing rail or bus fares as they appear to be about decreasing tolls on roads. I think, before we rush into insisting that this is a universally good idea, I would like a bit more of a precautionary approach and understanding of what level of increase in traffic this might generate, because the implications for my constituents are that they are already, in some parts, suffering unacceptable levels of air pollution, and any increase would most definitely not be welcome. So, I wondered what analysis the Government has done of the impact of increasing traffic as a result of either reducing or eliminating the Severn bridge toll.

I understand that the UK Government has carried out an analysis, based on the TEMPro 7 model, which I’m sure the Member recalls has been problematic in the past, especially insofar as modelling the M4 use is concerned. I personally do not believe that we should aim to promote road travel over and above rail or bus travel. I think that bus and rail travel are both something that we have a proud history of, particularly bus travel, where we have the powers, and where we have been able to intervene.

I reflect at the moment on the fact that there are 101 million passenger journeys taken by buses. We’ve produced a five-point plan to stabilise and strengthen the bus network across Wales. I’ll be hosting a bus summit next Monday, in Wrexham, and the TrawsCymru network across Wales goes from strength to strength. Now, the fact of the matter is that we will be able to deliver an even better bus network once the powers that we require are delivered to us through the Wales Bill. It’s my view that we can have a better and more sustainable bus service, but it’s also my view that we can have a fairer system for the Severn crossings.

May I give thanks for the question and also for your initial response to Mark Reckless’s question? Because, naturally, this causes some confusion to us as a party too, and, as Mark Reckless mentioned, we’ve already had unanimous agreement across the parties here that we need to scrap these tolls entirely. Because, as I’ve mentioned in the past, there is a bridge near my office in Baglan, which is the bridge over the River Nedd in Briton Ferry, which also on stilts and crosses a river, but, of course, there’s no toll there at all. I’m not suggesting that there should be tolls there, but, of course, it makes no sense philosophically that there are tolls on some bridges but not on others. But, as you’ve said already, the tolls over the Humber bridge have already been scrapped and the argument for scrapping the Severn tolls is more strategic, as you’ve already mentioned. Now, I haven’t heard anyone arguing that the tolls should be reduced to £3. What I’ve been hearing is that we need to scrap the tolls entirely. So, I know what the reality of the situation is, but what exactly can we do now to push this agenda forward in order to scrap those tolls entirely? Thank you.

I’d like to thank the Member for his question and assure him that, even if he was asking me to consider tolling for that particular bridge in the area he represents, I would reject such a consideration. [Laughter.] The fact of the matter is—I go back to the point that I made earlier—in so far as general taxation is concerned, users of the Severn crossings have already paid a considerable amount over and above the estimated level of debt. Now, it’s my understanding, based on the Welsh Affairs Select Committee’s report, that the annual cost of maintaining the crossings is something in the region of £30 million, which would imply one sixth of the current tolling would be sufficient in order to cover those costs. So, at the moment, it’s proposed there’ll be £3 per crossing, around about half. It could still be cut further, of that there is no doubt. So, I’ll be making my representations. I’d urge the Member and his party, and indeed all parties and all Members in the Chamber, to do so likewise and to continue pushing, as we have already stated in a unanimous way, for removal of those tolls, upon the crossings coming back into public ownership.

I certainly welcome the decision to cut the tolls, which I think will be a huge boost to motorists. Now, you have outlined your wish, Cabinet Secretary, to see the abolition of the tolls on the Severn bridge, and I agree with that ambition as well, even if there are serious financial questions that need to be addressed, and, indeed, traffic-flow issues as well, as Jenny Rathbone has outlined. Now, I come from a slightly different position from the last speaker, but I would ask you: how would you answer those who say that it is a contradiction for the Welsh Government to continue to allow the Cleddau bridge to be run for profit by its council whilst condemning the toll charges on the Severn bridge?

It’s an incredible irony that it’s the so-called pro-business party that is actually in favour of a huge constant tax on users of the Severn crossing, whereas it’s actually the Welsh Labour Party that is proving to be more pro-business by arguing most vocally for the removing of this tax on business. We will do so unashamedly. We are arguing for improvements to the prospects of the Welsh economy. We have proven, in Government, that the Welsh economy can grow faster than the UK economy can, based on the decisions that we make. If we can convince UK Government, and I sincerely hope we can do, to remove those taxes on users of the Severn crossings, I'm confident that this Government and this party will continue to improve the Welsh economy.

Well, I make no apologies for reiterating a lot of what’s been said in the Chamber today, because I think it’s such an important factor to the Welsh economy. My colleague’s outlined very effectively the legal position with regard to the Government’s proposal to retain the bridge tolls after the transition date. I would like to concentrate on the financial situation with regard to the retention, at whatever level, of the bridge tolls. The Severn bridge tolls are nothing less than a tax on Welsh businesses, and a definite barrier to any business wishing to locate in Wales, particularly those that have markets largely in England or the continent. Bridge tolls can add thousands of pounds a year to the operational costs of such businesses. UKIP will accept nothing less than zero tolls. The British people pay huge amounts of money through the excise licence levy; maintenance costs of both the old and new Severn bridges would amount to a tiny fraction of this revenue. We urge the Welsh Government to make the strongest representations to the UK Government with regard to their legal ability to retain these tolls at whatever level.

Well, I’d agree with the Member and say that it very much is a tax on Welsh businesses and a barrier to investment, and I hope that Conservatives at Westminster will listen to what Members in this Chamber have said, and drop their anti-competitive position.

Finally, Nick Ramsay.

It’s the way you tell them, Cabinet Secretary. Happy new year to you as well.

You would be forgiven for thinking that it was still ‘Blue Monday’ by listening to some of the less than positive questions you’ve received today, Cabinet Secretary. Whilst we accept that many of us would like to see no tolls at all on the Severn crossings, and recognise that that would be a massive benefit to the economy, I think you have to accept that this announcement does represent an improvement on the situation we had before. Motorists crossing those bridges, as a result of this change, will be paying lower tolls than they were, and will therefore have more money in their pockets. So, that must have a positive benefit for businesses. Cabinet Secretary, you’ve been a champion for the metro and electrification. Would you accept that this is another part of the city region jigsaw, as we levy those tolls down? And how are you working with local authorities in the city deal area to make the most of this development and to try and maximise the effect of it for businesses in south-east Wales?

Finally, Presiding Officer, just going back to Jenny Rathbone’s point—a very interesting point, actually—about the effect on traffic flows of lowering the tolls, there is a flip side to the argument that Jenny Rathbone was making, and that is, of course, there are roads surrounding the area of the Severn Crossings, such as in Chepstow, in my constituency, for instance, which actually are carrying a lot of traffic—a lot more than they should—because people are currently avoiding the toll system. So, have you made any assessment, or are you planning to make any assessment, of the effect of reduction in the tolls—to this point now but, hopefully, in the future, even more—and the effect of lower traffic volumes on surrounding roads in areas like Chepstow, and the resulting benefit for pedestrians, motorists and lowering road traffic incidents in those areas, which are currently really having a problem with the levels of traffic that they’re suffering from?

I’d like to thank the Member for his questions and his contribution. I think he is absolutely right: this is part of the jigsaw of the city region approach. I was pleased to see the leader of Monmouthshire council recognise the challenges, but also the opportunities, that removing tolls—or, in the very least, reducing tolls—on the Severn Crossings would have for the entire region, not just the area that he represents. I do think that there is immense opportunity for Monmouthshire as part of the city region exercise—indeed, the whole of the region of south-east Wales—in identifying new opportunities to grow the regional economy, but there is no doubt, equally, that opportunities could be enhanced by complete removal of the tolls. I do believe that the taxpayers have already written off, or should have written off, the debt if only the UK Government would agree to actually carry that out, given the amount in general taxation they’ve already paid, but I also recognise that there is a need to ensure that the modelling for traffic flows is accurate. For that reason, I will be scrutinising the TEMPro 7 modelling that has just been carried out as part of this work. Indeed, I’m sure that I’ll be factoring into my consultation response my views on that modelling and the impact on the wider community in the area that the Member represents.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on the agenda is the business statement and announcement, and I call on Jane Hutt.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. I have one change to report to this week’s business. I’ve reduced the time allocated to the Counsel General’s oral Assembly questions tomorrow, and business for the next three weeks is as shown on the business statement and announcement found among the meeting papers available to Members electronically.

I’d like to thank the business Secretary for her statement, and also ask her whether she has time in Government business for a debate, first of all, on the project of the tidal lagoon in Swansea bay. We know that the Hendry review has come out in favour of this project as a pathfinder for this technology, which has huge potential in Wales. I think that a debate rather than a statement, by which we can unite as an Assembly around the principles of this project, and which the Government can set out how we can support the project going forward, would be extremely beneficial. I’d particularly like that debate to focus on what we can do as a Welsh Government, and as a Welsh Assembly, to take the project forward. I know that the Government has expressed an interest in the idea that we’d be promoting as Plaid Cymru—an energy company for Wales, Ynni Cymru—and I would really like to see the Welsh Government take an early stake in the tidal lagoon, in the project and the holding company that’s driving that forward, so that, over the next successive generations, we benefit from this technology as it rolls out across Wales, because I think this is the future and I’m convinced that we can get a direct benefit for the Welsh nation out of tidal lagoons and tidal power more widely. It may not be lagoons in other parts of Wales; it may be other tidal technologies in Anglesey, for example, as well. I think this is a huge potential, so I'd very much appreciate a debate in Government time on the principle of tidal lagoons, so that we can follow up on the Hendry review and really give the support, I think, of the whole Assembly to that principle.

The second item I'd like to raise with the Welsh Government is whether we can have a statement clarifying what the Government has done as regards the pollution incident on the River Teifi just before Christmas. There was a major pollution incident, which some people might recall—it tended to get lost in the Christmas news, but about 6 miles of the river was affected. I understand it was a significant release of some form of effluent from the dairy industry. We need to understand how that happened, but also what steps are being taken now to reinstate the river, which is an important fishing river and an important tourist attraction as well in that part of Wales. I've had a lot of correspondence from local fishermen and people who take an interest in the environment about what might be happening there and how the Government might follow up on that. We had an unfortunate incident in Nantgaredig, outside Carmarthen, with oil, but this, on the face of it, actually looks more serious and looks like it could affect the Teifi for a long period of time. So, I'd very much appreciate some more information from the Welsh Government by means of a written statement or otherwise that I can share with my constituents and which shows that the Government is taking this issue seriously.

Diolch yn fawr, Simon Thomas. Those are two very important questions. Of course, we very much welcome, and the Welsh Government welcomed, the fact that the Charles Hendry review last week supported the case for developing a tidal lagoon energy industry in the UK. And, of course, this has been very much supported by our new programme for government, ‘Taking Wales Forward’, and also acknowledged in statements by Government Ministers. So, I think this development of a sustainable tidal lagoon industry in Wales is clearly a subject that would be appropriate for a debate, and we'll look to that in terms of timing and arrangements.

Your second point, on pollution in the River Teifi, I very much recognise that this is about tackling agricultural pollution in terms of origins. It’s essential to improve overall water quality in Wales, and, of course, mention has been made, I think, already today about the consultation on nitrate vulnerable zones in Wales, which has closed. But the Cabinet Secretary would be prepared to do a specific written statement on this incident, but, obviously, she is also looking at the results of this consultation.

Leader of the house, could we have two statements, if possible, please, with the first building on the question that my colleague, Nick Ramsay, ask the First Minister around business rates. I heard the response, as everyone did, from the First Minister that the guidance, the rules, the regulations would be coming forward shortly around the business rates proposals, and we do welcome the additional money that has been put into the budget for the business rate scheme post 1 April of this year. But, 1 April is coming very, very quickly down the tracks at us, and are you in a position, as leader of the house, to indicate to us what the term ‘shortly’ means, where we might have some understanding of how this money will be distributed, what will be the criteria, and, importantly, what businesses will do if they do find themselves on the wrong side of the line when it comes to accessing that help and support over the business rates revaluation? As I said, there is a very short period of time, and businesses, not unreasonably, with cash-flow projections and planning for the future, do need this information as quickly as possible. I appreciate the Government might be working behind the scenes on this, but the word ‘shortly’ needs defining, and if you, in your role as leader of the house, are in a position to let us know when that statement might be coming forward, that would be hugely helpful. If not, could you report back and let us know what is happening around these rules and regulations?

And the second statement I'd seek is from the Cabinet Secretary for Health, Well-being and Sport. This morning, I had the pleasure of hosting the Cancer Patient Voices event in the Senedd here. Annie Mulholland, as many Members in this Chamber will recall, brought the first event to the Pierhead building, which had cross-party support, and numerous Members attended that event. Again, this year, the event was very, very well supported, and there were some very good contributions from the floor and from the platform, informing patients and informing clinicians and politicians of the state of play at the moment when it comes to cancer services. Dr Tom Crosby talked of the need for a cancer strategy for Wales. We do have a cancer plan, but he did talk about how putting provision of services in place when it comes to cancer services is not an issue just for a one-term Government on a two or three-year cycle. It does need long-term planning that lasts well into the future, and horizon scanning. In fairness to Dr Tom Crosby, he is a man of huge experience in this field, and I think it would be hugely appreciated if the Cabinet Secretary for health could come forward with his thoughts on such a strategy being put in place by the Welsh Government, and what his response is to that request.

Andrew R.T. Davies raises two important points, and, of course, I very much welcome the fact that you recognise that this is a significant uplift in terms of business rates. Its importance, I think, is over and above the £10 million transitional relief. The consultation, of course, had an impact and we know that constituents and businesses across Wales responded. Of course, the detail of how that is going to be delivered is being worked through now, and the Cabinet Secretary will be able to make the outcome of that available in due course.

On your second point, I also attended the Cancer Patient Voices event and it was good to see a cross-party event of that kind so well attended. I heard, indeed, from Julie Morgan and also Rhun ap Iorwerth, and then it went on to other party spokespeople. Dr Tom Crosby, of course, is taking the lead in terms of the Velindre health project, and we’re very fortunate that we have clinician specialists like Dr Crosby in Wales leading the way.

Can I return to the Hendry review into Swansea bay tidal lagoon, which was far more positive than many of us could have hoped for? I agree with the request made by Simon Thomas for a debate on tidal lagoons, but, before we reach that stage, can I ask the Government to provide an update on the marine licence for the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, because without the marine licence it cannot go ahead?

Of course, Mike Hedges has championed the tidal lagoons, alongside Simon Thomas and the Welsh Government. The determination of the marine licence application is undertaken by Natural Resources Wales. There is cross-party support, I would say, and clearly now we need to get on with this, but obviously this is for Natural Resources Wales. Let’s again look at the great potential that the marine energy sector does present for Wales. We look forward to the outcome and to the opportunity to debate this further.

I’m looking for three statements from the Cabinet Secretary. The first one is on the use of the ministerial car dispatched to Mayfair to collect and deposit the Labour millionaire David Goldstone. We’d like to know when, at what cost and why the limousine was dispatched. Secondly, we’re looking for a statement on the Heath hospital and what will be done to stop or to prevent staff having to pay so many parking fines, which is completely unacceptable. Thirdly, can we have a statement about when the First Minister will be publishing his diary, please?

I think the issue around hospital car parking is an issue that, of course, has caused some concern, not just to patients and staff, but I know this has been dealt with by the health board.

Can I call for two statements, please? The first is a statement request from the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment and Rural Affairs into the state of the sea defences in Old Colwyn in my constituency. The Minister will be aware that I’ve raised this issue on many an occasion in the Chamber, and I’m very concerned at the state of those defences. Just last week, there was a further storm that caused damage to the to the sea defences on that part of the coast, and the leader of the house will be aware that those defences actually do protect the A55 and the north Wales railway line. In fact, part of the wall that protects the embankment on which the north Wales railway line sits was damaged in last week’s storm, as were many of the railings along the promenade. These are now in urgent need of repair and attention. It needs not just a patchy, ad hoc repair job as we’ve seen over many years; it needs a fundamental restoration of those sea defences up to modern levels, because I am concerned that if we don’t do that, we’re going to end up with a catastrophic failure of the defences at some point and that could lead to not just disruption with transport, but potential loss of life.

Can I also call for a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for health and social services, to provide an update to Members on the situation with follow-up work, following the Tawel Fan scandal in north Wales? Some 18 months have now passed since the publication of the Tawel Fan report into the institutional abuse at that ward in the Ablett unit at Ysbyty Glan Clwyd, yet not one person has been held to account. Not one person has lost their job as a result of the horrific care and experiences of those patients on that ward.

We were told, as Assembly Members, that the work, which was being undertaken by Donna Ockenden and HASCAS, the two organisations that are following up on this issue, would be completed by March. Yet, in the board papers for the Betsi Cadwaladr university health board, which are published and available online, which are going to be discussed tomorrow, we’re told that that will now be extended to the summer. I think that’s unacceptable, frankly, and I would appreciate very much—. We were told that we would get regular updates from the Cabinet Secretary for health—we’ve not had any, unless I’ve been requesting them, which I think is unacceptable. I would request an update urgently on that particular issue. I don’t want people dragging their feet in terms of bringing people to justice.

I’m very much aware, Darren Millar, of your concern about the first question, which really is concerned with coastal defences. In your constituency, in Old Colwyn in particular, we are preparing for £150 million investment with local authorities, as you’re aware, in coastal risk management projects and also supporting local authorities to develop business cases for potential projects. There is clearly a requirement for a partnership approach to Old Colwyn and, in fact, the Cabinet Secretary’s officials are in contact with Conwy council concerning this particular project. Of course, that also relates to transport infrastructure, which is the responsibility of the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure. I will ask the Cabinet Secretary for health for an update, in terms of Betsi Cadwaladr, on your second point.

Leader of the house, could I please request a statement from the Welsh Government on the policy for providing free swimming for children? It is now 10 years since the policy of free swimming for children was rolled out in Wales, which is perhaps a good time for us to reflect upon the policy. Free swimming has been important in providing access to leisure opportunities, to tackle obesity or poor activity rates—themes I have often covered—but also in terms of social justice. However, 10 years on, there are questions now relating to take-up, with data from Free Swimming Wales showing a 19 per cent decrease in the number of free public swims during August and September 2016, compared to the previous year. A statement from Welsh Government would give us the chance to consider this but also to expand and think about ways to reinvigorate the policy, for example, perhaps by linking in with the free swimming for veterans and military personnel, to create family leisure opportunities.

Vikki Howells raises a very important issue in terms of our very successful policy for free swimming, not just for children but for older people as well, over-60s, which is very well used for that age group. But it is worth reflecting on, and, in fact, the Minister for Social Services and Public Health has asked her officials to look at the fact that there has been a decline in the use of free swims amongst the under 16s. I think it’s important to recognise that there have been changes to the free swimming policy over the years. There are more, for example, pool-side activities that are being encouraged, as well as ways in which this can be linked to swimming lessons et cetera. So, as part of her portfolio, the Minister will be looking at these issues, which are very important to raise today.

Leader of the house, you will be aware that properties in the village of Llanrhaeadr-ym-Mochnant, in my constituency, had to be evacuated on Friday after being flooded by water from a burst main that carries water from Lake Vyrnwy to Liverpool. The flooding even damaged the new village hall, which, I remember well, the First Minister opened only in 2012. While the cause is not yet known, the local county councillor, Councillor Aled Davies, has informed me that the pipes fracture on a regular basis, often over farmland, which is serious but not as serious, and we are aware, of course, as well, that sections of the pipes date from the Victorian era. Whilst much of this responsibility, I accept, lies with the United Utilities, I would request a statement from the Cabinet Secretary for the environment on the Welsh Government’s flood risk management policy in this regard. I would also be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could outline what pressure the Welsh Government or Natural Resources Wales can put on United Utilities to ensure that its infrastructure is indeed fit for purpose, so the community can be reassured that such incidents don’t happen again or, at the very least, are reduced as much as possible.

Well, obviously, that incident raises great concern not only for the people who are affected, but in terms of the long-term viability of that infrastructure. I certainly will share this with the Cabinet Secretary to look at. I’ve already mentioned coastal defences, but in terms of our investment—our record investment—in high quality flood defence programmes across Wales, just to say that across the whole of Wales we’ve spent £4.5 million in response to the winter storms and that is, of course, just one part of flood defence investment. But you raise a very specific issue and incident, Russell George.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary.

The next item on our agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government on the fiscal framework, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary to make his statement—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Before this Assembly debates the legislative consent motion the Wales Bill later this afternoon, I’d like to make a statement about the fiscal framework agreed between the Welsh Government and the UK Government last month.

As the Wales Bill has progressed through the UK Parliament, the First Minister has been clear that it would be a significant barrier to the Welsh Government’s support for the Wales Bill if we were not able to reach an agreement with the UK Government on a fair, long-term funding arrangement for Wales. I believe that the fiscal framework agreed with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury addresses that concern. It provides a step forward in the way Wales is funded, taking account of the new tax powers that will be devolved in 2018, and paves the way for the devolution of Welsh rates of income tax in 2019. I shall set out my own judgement categorically at the start of this statement, Llywydd: it’s my belief that this is a fiscal framework that is fair to Wales and fair to the rest of the United Kingdom. It means that fiscal arrangements are no longer a barrier to supporting the Wales Bill, if that is the intention of this National Assembly.

The framework was agreed following an intense period of negotiations with HM Treasury. The result is a complex package of interrelated arrangements. At their heart is the reform of the Barnett formula, as applied to Wales. For the first time we have reached agreement with the UK Government on a funding mechanism that will reflect the relative needs of our population. The reform of the Barnett formula represents the culmination of many years of representations by successive Welsh Governments. I pay particular tribute to the work of my predecessor, Jane Hutt, who achieved a major breakthrough in securing the first ever agreement to a funding floor for Wales. I also want to acknowledge the support of other parties in this Chamber, who have shown their commitment to securing a fair deal for Wales and I have no doubt that that strong cross-party agreement has been genuinely influential in delivering this funding settlement.

The framework will see the implementation of the funding floor recommended by the Holtham commission and it is set within the Holtham range at 115 per cent of comparable spend in England. While relative funding in Wales remains above this level, all funding through the Barnett formula will be multiplied by a transitional factor of 105 per cent. This will both slow down Barnett convergence and deliver extra resources for public services in Wales. Taken together, our estimates are that the agreement as a whole will provide up to £1 billion in additional revenue for Wales over its first 10 years.

The fiscal framework sets out the block grant adjustment for devolved taxes. Land transaction tax and landfill disposals tax will be devolved in April 2018. The framework was explicitly negotiated to agree the arrangements that would be required were the Wales Bill to be passed, should that be the will of the National Assembly and of Parliament, including removal of the requirement for a referendum on income tax. The framework as agreed takes into account Wales’s circumstances, particularly our income tax base, which is different to that in England. This will protect the Welsh budget from the impact of significant potential policy changes by the UK Government.

It is on that basis that I am today setting out the Welsh Government’s intention to introduce Welsh rates of income tax from April 2019, subject to the passage of the Wales Bill. Welsh rates of income tax, together with land transaction tax, landfill disposals tax and existing local taxes—non-domestic rates and council tax—will give the Welsh Government a new set of tax levers to support public spending and to underpin the success of the Welsh economy.

Llywydd, in other aspects of the agreement, greater tax devolution will provide an increased source of capital as well as of revenue spending for Wales. In the fiscal framework, our capital borrowing limit will double from £500 million to £1 billion. This will give us the tools to better manage the infrastructure investment needed to support the economy and wider public services in Wales. That higher borrowing ceiling will be introduced when Welsh rates of income tax are implemented.

To give us greater flexibility to manage our resources in a more efficient and transparent way, the framework allows for a new single Welsh reserve to be introduced from April 2018. This will operate as a sort of savings account, allowing us to deal effectively with any volatility from tax revenues by retaining unspent revenues for use in the future. The reserve will also allow us to manage the end-of-year position without the need for annual negotiations with the Treasury.

Llywydd, we have also secured independent oversight as part of the fiscal framework. For too long, the Treasury has been able to act as judge and jury in funding negotiations. Both the Holtham and Silk commissions recommended a role for independent bodies to oversee financial matters between the Welsh and UK Governments, and this has now been agreed in the fiscal framework. In future, this will apply to the operation of the framework and will include a role for bodies independent of Government to provide input into any disagreements between the Welsh and UK Governments about the implementation of the framework itself. Taken together, this package of arrangements will deliver funding that reflects the relative needs of Wales, it will protect our budget from undue risks that could follow tax devolution, and it will strengthen the ability of the Welsh Government to manage our own resources.

Llywydd, I said at the outset that the agreement is sufficient to enable the Wales Bill to be considered on its own merits. As we move towards the LCM debate, however, I must also, for the avoidance of doubt, confirm that the interrelated nature of the provisions in the framework means that if the Wales Bill is not passed, the fiscal framework as I have outlined it this afternoon will not be implemented. In those circumstances, we would have to renegotiate the adjustment to our block grant to allow for the devolution of stamp duty land tax and landfill tax in April 2018. Which of the other measures could be secured and at what cost could only become clear as a result of the renegotiations themselves. In the meantime, Llywydd, I commend this framework, designed to meet the unique circumstances of Wales, to the National Assembly.

I thank the Llywydd and the Cabinet Secretary for his statement this afternoon, and I would also like to thank the Chair of the Finance Committee for the opportunity to see the transcript of the recent meeting that they held. There is a great deal to be welcomed in this new framework, but in the time available to me, I want to focus on three specific issues, namely: the operation of the Barnett formula; the approach to revising the Welsh block grant in relation to new taxation; and the process of dealing with any conflict or dispute.

Now, as has already been said, there is a new mechanism in the framework—a Barnett floor of 115 per cent in terms of changes to the block grant. I wonder whether the Cabinet Secretary could tell us a little more as to why that particular figure was chosen. We will recall in Gerry Holtham’s report that there was a range proposed in terms of calculating the needs of Wales from 114 per cent to 117 per cent, and this figure is closer to the bottom of that range. Bearing in mind, of course, that we are talking here about a framework that will remain in place for decades, could he perhaps tell us a little about the process of review if Wales’s position in terms of its needs should change? Of course, Gerry Holtham, in coming to that figure, had set out the various different factors, and it’s possible—or, it is likely, in fact—that that situation will change over time. So, what process is anticipated for a review, should a review be required?

Now, in terms of the situation with changes to the block grant, the Wales Governance Centre has pointed to the negative impact in terms of the situation with SDLT, and that is reflected within the agreement between the two Governments on the very low comparative level of 25 per cent. There was a suggestion in the governance centre report as to how the situation could be more equitable by exempting the property market in London and the south-east, which actually skews these figures. Why didn’t the Government insist that that suggestion, or other suggestions to deal with these kinds of factors, should have been included in the agreement? The Government was successful in gaining other concessions, so why leave ourselves open to negative fiscal impacts as a result of the failure to do that?

Finally, may I ask the Cabinet Secretary to tell us a little more about the process of dealing with any dispute? I welcome the fact that there will be a role for an independent council through a new independent body on the Welsh side. But, having read the document, it appears to me that, despite the fact that there will be independent evidence available, it will be up to the two Governments to bring any dispute to a conclusion. Can I ask about one possible scenario? There is mention in the document of the behavioural impacts. For example, if the additional tax rate in Wales were to be reduced, it would mean that people would cross the border, and that that would have taxation impacts for the UK Government. The report states that, in that situation of behavioural changes, if the two Governments don’t come to an agreement, nothing would happen. Therefore, if I have understood the document correctly, it would be possible to cut that rate and, despite the fact that there would be a behavioural impact to that, if the Welsh Government wouldn’t agree, there could be no negative outcomes in terms of the Welsh fiscal situation as a result of that.

Thank you very much, Adam Price, for those detailed questions. May I thank him for what he said at the outset in welcoming a number of elements of the framework? I will now turn to his questions.

Cyn belled ag y mae Barnett yn y cwestiwn, mae’r ffigur o 115 y cant o fewn amrediad 114-117 y cant Holtham; hwn yw’r ffigur y mae Holtham ei hun yn ei ddefnyddio fwyaf aml wrth ddisgrifio i ba raddau y mae anghenion Cymru yn fwy na rhai ein cymheiriaid ar draws y ffin. Nid y ffigur ei hun yw’r peth mwyaf hanfodol yn y cytundeb hwn, ond yn hytrach, y gydnabyddiaeth bod yr anghenion hynny yn bodoli a’r sicrwydd eu bod yn sefydlog yn y modd y bydd y cyllid yn llifo rhwng y Trysorlys a Chymru yn y dyfodol.

O ran yr addasiad i’r grant bloc, mae'n bwysig iawn, Dirprwy Lywydd, i ystyried y fframwaith cyllidol yn ei gyfanrwydd. Mae iddo nifer o rannau cymhleth sy’n cydblethu. Aethom ati’n ofalus iawn i ystyried pa un a oedd hi’n bosibl darganfod cymharydd boddhaol i'r ddwy ochr ar gyfer treth dir y dreth stamp ai peidio, ac yn rhannol oherwydd bod rhai problemau technegol gyda hynny, nad oedd y Trysorlys yn credu y gallai eu datrys, rydym wedi cael y lluosydd Barnett o 105 y cant yn y cytundeb. Mae yna ddilysu a chydbwyso oddi mewn i hyn. Rwy'n credu ei bod yn bwysig dweud wrth yr Aelodau na ddylem dybio yn awtomatig y bydd derbyniadau yng Nghymru o dreth trafodiadau tir yn is na derbyniadau treth dir y dreth stamp yn Lloegr. Mae'r Swyddfa Cyfrifoldeb Cyllidebol, yn ei rhagolwg mis Tachwedd ar gyfer datganiad yr hydref, yn tybio y bydd derbyniadau treth dir y dreth stamp yng Nghymru yn fwy na dyblu rhwng 2015-16 a 2021-22, gan amcangyfrif, yng ngweddill y DU, y bydd y cynnydd mewn derbyniadau yn rhyw 50 y cant. Felly, nid yw’n anochel o gwbl y bydd y gwahaniaethau rhwng Cymru a gweddill y DU yn anfanteisiol i ni. Os byddant yn anfanteisiol i ni yn y pen draw, yna mae’r lluosydd Barnett yno i gywiro hynny ac i sicrhau bod Cymru yn cael ei gwarchod rhag unrhyw ganlyniadau niweidiol o'r fath.

Gofynnodd yr Aelod nifer o gwestiynau am y ffordd y bydd anghydfodau o fewn y fframwaith yn cael eu trafod a swyddogaeth goruchwyliaeth annibynnol yn hynny. Mae'r fframwaith yn nodi proses cam i fyny lle, os oes materion yn cael eu nodi gan y naill ochr yn y fframwaith, y cam cyntaf yw i waith gael ei wneud ar y rhai hynny ar lefel swyddogol, i wybodaeth gael ei chytuno rhwng Cymru a Thrysorlys y DU, ac i gael y rhai hynny wedi’u datrys gan swyddogion. Os nad yw hynny'n bosibl, yna mae'n symud i Gyd-bwyllgor y Trysorlysoedd, lle byddai Gweinidog Cyllid Cymru yn eistedd gyda Phrif Ysgrifennydd y Trysorlys, ac mae’r anghydfodau hynny i’w datrys yno. Os ceir methiant i ddatrys y problemau yng Nghyd-Bwyllgor y Trysorlysoedd, yna mae’n rhaid troi at y dulliau datrys anghydfod hynny a nodir yn y nodiadau cyfarwyddyd ar ddatganoli. Ar bob adeg yn y broses honno, ceir hawliau annibynnol i’r ddwy Lywodraeth ddefnyddio cyngor annibynnol, a gall y ddwy Lywodraeth sicrhau hynny’n annibynnol. Ac mae hynny’n ddatblygiad newydd pwysig iawn; nid ydym erioed wedi cael hynny o'r blaen. Ac mewn sawl ffordd, roeddem yn ddibynnol ar y ffaith bod yr Albanwyr wedi ennill wrth drafod eu fframwaith cyllidol nhw, oherwydd eu bod nhw wedi sicrhau hynny yn eu cytundeb, roeddem ni’n gallu cyfeirio at hynny a dweud nad oeddem yn gallu setlo am ddim llai.

Os, yn y diwedd, nad oes cytundeb rhwng y ddwy Lywodraeth, yna bydd y sefyllfa bresennol yn parhau. Nawr, efallai y byddwch chi’n dweud y gallai hynny olygu y bydd yna amgylchiadau anffafriol i Gymru, lle na allem ddwyn perswâd ar y Trysorlys, ond o fy safbwynt i, yn bwysicach, mewn sefyllfa lle nad yw pŵer yn cael ei dosbarthu'n gyfartal ar y ddwy ochr o’r bwrdd, mae hynny'n golygu nad yw'r Trysorlys bellach yn gallu, drwy ei benderfyniadau unochrog ei hun, gorfodi unrhyw beth ar Gymru. Ac felly mae'n bŵer sy'n gweithredu’r ddwy ffordd, ond rwy’n meddwl y bydd yn fwy arwyddocaol yn ein dwylo ni nag y byddai yn nwylo’r Trysorlys.

Cabinet Secretary, can I welcome your statement today—and that’s not just paying lip service to it; as you know, I genuinely welcome the potential that this framework offers Wales and, indeed, the UK for the future. As you know, I’ve been a full supporter of a fiscal framework for some time now, and since it became clear that tax devolution was with us, was going to happen, and there was an overriding need for a new funding settlement, or at the very least an end or a restriction to the previous Barnett squeeze. So, it’s good news that the Treasury have agreed to a needs-based factor being set at 115 per cent; you mentioned the parameters that the Holtham commission referred to in your answer to Adam Price. That isn’t even at the bottom of those parameters, it’s within them, so that is set at a good level. Also, I recognise the transitional factor of 105 per cent, so, on the face of it at least, this does seem to be a good deal for the Welsh Government.

Key to tax devolution, as you said, is the appropriate adjustment to the block grant so that Wales is not penalised unnecessarily. That’s what this process is about, and, of course, the maxim that you and your predecessor, Jane Hutt, adhered to, that the Welsh Government should bear the responsibility for the fiscal decisions that the Welsh Government takes, but the UK Government should continue to carry its share of risk for the decisions it takes—not always an easy maxim to employ, but something that’s absolutely essential if we’re going to ensure a just and fair settlement for Wales in the future, and a just and fair taxation system.

So a few questions: firstly, can you reconfirm that this is a permanent agreement and is not subject to the whims of a future Government that may consider clawing back, or at the very least shaving off some of our additional funding? I think you mentioned £1 billion estimated over the first decade or so. What is the nature of that agreement? You’ve said previously that it is more permanent than the previous arrangement in the last UK Parliament—just how permanent is it? That’s very important. Can you give us some more detail on how the framework takes into account Wales’s circumstances, particularly our income tax base, which clearly has a lower percentage of higher rate taxpayers than the south-east of England, and, I think I’m right in saying, a small number of higher rate taxpayers who actually contribute proportionately more to the higher rate of tax within Wales than happens across the border in England?

You mentioned your intention to introduce Welsh rates of income tax from April 2019; clearly, a very important part of your statement today. Can I ask you, is it your intention to keep initial rates comparable with those in England, at least in the first few years? I know that in the case of other taxes—stamp duty, landfill tax—the Welsh Government has adhered to the maxim that, at least in the transitional period, things should be kept pretty much the same this side of the border as across the border to allow for consistency, and for people to adjust to the new regime. I don’t expect you to tell us what the new rates—you’re grinning, because obviously you wouldn’t do that, no finance Minister would—I’m not asking you what the rates would be. I’m just looking to see whether you’re going to employ a similar maxim with income tax as to the other taxes, or whether—[Interruption.] Well, you might be considering lower rates or higher rates. I’m not asking that, I’m asking: are you considering—in a roundabout way—a different method of employing those taxes? But I think you’ve not fallen my question, so I probably won’t get an answer to that, but I’d like to hear it at some point.

Population change has been mentioned in the document. We know that that was a key issue; it was particularly an issue for the Scottish negotiations with the Treasury. Wales is affected in a different way. Can you tell us a little bit more about how population change is factored into the equation so that changes in population growth over the next few decades, whatever they might be, do not adversely affect our budgets?

Turning to the new single Welsh reserve, on the face of it, this sounds a huge improvement—much simpler, much more straightforward. How will that reserve operate in practice? Is there going to be a cap on the reserve, a time limit, or will it provide maximum flexibility to the Welsh Government, which, clearly, along with the new borrowing powers, will, I imagine, become an extremely important tool in managing multi-year spending and financial planning?

Finally, I asked you last week about future dispute resolution between the Governments. Adam Price has asked you in detail about that, so I won’t bore the Chamber by continuing the process of mediation, other than to ask: you mentioned in your comments to the Finance Committee last week that you thought it would be important that there is a review process in place, and I think the Welsh Government can call one review in a yearly period, and the UK Government can as well. If you could tell us a little bit more about how that process would work and what happens if there is a surprise that befalls both Governments, and there is a need for an urgent review between those set times for a review to happen.

Finally, Deputy Presiding Officer—Cabinet Secretary, we welcome this statement, we welcome the new framework. It may not be perfect—very few things in life are—but it is head and shoulders above what we had before and it is setting a new framework for the future, which I think will be broadly welcomed. This is, as I said last week, a great example of what can be achieved when the Welsh and the UK Governments put their differences aside and work for what is, in the end, in the best interest of Wales.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I thank Nick Ramsay for his questions. I’ve said regularly in this Chamber, during the period that we were negotiating the fiscal framework, and Mr Ramsay would ask me questions about it here, that I would refer to his interest and to the interest of other Members during my discussions with the Chief Secretary. And it’s always been a useful tool for me that the Chief Secretary knew that Members right across this Chamber were keeping a very careful eye on the way that those negotiations were being conducted.

I’ll turn to his specific questions. Yes, I can confirm that this is a permanent agreement. The breakthrough that Jane Hutt secured in getting the agreement to the principle of a funding floor was to last for the period of one spending review. This is now to be a permanent feature of the arrangement. Our income tax base, as Nick Ramsay said—it’s one of the very important parts of the framework that we are only exposed to the element of income tax that is actually devolved. That’s 10p of the basic higher and additional rates. That takes account of the relative strength of the Welsh tax base in each band—we have more taxpayers in the basic band; we have fewer, comparatively, in the higher and additional rates bands—and this means that our budget is exposed to less risk of differential growth at the top of the income distribution. That ability to negotiate a genuine comparator, but fits with the nature of Welsh income tax payers, is a very important part of this framework.

The rates of income tax will indeed come to Wales from April 2019. I won’t be able to say anything significant about them until much closer to the time. We have taken the approach in relation to LTTA and to landfill disposals tax that it’s important in the very earliest periods to make sure that the system we have is working well and is recognisable to those whose job it is to make it operate. I have no doubt that those arguments will be influential when we come to April 2019 as well.

Nick Ramsay drew attention to the issue of population change. Population is a very important element in the fiscal framework. In the Scottish version, the risks in relation to population are taken by the UK Government. In our framework, the risks are taken by us in Wales. That is partly because we are in very different positions. Population in Scotland at the turn of this century was 3 per cent lower than it had been 30 years earlier, while the populations in both Wales and England were 6 per cent higher. Over the last decade, the population has increased in both Wales and Scotland, but the population of Wales has grown faster than the Scottish population, and the reasons for growth are different. In the last 10 years, net international migration has accounted for over 50 per cent of population growth in England; over 60 per cent of population growth in Scotland; but less than 40 per cent in Wales. It means that we are far less exposed to a slow-down in international migration in the post-Brexit period.

Nick Ramsay asked about the single Welsh reserve. It is a very important part of the package as a whole. Is there a cap on it? Yes, there is—it’s £500 million—and there’s a cap on the drawdown from it as well. We will be able to draw in, in any single year, £125 million-worth of revenue, and that compares to £75 million of revenue that we’re able to carry forward under current arrangements, and we’ll be able to draw down £50 million-worth of capital, compared to £20 million under current arrangements. I’ve had to recognise, in my discussions with the Chief Secretary, that he has a responsibility to manage the UK’s budget in the round, and that he has to have some parameters that he can rely on in doing that. I think that the Welsh reserve is at a level that will work for Wales, and that the annual drawdowns will be sufficient to meet our needs.

Finally, Dirprwy Lywydd, to the review process. The review process allows both Governments, independently, to call for a full review of arrangements, once, in the Welsh Government’s case, during an Assembly term, and once, in the UK Government’s case, in a parliamentary term, but that does not preclude agreement on further reviews in that time frame, should something unexpected emerge and be necessary. But the equal ability, and independent ability, to require a review is a very important aspect of the framework and an advance on anything we have at the moment.

First of all, can I welcome the clarity of the Cabinet Secretary’s statement? Can I very much welcome the independent body for dealing with disagreement? As people have heard me say many times in here, I think we had a very bad deal out of the London Olympics. I think that we should have probably had nearer 20 times as much as we got, rather than the amount that we got, and, hopefully, this will deal with those sorts of problems.

Talking of behaviour, there has been no behavioural change due to the huge differences in council tax between local authorities. There hasn’t been a rush from Abergavenny to Allt yr Yn and there hasn’t been a rush across the Carmarthenshire border to Pembrokeshire because the council taxes were substantially less.

I have three questions. First, the two major taxes being devolved are highly cyclical taxes. And we know the ability to vary income tax rates has been devolved to Scotland since 1999. We also know it hasn’t been used. Varying tax rates is incredibly difficult. Increase it compared to England: public resentment. Decrease it: reduction in revenue and cuts to services. It’s hardly surprising that Scotland has not varied their rate out of line with the rest of the United Kingdom, and as the rest of the United Kingdom have varied their rates, Scotland has followed.

There will also be huge difficulty in identifying Welsh, as opposed to English, taxpayers. And there’s been a problem in Scotland with a much less porous border, with much less movement over the border than there is between England and Wales. Does the Cabinet Secretary believe that the safeguards in place regarding looking at each band individually, and protecting the overall Welsh budget as a percentage of the English budget, gives sufficient protection?

The second question is: we voted to leave the European Union, so, does that mean that the aggregate levy can now be devolved to Wales when we leave the European Union, and that other taxes excluded by European Union rules can now be considered to be devolved? On capital limits, does the Cabinet Secretary, like me, find the limit arbitrary? And does he share my concerns that the limit will be seen as a target, rather than a limit, and that the debate that ought to be taking place about the affordability and revenue consequences of capital expenditure will not take place in the same way if, instead of having an arbitrary limit set by the Treasury, we have to engage in prudential borrowing and we actually have to make the case for and show the financial capacity in the future to engage in that borrowing, rather than having a target and aiming for it?

Well, I well remember the discussions with the Treasury over the Olympics. And it’s a perfect example of where, in that case, the Treasury was the judge and the jury and the enforcer of the result of it, and no matter how strong the arguments were on the other side, they weren’t prepared to take any account of them. This agreement means that that position would not be the case in the future.

Mike Hedges asked about behavioural changes, and, Dirprwy Lywydd, maybe I ought to, just for a moment—because I think a number of Members have asked this—explain a rather technical aspect of the agreement, which is how we deal with what are called policy overspills. So, there are three different sorts of policy overspills dealt with in the framework. Where there are direct effects, so if the UK Government was to change income tax allowances, then those effects will be directly taken into account within the framework. If there are behavioural effects, if we were to change the rates of land transaction tax in Wales and that led to people coming to live in Wales, and if that made a difference to the tax taken on either side of the border, then the framework allows for those behavioural effects, exceptionally, to be taken into account where they are both material and demonstrable. So, there are behavioural effects that can be taken into account, but I believe they would be very rare and I believe the hurdle has been set suitably high.

As far as second order effects are concerned, when actions, for example, that we might take as a National Assembly would result in a more buoyant Welsh economy and that would result in greater national insurance contributions from Welsh taxpayers flowing to the Treasury, we’ve agreed that those are simply too complicated to trace, where cause and effect is almost impossible to demonstrate. Those second order effects are not, therefore, encompassed within the framework.

Mike Hedges asked about taxpayer identification, and it’s quite true that HMRC struggled to identify taxpayers who lived in Scotland. We believe that they’ve learnt a lot from that experience, and it is part of the devolved taxes project that we have jointly with HMRC to learn the lessons from that Scottish experience and to make sure that the identification of Welsh taxpayers can be effectively carried out.

Is there sufficient protection within the agreement that we’ve arrived at? Well, I said in my statement that we believe that if you take central scenarios on population, public expenditure growth and historical patterns of tax receipts, then this agreement realises £1 billion-worth of extra revenue for the Welsh budget over the next 10 years. If you assume that there is no growth in public expenditure at all, that it remains frozen at current limits for the next 10 years, we would still be £500 million-worth better off. So, I do believe that the protections are sufficient.

On the aggregates levy, well, I’m afraid we haven’t been able to resolve this as yet. It remains subject to some legal disputes, and leaving the European Union, when that takes place, may be a way of resolving them, but we’re not at that point as yet.

Finally, capital limits are inevitably arbitrary in one way or another. We have agreed a limit that is commensurate with the limit that Scotland would have had when it had a similar level of fiscal devolution. I agree absolutely with what Mike Hedges said: the capital borrowing is there to be used as necessary. It’s not a target to reach, and there are many other ways in which we are able to deploy capital resources, and our ability to fund borrowed money through revenue will be very much under scrutiny in a period when austerity will continue to reduce the amount of revenue available to the Welsh Government.

I questioned the Cabinet Secretary in Finance Committee last Wednesday, and a transcript of that session has been circulated to Members, so I don’t propose to go through all the ground that I covered then on some of the more technical aspects of the fiscal framework, although I was broadly satisfied with the responses the Cabinet Secretary was able to give.

I would just like to raise two areas. Within the narrow terms that the Cabinet Secretary has set in terms of protecting Welsh Government revenue, he may think he’s done a reasonably good job within the fiscal framework. But that, of course, is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for protecting the interests of Welsh taxpayers. I’d like to ask if he shares my concern about a potential asymmetry with how devolved income tax powers will work and the potential to alter Welsh rates of income tax within a band of 10 per cent. I understand that the Welsh Government has said in the Labour manifesto that these rates wouldn’t be changed during this Assembly. But were, at a later point, his or another Government to seek to increase the Welsh rate of income tax, that would lead to two effects. One, there would be a higher rate and the higher rate would, itself, increase revenue, but it would potentially also have an effect on the income tax base, and at least some of that increase in revenue might be offset by what he described as behavioural effects. In the regime proposed, all of the benefit of that higher income would go to the Welsh Government, while most of the cost of any behavioural effect would go to the UK Government. Given that the power to change that rate is held by the Welsh Government, doesn’t that create an asymmetry where the incentive is to raise taxes because the Welsh Government gets all of the revenue benefit of that, but most of the revenue cost of the behavioural changes is felt by the UK Government that isn’t making that decision?

I’d also like to just ask about when decisions were made in this area. We discussed before, Cabinet Secretary, what seemed to be your uncanny powers of foresight. You had told us that, at least, Labour Assembly Members would be weighing this up carefully over the weekend and making a decision last night, I think—Monday night or whenever it was—in your meeting. However, paragraph 14 of the fiscal framework clearly states that the Welsh Government’s funding will ultimately come from two separate funding streams, including Welsh rates of income tax. So, in signing that, you and David Gauke presumed that that devolution of income tax rates would happen. You replied and suggested that perhaps that was a mistake or I shouldn’t put too much emphasis on that, and actually it hadn’t been decided and everyone was going to be carefully considering it before any decision was made. I then went and referred to the Labour Party’s manifesto for the Assembly elections earlier this year, and note that it states in that:

‘We will guarantee not to increase Income Tax in the next Assembly term when these powers are devolved’.

Why, if the Cabinet Secretary says that no decision has been made, that it all depends on the fiscal framework and Labour AMs weighing things up, why did the Labour manifesto categorically state when? I.e., it’s a done deal. At what point between the 2015 Conservative manifesto at a UK level, when they promised there would be a referendum before income tax powers were devolved, and the Labour manifesto of 2016, when it took that as a given, was the decision changed? What discussions did Ministers in the Welsh Government have with Ministers in the UK Government, whether formally or informally, to stitch up a deal to devolve tax-raising powers, having previously promised they would depend on a referendum? And why will the Welsh Government, and indeed the UK Government, jointly, not respect what it stated on the ballot paper of that 2011 referendum: that devolution of tax-raising powers would not follow a ‘yes’ vote? Why have they broken their word? [Interruption.]

Dirprwy Lywydd, let me deal with the first question first—[Interruption.]

Can we listen to the Cabinet Secretary?

[Inaudible.]—that he does in relation to the potential asymmetry of impact of increasing Welsh rates of income tax, this is a point already made by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, but any Welsh Government making such decisions at some point in the future will be wanting to weigh up the impact in the round. It will be looking to look at what impact changing Welsh rates of income tax in the difficult circumstances that Mike Hedges very clearly outlined earlier would have, not just on individual taxpayers and on the Welsh Government’s revenues, but also on the Welsh economy as well. So, it will be a good deal more complex a decision than one construed just on those narrow terms that Mark Reckless set out.

In front of the Finance Committee, Dirprwy Lywydd, Mr Reckless asked me a series of very pertinent technical questions about the fiscal framework, which I was very pleased to try and answer, and then he veered away into the sort of conspiracy theory of politics that he’s offered us this afternoon. There was no deal done. The basis of the discussions with the Chief Secretary was that set out in my statement, when I said that we set off, in negotiating the framework, explicitly on the basis that we were looking for arrangements that would be required were the Wales Bill to be passed. It wasn’t because the Wales Bill was bound to be passed, but we were trying to make sure that, by the time any votes on the Wales Bill, particularly here, came to be taken, I would be able to say to Members either, ‘We’ve got a fiscal framework that allows you to weigh up the Wales Bill on its own merits’, or ‘The fiscal framework has become a barrier to the Welsh Government being able to recommend the Wales Bill to you’. The decision that my group took was taken last night in a very thorough, very detailed and very forensic discussion of the Wales Bill, in which the fiscal framework was, as I’ve said today—and the First Minister has said previously—now a neutral element. It was no longer a barrier to deciding to support the Wales Bill. It was not so good that it was worth voting for a Wales Bill that could not be supported on its own merits. And the whole negotiation has been carried out on those very straightforward and non-conspiratorial terms.

May I thank the Cabinet Secretary for his statement and say that I agree with him that the fiscal framework, as agreed, does provide sufficient foundations to take these taxation powers and to see them transferred, not only those over income tax but the other two taxes that are now being considered by the Finance Committee. There’s another political decision to be made about the Wales Bill, but, in terms of the fiscal framework, I would like to thank the Government for the work that they have done because I do think that this is of great assistance to the Assembly in coming to decisions.

I have two issues that I would like to raise. First of all, one of the things that is perhaps lost in all of this, although the Cabinet Secretary has mentioned it, is the fact that there is quite a fundamental review of the Barnett formula here, and that is something that we have been calling for for some years. This process started, of course, with the establishment of the One Wales Government and the decision to establish between Labour and Plaid Cymru a joint commission to look into the Barnett formula in relation to Wales’s needs, very skilfully chaired by Gerry Holtham. That report has provided a foundation for this work, and it highlights to me the importance of independent advice and an independent source of information and evidence in order to make your case against the Treasury and the UK Government. So, I do think it’s important that we should actually trace this back to the days of Holtham—it has taken almost a decade to get to this point.

And, in that context regarding an independent process, there is recognition within the framework of the fact that the Government can establish and turn to and rely upon an independent source for review and for information. The Finance Committee in the past has recommended that a fiscal commission should be established to carry out that work—that’s what they have in Scotland. Now, perhaps there isn’t enough work for a full commission at the moment, but what you don’t want to do is turn to one source one year and another the next and take independent advice from another at another point. We need to build some kind of corporate memory, as it were, of fiscal issues and the devolution of fiscal matters to Wales.

So, I would like to hear more from the Cabinet Secretary as to how he is going to seek that independent advice, and what he expects to establish, in terms of a body or a process, in order to ensure that the independent evidence and information is available to the Welsh Government.

Well, thank you very much to Simon Thomas for what he said about the framework and about the agreement. Of course I agree; Gerry Holtham’s work was part of that agreement between Plaid Cymru and Labour during the third Assembly—work that we could return to time and time again, and the Treasury couldn’t say anything against the work within the report. It has taken a decade, as Simon Thomas said, but we could refer back to Gerry Holtham’s work every time in discussions with the Treasury. I don’t think I am saying anything out of turn here in saying that, in the first meeting, the Treasury wasn’t particularly open to discussing Barnett at all. That was just on the margins of what we were discussing. But, having gone through the process, and with the report and Gerry Holtham’s work and that of the people who have built on his work following the report, that was vitally important in the discussions with the Treasury.

Simon Thomas raised the question of where we’re going to get those independent viewpoints and opinions in future. Well, there's more than one way of getting that information. We can turn to the OBR, as I said before the Finance Committee. We can do what they already do in Scotland, or we can have another system that is appropriate for us in Wales—I'm still open to discussing the possibilities. I am going to go to Scotland at the end of this week, and I’ll have an opportunity there to discuss with the Minister for finance in Scotland and those people who advise them in that new situation in Scotland. I agree with Simon Thomas that, whatever we’re going to do in future, it will be important for us to be able to have information and advice that flows from one year to the next and not just have one person doing it one year, and someone else doing it the next. So, whoever is going to do it, I agree with what he said about the importance of having advice that does flow from one year to the next.

Thank you. Finally, Julie Morgan.

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. I thank the finance Secretary for his statement. I think this does signify a huge step forward, and I’d like to congratulate him and his predecessor Jane Hutt on all the work that they’ve done to achieve this statement today. I think we’ve all talked about reform of the Barnett formula for years. Simon Thomas referred to the history of it when he spoke, and I think it’s a great achievement to have finally got a needs-based element in the Barnett formula, and the fact that, as the finance Secretary said, it does actually recognise that it does exist, and the 115 per cent, I think, is a great achievement.

I also welcome the doubling of the capital borrowing powers, but I particularly welcome the introduction of the independent element into any debate or any sort of form of arbitration, and I think that this is a great achievement, because I know that the Treasury does want to be judge and jury, as the Cabinet Secretary said. There’ve been quite a lot of detailed questions already about how this independent element would work. Has the finance Secretary looked at examples of other countries where it has become the normal custom to have an independent element operating, and is there anything that he thinks we could learn from any of those other countries? From what he’s said, I think he’s referred to possibly using the Office for Budget Responsibility. I wondered if there are any other bodies that he’d think could fulfil this role, and is his mind still open to creating any sort of body?

I thank Julie Morgan for what she said and for drawing attention to those important aspects of the framework. We have looked to see how systems work elsewhere where independent advice makes its contribution to decision making. We have looked particularly at Scotland, because, as I said, it is fair to recognise that we were treading in their footsteps in securing that level of independent contribution to the framework. The OBR is independent of Government, but it is London-based, and you could argue that it sees the world a bit through the Treasury end of the telescope. I look forward to discussing in Scotland the way that their fiscal commission is operating. As Simon Thomas said, I have some doubts as to whether a full fiscal commission is a proportionate response to the level of fiscal devolution that we have in Wales, but we have benefitted hugely, for example, from the work of the Wales Governance Centre and the work of the Institute for Fiscal Studies. So, there are bodies out there that provide independent and robust advice. There will be others as well. At the moment I’m open to a number of different possibilities. We have a period of time. The fiscal framework allows in the beginning for the Welsh Government to operate within its own forecasting ability, so we don’t have to rush it in a matter of days. I want to find the best and proportionate advice that is independent of us and allows us to deploy it, and I’m very happy to continue to discuss with members of the Finance Committee and others the relative merits of different methods as we explore them in more detail.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

David Melding.

Thank you—[Interruption.]

David Melding.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will the Member give way?

Indeed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would the Member give way on that point?

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, certainly.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The next item on the agenda is the Council Tax Reduction Schemes (Prescribed Requirements and Default Schemes) (Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2017. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. The regulations the National Assembly has been asked to approve today will amend the 2013 council tax reduction scheme regulations. The amendments are needed to ensure the orderly continuation of the scheme for 2017-18 and to be sure that the figures used to calculate a person’s entitlement to a reduction in their council tax are increased to take account of rises in the cost of living. Financial figures relating to working-age people, disabled people and carers are increased in line with the consumer price index, and this contrasts with the UK Government’s policy of freezing working-age benefits until 2019-20. Figures relating to pensioners will be increased by 2.4 per cent, and, in doing so, we build in additional protection for pensioners, who are less able to obtain additional income from other sources.

From April 2016, the UK Government introduced new restrictions in respect of entitlements to housing benefit by removing the family premium for new births and new claims. These changes will not be implemented in respect of council tax reductions in Wales. As with the decisions to continue uprating working-age entitlements, this Welsh Government aims to protect applicants who have been affected by welfare reforms from any further cuts in income. Similarly, from April 2016, the backdating period for housing benefit applications was shortened to four weeks by the UK Government. We will not do that for council tax reduction schemes here in Wales. If we do not approve these regulations today, then those protections to some of the least well-off households in the whole of Wales will not be updated and carried forward, and I therefore ask Members to approve the regulations before them this afternoon.

Thank you very much. I have no speakers for the debate. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move on to item 6, which is the legislative consent motion on the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary of Health, Well-being and Sport to move the motion—Vaughan Gething.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I move the motion.

I’d like to start by thanking the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for their scrutiny of the LCM, and I note that they raise no particular objections. The UK Government introduced the Health Service Medical Supplies (Costs) Bill into Parliament on 15 September last year. The aims of the Bill are the clarify the UK Government’s existing powers that the Secretary of State can introduce a payment mechanism in the statutory scheme for medicines pricing in the UK, and to strengthen existing powers to tackle excessively priced unbranded generic medicines, and to provide a stronger power to collect information on the cost of medicines and medical supplies throughout the supply chain.

Amongst other things within the Bill, clause 6 enable the Secretary of State in the UK Government to provide pricing information obtained for reserve purposes to Welsh Ministers for use for devolved purposes. Clause 7 enables Welsh Ministers to make regulations to require providers of NHS pharmaceutical services and primary medical services in Wales to provide information to Welsh Ministers regarding prices paid, discounts, rebates given and revenue or profits accrued in the course of supplying medicines and medical appliances. This sort of information will be used by Welsh Ministers to assist in the determination of remuneration and payments to NHS pharmacists and providers of primary medical services in Wales. It will also be used to consider whether there is an adequate supply of medicines and other health service products available to the health service here in Wales, at a price that represents value for money.

Currently, Welsh Ministers do not have powers to require providers of NHS pharmaceutical services or primary medical services to provide information relating to the supply of health service products. Making these provisions for Wales in the Bill will ensure the UK as a whole can take a consistent approach to gathering information from across the entire supply chain, and I therefore ask Assembly Members to support the legislative consent motion.

Thank you very much. Again, we have no speakers for the debate. Therefore, the proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move to the debate on the local government settlement, and I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government to move the motion—Mark Drakeford.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I am pleased to lay before the Assembly for approval the local government settlement for 2017-18 for the 22 county councils and county borough councils in Wales. Next year, after taking everything into consideration, local authorities in Wales will receive over £4.15 billion in general capital funding. This is an increase of 0.2 per cent as compared to the year 2016-17. This is the first increase in the local government settlement since 2013-14.

The settlement reflects our agreement with Plaid Cymru to allocate £25 million in addition to local government to help it provide vital services, as well as £1 million for school transport and £3 million for a pilot scheme with regard to parking arrangements in town centres. Bearing in mind the pressure from all directions on the Welsh budget, I believe that this is a fair settlement for local government and that it is much better than what the majority of people within local government would have expected.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, mae’r Llywodraeth wedi diogelu cyllid ar gyfer llywodraeth leol yng Nghymru yn y blynyddoedd diwethaf, ac nid yw’r setliad hwn yn wahanol. Yn awr, rwyf yn cydnabod, er gwaethaf yr ymdrechion hyn fod y cyllid refeniw gros sydd gan yr awdurdodau 4 y cant yn is mewn termau gwirioneddol dros y cyfnod 2010-11 i 2015-16. Ar draws y ffin yn Lloegr, fodd bynnag, yn ôl y Swyddfa Archwilio Genedlaethol, roedd cynghorau yn gorfod ymdopi â gostyngiadau o 25 y cant mewn termau real yn y pwer gwario sydd ar gael iddyn nhw dros yr un cyfnod.

Wrth baratoi'r setliad, rhoddwyd ystyriaeth ofalus i gyngor yr is-grŵp dosbarthu a’r is-grŵp cyllid ynghylch diwygio fformiwla ariannu llywodraeth leol. Mae'r dosbarthu yn adlewyrchu'r asesiad mwyaf diweddar o angen cymharol, yn seiliedig ar drysorfa o wybodaeth am nodweddion demograffig, ffisegol, economaidd a chymdeithasol pob awdurdod yng Nghymru. Yn ôl yr arfer, cynhaliwyd ymgynghoriad ffurfiol ar y setliad dros dro, ac rwyf yn hyderus fod y nawdd a gyhoeddwyd yn rhoi’r cynghorau ar sylfaen gadarn ar gyfer eu gwaith cynllunio ariannol yn y flwyddyn sydd i ddod.

Yn y setliad terfynol, darparwyd £ 6 miliwn yn ychwanegol at y nawdd a ddynodir yn y setliad drafft ar gyfer gwaith cefnogol i atal digartrefedd. Mae digartrefedd, neu’r bygythiad ohono, yn cael effaith negyddol ar fywydau pobl. Mae ei atal, felly, yn cyfrannu at y bwriad sydd gennym o sicrhau bod Cymru yn wlad iachach ac at gyflawni ein hymgais i wneud yn siŵr bod rhagor o gartrefi diogel a saff ar gael.

Dywedais yma yn y Cynulliad yn ystod ein dadl gyntaf ar y gyllideb ddrafft lawn fod hon yn gyllideb ar gyfer sefydlogrwydd ac uchelgais, a bod yr uchelgais hwnnw yn ymestyn yn uniongyrchol iawn hyd at yr ymrwymiadau hynny yn 'Symud Cymru Ymlaen' sydd i’w cyflawni mewn partneriaeth ag awdurdodau lleol. Mae'r setliad hwn, felly, yn darparu £ 4.5 miliwn ar gyfer ariannu'r ymrwymiad i gynyddu’r terfyn cyfalaf a ddefnyddir gan awdurdodau lleol sy'n codi tâl am ofal preswyl. Bydd y terfyn yn codi o £ 24,000 i £30,000 yn y flwyddyn ariannol nesaf, a dyma fydd y cam cyntaf yn y gwaith o gyflawni ein hymrwymiad i symud tuag at derfyn o £50,000. Yn ail, mae'r setliad yn darparu £ 0.3 miliwn er mwyn ariannu'r ymrwymiad i gyflwyno diystyriad llwyr o'r pensiwn anabledd rhyfel mewn asesiadau ariannol ar gyfer codi tâl am ofal cymdeithasol. Ac yn drydydd, mae £ 1.6 o gyllid ychwanegol y tu hwnt i'r setliad wedi ei gynnwys i sicrhau na fydd unrhyw awdurdod yn gweld gostyngiad o fwy na 0.5 y cant yn ei gyllideb, o'i gymharu â'i ddyraniad o refeniw nawdd cyffredinol yn 2016-17.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, mae'n ddyhead a rennir â llywodraeth leol fod grantiau penodol i’w defnyddio’n gynnil ac mewn modd strategol. Mae'r setliad ar gyfer 2017-18 yn cynnwys £ 3.1 miliwn o gyllid a ddarparwyd yn flaenorol drwy grantiau penodol. Mae hyn yn cynnwys £2.85 miliwn o gyllid a ddarparwyd yn flaenorol gan y gwasanaethau cymdeithasol drwy gyflwyno grant trawsnewid. Golyga hyn fod nawdd blynyddol o dros £ 194 miliwn wedi ei drosglwyddo i’r setliad ers 2011-12, ac, fel Gweinidog Cyllid, yn ogystal â Gweinidog llywodraeth leol, mae hon yn drefn y bwriadaf ei dilyn eto wrth i’r Cynulliad hwn fynd rhagddo.

Ddirprwy Lywydd, mae newidiadau i'r gyllideb yn digwydd yn y ddau gyfeiriad. Mae'r newid yn y trefniadau ar gyfer cofrestru’r gweithlu addysg wedi arwain at dalu £ 1 filiwn o'r setliad a ddarparwyd ynghynt er mwyn gwneud cymorthdaliadau i ffioedd cofrestru athrawon. Mae'r rhan fwyaf o'r newidiadau, fodd bynnag, wedi ychwanegu at yr adnoddau sydd ar gael ar gyfer llywodraeth leol yng Nghymru.

Roedd y gyllideb derfynol, a gymeradwywyd gan y Cynulliad Cenedlaethol yr wythnos ddiwethaf, yn darparu £ 10 miliwn yn ychwanegol er mwyn cydnabod yr heriau ariannol penodol sy'n codi oherwydd darpariaeth gofal cymdeithasol, gan gynnwys pwysau ar y gweithlu. Mae hyn yn ychwanegol at y £ 25 miliwn a gyhoeddwyd yn wreiddiol, a oedd yn cydnabod pwysigrwydd gwasanaethau cymdeithasol lleol cryf yn llwyddiant hirdymor y gwasanaeth iechyd yng Nghymru ac yn cydnabod y pwysau cynyddol sy’n wynebu’r gwasanaethau cymdeithasol.

Fel y gŵyr yr Aelodau, drwy gyhoeddiadau a wnaed cyn y Nadolig, bydd swm ychwanegol o £10 miliwn ar gyfer rhyddhad ardrethi annomestig yn 2017-18 yn cael ei ddarparu ochr yn ochr â'r £ 10 miliwn a gyhoeddwyd eisoes ar gyfer y cynllun rhyddhad dros dro. Cytunwyd ar y mecanwaith ar gyfer defnyddio’r nawdd ychwanegol hwn trwy drafod â Phlaid Cymru. Caiff ei gyflwyno trwy’r awdurdodau lleol a’i dargedu at fusnesau’r stryd fawr a’r sector lletygarwch.

Ochr yn ochr â'r setliad, cyhoeddais yr wybodaeth ddiweddaraf am gynlluniau grant Llywodraeth Cymru ar gyfer 2017-18. Mae'r wybodaeth ddiweddaraf am nawdd cyfalaf awdurdodau lleol wedi ei ryddhau hefyd. A chymryd y flwyddyn nesaf ar ei hyd, unwaith yn rhagor ni fu gostyngiad mewn nawdd cyfalaf cyffredinol, sy’n dal i fod yn £143 miliwn.

Fel y gŵyr yr Aelodau, er mai’r setliad heb ei neilltuo yw'r ffynhonnell unigol fwyaf o nawdd sydd ar gael i awdurdodau, nid honno yw’r unig un. Wrth iddyn nhw osod eu cyllidebau a lefelau eu treth gyngor ar gyfer y flwyddyn nesaf, rwyf yn disgwyl i bob awdurdod ystyried yr holl ffrydiau ariannu sydd ar gael a meddwl sut y gallen nhw sicrhau’r gwerth gorau er budd trethdalwyr Cymru drwy ddarparu gwasanaeth effeithiol ac effeithlon, a defnyddio cyngor diweddaraf Swyddfa Archwilio Cymru yn eu hamgylchiadau arbennig.

Rydym yn cynnig cryn hyblygrwydd i awdurdodau yng Nghymru, nad yw ar gael i'w cymheiriaid yn Lloegr. Mae’r hyblygrwydd hwn yn caniatáu iddyn nhw ymarfer hunanlywodraeth ac egwyddor wrth reoli eu materion ariannol. Yn gyfnewid am hyn, mater iddyn nhw yw llunio eu cyllidebau yn gyfan, gan gyfuno adnoddau sydd ar gael yn genedlaethol â refeniw a godwyd yn lleol.

Ddirpwy Lywydd, mae hwn yn setliad teg ar gyfer llywodraeth leol mewn cyfnod heriol ac yn rhoi cyfle i awdurdodau ganolbwyntio ar y newidiadau mawr a fydd yn ofynnol i reoli'r lleihad mewn nawdd yn y cyfnod hwy.

Ailadroddaf y neges yr wyf wedi ei rhoi i bob gwasanaeth cyhoeddus yng Nghymru a'u partneriaid ers y gyllideb ddrafft gyffredinol ym mis Hydref: nawr yw'r amser i gynllunio ymlaen llaw yn bendant ac yn ddibaid ynglŷn â’r penderfyniadau hynny sydd eu hangen i wneud dewisiadau anos ac wynebu'r cyfnodau caletach sydd o'n blaenau yn y dyfodol. Yn y cyfamser, ac ar gyfer y flwyddyn nesaf, gofynnaf i Aelodau'r Cynulliad gefnogi'r cynnig ger eu bron y prynhawn yma.

It’s almost seven years since the Conservatives formed a Government in Westminster—seven years since they introduced their destructive austerity programme; seven years since the budgets of public services in Wales have been cut to the bone as a result of that. It was disappointing to see Labour Members of Parliament supporting the austerity charter before the general election of 2015.

The reductions in public services are truly having an impact on our communities. In light of the attention given to Brexit at the moment and the way in which the European Union was blamed for many of the problems in our society that arise as a result of austerity, we are at risk of forgetting that it’s ideology that drives austerity. It is ideology that leads to the dismantling of public services—the safety net that is so important to support our most vulnerable people—and it’s an ideology that I and Plaid Cymru reject entirely.

Following years of cuts to local authority budgets in Wales—a cut of 1.4 per cent in 2016-17 and 3.4 per cent in 2015-16—as part of the agreement on the budget recently reached, my party has ensured that an additional £25 million will be available to fund local authorities. As a result of this agreement, in 2017-18, some Welsh local authorities will see the first increase in their budgets for some years. But of course, in real terms, and taking into account factors such as inflation and the inevitable pressure for more services in areas such as social care, additional taxation and the apprenticeship levy, in real terms, this represents a cut to some local authorities. Although the settlement is an improvement on previous settlements, it is no cause for celebration, particularly bearing in mind that all other Government departments apart from central services have seen a far bigger increase in their budgets.

One issue I should highlight is the annual request that the Welsh Government should publish indicative figures for ensuing years with the settlement. In a post-election year, the local authorities would have expected Government to express their intent for 2018-19 and 2019-20 along with the 2017-18 settlement. The public purse is shrinking and we are all aware that more cuts are in the pipeline. And although local authorities in Wales have made savings of £700 million since the inception of austerity, a deficit of some £900 million is anticipated by 2019-20.

Austerity doesn’t work. Plaid Cymru has consistently argued since 2010 that we need to invest in infrastructure—roads, railways and broadband—in order to secure a strong economy that can lead to quality public services, which is what the people of Wales deserve.

I actually welcome the Cabinet Secretary’s final local government settlement for 2017-18, and we also welcome the commitment to a funding floor for local government settlements, as outlined in the programme for government. This, of course, complements the Barnett formula funding floor introduced by the UK Government and we hope that this will lead to some longer-term financial stability for our local authorities. This is the first increase in the settlement for four years, but of course it doesn’t compensate whatsoever for the £299 million that have been taken out of local government budgets since 2013.

I would actually agree with the Member Sian Gwenllian when she talks about indicative budget, because I know when I meet with council leaders and chief executives, they would like longer-term financial planning. I think in any business environment, you would want some indications as to what your settlement in going to be. The Wales Audit Office notes that, since 2010, local authorities in Wales have faced a real terms reduction of £761 million in aggregate external finance, which forms the bulk of its general revenue funding, including this year’s settlement. That’s cuts of around 7 per cent since 2013-14. However, in Powys, we see 10.88 per cent cuts; Monmouthshire, 9.98 per cent. Yet the eight local authorities who have faced the lowest cuts to their budgets—surprise, surprise—are all Labour led. These cuts have seen regulatory services spending slashed—planning, environmental health and food safety teams. All these have a significant role in the protection and well-being of our local residents.

We have called for years for a fundamental review of the funding formula. The standard spending assessment unit for a secondary school pupil in years 7-11 is over three times that of a pensioner aged 85 or over, and over 6.7 times that of a person with severe disablement. In an ever-aging society, and with so much evidence pointing to the need for a massive increase in spending on social care, it is disappointing that this is not addressed through the formula, by the Welsh Government, on an annual basis by the means of a fundamental review. Figures for dispersion, settlement and population thresholds are from data taken from 1991. And the deprivation grant was taken in 2000—during the millennium. Basing our local authority spend and requirements on such out of date figures is not boding well for our citizens in Wales.

Whilst welcoming the £25 million for social care, it must be remembered that a recent Health Foundation review on social care found that pressures on their budgets will require the budget to double over the next 14 years. Further, Cabinet Secretary, council tax in Wales has risen by, on average, 3.6 per cent in 2016-17. In 2016, Ceredigion, Pembrokeshire and Conwy have increased their council tax by an inflation-bursting 5 per cent—higher than all but three councils in England and Scotland. The average band D property is now liable for £1,374, yet in 1997, when you came into power, it would have been £495. Council tax in Wales has risen by 178 per cent under Welsh Labour. I understand, Minister, that you’ve mentioned previously that you would be reviewing council tax in Wales, and I would ask you, really, to outline some of your thoughts on how you intend to do this, moving forward.

Between 2011-12 and 2015-16, the Welsh Government received over £94 million in consequential funding as a result of the UK Government’s decision to provide grants for council tax freezes in England, but your Government, sadly, refused to utilise this money. It is a fact that council tax payers in Wales now pay the highest proportion of council tax in mainland Britain—in 2015—and Citizens Advice label council tax now as Wales’s biggest debt problem for the second year running. Cabinet Secretary, the Welsh Government has committed to undertaking this review, and I would really urge you to come forward.

Of course, the finger of blame is always pointed at UK Government austerity measures. Well, that argument is wearing rather thin now, given that it was the overspending policies of the previous Labour Government that have led to such measures being implemented. Let us not forget: £15 billion comes into Wales from the Treasury for a population of three million people. This is a devolved budget. You get the money, you set the priorities. These are your priorities. Please do not blame the UK Government for how you decide to spend your money. Thank you.

I was very tempted to get up and say that I agree with what Sian Gwenllian said and that I disagree with everything that Janet Finch-Saunders said, but unfortunately for everybody else, it’s not going to be quite as short as that.

This has been a much better settlement for local government than expected. Whilst generally welcomed by councils, it is still—let’s get the reality in there—a real-terms cut. The relative share of Welsh Government expenditure in health and local government continues to move in favour of health. I intend to do three things. First, I intend to again discuss the pressures on social care. I make no apology for that, as I strongly believe that social care is under greater pressure than any other service supported by the Welsh Government. Secondly, I intend to raise the importance of a range of council services, and finally I intend to link council services with health and well-being.

Social services departments in Wales are under more financial pressure than any other service area in the public sector, and I include the health service in that. We know that the population is ageing and that people are living longer—and many of us are very pleased about that—but we also know that, as people get older, they have greater care. We also know that people generally have their major health problems, having to go into hospital, in the last 12 months to two years of their lives.

In a second.

But we know that they can need social care for 40 or 50 years. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you. I appreciate you taking an intervention. You’ve heard so many times about the integration of health and social care. Moving forward, after the social care and well-being Act, nothing has changed. The amount of wasted resources at the moment, through bedblocking and delayed transfers, it’s just really unbelievable. I would ask you: which one of your Government Ministers is actually taking responsibility for this and driving that agenda forward?

I think you ought to ask a Government Minister that. But it’s really a lack of resources. Merging primary and secondary care worked so incredibly well, didn’t it?

Social care can be needed for decades. We have seen the effect of cutting local government expenditure and thus expenditure on social care in England. We know what it leads to: beds being blocked by those medically able to be discharged, but where a care package is not available, so the person cannot be discharged; a greater need for hospital care because of the lack of support at home. We also know that hospitalisation can reduce people’s capacity to look after themselves. Too often, those who are capable of living alone end up, after a short or medium-length stay in hospital, needing residential care. We need to value the services provided by social care. We need to ensure that social care is adequately funded.

I’d like to talk about the important range of local authority services. I could just list the services, but I’ve got two and a half minutes left and I wouldn’t get past the letter C. So, to highlight just a few of the less-talked-about ones: the importance of keeping the street lights on; trading standards ensuring that the public are protected against rogue traders; archive services; public protection regarding road safety, including school crossing patrols; ensuring buildings are safe, healthy and sustainable, and access for all users, whether domestic, commercial or public services; registering births, marriages and deaths; licensing taxis; art galleries, museums and theatres—just a few of the things that local authorities are providing to their communities.

Apart from community care, these are just a few of the ways that councils help reduce demand for the health service. One of the biggest boosts to health has been the reduction in the number of people smoking, and the work done by Communities First in promoting smoking cessation needs acknowledging. Getting people into a more active lifestyle; reducing obesity by increasing physical activity while providing more affordable leisure facilities, such as affordable gyms and affordable sports pitches; ensuring food hygiene in food premises; promoting cycling; and community centres allowing people, especially the elderly, to mix together—they’ll all improve health. We all know how important loneliness is, and the effect loneliness has on a number of elderly people. Community centres give them an opportunity to meet and mix together. Am I the only one who believes that reducing the number of sports facilities such as leisure centres will impact on people’s health?

Finally, I believe in the importance of local government services. I believe we must thank the Welsh Labour Government for not going along with the huge cutbacks made to local government in England, not slashing local government as they have in England, and the effect it has had on a whole range of services. Local government is important to all of us. We need to fund local government adequately or we will all miss the very important services it provides, which we all use.

This local government settlement is the first for four years to show an overall increase in funding, and this is welcome, and UKIP will be supporting the settlement. However, we do need to ensure that local authorities make the best use of this funding, and this entails clamping down on wasteful council spending.

One new problem area is the use of Government procurement cards. Some £92 million has been spent on these cards by Welsh councils over the last five years, so we are talking about significant amounts. The National Audit Office reported in 2012 that procedures relating to these cards were too lax, and there was a lack of central guidance on when it was appropriate to use such a card. Rather remarkably, Pembrokeshire council has spent most on procurement cards, a total of £26 million since 2011—almost £8 million more than any other local authority. Given that the same council was also involved in a long-running scandal over senior officer pay, this should perhaps set the alarm bells ringing. And senior officer pay is another element that we need to rigorously monitor.

Another major issue is the decline of council services. Many local authorities are now providing much less of a service than hitherto, evidenced by things like the closure of local offices and their replacement by a call centre, the outsourcing of community facilities, and reductions in essential services like rubbish collection.

So, although it’s a reasonable settlement, we do have to rigorously hold local authorities to account as far as we can in how they spend their money.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr, Lywydd. Thanks to all those who’ve taken part in the discussion. And thank you to those parties who’ve indicated their support for the motion this afternoon. I’ll take the four contributors in reverse order, if I could.

Gareth Bennett is quite right to say that, in these very difficult times, no local authorities can afford to do anything other than in the most efficient manner. We work hard with them to try and secure that, using the advice that comes from the audit office and others. In the end it is for electors to make sure that they hold local authorities to account for the way in which they discharge their responsibilities.

Mike Hedges outlined those large number of services that local authorities provide, which very rarely make the headlines, but which make such a difference to the ability of citizens to go on leading lives of the sort that they would wish to see. In my discussions about these services with local authorities over the summer and beyond, they point themselves very strongly to the way in which regional arrangements can help to pool resources, to share scarce staff, to make sure that there is expertise available. I hope to say more on that to the National Assembly as those discussions with authorities draw to a close. Mike is of course right to point to the pressures on social care. That’s why there is £25 million in the settlement for social services. That’s why we’ve added another £10 million in this final settlement, to recognise pressures on social care. That’s why the £60 million intermediate care fund has been sustained into next year as well, to help bring those services together.

Janet Finch-Saunders intervened to point to delayed transfers of care figures. It took a bit of bravery, I thought, on her part, given the headlines that we’ve read every day over the last 10 days about the utter collapse of social care in England and the impact that that’s having on social services there. And here, in Wales, we provide, from this Government, the investment that is needed to sustain our social care services. We do not invent some hokey scheme in which those most unable local authorities are asked to pick up the pieces for the failure. An autumn statement with not a penny piece for social care services in England and no consequential for us in Wales. But, working with Plaid Cymru, we were able to create—[Interruption.] Well, yes, working with Plaid Cymru, we were able to identify some common priorities, and the investment in social care reflects that.

I agreed with what Janet Finch-Saunders said about the need to make sure that we have a funding formula that is fit for the future and, next week, I will meet with the finances sub-group that involves people from local government and beyond, and independent experts, to look at ways in which we might be able to reform the formula here in Wales. Where she was quite wrong was to suggest that the information that we feed into the current formula is not up to date. It’s updated every single year to reflect population shifts, to reflect the number of children in our schools, and this year, for next year’s settlement, to implement some very important changes in relation to sparsity. The two local authorities who do best of all out of the changes for next year are Ceredigion, which sees its budget go up by 0.9 per cent, and Gwynedd, which sees its budget go up by 1.1 per cent. I don’t think either of those are run by the Labour Party, as Janet suggested.

Let me go to the points that Sian Gwenllian made in opening, because she absolutely rightly drew our attention to the ideological drive that lies behind the flawed, failed and self-defeating policy of austerity, and the real and direct impact that this has on the lives of people across Wales. Through our efforts and the discussions that went on behind the budget, we’ve managed to protect local authorities as best we can next year. But, as Sian Gwenllian said, despite those efforts, the settlement remains very challenging. What we know, sadly, because of the budgets that lie ahead of us as a National Assembly, is that the impact of austerity in the budgets that we can provide to local authorities will go on being challenging, and more challenging, over the rest of this Assembly term. In the meantime, Llywydd, I believe that the settlement in front of the Assembly this afternoon reflects a fair outcome for local government. It allows them to go on investing in vital local services. They will now have to intensify their efforts to achieve the changes needed to be able to sustain those services and deliver the best outcomes for people across Wales. The settlement in front of Members this afternoon provides a platform for that to be carried out, and I commend it to the Assembly.

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

We now move to voting time, and unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will move immediately to voting time. Do three Members wish for the bell to be rung? Okay, yes, there were three there. Therefore, the bell will be rung.

And therefore, we can now proceed with voting time, and the first vote is on the legislative consent motion on the Wales Bill. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Carwyn Jones. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 38, no abstentions, 17 against. And therefore, the motion is agreed.

The next vote is on the local government settlement, and I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, 10 abstentions, nine against. And therefore, the motion is agreed.

That brings our proceedings to a close.