National Assembly for Wales

Order. I call the National Assembly to order.

Before we move to our agenda this afternoon, I want to take this opportunity to wish our football team well this evening as they take on Portugal. [Applause.] The team’s victory against Belgium was thrilling and a truly momentous event in Welsh sporting and cultural history. The words of the poet Waldo came true:

‘Daw dydd y bydd mawr y rhai bychain’.

We also congratulate the supporters; they have been superb ambassadors for us as a nation. We also thank the coaches, the players and the Football Association of Wales for allowing us to dare to dream and for showing us that we are together stronger.

Ar y pwynt hwn, cefais fy nhemtio i’n harwain ni i gyd i ganu ‘Don’t take me home, please don’t take me home, I just don’t want to go to work’, ond nid oedd gennyf hyder o gwbl yn eich gallu i ganu mewn cytgord. [Chwerthin.] Mae gennyf lawer mwy o hyder yng ngallu tîm Cymru i ennill heno. Ar ran pob un ohonom, rwy’n dymuno pob lwc i Chris Coleman a’i chwaraewyr ar gyfer heno ac ar gyfer Dydd Sul.

Good luck, Wales. [Applause.]

Therefore, we move to the first item on our agenda, and that is the debate on the Queen’s Speech, and I call on a member of the Business Committee to move the motion.

Formally.

I now call on the Secretary of State for Wales, the Rt Hon Alun Cairns MP to move the motion.

Thank you very much, Madam Presiding Officer. It truly is a pleasure to be here. May I first of all thank you, and congratulate you and the Deputy Presiding Officer on your elections into the roles of Presiding Officer and Deputy Presiding Officer of the National Assembly? May I also congratulate all Assembly Members who have been elected, or re-elected, following the recent election?

Mae’n fraint cael bod yma yn Siambr y Senedd unwaith eto. Mae heddiw, fel yr oeddech yn gywir i ddweud, yn ddiwrnod mawr am nifer o resymau. Dylwn awgrymu nad fy mhresenoldeb fel Ysgrifennydd Gwladol Cymru yn y Siambr yw’r rheswm dros hynny. Rwy’n gobeithio o ddifrif mai dyma’r tro olaf, nid oherwydd diffyg parch o gwbl i’r Cynulliad, ond gan fy mod yn credu bod y ddeddfwriaeth sy’n galw am fy mhresenoldeb yma unwaith y flwyddyn yn perthyn i gyfnod yn y gorffennol oherwydd aeddfedrwydd y Cynulliad.

Mae hefyd yn ddiwrnod pwysig am resymau difrifol iawn, megis cyhoeddi adroddiad Chilcot, ond fel rydych wedi ei ddweud yn gywir, mae’n ddiwrnod mawr i Gymru ar nodyn mwy cadarnhaol ac optimistaidd o ran llwyddiant gwych tîm pêl-droed Cymru. Siaradais â’r llysgennad Portiwgeaidd yn gynharach heddiw ac roedd y ddau ohonom yn cytuno y byddem yn cefnogi’r wlad fuddugol heno, pwy bynnag y bydd, yn y rownd derfynol. Dywedais fy mod yn eithaf hyderus mai Cymru fyddai honno.

Rwyf hefyd yn dweud bod Cymru a’r Senedd wedi dod yn bell iawn am lawer iawn o resymau, ond byddwn yn dweud ei fod yn dweud rhywbeth pan fo hyd yn oed ‘The Daily Telegraph’ yn dweud, yn Gymraeg, ein bod ni i gyd yn Gymry, ac rwy’n gweld hynny fel tanlinelliad cadarnhaol o sefyllfa Cymru a’r tîm pêl-droed hefyd.

Mae gennyf atgofion annwyl o fy amser yn y Siambr, yr 11 mlynedd a dreuliais yma, ac mae dychwelyd wedi peri i mi feddwl cymaint y mae wedi newid ers y cyfnod hwnnw. Ers 2011, pan gafodd y Cynulliad hwn bwerau deddfu llawn, mae wedi pasio 28 o Ddeddfau a sawl darn o is-ddeddfwriaeth, gan gynnwys deddfwriaeth arloesol am roi organau, am gynaliadwyedd ac am dai.

Madam Lywydd, rwyf am siarad heddiw am raglen ddeddfwriaethol y DU a sut y mae’n darparu diogelwch ac yn cynyddu cyfleoedd bywyd i bobl ledled Cymru. Ond yn gyntaf, Madam Lywydd, rwyf am grybwyll y bleidlais i adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd a beth y mae hynny’n ei olygu i ni i gyd.

Mae pobl Cymru wedi siarad, ac mae’n rhaid i ni weithredu a rheoli’r ffordd y byddwn yn gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae angen i ni ddangos arweiniad cryf a meithrin hyder mewn busnesau a buddsoddwyr, prifysgolion a cholegau, sefydliadau elusennol ac awdurdodau lleol, ac i deuluoedd a defnyddwyr fel ei gilydd. Byddwn yn parhau i fod yn aelodau llawn o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd am o leiaf ddwy flynedd. Wedi siarad â’r rhai sy’n ymgeisio am yr arweinyddiaeth, mae’n amlwg na fydd erthygl 50 yn cael ei galw i rym yn syth ar ôl yr etholiad. Mae hyn yn cynnig mwy o sefydlogrwydd i’r economi ac i’r rhai sy’n elwa o gymorth gan yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae angen i ni ddefnyddio’r cyfnod interim hwn i baratoi’r genedl ar gyfer gadael.

Cytunodd y Cabinet yr wythnos diwethaf i sefydlu uned Undeb Ewropeaidd yn Whitehall, gan edrych ar yr holl faterion cyfreithiol, ymarferol, rhanbarthol, cenedlaethol ac ariannol y mae angen eu hystyried. Wrth gwrs, byddaf yn gweithio’n agos gyda Phrif Weinidog Cymru i hysbysu’r uned tra bo’r DU yn trafod telerau gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Byddaf yn sicrhau bod buddiannau Cymru yn cael eu cynrychioli wrth i’r Cabinet gytuno ar ein safbwynt negodi ni ac yn dilyn cyfarfod ag Oliver Letwin i drafod rhai manylion penodol yn gynharach yr wythnos hon a’r effaith ar Gymru, gallaf estyn gwahoddiad i’r Prif Weinidog gyfarfod ag Oliver Letwin a minnau i drafod y materion yn fwy manwl, pan fydd y Prif Weinidog yn teimlo fod hynny’n addas. Mae’r un gwahoddiad wedi ei roi heddiw i Nicola Sturgeon ac i’r Dirprwy Brif Weinidog a’r Prif Weinidog yng Ngogledd Iwerddon.

Felly, byddwn yn dweud nad yw siarad yn negyddol ar hyn o bryd yn helpu neb. Mae’r ymateb gan y gymuned fusnes yng Nghymru wedi gwneud argraff fawr arnaf. Cafodd ymadroddion fel ‘busnes fel arfer’ eu defnyddio, a defnyddiwyd un arall, ‘ailenedigaeth busnesau’, yn y sesiynau briffio diweddar a gynhaliais yr wythnos diwethaf. Byddwn hefyd yn dweud mai fy hoff ymadrodd oedd ‘mae entrepreneuriaid yn ffynnu ar newid’ a ddyfynnwyd gan un allforiwr. Mae hynny’n dangos y cyfleoedd y bydd llawer o bobl yn eu gweld yn codi o’r sefyllfa newidiol hon, boed yn sefyllfa yr oedd pobl yn ei dymuno ai peidio.

Rwyf am sicrhau nad yw’r gwerthoedd sy’n agos iawn at galon y gymdeithas ym Mhrydain, gwerthoedd fel goddefgarwch, bod yn agored ac undod, yn cael eu gweld fel pethau a gollir o ganlyniad i’r refferendwm, a’n bod yn ymdrechu’n galetach i gefnogi cydlyniant cymunedol, yn lleol, yn genedlaethol ac ar draws y Deyrnas Unedig. Mae’r mater hwn yn arbennig o bwysig i’r prifysgolion a’r colegau wrth i ni groesawu myfyrwyr rhyngwladol o fis Medi eleni, mis Medi y flwyddyn nesaf a thu hwnt.

Mae economi Prydain yn gryf. Mae cyflogaeth sydd bron ar ei lefel uchaf erioed a llai o ddiffyg ariannol yn ein rhoi mewn sefyllfa dda i allu tyfu. Gadael sefydliad yr Undeb Ewropeaidd a wnawn, nid troi ein cefnau ar ein ffrindiau, ein cymdogion a’n partneriaid masnachu ledled Ewrop. Rwy’n optimistaidd ynglŷn â’n dyfodol a’r dyfodol y mae’n rhaid i Gymru a Phrydain ei greu y tu allan i’r Undeb Ewropeaidd. Rwyf wedi ymrwymo i sicrhau bod adnodd Masnach a Buddsoddi y DU ar gael i agor marchnadoedd newydd ac i ddefnyddio’r Swyddfa Dramor i ddatblygu cysylltiadau ymhellach i ffwrdd. Mae Swyddfa Cymru yn barod ac yn aros i roi mynediad at holl adnoddau ac arbenigedd Whitehall ac wrth gwrs, rwy’n awyddus i weithio gyda phob Aelod o’r Cynulliad a Llywodraeth Cymru i archwilio’r cyfleoedd hynny.

Felly, gan droi at ein rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol, diogelwch economaidd yw ein blaenoriaeth. Mae cynnydd da wedi’i wneud dros y chwe blynedd diwethaf, a fi yw’r cyntaf i gydnabod bod yna bob amser fwy i’w wneud. Bydd Bil yr Economi Ddigidol yn moderneiddio’r hinsawdd ar gyfer entrepreneuriaeth ac yn rhoi hawl gyfreithiol i bawb gael band eang cyflym iawn. Bydd y Bil yn cefnogi Cymru, sydd eisoes yn chwarae rhan flaenllaw yn y sector technoleg. Bydd yn cefnogi Cymru i fynd i’r lefel nesaf a datblygu hyd yn oed ymhellach.

Byddai’r Bil trafnidiaeth fodern yn darparu ar gyfer ceir sy’n eu rheoli eu hunain, meysydd gofod a diogelwch mewn perthynas â gweithrediadau drôn ymhlith ystod o bolisïau eraill, a rhai ohonynt, fe fyddwn yn dweud, ychydig yn fwy lleol. Bydd y Bil cynllunio a seilwaith cymdogaethau yn symleiddio cynllunio ac yn rhoi’r Comisiwn Seilwaith Cenedlaethol ar sail statudol. Unwaith eto, mae gan Gymru ddiddordeb arbennig yn y Comisiwn Seilwaith Cenedlaethol. Bydd y Bil twf a swyddi lleol yn hyrwyddo perchnogaeth cartrefi yn Lloegr ac yn datblygu pwerau ychwanegol sylweddol i ranbarthau Lloegr. Mae hyn yn creu cyfleoedd ar gyfer economïau rhanbarthol yng Nghymru i ffurfio partneriaethau cryf, ond mae hefyd yn tynnu sylw at y gystadleuaeth ehangach ar draws y DU sy’n rhaid i ni edrych arni fel her gadarnhaol.

Rydym hefyd yn benderfynol o fynd ymhellach i oresgyn rhwystrau i gyfleoedd. Drwy’r Bil diwygio’r carchardai a’r llysoedd, byddwn yn grymuso llywodraethwyr carchardai i fwrw ymlaen â’r arloesedd y mae ein carcharorion ei angen, gan sicrhau na fydd carchardai bellach yn warysau ar gyfer troseddwyr, ond yn hytrach yn feithrinfeydd ar gyfer newid bywydau. Gwn fod hyn yn rhywbeth y soniodd Dai Lloyd amdano yn y ddadl a gynhaliwyd gennych yn ddiweddar yn y Cynulliad.

Bydd y Bil Plant a Gwaith Cymdeithasol yn gwneud newidiadau i’r broses fabwysiadu i droi’r fantol o blaid mabwysiadu parhaol, os mai dyna’r ateb cywir ar gyfer y plentyn. Bydd y Bil Addysg Uwch ac Ymchwil yn cadarnhau safle’r DU fel arweinydd byd ym maes ymchwil, gan sicrhau ein bod yn gwneud y gorau o’r £6 biliwn rydym yn ei fuddsoddi ym maes ymchwil bob blwyddyn. Mae prifysgolion Cymru yn derbyn mwy nag erioed, a gwn fod Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Addysg yn trafod materion eraill sy’n ymwneud â’r Bil hwn gyda’r Gweinidog prifysgolion.

Mae cadw ein gwlad yn ddiogel yn y cyfnod heriol hwn yn bendant yn flaenoriaeth. Bydd y Bil gwrth-eithafiaeth a diogelu yn helpu awdurdodau i darfu ar weithgareddau eithafwyr. Bydd y Bil pwerau ymchwilio yn llenwi tyllau yn ein peirianwaith diogelwch fel ein bod yn sicrhau bod gan asiantaethau gorfodi’r gyfraith yr offeryn sydd ei angen arnynt i ddiogelu’r cyhoedd yn yr oes ddigidol sydd ohoni. Bydd y Bil Heddlua a Throsedd yn bwrw ymlaen â’r cam nesaf o ddiwygio’r heddlu, tra bydd y Bil arian troseddol yn cadarnhau rôl y DU yn y frwydr yn erbyn llygredigaeth ryngwladol ac yn caniatáu ymgyrchu pellach yn erbyn gwyngalchu arian a’r rhai sy’n elwa o droseddu. Ochr yn ochr â hyn, byddwn yn cyflwyno bil hawliau Prydeinig i ddiwygio fframwaith hawliau dynol y DU, a byddwn yn sicr yn ymgynghori’n llawn gyda’r Cynulliad a Llywodraeth Cymru drwy gydol y broses.

Mae’r rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol, Madam Lywydd, hefyd yn gwneud newidiadau pellach a fydd yn berthnasol yn Lloegr yn unig, gan gynnwys diwygio gwaith cymdeithasol a rhoi mwy o ryddid i athrawon mewn ysgolion, yn ogystal ag annog sefydlu prifysgolion newydd. Rwy’n gobeithio y bydd Aelodau’r Cynulliad yn edrych ar y deddfau sy’n gymwys yn Lloegr ac yn chwilio am gyfleoedd sy’n deillio ohonynt—gall hynny fod drwy eu dyblygu, ond gall fod drwy wneud rhywbeth gwahanol iawn—a gobeithio y byddwn yn cydnabod mai’r DU yw’r farchnad fwyaf y mae gennym gysylltiad annatod â hi. Po agosaf y bydd cymunedau’n gweithio, yn cydweithredu, yn ategu, yn cydlynu ac yn cystadlu hyd yn oed, gorau oll yw’r canlyniadau’n tueddu i fod, yn enwedig yn sgil y refferendwm a gafwyd lai na phythefnos yn ôl.

Felly yn awr, Madam Lywydd, rwyf am dreulio ychydig o amser yn siarad am Fil Cymru. Fy nod pennaf yw sicrhau ei fod yn cyflawni dwy egwyddor sylfaenol llywodraethu datganoledig yng Nghymru yn y dyfodol—sef eglurder ac atebolrwydd. Roedd amseriad y Bil i’w weld yn broblem. Gwn fod Rhianon Passmore wedi crybwyll y mater yn y ddadl, yn ogystal â llythyrau gan arweinwyr y Llywodraeth ac arweinwyr y pleidiau yma. Hoffwn ddweud bod yr Ail Ddarlleniad wedi digwydd yr wythnos diwethaf, a ddoe oedd diwrnod cyntaf y Cam Pwyllgor. Gwn fod pryderon ynghylch yr amser a ddyrannwyd, ond ar bob achlysur, daeth y dadleuon i ben yn gynnar gyda llawer o amser yn weddill. Rwy’n gobeithio y bydd hynny’n rhoi hyder yn y ffaith ein bod yn benderfynol o graffu’n briodol. Cynhelir ail ddiwrnod y pwyllgor ddydd Llun nesaf a bydd trafodaeth bellach yn yr hydref wrth i’r Bil gyrraedd y Cyfnod Adrodd cyn y Trydydd Darlleniad. Bydd y broses gyfan yn dechrau eto pan fydd y Bil yn symud ymlaen i’r man arall lle bydd yr arglwyddi’n ddi-os yn dangos diddordeb mawr ac yn craffu fel y bo’n briodol. Wrth gwrs, rwyf am i’r Cynulliad basio cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol, ac rwy’n siŵr y bydd y Prif Weinidog, y Llywydd a minnau’n parhau gyda’n trafodaethau cynnes ac agored.

Bydd y Bil yn datganoli pwerau sylweddol, yn darparu eglurder ac atebolrwydd, ac mae’n ategu fy ymrwymiad i ddatganoli. Nid pethau sy’n ymddangos ar garreg y drws yw Biliau cyfansoddiadol, ond byddant yn caniatáu i Lywodraeth Cymru a’r Cynulliad ganolbwyntio ar y pethau sy’n bwysig i’r bobl sy’n byw ac yn gweithio yng Nghymru: lefelau treth, yr economi, polisi iechyd, polisi addysg, prosiectau ynni, adfywio a chymaint o rai eraill.

Madam Lywydd, cafodd y ddadl ar y Bil Cymru drafft ei dominyddu gan y prawf angenrheidrwydd ac arweiniodd y ffaith i’r prawf gael ei gynnwys at alwadau am awdurdodaeth ar wahân. Credir bod y prawf wedi’i osod yn rhy uchel a galwyd am drothwy is. Ond Madam Lywydd, rwyf wedi mynd gam ymhellach ac wedi dileu’r prawf yn gyfan gwbl pan fo’r Cynulliad yn addasu cyfraith sifil a throseddol mewn meysydd datganoledig. O ganlyniad, dylai llawer o’r dadleuon o blaid awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol ar wahân fod wedi diflannu. Fodd bynnag, rwyf hefyd yn cydnabod dilysrwydd rhai o’r pwyntiau a wnaed yn y cyfnod craffu cyn y broses ddeddfu. Felly, rwyf wedi cynnwys cymal ar wyneb y Bil sy’n cydnabod, am y tro cyntaf, fod cyfraith Cymru yn cael ei gwneud gan y Cynulliad a Gweinidogion Cymru o fewn yr awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol sengl.

Mae angen i drefniadau gweinyddol penodol gael eu cydnabod hefyd ar gyfer cymhwyso cyfraith Cymru, ac rwyf wedi sefydlu gweithgor yn cynnwys Llywodraeth Cymru, yr Arglwydd Brif Ustus a swyddogion y DU. Bydd hyn yn digwydd ochr yn ochr â’r gwaith o graffu ar y Bil.

Nawr, mae’r awdurdodaeth sengl ei hun wedi ennyn llawer o drafodaeth gan Mick Antoniw, yn un, gan Jeremy Miles a nifer o Aelodau eraill yn ystod y ddadl yn y Cynulliad ar y Bil hwn, ond nid wyf erioed wedi clywed am bolisi na ellir ei gyflwyno oherwydd yr awdurdodaeth sengl. Mae’n cynnig symlrwydd i fusnesau ac yn caniatáu i Gymru a chwmnïau cyfreithiol yng Nghymru fanteisio ar gyfleoedd yn Llundain a mannau eraill. Y proffesiwn cyfreithiol yw un o’r sectorau sy’n tyfu gyflymaf yng Nghymru, ac nid wyf yn siŵr pa faich rheoleiddio ychwanegol, biwrocratiaeth a risgiau i fuddsoddwyr ac ysgolion cyfraith y byddai awdurdodaeth ar wahân yn eu creu. Cafodd hyn ei dderbyn, rwy’n falch o ddweud, gan Aelodau Seneddol yr wrthblaid ddoe. Mae dyfodiad meiri metro a datganoli ledled Lloegr wedi ein rhoi mewn cystadleuaeth fwy am fuddsoddiad ac am gyfalaf. Rwy’n awgrymu nad ydym yn diystyru’r ffordd y byddai’r risgiau’n cael eu portreadu gan rai o’n cystadleuwyr. Mae angen i ni fod yn barod am hynny.

Felly, wrth wraidd y Bil mae’r model cadw pwerau, ac rydym wedi lleihau nifer y cymalau cadw ers cyhoeddi’r Bil drafft ym mis Hydref. Mae’r rhestr yn y Bil Cymru wedi’i symleiddio, gyda disgrifiadau cliriach a chywirach o’r cymalau cadw. Credaf ein bod, yn fras, wedi taro’r cydbwysedd cywir, ond rwy’n hapus i barhau â’r ddeialog. Bydd y model cadw pwerau hwn yn darparu setliad a fydd yn ei gwneud yn glir i bobl yng Nghymru pwy y dylent eu dwyn i gyfrif, Llywodraeth y DU neu Lywodraeth Cymru, am y penderfyniadau sy’n effeithio ar eu bywydau bob dydd.

Mae’r Bil hefyd yn datganoli pwerau pellach dros borthladdoedd, prosiectau ynni, cyfyngiadau cyflymder, arwyddion traffig, gwasanaethau trafnidiaeth yng Nghymru, pwerau dros ffracio, mwyngloddio—mae’n anodd credu, hyd nes y bydd y Bil hwn yn cael ei basio, ni allai’r lle hwn roi caniatâd i lofa newydd, yng Nghymru o bob man—yn ogystal â thrwyddedu a chadwraeth forol.

Felly, un nodwedd allweddol o ddeddfwrfa aeddfed, o senedd, yw ei bod yn codi llawer o’r arian y mae’n ei wario drwy drethi. Datganoli treth dir y dreth stamp a threth dirlenwi a datganoli ardrethi busnes yn llawn y llynedd yw’r camau cyntaf tuag at hyn, ac nid yw ond yn deg fod cyfran o’r dreth incwm yn cael ei datganoli hefyd. Mae Bil Cymru yn dileu’r angen am refferendwm i gyflwyno cyfradd Gymreig o dreth incwm. Mae yna faterion ymarferol y bydd angen eu cytuno gyda Llywodraeth Cymru, yn arbennig sut y dylid addasu grant bloc Cymru er mwyn ystyried datganoli treth, a byddaf yn parhau i adeiladu ar ein perthynas gynnes ac yn gobeithio, ar ôl cyflwyno’r cyllid gwaelodol angenrheidiol, y bydd hynny’n rhoi hyder i’r Aelodau yn y cyswllt hwn.

Llywydd, as I noted earlier, the legislative programme is so much more than simply devolution to Wales. It relates to more than the constitution, which has so often taken up so much time in Cardiff Bay. The legislative programme relates to providing security for working people the length and breadth of Wales; it relates to enhancing the life chances of the people of Wales; and it relates to strengthening our national security also. We must now collaborate and work together, as two Governments, to provide a prosperous and united future for Wales. Thank you.

I now call on the First Minister, Carwyn Jones.

Thank you very much, Llywydd. May I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Assembly and to this Chamber? The relationship between us goes back many years, due to the fact that we’ve stood against each other twice in elections, and so our relationship goes back 17 years, to the time when we first met here.

A gaf fi groesawu, fel y dywedais, yr Ysgrifennydd Gwladol yn ôl i’r Siambr? Mae wedi fy nharo ei fod eisoes wedi cyflawni rhywbeth y mae o leiaf dau o’i ragflaenwyr wedi methu â gwneud, sef ei fod wedi llwyddo i gyflwyno araith heb gael ei heclo. [Chwerthin.] Gwn nad oedd hynny’n wir am ei ragflaenydd, ac yn sicr nid oedd yn wir yn achos y rhagflaenydd cyn hynny, yr Aelod Seneddol dros Orllewin Clwyd, a gafodd ei heclo, rwy’n credu, gan ei ochr ei hun pan ddaeth i’r Siambr hon.

A gaf fi ddiolch iddo am y cyflwyniad a roddodd i ni ar gynlluniau Llywodraeth y DU ar gyfer y rhaglen ddeddfwriaethol? Wrth gwrs, bydd arweinydd y tŷ yn ymateb yn llawn ar ddiwedd y ddadl, ac felly fy lle i yw gwneud rhai sylwadau. Mae’r Siambr hon wedi treulio amser yn trafod Bil Cymru ers misoedd lawer, a bydd Tŷ’r Cyffredin a Thŷ’r Arglwyddi yn gwneud yr un peth yn y misoedd sydd i ddod. Rwy’n dechrau o’r sail fod y Bil a gyflwynwyd yn y Senedd yn flaenorol mor wallus nes ei fod yn anymarferol i bob pwrpas. Nid yw’r Bil hwn yn y categori hwnnw. Mae llawer i’w wneud arno, ond roedd yr obsesiwn gyda chadw’r awdurdodaeth gyfreithiol sengl yn golygu bod y Bil blaenorol yn Fil a fyddai wedi mynd â phwerau oddi wrth y Cynulliad hwn y pleidleisiodd pobl Cymru eu hunain amdanynt yn 2011.

Mae yna rai meysydd, wrth gwrs, lle bydd anghydfod. Ni allaf gytuno â’i farn ar yr awdurdodaeth. Mae’r Bil ei hun yn datganoli’r rhan fwyaf o’r gyfraith droseddol. Yn yr amgylchiadau hynny, byddai’n ymddangos i mi fod hynny’n cynyddu’r ddadl, neu’n cryfhau’r ddadl, y dylid cael awdurdodaeth wahanol ymhen amser. Fel arall, hon fydd yr unig awdurdodaeth cyfraith gyffredin yn y bydysawd sydd â dwy system gyfreithiol gwbl ar wahân yn gweithredu mewn ardal benodol.

Mae yna broblemau beth bynnag, eisoes, i gyfreithwyr a barnwyr. Mae’n rhaid i gyfreithwyr fod yn ymwybodol, er y gallant fod yn gymwys mewn awdurdodaeth, fod yna wahanol setiau o gyfreithiau sy’n berthnasol yn yr awdurdodaeth honno; yr un yw’r sefyllfa ar gyfer barnwyr. Nid wyf yn credu—

He knows that I agree with him completely in his analysis of why we can have a separate or a distinct legal jurisdiction in Wales. Why on earth did the Labour Party oppose it in the vote this week?

He knows my view. It’s unavoidable that there will come a time when there is a distinct jurisdiction—possibly a separate jurisdiction. That is the view of the Welsh Government.

Policing, similarly, is something that makes no sense, in terms of it not being devolved. Otherwise, we end up in a situation where, for example, public order legislation will be largely devolved and the police will be policing laws in Wales despite the fact that will they will not be responsible in Wales for policing those laws. There are anomalies there that will need to be dealt with in years to come.

I know the Secretary of State will not be in agreement with me in terms of the jurisdiction and in terms of policing, but, unfortunately, it does mean that this Bill—an improvement though it is on the previous Bill—cannot possibly be a lasting settlement as far as Wales is concerned, for those reasons and also because of the fact that we know, in the aftermath of the referendum, that the constitutional situation in the UK is quite febrile at the moment and we don’t know what’ll happen to the UK itself in the next three years, and it will need careful handling if the UK is to survive.

There are some areas, however, in which I believe there will need to be further discussion. Why, for example, would the community infrastructure levy not be devolved? It’s a planning tax, in effect. Taxation is being devolved to this Assembly. It strikes me as anomalous that the community infrastructure levy, therefore, would not be devolved.

He also made mention of the planning Bill, where—yes—we have an interest in the National Infrastructure Commission, not out of choice, but because there are those of us who believe that what that commission does should actually be devolved to Wales in any event. So, we have no choice but to be part of what is inaccurately called a ‘National Infrastructure Commission’, because it applies to England and to Wales in some areas.

With the devolution of most public order legislation, it also seems strange that licensing isn’t devolved. Given that we know that alcohol is the cause of much public disorder, on the one hand we will be able to create offences or amend the law with regard to public order, but not deal with one of the main causes of public disorder. Again, the argument that was used with me in years gone by was that licensing was an integral part of public order legislation under criminal law, which is now going to be devolved in the main. So, why, then, keep licensing as an exception?

We have agreement in principle on the devolution of teachers’ pay and conditions—it’s worth re-emphasising that. Further discussions, of course, will need to take place as to what kind of financial transfer will be needed in order for that to be given effect in Wales.

I welcome what he said about the ports. I fail to see why Milford Haven should, in effect, become a treaty port, in the same way that two ports in Ireland did when the Irish Free State was set up. I would welcome further explanation as to why Milford should be treated differently to every other port in the whole of Wales.

Could I welcome, at least, the setting up of the justice in Wales working group? I have to say to him that no invitation has yet been received by me or Ministers to participate in that group, but I welcome what he has said today—that there will be Welsh Government participation. I look forward to ministerial participation being part of that.

In terms of the income tax situation, I don’t disagree with what he has said with regard to the referendum, but he has to be aware—he and I have discussed this already—that I could not recommend that the Assembly gives its legislative consent to the Wales Bill unless there is agreement on a fiscal framework beforehand. As the Bill currently stands, the Treasury can impose a financial settlement on the people of Wales without the agreement of this place, and that is wrong in principle—it does not apply in Scotland. So, agreement on a fiscal framework will be absolutely crucial to the agreement, I believe, of this body with regard to income tax devolution. As I say, I am not against it in principle, but the practice is important to make sure that Wales does not lose out.

Dealing briefly with some of the other issues that he raised, he is right to point out the challenges that exist with regard to the result of the EU referendum. I agree with him that providing confidence for business, and saying to business that Wales is open for business, is hugely important. We know that business hates uncertainty and, unfortunately, that uncertainty is still there. I accept what he says, that it is for both Governments to ease that uncertainty over the next few months.

I strongly agree with what he said about community cohesion. I heard stories last week, when I went to Llanelli and Swansea, of people feeling threatened because of the interpretation that a small minority had placed on the referendum result. It is incumbent on us all to make sure that a genie of prejudice that has been unleashed from a particular bottle is put firmly back into that bottle in the future.

Can I say to him, as far as the EU negotiation is concerned, it’s hugely important that all administrations in the UK are part of any negotiation? It is my view that any settlement, any deal, should be ratified by all four parliaments in order to get buy-in across the UK. There are some areas, of course, like agriculture and fisheries, where the UK Parliament has almost no role, and so it is absolutely right that in those areas, and indeed more widely, the ratification of this place and the other devolved parliaments should be obtained in order for the deal to be fully accepted across the whole of the UK.

Finally, I’m just going to mention the bill of rights. ‘Good luck with that one’, I say to him, because I spoke to the group that was looking at producing a bill of rights and I listened carefully to what Ministers have said about the bill of rights, and to me it doesn’t add anything at all to the current Human Rights Act 1998. So, we wait to see what such a bill of rights will actually say beyond the rhetoric and what it will mean particularly for the devolved countries as well. As far as I can see, I’m not sure what it adds to the legislation that we already have. But we’ll see how that develops over the course of the next few months, and obviously it will be important for not just the Welsh Government but for this place to give its views as to what that bill of rights might look like.

There will be other areas, other Bills, of course, where discussions will take place as those Bills proceed through Parliament. The Wales Bill will no doubt be one of them as we look forward to the future. But, as I said, in the course of the debate today, it’s an opportunity for Members to express their views, and the leader of the house will respond formally on behalf of the Government at the conclusion of the debate.

I have selected two amendments to the motion, and I call on Leanne Wood to move amendments 1 and 2, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Lywydd. I move amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Simon Thomas.

In the aftermath of the EU referendum, Wales at the UK level is at the custody of a deeply divided Conservative Government. In fact, the entire Westminster establishment is racked by in-fighting, including the UK’s official opposition, the Labour Party. This has a series of implications for Wales, because the 2016 speech sees the continued progress, of course, of the Wales Bill, which sets out the next short-term changes for the Welsh constitution.

Llywydd, as part of my response to the EU referendum result, I stated that Plaid Cymru would move to increase the powers and the responsibilities of the National Assembly. If the EU referendum result was a vote against perceived distant rule or perceived centralised rule, then it was not a vote to concentrate more powers in Westminster. If the EU referendum result was a vote to take control over people’s lives, then it was not a vote for more Welsh laws or decisions to be made outside of Wales. This referendum result, in fact, makes it even more essential that the Welsh Government and the National Assembly are empowered to protect our country’s interests, in line with how those interests have been decided at Welsh general elections.

There have not yet been any significant attempts to link the EU referendum result to a reduction in the National Assembly’s powers or to a pause in the development of Wales as a self-governing country, but we must all remain vigilant and wary of such attempts emerging in the future. We must proactively make the case for ever more decisions about Wales to be taken here in this country. And once those additional powers and responsibilities are in place, we should broaden the debate about their use to include those communities that are not well connected to events that take place in this Chamber at present, including those places where large numbers of people feel disenfranchised and disillusioned with democratic politics.

Our second amendment deals with the EU regulations more directly, and those will be addressed further by other speakers.

Llywydd, the entire future of the United Kingdom is now in a state of flux. There deserves to be a full national debate about future options for us to re-join the European Union in the future, if that’s what people want to do, accepting, of course, that this would require a new, fresh choice to be made by people here. But the Wales Bill is the appropriate vehicle for those immediate short-term changes, which could bring our country up to a similar level of devolved competence as other UK devolved legislatures. And it’s on those short-term measures that I’d like to focus now.

Plaid Cymru regrets that the UK Government’s proposed Wales Bill falls short of comparable powers as those available to, or on offer to, Scotland. We have yet another situation where the Wales Bill has been overtaken by events. The UK Government approach is too narrow, with the Secretary of State failing to attend the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee. I share the concern of the Chair of that committee, who is absolutely right to point out that the Wales Bill could take the devolution settlement back in some respects. He’s also right to seek to involve wider Welsh society in the committee’s scrutiny of that Bill, but that scrutiny has been undermined by the Secretary of State’s non-appearance at that committee.

At this stage, we can only speculate how a weak Wales Bill will affect future appetites for more self-government. But in no way will the current Wales Bill end the constitutional debate in this country, and, on that count, it will fail to meet the UK Government’s objectives.

Would the Member give way on that point?

Yes.

I rise because she’s raised the representations that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee has made, and that invitation still stands, by the way. The reason it stands is because, in the spirit of the constructive engagement made by the First Minister, by opposition leaders, and also by the Presiding Officer—even to the extent of suggesting amendments—we genuinely feel we can be of constructive help, in scrutiny of this Bill, in making it right. Because it has potential for improvement, but it also has potential to roll back devolution in some areas. So the invitation stands.

I welcome your contribution to that effect, and perhaps the Secretary of State would like to reflect upon that point. Perhaps he would also like to reflect upon the fact that this Bill, if enacted, will be the fifth time that devolution has been altered in Wales. The fact that we’ve had to change devolution five times, that doesn’t reflect some sort of generosity from Westminster, it reflects the fact that the model that we have tried has been unsustainable. When we’ve had successive Secretaries of State for Wales claiming that the next devolution Bill will settle the debate for a generation—and we’ve heard that from at least four Secretaries of State for Wales to date—then settling that never actually happens, something is seriously wrong.

Plaid Cymru MPs at Westminster have taken steps to try to strengthen this Bill. In line with the Welsh Government’s draft Government and Laws in Wales Bill, our MPs laid down an amendment on legal jurisdiction. This position has the democratic endorsement of a majority of voters in Wales in the election several months ago. It’s more than regrettable that the Labour Party in Westminster abstained on that vote and that support for the principle was highly varied amongst those Labour MPs who spoke to that amendment. I find it incredible to hear the First Minister say today that the support of the Welsh Government is there for a Welsh legal jurisdiction, but Labour MPs failed to support that in Parliament yesterday, and I said to the First Minister yesterday: he needs to tell his MPs to get a grip.

There was more support—consistent support—from Labour MPs for the other vote that the MPs forced at Westminster yesterday, on removing the justice impact assessments, and I welcome that. But I only wish that we could have had more of a united front on other issues, especially when it was Labour Party policy.

Now, in many respects, I think that those efforts have fallen victim to the chaos that is within the Labour Party at Westminster, and, as the First Minister admitted to me yesterday, that situation is not stable. But, ultimately, there has been a failure of how this Bill has been structured and scrutinised.

The wider Queen’s Speech has been disappointing for a number of reasons for Wales. On prison reform, the UK Government is effectively proposing its failed academies model to prisons. If we controlled our own prisons policy, this could have been prevented. I welcome the movement on the sugared drinks tax. Plaid Cymru was ahead of the curve, of course, on that proposal, having been ridiculed by others; we called for it first in 2013. But it will be disappointing if the revenues from that tax are not distributed evenly.

As ever, though, the Queen’s Speech is notable for what’s missing. Plaid Cymru’s alternative Queen Speech included a devolution of policing Bill, a Severn bridge tolls Bill, we called for a north Wales growth deal, with multiple proposals ranging from rail electrification and confirmation of the Llanbedr spaceport. The UK Government’s previously announced north Wales growth deal contains no concrete proposals at all. We’ve also proposed an EU funds contingency Bill to introduce and establish statutory contingency alternative funding arrangements at least equal to those currently available to the levels of EU structural funds and common agricultural policy.

We note with interest the statement from the Secretary of State for Wales on the new Prime Minister’s intention of delaying the triggering of article 50. It was somewhat surprising to hear him say this. Do we have any idea how long that is going to be delayed for? Because uncertainty is a big problem now and I can’t see how this delay will help with that. The danger is that it looks as though the UK Government doesn’t have a clue what it’s doing and I very much hope that that is just how it looks.

The Queen’s Speech should be seen as another missed opportunity. What’s missing from the speech, and from the Wales Bill, is of greater significance than what is included. The improvements on offer, such as establishing the permanence of this institution, and control of our own electoral arrangements, are to be welcomed, but have been packaged in a Bill that is incredibly complex, mainly due to the absence of the Welsh legal jurisdiction. I’m troubled at the way the Bill has now moved forward without significant engagement by the Secretary of State with this Assembly.

In conclusion, I believe that this Bill will not bring stability to Wales in anything more than the immediate short term, and that it does not bring us in line with what is happening in Scotland. Why does it seem, yet again, that what is good enough for Scotland isn’t good enough for Wales, and why does the Secretary of State for Wales appear to be content with that?

I welcome the Secretary of State here today. As one who’s sat on the benches with you, I can remember all your ‘hear, hears’ and banging of desks when you were here, but I can see you’re far better behaved now you’ve got to the Secretary of State position. But it is a real warm welcome to you that we extend from the Conservative benches, as it is your first visit as Secretary of State. I heard the comments you made in your speech that you hope it to be the last, but I do recall the previous Secretary of State saying the same words when he was here because of the progress of the Wales Bill.

Whilst many of the commitments today will of course centre on the draft Wales Bill, it is important to approach this Queen’s Speech debate with a focus on the raft of measures that will have an impact on Wales or those that will highlight the Welsh Government’s inaction in many of these areas. The provisions contained within the recent Queen’s Speech will act to deliver economic security for working people and improve people’s life chances. It is a set of legislative proposals with these core principles at their heart, and they should be welcomed. Many reserved laws will have a profound impact on Wales, whilst some England-only Bills emphasise issues the new administration here must consider as it develops its own legislative programme. These plans build on the work already undertaken by the UK Government over the last six years to stabilise our economy and emphasise the progressive agenda that supports our long-term futures.

At the heart of this Queen’s Speech is a focus on improving life chances for the disadvantaged. Where provisions apply only to England, it is important that we hear clear plans from the Welsh Government as to how they will ensure our nation does not fall behind. Indeed, a new care leavers covenant is hugely positive for carers and, as part of the Children and Social Work Bill, will improve those chances. We must ensure those in Wales have their life chances supported in a similar way, and monitor closely how developments in England succeed.

New reporting requirements within the Higher Education and Research Bill will lay down the challenge of social mobility to the higher education sector, and outline clearly the work that needs to be done to support progression rates for all. How such supply-side reforms will be matched here in Wales needs to be outlined by the Welsh Government.

The Local Growth and Jobs Bill also puts business rates in England under the spotlight and I renew my calls today for the Welsh Government to outline when it will bring forward enhanced rate relief for small firms on this side of Offa’s Dyke. There is a monumental risk of us falling behind in Wales on this issue, following other recent business rates announcements made by the current Chancellor.

Security is also a key element of this Queen’s Speech, and many non-devolved issues are at the heart of the agenda to help keep Wales’s communities safe, including stronger powers to disrupt extremists and protect the public. Furthermore, reform to prisons will ensure the right balance between punishment and rehabilitation, and support the ethos of giving everyone the chance to contribute to society—core beliefs for a one-nation Conservative Government.

We also know that this Queen’s Speech paves the way for the establishment of a national infrastructure commission on a statutory basis. This will deliver expert independent advice on infrastructure issues. As part of this debate, I hope the Welsh Government will outline how its own plans for an infrastructure commission—thrashed out behind closed doors with Plaid Cymru—will complement the work of this new body.

The draft Wales Bill is, of course, likely to be the most pertinent of Bills to interest Members in this Assembly. This Bill will deliver a clearer, more stable devolution settlement and I look forward to continuing to work closely with the UK Government as it progresses.

The development process of the draft Wales Bill is important to note. Key stakeholders have been hugely positive about the redrafted Bill, and the UK Government deserves immense credit for the listening exercise it undertook in amending previous proposals. I sincerely thank the Secretary of State for his role in this.

Indeed, my own party here in the National Assembly for Wales discussed at length issues around the list of reservations and consents, and the Wales Office acted constructively and decisively in the search for consensus. A reserved-powers model would be an historic step for the National Assembly, whilst the arrival of further responsibilities offers a clear opportunity to deliver Welsh-specific solutions to the challenges we face, including, and notably, over energy and transport.

Some of the good things about the redrafted Wales Bill are that the Bill does not do what it ultimately set out to do in its draft form and it does enable many areas of life in Wales to benefit from decisions made in this legislature. That is a game changer for Wales, in particular around income tax, and it’ll bring real accountability to the National Assembly for Wales. How these powers are used will shine new focus on this National Assembly and the public’s judgment of the Welsh Government.

Many of the principles contained within this legislation are among its most pertinent conditions. By establishing the permanence of the National Assembly and the Welsh Government in statute, we see enhanced formal recognition of this Assembly within the UK’s constitutional arrangements. I hope all Members will reflect today on how important that is.

It is worth reflecting that this debate takes place only hours after discussing the name of this National Assembly. It is this Bill that will enable us to make that decision and discuss other arrangements, including size, electoral systems, and the voting age. We must not lose sight of this significance.

Of course, the Wales Bill is part of a package of wider reforms that Conservative-led Governments have implemented. One such development is the fair funding floor, which Labour had 13 years to implement and did nothing. That was deeply regrettable. [Interruption.] I’m deeply concerned by the eruption from the Cabinet Secretary—I’m concerned about his welfare. [Laughter.] Are you feeling well, Cabinet Secretary?

I think he enjoyed his lunch.

He obviously had a very good lunch, I would have thought. I warmly welcome the Secretary of State’s recognition of a distinct body of Welsh law on the face of the Bill, within an England-and-Wales jurisdiction. This is a sensible accommodation; and the establishment of a justice working group to look at distinctive arrangements will further inform work in this area. The draft Wales Bill is potentially a landmark one for Wales. It forms part of a Queen’s Speech that seeks to deliver opportunity and prosperity. Welsh Conservatives in the National Assembly stand ready to continue to work with the UK Government to ensure we continue to get things right for Wales.

Would the Member give way?

I certainly will.

I’m grateful to the Member. Can I just take him back a couple of minutes to when he talked about the funding floor, which is a political agreement and is not in legislation as such? But, of course, before we receive the Wales Bill for final approval here and pass the legislative consent motion, does he agree with me that we need to see a fiscal framework in place—an agreement between the Welsh Government and the Conservative Government in Westminster—that ensures there is no detriment to our financial relationships if we then have devolution and further devolution of taxation?

There must be no detriment to the funding formula to Wales—that is crystal clear. I believe the Prime Minister is on record as saying that, and I believe several Secretaries of State, and this Secretary of State, have made that quite clear. We have a very good record on our funding of Wales, in particular in introducing the funding floor, and we will continue those negotiations to make sure there is no disadvantage to Wales—and Scotland offers a model for us to look at.

Finally, I pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Wales, who joins us today, and to the work he has done for and on behalf of Wales, championing the interests of Wales in the corridors of power. We have heard quite a lot recently about turkeys voting for Christmas. This Bill is historic: by omitting section 32 of the Government of Wales Act 2006, it will end the Secretary of State’s future participation in proceedings of the Assembly—another noteworthy step in this institution’s journey to a strong empowered legislature at home within a strong United Kingdom. Thank you.

Neil Hamilton.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Lywydd. I too welcome the Secretary of State here, possibly for the last time before he returns to the oblivion of Westminster. He did his best to present the Queen’s Speech as being something significant, whereas, in fact, everybody knows it’s just a rag-bag of relatively trivial and insignificant measures, because the Prime Minister wanted to clear the decks of anything that could possibly be controversial in advance of the referendum. The commentary at the time was virtually uniform in its excoriation of the Queen’s Speech. ITV’s website described it as

‘eyecatching but wholly uncontentious stuff: who could object to spaceports, tighter control of drones or faster broadband?’

Well, I’m sure we’re all in favour of faster broadband considering that most of Wales proceeds at a snail’s pace in this respect. But, spaceports and drones, apart from some of the Members in this house, don’t actually figure very much in people’s imaginations. ‘The Daily Telegraph’ said of the Queen’s Speech that:

‘Traditionally-minded Conservatives packed into the House of Lords for the Queen’s Speech…could be forgiven for thinking they are in the wrong room…. To some Tories, it will sound like a programme the last Labour government could have conceived.’

Iain Duncan Smith accused the Prime Minister of deliberately avoiding controversy ahead of the vote on EU membership, saying:

‘Many Conservatives have become increasingly concerned that in the Government’s helter-skelter pursuit of the referendum, they have been jettisoning or watering down key elements of their legislative programme.’

Well, far from it for me to intrude further upon that private grief. But, the Secretary of State in his preamble to his speech today said, rather surprisingly, and here I agree with the leader of the opposition, that the delays to starting the article 50 negotiating process was somehow going to instil confidence and bring about more stability to the process. That’s the last thing that this will do. Actually, we need to get on with this process in order to resolve such uncertainties as there are. My experience, having been a member of the Council of Ministers—the internal market Minister—for two and a half years is that Parkinson’s law certainly applies and work expands to fill the time available. So, the shorter the time frame the more we are likely to achieve. I personally don’t see what difficulty there is about designing proper successor arrangements to our trading relationship with the EU. The EU has managed, in the course of 50 years, to negotiate only two proper free trade agreements—with Mexico and with South Korea. I can’t see why we can’t use those as templates for our own relationship with the EU in the future. There’s been much talk in this place of the various models that exist for relationships—the Norway model or whatever; these are all totally irrelevant, because there is no way, following the referendum result, that we could accept total free movement of labour within the EU. That’s the whole point of the referendum—we’d never have had one but for concern about the uncontrolled nature of our borders. And anything that is going to prevent us from having complete control of our own immigration policy is going to be rejected by the public at large.

Again, I agree, in the spirit of cross-party agreement, with what the First Minister said in his remarks—and, indeed, the leader of the opposition—about an agreement on a fiscal framework to surround the Wales Bill. I can’t see how it could possibly be acceptable to the people of Wales to have this Bill imposed upon us unless we can be absolutely certain, and it’s there in hard fiscal fact, that Wales is not going to be a penny worse off after the Bill passes than before. And in that respect, of course, the EU compact is subject to the same demand that every penny that the EU currently spends in Wales must come to Wales after we leave the EU.

So, consequently, this Queen’s Speech takes us so far, but actually not very far. I really can’t understand why something like the sugar tax, which the leader of the opposition highlighted in her speech, should be regarded as an advance; it’s an absurd measure, actually, when you look at the nature of the tax. First of all, it’s badly targeted because fruit juices and milk-based drinks are excluded, so that means that some of the most sugary drinks on the market actually escape the proposed levy. For example, a standard Starbucks extra-large hot chocolate contains 15 teaspoons of sugar, which is double the recommended daily maximum for an adult, but because it’s a milk-based drink it’s exempt from the levy. And the same could be said for other kinds of milkshakes, coffee and yoghurt-based drinks.

Do you not think it’s an opportunity to refocus the sugar tax to make sure it embraced all sugar in all foods?

It certainly is an opportunity to do that. I should declare an interest in this, by the way, because I’m a director of a company that specialises in sugar-free products, and so my interests are not actually prejudiced—. I’m not actually prejudiced by this measure, but I suppose technically I ought to declare that interest.

The second objection to the tax that is proposed is it will hit the poor hardest. Consumption taxes always do, of course, because the poorest 10 per cent of households already pay more than 20 per cent of their gross incomes in duties and VAT, which is more than double the average household, and this tax will only add to that burden.

Thirdly, the tax is poorly designed; it’s very crude because the levy is imposed per litre of sugary soft drink, not by grams per litre. So, it means that many drinks that are actually worse for you in terms of sugar content will be taxed at a lower level. The Institute for Fiscal Studies gives the example of Sainsbury’s orange energy drink and Coca-Cola, two drinks that are taxed at the higher rate of 24p per litre. Three litres of Coca-Cola contains 318g of sugar, the same as two litres of the orange energy drink, but because the tax is designed in this way, you pay 72p of tax on the three litres of Coca-Cola, and only 48p on the energy drink which is in two-litre bottles. So, there’s more sugar in the smaller bottle than there is in the larger bottle. So, that tax’s poor design also means it fails to penalise the drinks with the higher sugar content.

The First Minister also drew attention to the proposed changes in the Human Rights Act 1998 in the Queen’s Speech, and I agree with the First Minister that this is largely a cosmetic measure. It’s not going to make any real difference to the scope of human rights legislation, which is beyond the reach of parliamentary institutions in this country, which I think is an objection on democratic grounds. In fact, Lord Sumption, one of the most distinguished of our Supreme Court judges, in a lecture recently said that the European Court of Human Rights exceeds its legitimate powers, usurps the role of politicians and undermines the democratic process. And as the European Court of Human Rights has developed its own jurisprudence over the last 50 or 60 years, it’s aggrandised itself and has actually aggravated the democratic deficit, which, surely as parliamentarians, we ought to be concerned about. As Lord Sumption said:

‘It has become the international flag-bearer for judge-made fundamental law extending well beyond the text which it is charged with applying.’

And

‘has over many years declared itself entitled to treat the Convention as what it calls a “living instrument”.’

Therefore, judges from jurisdictions as far away as Azerbaijan, Armenia and Georgia, who are members of this institution, are making the laws for this country, whether it be Wales or the United Kingdom. As the European convention is drafted in very wide and vague terms of principle—very different from the common-law jurisdiction and statutory law heritage of this country—it means that we have a legal system that is beyond democratic control.

Article 8, which refers to respect for family life, which none of us in principle could object to, has been interpreted in various ways, which we might object to. There’s no time to go into the details of this now, but as a matter of general principle, it cannot be right for judges to have the final say in what is the law of the land. There must be some democratic means of overturning them. In the United States, you have the Supreme Court, but a two-thirds majority in both Houses of Congress can overturn the decisions of judges. That is not possible under the jurisdiction of the European Court of Human Rights and the human rights legislation proposed in the Queen’s Speech isn’t going to make any difference to that. So, the country is being sold a pup if it thinks that as a result of what the Home Secretary—who may shortly be the Prime Minister—has been trying to tell us for such a long time.

So, the Queen’s Speech, sadly, is a great wasted opportunity. Now that we have taken the decision to leave the EU, perhaps this one should be torn up and a new one should be presented to Parliament in the autumn with some really significant measures that take us much further along the road to recovering our national independence and restoring the integrity of our parliamentary institutions.

The Queen’s Speech was delivered on 18 May and it seems a very, very long time ago when you think of all the things that have happened since. There’s been the bitter, divisive European referendum campaign, the tragic murder of our colleague in Westminster, Jo Cox MP, the narrow victory for Brexit—and I know the Secretary of State and I campaigned together for the ‘remain’ side on Queen Street—and of course, we’ve had the resignation of the Prime Minister, issues within my own party, now the resignation of Nigel Farage and the possibility of another Scottish independence referendum. So, all those things happening in such a short period of time are just overtaking our political life, and it does make things feel very uncertain and very fluid. So, it’s quite hard to look back to the Queen’s Speech and see, ‘How did that Queen’s speech affect people’s life chances here in Wales?’

Now, the very first sentence of the Queen’s Speech mentioned

‘strengthening economy to deliver security for working people’

and increasing the

‘life chances for the most disadvantaged’.

The Prime Minister claimed that this was a one-nation Queen’s speech for a one-nation Government. Now, I would challenge that emphatically. I believe that the austerity measures introduced since 2010 by the coalition and the now Conservative Government have made the divide between the haves and the have nots even greater. I think that we must consider the Queen’s Speech in that context.

You just have to look at the way the cuts have disproportionately affected women and children and vulnerable and disabled people. In 2014-15 in the UK, there were 200,000 more children in poverty, increasing the number to 3.9 million according to the latest figures from the Child Poverty Action Group in June this year. It said,

‘These grim figures reinforce projections from experts like the IFS and the Resolution Foundation that UK child poverty is set to rise by 50 per cent or more by 2020.’

What was there in the Queen’s Speech that tackled those issues? What was there in the Queen’s Speech that bridged that divide?

In Wales, according to figures from the DWP, after housing costs approximately 200,000 children in Wales are living in poverty. This is 29 per cent of children living in Wales. Obviously, the Welsh Government has got a highly praised anti-poverty strategy, but the main levers are not in our hands. The fact that, in 2016, child poverty is growing throughout the UK is an absolute disgrace and an absolute shame, and this Queen’s Speech did nothing to address that issue.

The Queen’s Speech will increase the life chances for the disadvantaged. I’m sure all of you have your constituency offices filled with people who are facing benefit cuts, particularly people with disabilities since the disability living allowance for people with long-term health problems was abolished and replaced by personal independent payments. We have masses of open cases to do with PIP assessment on our books at the moment. Just to give a flavour, one of my constituents, a young man who suffered injury in a car pile-up some years ago and was in severe pain, despite surgery, couldn’t walk any significant distance, lost his entitlement, lost his mobility car and lost his opportunity to actually lead a normal life. And without this vehicle, he was completely housebound. He was already very depressed about his condition and his outlook before losing his mobility eligibility, but the loss of the car added hugely to his depression. So, he spent five months fighting the decision and, eventually, my office was able to help him to get the appeal reversed. But to think that a young man like that had to spend all that time and all that effort, increasing his depression, and that is in 2016, in this country today.

So, that is the reality of the austerity measures that have been introduced by Westminster. I think it is the duty of our Welsh Government, of us here in the Welsh Assembly, to do all we can to highlight what exactly is happening. This Queen’s Speech has some things that we can commend—I support the tax on fizzy drinks and I think there’re some good things about adoption that need to be introduced in Wales—but they are not addressing the huge issues that we actually see in society today. This Brexit vote, I think, has re-emphasised those issues.

So, in conclusion, Presiding Officer, I think that this Queen’s Speech offers a very blinkered view of what is happening in society here in Wales today—another lost chance and another lost opportunity.

I would like to welcome the Secretary of State, as well as tell him that, although he’s always welcome in this Assembly, this debate today looks extremely pointless, I have to say, not only because the purpose behind the debate is done away with in the Wales Bill, but also, as has been mentioned by many speakers this afternoon, because the political landscape has changed so drastically since the Queen’s Speech that it’s not possible to take this debate seriously in terms of the purpose of the UK Government, as set out in the Queen’s Speech, in terms of a strategy for the next year. We all accept that there will be a change of Prime Minister and a great deal of political change, and that many of the things, even the minor things, in the Queen’s Speech won’t have much chance of being delivered over the next year or two, as the Government as a whole will be concentrating on Brexit and the need to make provisions for that. And that was the purpose of the Plaid Cymru amendments today. I would just like to expand on those amendments, which particularly look at EU law and the continuation of EU law.

In responding to the Queen’s Speech over two months ago, our Members of Parliament in Westminster proposed that the Queen’s Speech should have included a purpose-drafted Brexit Bill. So, our Members of Parliament did want to see a Bill that would set out, if Brexit were to occur, what would happen to the structural funds and what would happen to the funding available through the single farm payments and the common agricultural policy—so, we were prepared for that—and we also said that there should be some legislative provision for a strategy to underpin structural funds and the purpose of developing a new agricultural policy. We all know that agricultural policy is not a common policy across the UK—the policy is different in Wales, England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. So, we did want to see such a Bill in the original Queen’s Speech. That didn’t appear, but, during the referendum campaign, there were a number of pledges made by those campaigning for Brexit that the funding would remain in place and that it would still be possible to fund structural funds and the common agricultural policy. So, we do now hope that the Westminster Government will respond to that challenge by setting out how that will work.

The second element of this, of course, is the fact that, over 40 years, we have incorporated EU law with our law. Many people have interpreted that as Europe telling us what to do. Well, I see it as legislating jointly with Europe. It’s not possible to outline all the details in a speech this afternoon, but among those things that are now part of both UK law and Welsh law are a number of provisions in terms of working hours. The Secretary of State mentioned that we are to receive powers over landfill tax, but, of course, landfill tax comes from an EU landfill directive. There are a number of renewable energy developments in Wales that are also subject to European directives, and the Welsh language has a co-official status in the European Union that it doesn’t have in Westminster. And that is something that we should bear in mind. We have a bovine TB policy that has been developed jointly with the European Union, and there is a real danger, not only that funding will be lost but also that Europe will start to look anew at those areas of Wales where bovine TB is prevalent and will start to question whether Wales has clean status. Because, in the European context, we are a country that suffers a great deal as a result of bovine TB at certain times and in certain areas.

So, these things have been part and parcel of the way that we’ve legislated in Wales over the past 40 years, either under Westminster or the Assembly. So, I do think that the Westminster Government is duty-bound to explain how we will now make provision in these areas, and, of course, the simple thing to state clearly is that European law should remain in place until it has been specifically revoked, either by this Assembly or, in terms of relevant legislation, by Westminster.

To conclude, and related to this question, I want to return to the fact that we need a clear, robust message, and the Secretary of State made some reference to it, but we do need a clear statement that European Union citizens are welcome in Wales, that they make a great contribution to our health service and our economy, and that they should be allowed to stay without any barrier and, in terms of individuals and families, for there to be no requirement for them to return to other nations.

When the UK coalition Government came into office in 2010, the need to rescue the economy was urgent. Britain had suffered the deepest recession since the second world war and had the second biggest structural deficit of any advanced economy. Unemployment had increased by nearly half a million. Keynesian economics advocates deficit spending when an economy is suffering, but it also advocates cutting back on Government outlay in the boom times. But Gordon Brown had broken the cycle, pretending there was an end to boom and bust. After all, borrowers borrow, but lenders set the terms: the lesson facing countries that thought they could borrow their way out of bust.

When Gordon Brown opened Lehman Brothers London headquarters in 2004, he said:

‘I would like to pay tribute to the contribution you and your company make to the prosperity of Britain.’

Of course, their 2008 collapse triggered credit crunch.

The National Audit Office reported that Mr Brown’s Treasury was warned three years before Northern Rock nearly went bust that it needed to set up emergency plans to handle a banking crisis but did nothing about it.

Before the credit crunch, the International Monetary Fund said that the UK banking system was more exposed to sub-prime debts than anywhere else in the world. After credit crunch, the Financial Services Authority reported sustained political emphasis by the then Labour Government on the need for the FSA to be light touch in its approach, and we are all, of course, still paying the price.

Austerity is defined in my dictionary as not having enough money. It is, therefore, an inheritance not a choice. Realistic assessments about the state of the UK economy involve taking difficult decisions to reduce the deficit and control spending. In the real financial world, the solution is to reduce overspend and then generate budget surplus, providing security now and insurance against future down-turns.

If faster deficit reduction had been pursued, cuts would have been higher. If slower deficit reduction had been pursued, interest rates and cuts would have been higher. Thanks to the hard work of people in Wales and across the UK, the deficit is down by two thirds, there are almost 2.9 million more private sector jobs, and there are over 900,000 more businesses. In response to both this and recent developments, we’ve had the classic Carwyn cocktail of bunkum, bluster, bully and blame, when, instead, we need to work together to achieve the best possible outcomes, embrace opportunities and deliver a new and more suitable way of tackling Wales’s poverty, worklessness and prosperity gap with the rest of Britain.

We must tackle the barriers to opportunity and, at the heart of the Queen’s Speech are major changes to help spread life chances to everyone. The Digital Economy Bill, as we heard, will give every household the legal right to a fast broadband connection. The requirements in the neighbourhood planning and infrastructure Bill, relating to the national infrastructure commission to deliver jobs and growth, will apply to Wales, as will provisions applying to adoption in the Children and Social Work Bill. The prison and courts reform Bill will bring about the biggest reform of our prisons since Victorian times, ensuring they’re not just a place of punishment, but also rehabilitation, so that everyone has the chance to get back on the right track. The lifetime savings Bill will help people to save and make plans for the future, especially the young and those on low incomes.

The counter-extremism and safeguarding Bill gives law-enforcement agencies new powers to protect vulnerable people, including children, from extremist propaganda and to promote shared values of tolerance and respect. The criminal finances Bill will include a new criminal offence for corporations that fail to stop staff facilitating tax evasion.

Although the Policing and Crime Bill relates mainly to non-devolved matters extending to Wales, the Welsh Government has laid a legislative consent memorandum in relation to clauses of the Bill that it considers do relate to devolved matters. This includes strengthening the protections for persons under investigation and further safeguards children and young people from sexual exploitation. I therefore hope the Assembly will support that. The Bill also provides the police with powers to remove a person who appears to be suffering from a mental disorder to a place of safety and prevents the use of police cells as a place of safety for any person under 18 years. Thankfully, however, it does not include the devolution of policing. As former Labour UK Government Minister Kim Howells said on Monday, the idea that Wales is isolated from Britain is nationalist claptrap, and Carwyn Jones is out of touch with how most people in Wales think.

Harold Wilson used to say that a week is a long time in politics. Well, it seems like a political lifetime ago, as has already been referenced, when the Queen’s Speech was delivered to Parliament on 18 May 2016. Outside of the many economic, trade and societal issues we now face, it is inevitable for Wales that attention focuses now on the Wales Bill. There is no doubt that the new Bill is to be welcomed in comparison with the previous draft Bill that was published last October. However, we are once again faced with continuing outstanding issues. Most notably, the Bill does not include the devolution of policing, and teachers’ pay also remains a strong reservation in the Bill, due to continuing discussions on the funding transfer needed to support devolution. This does need rectification. I know that the First Minister and the Welsh Government continue to press and encourage parliamentary debate and scrutiny on these matters. It should not need saying that Wales simply demands fairness and respect from the UK Government—respect and fairness that must be mutually reciprocal.

Equally, it makes little or no sense to mum and dad on Blackwood High Street or to constitutional lawyers that the devolution of powers throughout the United Kingdom appears to be so fragmented and ad hoc. The UK Government, again today, has advocated metro mayors, as has been referenced, that will see invested in the hands of just one person powers over policing. Yet, the entire National Assembly for Wales is to continue to be denied such devolution of powers, and there is no logic to this.

I was struck by the comments in the Chamber yesterday of my friend Huw Irranca-Davies, the Member for Ogmore, Chair of the constitutional and legislative committee. He stated that, despite being invited before the committee, the Secretary of State for Wales had, so far, not accepted the invitation to attend. While it is good to see the Secretary of State for Wales address us today—a right, incidentally, that the Wales Bill will remove—it is important that communication and co-operation between the UK Government and the Welsh Government is the best that it possibly can be, and based on mutual respect, as the Welsh Labour Government has always sought to proceed for the process of devolution through cross-party consensus, where this is possible.

It is difficult to comprehend and understand why the Wales Bill was rushed, especially when you consider that discussions between officials in the UK and Welsh Government had not concluded. Also, the current timetable for passage of the Bill is constricted and rushed and provides very little time for much valuable scrutiny. Rushed legislation, as I’m sure everybody in this Chamber is aware, makes for very poor law.

Today I, along with my Welsh Labour colleagues, will be supporting the Plaid Cymru amendments as a matter of principle. The powers offered to Scotland and Northern Ireland should also be offered to Wales. The First Minister has consistently argued for that position in this Chamber, and Carwyn Jones has led the way in advocating that we need to move to a more coherent and consistent approach by the UK Government, treating each part of the UK with equal respect. It is no longer workable for twenty-first century Wales to be governed on the basis of an unwritten constitution that has morphed into disparity across and through the various members of the United Kingdom, increasingly divergent to the devolution settlement.

Equally, my constituents have not sent me here to the National Assembly for Wales to endlessly be debating constitutional issues of devolution. They have sent me here—as has already been mentioned—to stand up for their hard-working families, to ensure a better future for our communities, to fight poverty and grow jobs, and get the best possible deal for them. This Queen’s Speech does not deliver that. Let’s be frank, the latest Queen’s Speech was another missed opportunity to address many of the big issues facing Wales and the wider UK. It was a ghost Queen’s Speech delivered in the shadow of the European referendum that the Prime Minister confidently predicted he would win. The editor of PoliticsHome.com, Kevin Schofield, neatly summed up the value of the Prime Minister’s predictions:

‘So basically, ever since David Cameron assured us that "Brits don’t quit", everybody has quit. Except Jeremy Corbyn.’

Today and tomorrow, and the next day, and the week after that, and the month after that, I know that this Welsh Government will not quit in its unstinting determination—that the people of Wales are given the respect and democratic process that they deserve, equal to our fellow citizens throughout our United Kingdom. Diolch, Lywydd.

As well as addressing what was in the Queen’s Speech, I think it’s important to consider, as others have done, what was not, and also to note that, of the 30 measures announced, 28 were old announcements. The now obligatory mention of Wales was even shorter than usual, with just one sentence on bringing forward a Wales Bill, something on which we’ve already had pre-legislative scrutiny. It is sad as well to note that neither the Prime Minister nor the leader of the opposition at Westminster mentioned Wales once in their contributions to the debate on the Queen’s Speech in the House of Commons. As we’ve heard, there are several England-and-Wales Bills, a few GB Bills, as well as UK-wide Bills. I think that one thing from this Queen’s Speech that needs considering is how we can implement a new process for such laws that are for England and Wales, or for just GB or the UK-wide ones that can bring together Governments, including the devolved administrations, so that it can be joint working on those Bills, even if they still fall in the reserved category in whatever Wales Bill we end up having enacted.

I hope consideration will be given to some of the ideas in Plaid Cymru’s alternative Queen’s Speech. Simon Thomas has already referred to the need for an EU funding contingency Bill, and I hope that is given serious consideration, and many communities in this country will expect such a Bill. It is clear, I think, that we need a Bill to establish an independent commission to resolve funding disputes between the UK Government and the devolved national Governments. The inequities of the Barnett formula were exposed by the independent Holtham commission many years ago, as well as several other commissions before and since, and the failure to allocate full consequential money to Wales as a result of HS2, as well as other examples, would be resolved and should be resolved in future by an independent commission. Establishing an independent commission is also essential in the context of the emerging debate over the fiscal framework within which the forthcoming tax sharing arrangements between the UK and Welsh Governments will sit.

As noted by the Wales Governance Centre, an independent adjudication commission should therefore be an essential component in the UK’s emerging fiscal framework. The Bingham Centre report proposed that this body, or another independent body, be responsible for adjudication in the event of disputes between Governments that cannot be resolved through joint ministerial processes—and if there’s one thing we’ve learned from this debate today, it is quite possible, I would suggest, that, in the future, there may be one or two disputes between two Governments.

In the Queen’s Speech, we would have welcomed a broadcasting Bill that would finally devolve responsibility, or part responsibility, for broadcasting to Wales. That would establish a BBC trust for Wales as part of a more federal BBC at a UK level. And, of course, as part of this broadcasting Bill, we would have welcomed that the responsibility for S4C be transferred to this National Assembly for Wales, as well as funding for the channel that is currently with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport at Whitehall.

Other Members have mentioned the responsibility for policing. We would very much have welcomed the devolution of policing as part of the Wales Bill or as part of separate policing legislation. The recent police and crime commissioner election results have resulted in all four of Wales’s PCCs supporting the devolution of policing, as well as a majority of parties in this National Assembly having stood on platforms for the devolution of policing.

Plaid Cymru believes that there is a better way of delivering prison reform, and, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, that is something that will be an England-and-Wales matter, an England-and-Wales Bill, and I very much hope that the Secretary of State can give a firm commitment that, if we’re not going to see the devolution of prisons any time soon, this legislature and the Welsh Government are involved in the pre-legislative process as further Bills move forward on policing.

Plaid Cymru would have welcomed, as I’m sure many other parties would have, a Bill to transfer responsibility, finally, for the Severn bridges to the Welsh Government when they revert back to public ownership. As a Member representing the South Wales East region, I can say that that would have been warmly welcomed in our communities. This would have enabled the Welsh Government and the National Assembly to decide on the appropriate level of charge, if any, which is at a current high rate and is a detriment to the Welsh economy.

There are elements that have been mentioned by others that Plaid Cymru welcomes in the Queen’s Speech, including the sugary drinks levy—something that was floated by Plaid Cymru some time ago and ridiculed by people who have now had a Damascene conversion. I hope, in closing, that, over the coming months, Westminster can deliver on its promise of a respect agenda between the two Governments that govern the country. We are yet to see that being fully born, I suspect. Thank you.

If I can just ask about the draft Wales Bill aspect of this Queen’s Speech, Secretary of State, Members of this Chamber will be well aware of my concerns regarding tax devolution, or, rather, the subsequent reductions that will be made to the block grant once tax devolution has occurred. We accept it’s pretty straightforward in the first year, with a portion of income tax being raised here, but, in subsequent years, we do have to have a mechanism, as the Secretary of State will know, for indexing, and factors such as population and inflation will need to be taken into account. So, Secretary State, this is a complex area, and I’ve no doubt that a mechanism will be devised, but I think what this Chamber wants to have is confidence that that mechanism will be one that serves the people of Wales as best as is possible. In Scotland, the issue of population change was taken into account with the mechanism decided on there. It was decided that that should not be part of the risk borne by the Scottish Government in terms of the Scottish proportion of income tax, and I think we would hope for the same arrangements here. I wonder if you could give us some clarity on thinking and discussions with the Treasury in terms of the mechanisms that are being looked at. And, please, take this assurance, Secretary of State: it’s not that we don’t trust you; we just trust you a little bit more than the Treasury.

I welcome very much the Secretary of State here today, and I would genuinely welcome him back again so that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, which I now Chair, can constructively engage on scrutiny and, indeed, help him improve the Wales Bill. Now, they may not discuss this ad nauseam in the Dog and Duck, but I’m more than happy to buy him a pint in the Mountain Hare in Brynna if he accepts our invitation; maybe even two, Secretary of State, and I’ve never bought two drinks for anybody. [Interruption.] Not for all of you. [Laughter.]

None of us, surely, want to end up with a Bill that does, indeed, give some neat steps forward for Wales, but has some worrying unintended consequences that could even roll back the devolution settlement. Our committee—I want to pay tribute here to committee members past and present, and previous Chairs as well—has been taking extensive evidence from expert witnesses, and we’ll continue receiving evidence throughout the summer. There has been a cautious welcome for some of the changes made since the original draft Bill, which was universally derided, but some common and serious concerns are already becoming clear.

Despite categorical reassurances from the Secretary of State for Wales, witnesses to the committee have raised concerns that the new justice impact assessments may, when used in concert with existing powers currently available to the Secretary of State, be used to veto future made-in-Wales legislation. This raises the possibility that this provision extends, or at least reinforces, the ability of the UK Government to impede the will of the Welsh Government and of this National Assembly. It has been proposed that these JIAs serve no useful purpose, or could even be harmful to the interests of Wales, and, therefore, it is proposed that they should be dropped.

The Bill proposes that we move to a reserved-powers model, of the sort that is used in Scotland, but not identical, where the Welsh Government would be able to legislate on any matter not expressly reserved to the UK Parliament. The original draft Bill was heavily criticised for drawing that list of reservations so widely that it reduced, clearly, the ability of Wales to legislate on many matters. But, even now, witnesses are telling us that the full spirit of the reserved-powers model is not self-evident, and there are widespread concerns that some of the reserved powers could actually roll back devolution. That wouldn’t be acceptable, Secretary of State, so changes will have to be considered and made.

To alleviate concerns over how to deal with the ongoing evolution of a body of law that is made in Wales or relates to Wales, and the implications of this for a distinct, though not necessarily separate, jurisdiction, the Secretary of State for Wales has established the justice in Wales working group. Indeed, this approach would, of course, be welcome. But our committee is hearing that the First Minister of Wales and the Welsh Government have not been invited to set the terms of reference and have not yet been formally invited to participate, and the working group will only report to UK Ministers and not to the Welsh Government. Yet, with a rethink, I would say to the Secretary of State for Wales that a standing group considering the growth in Wales’s legislation over time has real merit, but only if the Welsh Government is directly involved.

There is more, of course, and this is why we’ve asked the Secretary of State for Wales to appear before us to share his thinking, I have to say, and to consider what leading constitutional and legal experts have told us must change. One of the expert witnesses told the committee that a Wales Bill needs to be ‘aspirational’. I challenged that and asked why it shouldn’t just be a pragmatic and practical statement of what currently exists. The witness said,

‘Because I think constitutions send messages about what kind of politics you are conducting in a country, what kind of society you want to live in, what kind of aspirations you have for your future generations.’

She went on:

‘And all these messages, symbolic or not, at declarative level or at a very technical level—I think the constitution should go further than just technical and legalistic expressions of political reality.’

There are some welcome parts of this Bill. It is better than the original draft. It has some wins for Wales, but it also has some potential bear-traps that could actually roll back our devolution settlement. I, therefore, extend again a warm welcome to the Secretary of State for Wales—no stranger to this Senedd, to this parliament—to come back again to our committee and help us improve the Bill for the good of Wales, for the good of the people of Wales and for the good of a more durable constitutional settlement.

I now call on the Secretary of State to speak.

Well, thank you, Madam Llywydd. It’s been a pleasure to listen very carefully to the debate.

Bu’n bleser gwrando ar ddadl sydd wedi bod yn barchus ac yn ddiddorol yn fy marn i. Nid oeddwn yn sylweddoli mai fi oedd y cyntaf i osgoi cael fy heclo, fel y nododd y Prif Weinidog. Ond wrth edrych o gwmpas, credaf fy mod yn adnabod y rhan fwyaf o’r bobl yn eithaf da—nid wyf yn adnabod pawb, ond gobeithiaf fod hynny’n gosod cywair ar gyfer y berthynas aeddfed y gall Llywodraeth y DU ei chael gyda Swyddfa Cymru, Llywodraeth Cymru a’r Cynulliad yn eu tro. Ac rwy’n benderfynol o barhau hynny fel deialog, felly hoffwn barhau â llawer o’r pwyntiau a godwyd yn yr ysbryd hwnnw.

Credaf fod ambell thema gyffredin ymhlith y materion a godwyd, ac rwy’n ddiolchgar i’r holl Aelodau sydd wedi siarad. Nid wyf wedi cael cyfle i fynd drwy bob un o’r pwyntiau a wnaed gan bob Aelod yn yr amser cyfyngedig sydd ar gael. Ond os caf dynnu sylw at un neu ddau o’r pwyntiau a godwyd.

Mae’r cyntaf yn ymwneud ag Ewrop. Yn naturiol, credaf fod yna rai cwestiynau, rhai pryderon, ynglŷn â chyfeiriad polisi. Mae rhai’n synnu fy mod wedi dweud na fyddai erthygl 50 yn cael ei rhoi ar waith am ddwy flynedd o leiaf. Wel, mae’n eithaf amlwg na cheir Prif Weinidog newydd tan 9 Medi. Nawr, mae hynny rai misoedd ar ôl y refferendwm i adael yr UE. Mae’n amlwg na fydd y Prif Weinidog newydd yn rhoi erthygl 50 mewn grym yn syth, oherwydd byddant—ef neu hi—am ystyried y goblygiadau, a thrafod gyda’r gweinyddiaethau datganoledig ac Aelodau Seneddol, o bob lliw’n wleidyddol, ynglŷn â’r dull o weithredu yr hoffent ei weld. Felly, mae hynny’n golygu y bydd nifer o fisoedd rhwng y refferendwm i adael yr UE a rhoi erthygl 50 mewn grym.

A dywedaf hyn yn gadarnhaol. Oherwydd, os oes barn wahanol yn y Cynulliad—yn amlwg, gorau po gyntaf yn ôl Neil Hamilton, a chredaf efallai fod y Prif Weinidog wedi dweud rhywbeth tebyg yr wythnos diwethaf, ei fod yn dymuno gweld erthygl 50 yn cael ei roi mewn grym cyn gynted ag y bo modd. Wel, os mai dyna farn y Cynulliad, credaf y byddai’n ddefnyddiol pe bai’r Cynulliad yn arddel safbwynt ffurfiol, er mwyn gwneud hynny’n glir i’r Uned Ewropeaidd, ac i’r Prif Weinidog newydd, o ran ble y mae’n mynd.

I mi’n bersonol, credaf y byddai elfen o sefydlogrwydd, elfen o drafod gyda chenhedloedd Ewropeaidd unigol, er mwyn cryfhau ein sefyllfa, er mwyn cyrraedd sefyllfa lle bo gennym berthynas gref ag eraill, lle’r ydym yn deall bwriadau ac ewyllys cynghreiriaid o amgylch Ewrop, yn ffordd synhwyrol ymlaen. Ac yn y cyfamser, gallwn gryfhau’r Deyrnas Unedig, Cymru, a phob un o rannau cyfansoddol y Deyrnas Unedig, cyn cychwyn y trafodaethau hynny. Oherwydd, doed a ddelo, oni bai bod 27 aelod-wladwriaeth yr Undeb Ewropeaidd i gyd yn cytuno, pan fydd erthygl 50 yn cael ei roi mewn grym, bydd y cloc dwy flynedd yn dechrau tician. Credaf y byddai’n sefyllfa synhwyrol er mwyn deall safbwyntiau Aelodau’r Cynulliad ynglŷn â hynny. Nid fy lle i yw dweud wrthych beth i’w wneud, ond credaf y byddai hynny o gymorth o ran mewnbynnu pa un a hoffech i erthygl 50 gael ei roi mewn grym ar unwaith, neu eich bod o’r farn y byddai oedi yn fwy synhwyrol.

Y thema arall, o fewn yr amser sydd ar ôl, yw Bil Cymru. Mae llawer o sylw wedi cael ei roi i’r fframwaith cyllidol—mae’n well gennyf fi ei alw’n ‘addasiad Barnett’. Oherwydd, yn bendant, yr unig fodel sydd gennym a oedd yn bodoli mewn perthynas â sefyllfa debyg i hon, yw model fel Deddf yr Alban a basiwyd y llynedd. Yn naturiol, ni fyddai Senedd yr Alban yn pasio cynnig cydsyniad deddfwriaethol tan eu bod yn fodlon â’r fframwaith cyllidol. Credaf fod hynny’n naturiol. Rwyf wedi dweud yn glir wrth y Prif Weinidog mai dyna’r safbwynt y byddwn yn disgwyl i’r Cynulliad ei arddel. Felly, gobeithiaf y byddai cyflwyno cyllid gwaelodol yn rhoi hyder.

Cyfeiriwyd at adroddiad Gerry Holtham a’r cyllid gwaelodol o 115 y cant fan lleiaf, ac mae lefel y gwariant yn uwch na hynny ar hyn o bryd. Mae’r cyllid gwaelodol o 115 y cant fan lleiaf wedi ei gyflwyno, ac unwaith eto, cafodd gefnogaeth Gerry Holtham, yn ogystal â llawer o gefnogaeth yn y gymuned ehangach. Mae hefyd wedi cyhoeddi rhai modelau y gellid defnyddio addasiad Barnett ar eu cyfer, ac mae hynny unwaith eto yn sefyllfa ddefnyddiol i fod ynddi. Felly, rwyf am i’r drafodaeth hon, a fydd yn cael ei datblygu ochr yn ochr â’r Bil, barhau yn yr ysbryd hwnnw.

Roeddwn wedi gobeithio trafod llawer o bwyntiau eraill, ond yn anffodus, nid wyf wedi gwneud hynny. Ond o ran yr arian canlyniadol a ddaw yma, hoffwn danlinellu bod symiau canlyniadol HS2 yn bendant wedi cyrraedd y lle hwn, ac mae Aelodau Seneddol Plaid Cymru yn derbyn hynny. Oherwydd arweiniodd symiau canlyniadol HS2 at gynnydd o 16 y cant mewn gwariant cyfalaf, gan ei fod yn swm canlyniadol o gyllideb yr Adran Drafnidiaeth. Felly, roeddwn yn awyddus iawn i danlinellu hynny.

Ac yn olaf, os caf ymateb i’r cwestiynau am fynychu’r Pwyllgor Materion Cyfansoddiadol a Deddfwriaethol yma yn y Cynulliad, roeddwn dan yr argraff fod y Cadeirydd a minnau, drwy drafodaeth anffurfiol, wedi dod i drefniant, felly roeddwn yn synnu braidd ac yn siomedig o weld y feirniadaeth a fynegwyd yn y cyfryngau a’r wasg wedi hynny. Rwy’n hapus i barhau i drafod er mwyn cyrraedd sefyllfa sy’n gweithio i bawb ohonom, a gobeithio y bydd hynny’n cael ei dderbyn yn yr ysbryd y’i bwriadwyd. Diolch.

I call on Jane Hutt to respond to the debate.

Diolch yn fawr. I’d like to thank the Secretary of State for Wales for his participation in the debate today, and for his response as well, and Members for their contributions to the debate as well. Of course, as has been said, today, the annual debate on the UK Government’s legislative programme has become a regular fixture in the Assembly’s calendar, but if all goes well, as everyone said, including the First Minister in his opening remarks, these fixtures will surely come to an end. The Wales Bill will sweep away the unnecessary requirements that currently restrict the way we do business in this Chamber, and we welcome that, but, of course, we personally welcome the Secretary of State, as we did indeed your predecessor—I think we said the same thing last year—and also, of course, welcome you not just as a former Member of this Assembly, but personally, sharing the same constituency, the Vale of Glamorgan, and enjoying that opportunity.

I think we can agree that the requirement for the Secretary of State to visit the Assembly, to consult us on the UK Government’s legislative programme, does not serve a purpose now and we recognise that. But, it’s interesting to look back and see that, since June 2008, we have debated 88 legislative consent motions—88 instances where UK legislation made provision in a devolved area, and the Assembly decided whether it should give its legislative consent or not. Our focus, of course, is on our own Welsh Government legislative programme, but we have to be alert to the overlap between our own legislation and the UK Government’s, and enable UK-wide solutions where appropriate to be taken forward through UK legislation, where that is our best option. In fact, the legislative consent process is an important constitutional principle, and I think it’s important to say that in this debate this afternoon. Where the Assembly has legislative powers, Westminster should not legislate without the Assembly’s consent, nor legislate to modify the Assembly’s legislative competence unless the Assembly consents.

The Wales Bill will provide statutory recognition, which is welcome for this crucial convention. For Wales, as is the case, of course, in Scotland, it hasn’t had a statutory underpinning and the Wales Bill will provide that. And that’s an important and welcome change. But, the Bill should make it clear that the convention applies where Parliament legislates to modify the Assembly’s legislative competence, as well as where Parliament legislates on matters that are already devolved. It’s impossible to say at this stage how many times we will need to ask the Assembly for its legislative consent in the coming year. But, I have written to the Llywydd with the Welsh Government’s initial assessment of the UK Government’s legislative programme and its implications for Assembly business. We’ve already laid memorandums for LCMs on the Cultural Property (Armed Conflicts) Bill and the Policing and Crime Bill; Mark Isherwood has already commented on that this afternoon.

I would like to speak in support of the two amendments that have been tabled by Plaid Cymru. On the first amendment, we agree that if powers can be offered to Scotland or Northern Ireland, they should also be offered to Wales. It’s time for a more coherent and consistent approach by the UK Government, treating each part of the UK with equal respect. On the second amendment, it must be a priority to ensure the continuity of important EU legislation that has been enacted in Wales and the rest of the UK. It’s not clear yet, of course, how this continuity will be achieved, but we must do all we can to ensure that progress made over the years, particularly, for example, as discussed yesterday in this Chamber on environmental issues and on protecting workers’ rights, does not take a backward step.

The Secretary of State returned to this important issue of the response since 23 June in terms of our response to the referendum. I want to, again, follow up on what the First Minister has said in his letter to the Prime Minister, following the outcome of the referendum. We’re doing everything we can in our power to protect Welsh interests, strengthen the economy and unify the nation. It’s important that we recognise, and the First Minister made this very clear to the Prime Minister, that Wales should be fully involved in negotiating the UK’s exit from the EU to ensure that the interests of Wales and its people are taken fully into account so that we can achieve the best possible deal. I am glad that the Secretary of State commented on that and the opportunities in his opening statement.

Just to give you some examples, the Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates, has already announced a series of short-term measures to protect jobs and maintain economic confidence and stability, including, importantly, having a growth jobs event in north Wales, which I think the Secretary of State has also been invited to. Mark Drakeford, the Secretary for Finance and Local Government is doing all that he can to ensure that there is no loss of funding to Wales, following the result of the referendum. That’s what people want to hear in terms of our response. On Monday, the First Minister and the Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths, are meeting key figures from Wales’s environment and agricultural sectors to discuss the implications of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union.

I would also like to just draw attention to the letter that the First Minister wrote to Theresa May yesterday and it follows up on Simon Thomas’s point about EU nationals. He wrote to say that he’d been increasingly concerned about the position of EU citizens living, working or studying in Wales. Of course, you’ve also commented, Secretary of State, on the students coming to Wales later in the year and those already living and studying in Wales. Of course, the First Minister said to the Home Secretary that, across Wales and indeed the UK generally, there are many sectors of business, including the NHS, that depend on EU citizens to fill vital posts. Will you confirm, he says, that EU citizens who work and live here at the time of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU will retain the right to do so? He also goes on to talk about the negative experience of EU citizens and other immigrants in terms of the impact of abusive behaviour and hate crime, which, of course, we have been addressing as a Welsh Government, and also with the police and the police and crime commissioners, recognising this as a crucial issue, which is unfortunately one of the very sad outcomes of the referendum.

Many Bills have been mentioned today—welcomed or noted and points made. I’m sure that there will be a great deal of interest in Neil Hamilton’s exposition on the soft drinks industry in terms of the Finance Bill’s soft drinks industry levy. Of course, as Jenny Rathbone says, the Welsh Government wants to see a reduction in the amount of sugar that people are consuming and have consistently urged the Secretary of State for Health to deliver stronger action on sugar at a UK level.

Rightly and importantly, I must draw attention to the points that have been made about policing by Rhianon Passmore and Steffan Lewis. They would welcome the amendments proposed by the First Minister to the Wales Bill. This is a very strong message—consistent, I have to say, with the cross-party recommendations of the Silk commission—that the Welsh Government is proposing amendments, focusing on the fact that priorities determined for policing for the whole of England and Wales, under current arrangements, can’t properly reflect distinctive Welsh circumstances, and going on to say that policing is the only major service not currently the responsibility of the devolved institutions in Wales, and, of course, the impact that has in terms of collaboration with other blue-light services. There is clear evidence from Silk, as a result, that devolution would create a better alignment between policies for tackling crime and its causes as well as accountability for policing.

Julie Morgan draws attention to momentous events since the Queen’s Speech was presented in Westminster—indeed, Simon Thomas talks about how the political landscape has changed so much—and she rightly draws attention to the contradictions presented in the Queen’s Speech, which purport to aim to strengthen the economy and increase the life chances of young people, but then she clearly identifies, as I think we can and we have done in this Chamber, the impact of austerity and the impact in terms of inequalities deepening and the cuts to our budget, but also giving examples, as we can, in terms of the impact of policies that are reserved to the UK Government, particularly in relation to welfare, which we all know and understand in terms of the impact on the lives of vulnerable people. I think this is why it’s so vital that we do look at this in terms of the wider perspective, in terms of what we can do with our powers and responsibilities and how we can develop and strengthen them.

This brings me to the all-important point about a fiscal framework, which the First Minister addressed in his opening statement as well. Clause 16 removes the provision in the Wales Act 2014 for a referendum ahead of the devolution of income tax. Well, yes, if we are to go forward with that, we have to recognise this must be accompanied by a full commitment to a fiscal framework that we can agree. At present, the provision would leave it open to the UK Treasury to devolve income tax responsiblities by Order, with no requirement for consultation with the Assembly or Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government is proposing an amendment so that Order-making powers should not be exercisable unless there is in place a full fiscal framework, and that has to cover the points that have been made. Nick Ramsay made the point as well about a fair block grant offset, long-term resolution of fair funding, an increase in the Welsh Government’s capital borrowing limit, and other matters, but they have to be agreed by both Governments. The Welsh Government has proposed that, before making a Treasury Order, the Secretary of State should lay the fiscal framework document before Parliament and the Order should not be made until the fiscal framework has been agreed by both Houses of Parliament and by the Assembly—crucially important in terms of the way forward.

Finally, I’d say that Huw Irranca-Davies has set the tone as the new Chair of the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee, following on from the excellent work—and, of course, he’s a member still—of David Melding, the predecessor Chair. He does make it very clear that there’s a real opportunity here for us to work together. The committee is now up and running and the invitation has come, not just prior to this debate, but of course questions were raised about whether you would accept that invitation to attend that committee as Secretary of State, and I hope he will do, because there is so much that we can benefit from in that full engagement and the courtesy that we have offered today.

Briefly, to intervene to say I really welcome the constructive response of the Secretary of State for Wales to continue discussing this, and it wasn’t my final offer on two pints; I’m willing to go higher. [Laughter.]

Right, I think on that note we can conclude. I thank the Secretary of State for his attendance today. It may be the last Queen’s Speech debate here, but he can be assured that the Welsh Government, the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee and the Assembly will work together to monitor the UK legislative programme, promote Welsh interests in the future and go from here today with that positive engagement as we all look to the great fixture of today, to support our winning team tonight in France. Diolch yn fawr.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will take electronic votes on the remaining votes under this item. In accordance with Standing Order 11.15, the Business Committee has decided that any vote necessary will take place at the end of the debate, and, unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to the vote.

I therefore call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. For 34, abstentions none, against 11. Therefore the amendment is carried.

I now call for a vote on amendment 2, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 34, abstentions 11, against none. Therefore amendment 2 is agreed.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For 35, abstentions two, against 10. The motion as amended is therefore agreed.

I thank the Secretary of State. We now move to our next item of business.

Okay, then. Item 2 is questions to the Cabinet Secretary for Education. First question, Neil Hamilton.

Can I thank the Member for the question? There is not a shortage of school places in Wales. Although some schools are very popular and do not have sufficient places for all those who might wish to attend, I have received no reports of a shortage overall in any local authority.

It falls to me to congratulate first the Cabinet Secretary on her first outing in her new job, which I very warmly and genuinely extend to her. I’m sure she will be a great success in her job. But I’m afraid I can’t share the complacency that the answer I’ve just listened to exudes because there is a significant difference between different parts of Wales where there are significant shortages in some places and surpluses in others. For example, in Cardiff High School this year there were 635 applications for 240 places but in our own region in Powys 25 per cent of secondary places are empty. Across the border in Shropshire, there are one third of schools that are over-subscribed. I wonder if the Cabinet Secretary can share with us her thoughts on how we might rebalance education within Wales but without depriving rural schools of their current funding.

Could I thank the Member for his kind words? It certainly is a very different experience for me to be answering questions rather than asking them. Can I say to the Member that there are some pressures in some schools in some parts of Wales but there is not an overall shortage of places in Welsh schools? The Member will be aware of my agreement with the First Minister to review the policy on surplus places, especially as it affects rural Wales, and I will be coming back to the Chamber shortly with proposals on how we can ensure that schools in rural Wales are not adversely affected by an over emphasis on surplus places.

Returning to urban Wales, whilst it is true that there were 635 applications for 240 places at Cardiff High School, that is not really the substantive issue: there are always going to be particular schools where everybody wants to attend. The issue there is whether or not there is fraud going on in terms of people pretending they live at a particular address when they don’t. But I really just wanted to seek your advice on how we manage overall school places in Cardiff, which is the fastest growing city in the UK, and particularly to ensure that primary school children are able to walk to school, that they are not being offered places so far away that it’s unrealistic for a four-year old or a five-year old to be walking there. I appreciate that that is complicated, but I just wondered how many surplus places therefore we have to accommodate to ensure that people are able to go to local schools.

Could I thank the Member for the question? She is quite right to point out that the issue of surplus places is not one alone for rural areas; it does have an effect on how we plan provision in urban areas too, and that will form part of the review. Cardiff has well-known plans to expand school provision in key locations, especially at primary level, and has already received capital funding from the Welsh Government in order to establish new schools, such as the new primary school in Pontprennau, which I had an invitation just yesterday to open later on this year. It is the responsibility of local authorities to adequately plan school places for their population in the right communities, and they are judged on their effectiveness in doing that by Estyn.

The Member raises the issue of active travel. We should be looking to, wherever possible, encourage active travel measures so that people can access school either on foot or on bicycles, and that should form part of the consideration when planning and developing new schools. The Active Travel (Wales) Bill 2012 sets out the legal requirements of local authorities in this regard. It is not a matter for me but my Cabinet colleague Ken Skates, but I’m sure both of us would want to be assured that, in developing new schools, proper consideration is given to the safe passage of those children to those new schools.

Unmet demand suggests that we need more primary Welsh-medium places in Penllergaer or Gorseinon in my region due to pressures at Ysgol Gynradd Gymraeg Pontybrenin. Young children are being transported from the Cwmbwrla and Gendros areas of Swansea to access primary Welsh-medium education in other parts of the city because the council has earmarked the perfect site for a school for housing, and there are problems with continued overflow with some of the primary Welsh-medium provision in the east of my region as a result of a botched council consultation and the consequent loss of twenty-first century schools money for a new school. Are councils treating Welsh in education plans seriously and, if not, will you strengthen the relevant legislation to ensure that they do?

Can I thank the Member? I’m well aware of the concerns from those parents in the Swansea area who are seeking Welsh-medium education for their children. You will be aware that the previous Welsh in education plan for the Swansea area was approved by the previous Minister in March of this year, and that plan indeed identified some of the pressures that exist for parents seeking Welsh-medium education. The next round of Welsh-medium plans for the Swansea area for the 2017-20 period will be coming forward to my department before the end of this year, and I will want to be absolutely confident that there is a comprehensive, sustainable and achievable plan so that those parents making the very positive choice to send their children to Welsh-medium education have the opportunity to do so within their communities, and are not having to travel long distances to achieve that aim.

I thank the Member for the question. The latest published pupil level annual school census data, otherwise known as PLASC, show that the number of pupils in classes of over 30 with legally permitted exceptions was 256 pupils from a total of 2,600, making that 9.8 per cent of children.

Thank you for that. The most recent school census shows the average infant class size in Wales was 25.4 pupils. What action will the Welsh Government take to ensure that infant class sizes in Islwyn are reduced to 25, as reducing infant class sizes is an important issue for parents and can have a positive effect on teachers’ workload? And when does the Cabinet Secretary believe the target for Islwyn can be met?

Can I thank the Member for recognising the importance of this issue? As someone who has spent time at the chalk face, I’m sure she has first-hand experience of knowing how pupil numbers can have a real impact on the ability of children to learn. Reducing workload and enabling teachers to spend that crucial time supporting pupils is a key priority for me and the Welsh Government. I have asked my officials to scope out options to reduce class sizes on an all-Wales basis, starting with the largest classes first. In terms of the target deadline for Islwyn, I’m not in a position today to be able to say when that will be achieved, but it is one of my priorities, as I said, on an all-Wales basis.

I also want to congratulate the Cabinet Secretary on her new role. My first question to her is—. According to a Welsh Liberal Democrats press release, over 7,500 pupils in Wales were educated in classes of more than 30 pupils last year. In it, you also quoted—your quote—

‘our top education priority is cutting class sizes’.

However, an adviser to the Welsh Government, Professor David Reynolds, has said,

‘If you look at the academic evidence you don’t get much out of reducing class size’.

Will the Cabinet Secretary advise whether cutting class sizes in Islwyn and other parts of Wales is still her top priority in education in Wales?

Can I thank the Member for the question and for his kind words? Can I make it clear that David Reynolds is not and adviser to my department? Can I also say that what there is evidence to suggest is that cutting class sizes is especially important to our younger pupils, it is especially important to our most deprived pupils—some of the communities that the Member says that he represents—and it is especially important to those young children whose first language is neither English nor Welsh? That’s where we know that cutting class sizes makes a real difference. If the Member spends time talking to both parents and teachers, he will know it is a priority for them. That’s why it was my top priority in my party’s manifesto and that’s why this Welsh Government will deliver on it.

I’ve been speaking to some headteachers recently who are concerned about the evidence base for this policy. They’re also concerned that schools that are already oversubscribed—by reducing the standard number, it may result in them being able to take even fewer pupils. They’re also concerned about the ability of the school buildings to cope with the changes that will flow from this policy, so I wonder what reassurances the Cabinet Secretary can offer to those concerns.

Can I thank the Member for his observations? It is true to say that there will have to be a variety of approaches to how we achieve this. That’s why my officials are scoping out a number of options where we can make this a reality for pupils. That may include employing extra teachers, it may involve making grants available for capital works, or it may involve employing, for instance, higher-level teaching assistants so we can address the issue of adult-to-student ratios in the classroom. My officials are scoping out the best methods by which we can achieve the goal of ensuring that teachers have the time that they need to give individual pupils the attention that they need to thrive in their earliest years of education.

We now move to party spokespeople’s questions. First this week is party spokesperson Llyr Gruffydd.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary to her first education questions? I’ll start by asking her to confirm, maybe, once and for all to the Chamber, that the funding for the class-sizes policy, which we’ve just been discussing and which you’re committed to, will be delivered separately to the £100 million education promise that was made by the Labour party at the election.

Can I welcome the new spokesperson for Plaid Cymru? I was grateful to have and early opportunity to discuss with him what joint priorities we have together and I look forward to working with him. As you will be aware, there are a number of initiatives that I wish to take forward in the education field. The finances of those are being discussed in the usual discussions between myself and the finance Minister and will be finally revealed in the budget when that’s published later this year.

Well, I think it is rather disappointing that there still is ambiguity around that because not only these benches, but other benches have expressed a concern with regard to the lack of clarity there. Maybe you could give us, therefore, some clarity around the regional consortia, which continue to divide opinion within the education sector. Your Liberal Democrat manifesto committed to abolishing those bodies, while the Labour manifesto supported their continuation. So, could you maybe give an indication which party manifesto policy you’ll be pursuing?

Can I say that the role of consortia is a role that there is a discussion about? My manifesto commitment to abolish the regional consortia was based on the fact that the manifesto also called for local government reorganisation. Whilst there is still a lack of clarity around what the future map or the future look of what local authorities will do in Wales, I think we have to be cautious in throwing up the education improvement system that we have in Wales while there is that uncertainty.

What is clear to me is that we have had some encouraging news with the publication of Estyn’s report into the south Wales central consortia. The news around GwE, the north Wales consortia, is less than positive. I will be awaiting the reports of Estyn on all four consortia before I make a definitive statement on the way forward with regard to school improvement structures in Wales.

Well, what is it about Liberal Democrats and manifesto pledges? I don’t know. There we are. Okay, well, there’s still ambiguity there.

Let’s see whether you’re sticking to your guns on PISA, then, because, 18 months ago, in questioning the First Minister about Government changes to PISA targets, you said and I quote, and no doubt, there’ll be many of these over the coming months:

‘If we ever needed an example of the absolute poverty of ambition from this Government, then it came last week. One of your most staunchly defended targets in the Chamber has been ditched—although perhaps we should not be surprised, given that your own Government’s adviser described it as ‘plain stupid’. The response from your Minister is a new ambitious target to put us in the same place in 2021 as Scotland last year. That is hardly striving for ambition, First Minister.’

Your words. So, what’s your ambition, Cabinet Secretary, and will you, therefore, be setting new targets?

First, may I say that PISA remains a very important indicator of how the Welsh education system is performing? It’s not the only indicator, but it is an important one if our students are to compete in a worldwide economy when they leave the education system. The Member will be aware that the last round of PISA tests were undertaken by Welsh students in the autumn of last year. We expect the publication of those results in the autumn of this year. I hope that we will make improvements, but I’m sure the Member will forgive me that, having just taken up this role some months after those tests were taken, I’m not in a position to have any influence on them.

What I am clear about is that the successful implementation of a new curriculum, based around Donaldson’s ‘Successful Futures’, gives us the best opportunity for our children to compete internationally with their counterparts across the world, and that will certainly be my focus in coming months to make sure that that curriculum is developed and that schools and teachers are in a position to deliver on that.

Thank you. We move to the UKIP spokesperson, Mark Reckless. No?

I’ve no questions on this occasion.

Okay. Thank you very much. We’ll move, then, to the Welsh Conservatives’ spokesperson, Darren Millar.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Could I also welcome the Cabinet Secretary to her first questions—[Interruption.]

[Inaudible.]—please.

[Continues.]—on education matters here in the Senedd? [Interruption.] If Members are ready, I’ll continue.

I was just saying, I’ve just asked them once, I shan’t ask again.

Cabinet Secretary, you published a statement recently on the additional learning needs Bill and the progress that you hope to make on that. Can you set out the timetable by which you expect to publish a draft Bill for consideration by the Assembly?

Can I say how pleased I am that Darren Millar will be shadowing me? Having worked closely together for the last five years on the health committee, I would’ve missed him if the change had not been made. You’ll be aware from the First Minister’s statement that the additional learning needs Bill is a legislative priority for the Government; it is long overdue. I know it was of regret to many that the Government was not in a position to move forward on this in the last term. The Bill will be taken through the Assembly by my ministerial colleague and we hope to publish a draft Bill as soon as possible.

Can you give us some confidence about the resources that might be attached to that Bill, Cabinet Secretary? One of the concerns that many people have is that it will be inadequately resourced in terms of the outcomes that that Bill hopes to achieve and that that will have a detrimental impact on the education opportunities for individuals with additional learning needs. What resources are attached to this at the moment, appreciating the response that you already have given in respect of the discussions that you’re having with the Cabinet Secretary for finance about the future allocations to your budget?

The Member will be aware that, when the Bill is published, alongside that there will be a regulatory impact assessment and there will also be a financial assessment, which will outline the resources that will be needed for the successful implementation of that Bill.

One way, of course, of releasing resources would be to scrap the regional consortia that you so heartily recommended to the Assembly should have been done prior to the elections. I checked your manifesto earlier today, in terms of your commitment, and at no point did it suggest that the commitment to abolish the regional consortia was attached to local government reform. So, I think that has come as quite a surprise to many Members here today.

Can I give you the wholehearted support of the Welsh Conservatives should you proceed to want to scrap the regional consortia, particularly given the views of the Estyn inspectorate in respect of their recent report into the north Wales regional consortia, GwE, which you’ve already referred to? You will be aware that it was found to be unsatisfactory in terms of its resource management, and I would suggest to you that that does not represent good value for money for Welsh taxpayers.

Can I urge the Member to read not just the education section of the Welsh Liberal Democrat manifesto but the entire document? There’s much in it to commend to you. The consortia do have an important role to play in terms of educational improvement whilst we still have a system of 22 local authorities, many of which, in the past, have been demonstrated not to effectively have educational improvement departments and functions within them. What the Member is absolutely right to say is that the Estyn report into GwE, the north Wales consortium, is disappointing. I met with the chief inspector of Estyn to discuss that report last week. My officials met with the representatives of GwE yesterday. It is not good enough and they will need to improve. In stark contrast, however, is the Estyn report into the consortium in south Wales central. All four reports will be published during the summer, and I will be meeting with all consortia in September. I expect universally good provision from all of them. If that is not possible, we will have to look again at the role of consortia. If they cannot add value to the educational attainment of their children, we will have to look again.

Thank you. We’ll move back to the questions on the order paper. Question 3, Suzy Davies.

Certainly. In Wales, we are committed to a comprehensive education for all.

Thank you very much. I know that the issue of safe routes to school is of particular interest to you, Cabinet Secretary, having raised questions on behalf of your constituents before now. It’s something of an issue for my constituents, too. Even now, the walk route to the new Bae Baglan school is a case in point for the former pupils of Cwrt Sart school, which is closing shortly. Even though the new school isn’t open yet, the walk route to that school was assessed before new Welsh Government guidance was introduced just over two years ago. I don’t think that the new walk would satisfy the new criteria. Will you work with your Government colleagues to insist on local authorities reassessing routes to school that were signed off under the old criteria and to ensure that they comply with the 2014 guidelines?

Can I thank the Member? I know that she has worked very hard over a number of years on this issue. Indeed, the Welsh Government in the last Assembly reviewed the guidance very much as a result of the campaigning work that she did in this area. I take a common-sense view that travel arrangements are not suitable if they are not safe. The legislation, as I referred to earlier, that is in place, the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008, sets out the statutory requirements for home-to-school transport. Should a route not be deemed safe, then a child cannot be expected to walk to school. This applies even if the distance between home and school is less than the statutory mileage criteria for free transport. I am aware that the Welsh Government did make some £150,000 available to Neath Port Talbot county council to develop routes to the new school, so it is very disappointing to hear, despite that expenditure, that parents are still concerned. I will ask my officials, in conjunction with those of the Cabinet Secretary for economic development, whose responsibility the learner travel Measure is, to look again at this.

Of course, when pupils get to school, they have to make their way around the school. A number of children have mobility difficulty, some are in wheelchairs, but some also have difficulties in making their way round the schools. How many schools are not fully Disability Discrimination Act compliant? What is the Welsh Government doing to ensure that they are?

My goodness, Mike, I have tried very hard to make sure that I’m well prepared for those questions, but those details I do not have to hand. If it’s acceptable to the Member, I will write to him with the exact details of DDA-compliant or non-compliant schools and the plans that we have. I’m sure much of the investment in the twenty-first century schools programme is aligned with making sure that our schools are accessible for all our children.

Access to early education of a high standard is an effective way of closing the attainment gap for children from disadvantaged backgrounds and ensuring the linguistic development of young children. At the moment, children living in permanent poverty in Wales are twice as likely to score lower than the average for their linguistic development at five years old as compared to their better-off peers. Now, during the election, Plaid Cymru proposed radical policies that would assist in closing that attainment gap, including offering a place in school for all children from three years old onwards. Research shows that starting school earlier actually tackles that link between poverty and poor attainment and lifts families out of poverty. Do you agree that we do need to work towards securing equal access to early education for all three-year-olds? If so, in order to achieve this, would you be willing to start planning for accepting children into schools at three years old?

Can I thank the Member for the point, which is a particularly pertinent one? We do know that, even at the earliest stage, when children go into school, our children from the most deprived backgrounds are already behind. That’s why, this week, the Welsh Government have launched their Ready to Learn project to try and give information to parents and carers about the small things that they can do at home to prepare children to go into school and to make that transition a success. The Government also recognises this in the development of the pupil deprivation grant for our foundation phase pupils, and I will be looking to see what else we can do in those criteria. The Welsh Government has also embarked on an implementation plan to make good on the Labour Party manifesto commitment for 30 hours of education and childcare. It’s very important that that provision is of high quality and can be available to those poorest children so that they, too, can take advantage of that. I look forward to working with her to look at how we can make sure that that education and care package overcomes some of the challenges that our children from our most deprived backgrounds have before they start their school journey.

Further education makes a significant contribution to skills development in Wales, increasing employability, careers pathways and public services. Further education colleges also help to increase economic prosperity as well as individual well-being and community life.

I thank the Minister for his answer. As he knows, a lot of discussions have happened in terms of how FE colleges can be a part of the twenty-first century schools programme. Does the Minister agree that that programme should include FE colleges? Indeed, in the Labour manifesto there was a commitment that the £2 million of investment would include FE colleges. Of course, investing means a lot more than buildings. Would the Minister share with us in the Assembly his vision for capital investment and also, perhaps, part of the specific strategy for FE in Wales?

I’d be happy to do that. Clearly, we do have an FE strategy that is part of the long-term strategy for post-16 education, and that includes skills and FE itself. We will continue to make capital investment, as the Member has suggested, but we are also looking at how we safeguard funding for further education in this year. The Member will be aware that the FE budget has suffered over the past few years, but Members will also be aware that the current budget does show a 2 per cent increase in the funding of FE for this financial year.

Could I draw the attention of the Minister to Bridgend College, which was ranked last year top amongst our further education institutions in Wales on student health and well-being, help and support, information and advice, and responsiveness? But as well as excellent student satisfaction and excellent academic routes, it also helps deliver quality apprenticeships in collaboration with local and regional employers. So, could the Minister therefore update us on what the current state of play is with the apprenticeship levy as relating to Wales? It seems that we might be losing out on that. But also, post the Brexit vote, what is the state of play in terms of the funds from the European social fund, which went into apprenticeships and supporting apprenticeships? How do we make good the shortfall that may now emerge over the next few years and make sure that we can keep that investment in quality apprenticeships in all our FE colleges throughout Wales?

The responsibility for apprenticeships and those areas are in the portfolio of the Minister for Skills and Science, and she is in her place in the Chamber and will have heard that question and, I’m sure, will respond in due course. But can I say this: it’s important that we ensure that the quality of education delivered by further education is monitored, understood and celebrated in the way that the Member has done? We will be carrying out a review over the coming three years to ensure that we do have the leadership and responsiveness to employers, as well as the financial robustness necessary within individual institutions, and I will report to the Chamber on progress with that.

But, overall, we know that, as the First Minister informed the Chamber yesterday, £650 million is going to be lost annually as a consequence of leaving the European Union. I don’t think there are many people in this Chamber who believe for a moment that the British Prime Minister will make a promise to ensure that every penny of that will be delivered to Wales. We know that we can’t trust the Tories when it comes to things like that. So, we know that we are facing some significant difficulties in terms of the coming years, and it will be a matter of how the overall agreements are made in terms of the Welsh Government, the UK Government and the European Union as we face the coming years that will have an impact on our ability to fund these projects in the future.

I appreciate, Minister, that apprenticeships fall within the remit of another Minister’s portfolio, but I’m sure you may be aware of the Pembrokeshire apprenticeship scheme, which aims to increase the number of young people training in the energy sector across Pembrokeshire and is supported by organisations such as the Milford Haven Port Authority, who are sponsoring employers. Now, this, of course, is a great example of local businesses and education providers working together to develop apprenticeships that are important to the local economy. So, can you tell us: what is the Welsh Government doing to encourage and support more businesses to engage with FE institutions, like Pembrokeshire College, so that Wales’s FE colleges are at the forefront of delivering programmes that actually reflect local skills markets?

I very much agree with the point made by the Member in his question. I think the relationship between employers and colleges and institutions of further education is absolutely crucial in delivering an apprenticeship programme, which meets the needs of the local population and the local economy. One of the expectations that I have is that all further education institutions are responsive to local employers. We know that most are, and we also know that, where we have a number of very large, significant employers—. The Member’s referred to the port authority of Milford Haven; you could equally refer to the refineries in the same sort of area. We know that, where there are those very large employers, that responsiveness is already there. I do sometimes have concerns, where you have an economy that is dominated by small and medium-sized enterprises, that not all those needs are fully understood across the whole face of the country, and that’s one area where I will be focusing over the coming years.

We want to transform the expectations, experiences and outcomes for all learners, including those in special schools. The forthcoming introduction of the additional learning needs and education tribunal (Wales) Bill will be a key milestone in the transformation journey that is already under way.

The Minister will be aware of the excellent work done by the special needs school Trinity Fields, which is in the Caerphilly constituency, led by the headteacher, Ian Elliott, and his fantastic staff. I declare an interest here as a governor of that organisation. Like many of us in the Chamber, and the school’s leadership, we are in support of the principles of the additional learning needs Bill and what it seeks to achieve, but, at present, the school is only responsible for pupils with additional learning needs up to the age of 19. With that in mind, can you let me know how the Welsh Government will use this Bill in order to ensure the full commitment of the national health service and the health boards to provide the resources and services for pupils with complex additional learning needs up to the age of 25?

Thank you. I am, of course, very aware of the work that is done by you as a governor and by others at Trinity Fields. I’m also aware that the school has been recognised by Estyn in the annual report as having sector-leading practice, and I think that that is something to celebrate again. It’s fantastic to see the work that is being done by schools up and down Wales.

The Cabinet Secretary did reply to an earlier question, saying that the additional learning needs Bill will be published in due course and will provide an opportunity, then, for us to debate and discuss how we deliver and how we ensure that we have the right statutory framework to underpin the delivery of this work. I can assure the Member for Caerphilly that we will ensure that the transition from education into adulthood is better planned and supported, and I would be more than happy to continue to have that conversation, both in terms of the legislation that we will be drafting and putting before the National Assembly, but also in terms of how that support is delivered outside of the statutory framework.

Angela Burns.

Thank you, acting Deputy Presiding Officer. Minister, in the previous—[Interruption.]

Acting?

I beg your pardon. [Laughter.]

It’s quite all right.

Please accept my apologies.

No, it’s quite all right. I can act if you want me to, but you wouldn’t like to see me act. Go on.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. My apologies.

Minister, could you just confirm for us, in terms of the consultation that was undertaken by the previous Welsh Government on the additional learning needs Bill—? I know the previous education Minister did say he’d go back out consultation again. There was no element asking parents and carers what they thought about the transportation of their wards, their children, to additional learning schools or special schools, because, as you know, there are few of them in Wales and young people have to travel huge distances. For a child who is already severely disadvantaged, either mentally or physically or both, that journey in and of itself can be an enormous stress and strain and add hours to their day. I wonder if you’ll be taking further feedback on that so you might be able to incorporate a provision or some statement or guidance on that very issue in the proposed additional learning needs Bill.

I’m certainly happy to do that. I published last week the Government’s response to a consultation on the draft Bill. Now, if the Member doesn’t believe that we fully covered those areas, then I’d be grateful if she could write to me and I will certainly do so. But, in terms of the overall point raised, of course, by the question, I do agree absolutely that we do need to take a holistic approach to the policy and not simply an approach that determines and dictates what happens in the classroom without recognising the wider support necessary to provide a full educational experience for those children. So, if the Member or any other Members do not believe that we’ve fully covered those points in the response, then I’d be happy to do so.

I will say that the First Minister announced last week that this Bill will form a part of the first year of our legislative programme. We are looking at the moment at a timescale for that, and I will make a statement to the National Assembly as soon as possible, when we are able to understand what the timescale will be and when we’ll be able to publish the legislation. So, Members will have an opportunity then to look again at this matter.

Can I thank the Member for that timely question? Learners currently study politics and current affairs through the personal and social education framework and the newly revamped Welsh baccalaureate. The new curriculum is being designed with four purposes at its heart and will help all young people to develop into ethical, informed citizens of Wales and, indeed, the world.

I thank the Cabinet Secretary for that response. In the recent EU referendum, 73 per cent of 18 to 24-year-olds voted to remain in the EU. However, only 43 per cent of those eligible to vote actually voted, and that’s compared to the overall turnout of 72 per cent. Actually, during the Assembly elections, I met the only voter in Cardiff who turned 18 on the day of the election, and she went to vote. But she told me that she and her friends just felt they didn’t have enough information about politics and choices, and what you could do via democracy, in schools. So, is there anything further that she thinks could be done to encourage young people to recognise how important the voting process is, and what sort of decisions can be made?

I thank the Member for those observations. As I said, this is already contained within the existing curriculum, and Estyn have a role in ensuring that the delivery of that curriculum, as it currently stands, is giving children and students the information that they need to be able to participate in all aspects of Welsh life.

With regard to the new curriculum, which, as I said, has as one of its four key objectives the development of ethical and informed citizens, practitioners, through the pioneer schools network, are at the heart of developing that new curriculum, and the assessment arrangements around it, which will give schools settings and practitioners more responsibility for determining how these subjects will be taught. But they are a fundamental aspect of the kind of education that we expect our young people to receive, both now and in the future.

I am tempted, given the events of the past few weeks, to say that it’s not young people who need to improve their understanding of politics, but perhaps older people. But, certainly, we as parties are duty bound to disseminate information and to encourage people to participate in democracy.

But, specifically on this point, you’ve already mentioned the purpose of the new curriculum, and the way that will make provision that is different to past provision. Are you therefore still clear that this is the best way forward? That is, as the new Cabinet Secretary, are you going to implement those four new purposes of the proposed Donaldson curriculum? Where now do you stand on the particular section of the curriculum decided upon by Huw Lewis, namely to replace religious education with a new set of principles turning around philosophy and ethics?

Can I agree with the Member wholeheartedly on perhaps it’s not young people who we needed to have given better information to in the run-up to the referendum result? And, in expressing my sadness and disappointment with that result, it is those young people who will actually be affected by this decision more than anybody else in our nature. And it has been a source of great dismay to me, at this early stage, to continue to see MAs come to me as Minister that are dependent on the funding that we receive from the European Union—everything from projects to support the development of coding skills in our schools, through to free school milk. And I hope that those who advocated a ‘leave’ vote will ensure that none of those schemes that are funded by European money in my department will have to be lost because they cannot keep their promise. And I expect not a penny less for the education of Welsh children arising out of EU funds from those people who made those promises.

I am absolutely committed to pursuing the recommendations of the Donaldson review. The current curriculum is rooted in the 1988 national curriculum and, let’s face it, it was written before the fall of the Berlin Wall, before mobile phones and before the worldwide web, and it actually talks about floppy disks, in what it expects teachers to teach our children. We have to move on, and I am completely committed to pursuing the recommendations by Donaldson. Our pioneer schools are working very hard on it; we’re making good progress, for instance, on the digital competency frameworks, which will be available from this September. I know that the issue around religious education has caused some concerns, and, at this point, I have no plans to change the decision that was made by the previous Minister with that regard—no plans.

Are floppy disks really out of date, Cabinet Secretary? I must keep up with the times, mustn’t I? You’ll tell me next that phones haven’t got wires, but there we go. [Laughter.]

We’ve had a number of debates in this Chamber over the years, Cabinet Secretary, about lowering the voting age, and part of that debate has often involved the need to try an improved understanding of politics with younger people. And I agree with that objective. That’s not being condescending: when I visit schools in my constituency, young people tell me, ‘We would like to have more knowledge about politics and about the political systems, and even about things as simple as how you vote, where the votes are counted, and how that is taken into account.’ I listened with interest to you, and I agreed with your answers to both Simon Thomas and Julie Morgan. Will you please apply yourself to getting a better education of politics in school, so that young people do feel equipped when they go out and vote, at whatever age that might be in the future?

Yes, indeed, and, as I said, the new Welsh baccalaureate, which was first introduced for teaching in September of last year, includes global citizenship as one of its four core challenges. There is existing provision within the current curriculum, but as we develop our new curriculum, via our pioneer schools, there will be, as I said, a strong focus of ensuring that our children, when they leave education, will be ethical, informed citizens, able to play a full part in all aspects of our community and our society.

The Welsh Government is committed to meeting the needs of all learners, including those with autism. Through our focus on workforce development, through our strategic action plan and through our programme to transform additional learning needs support, we will ensure that autistic learners receive the provision that they need.

Thank you. I recently raised an issue with the leader of the house on a local issue brought to me by a constituent, who is trying to keep an autistic grandchild in a special school, Maes y Coed, in the Neath area for an extra year, in addition to the school year, until they can reach agreement with Abertawe Bro Morgannwg health board on the long-term future. There is provision to allow this to happen in exceptional circumstances; however, the director of education in Neath Port Talbot council has to date refused. Can you tell me what advice you as a Minister, or as a Government, are giving on these exceptional cases, so that young people who don’t received a service post school can remain in the sector to receive the support that they so desperately need?

If the Member could write to me with this example that she has discussed in the Chamber, I’d be very happy to respond to the specific points that she raised with me. But, could I just say, generally, as a Government—? The Member’s had an opportunity to read the current plan or scheme, which has been changed in the last year, and the plan that Mark Drakeford launched before the election as the health Minister. We need to ensure that every person who needs support and needs a differential curriculum, whatever it may be, receives that, in whichever school or setting they receive their education. We will ensure that that does happen, either through the Bill that we’ve already discussed in this session, or through ensuring that the support is available outwith that. But I’d be very happy to respond directly to the Member on the example that she’s raised.

Minister, I’m very pleased to hear the answer you’ve just given to Bethan Jenkins in relation to the strategy that’s been in place. However, a strategy is a strategy and there are no legal obligations upon authorities and public bodies and that’s one of the consequences of the autism Act. I’ve met with many parents who have actually struggled to get services for their children, sometimes because local authorities are not listening to experts such as therapists and clinicians, and they’re seeing behaviour in a school where perhaps a child with high-level ASD is actually not demonstrating that behaviour in a normal school environment. Will you look at the guidelines to ensure that local authorities listen to clinicians and therapists, and take advice from them, so that parents can be given the support they so desperately need?

Yes, certainly; we certainly will listen to that, but I’d like to go further than that as well, because if there are difficulties, which you’ve described, and which the Member for South Wales West describes, and that leads to the view that there’s a more systemic problem than individual difficulties, then, clearly, we’ll have to take far greater action about that. Members are aware of the agreement between the First Minister and the leader of Plaid Cymru, in that we will be looking at the autism strategy over the coming months and looking to see as to whether there is a requirement to legislate on this issue or whether we need to make legislative provisions for the strategic action plan. Let me say to Members that that is something that I take very, very seriously and if there is the need to take legislative action to underpin the delivery of these services, then we will not hesitate to do so.

Research strongly suggests that physical activity such as sport can have a positive effect on an autistic child’s ability to communicate and relate to others and can reduce the stress caused to them by their issues. Each person with a disability is unique and has their own specific educational needs. Where professionals are of the view that a particular child would benefit from a particular physical activity or sport that is only available during school hours, will the Minister support the release of such a child from school in order that they may take up alternative therapies such as sport?

Clearly, the sort of learning programme that is provided for each individual pupil is a matter for them and the professionals who are dealing with them. I’m not sure that it would be appropriate for me, as a Minister, to second judge those sorts of decisions or to pass comment on that without understanding the individual needs of the pupil. But can I tell you this? I think it’s important that we recognise that people have access to the differentiated curriculum that they require, that they have access to the support to ensure that they are to get the best out of that teaching, that learning and that curriculum and that we, as a National Assembly, put in place the national structures and frameworks that mean that we won’t see the failures that are sometimes described here by individual Members.

Thank you very much, Minister.

We move to item 3 on the agenda, which is questions to the Counsel General. Question 1, Simon Thomas.

Can I firstly thank you for the question—in fact, the two questions that you submitted? I will just make the comment that I noticed that, since I’ve had this appointment, the number of questions has actually halved. I think we spent the past five years thinking of imaginative ways of asking questions of the Counsel General to elicit an answer and I’ll do my best to spend the next five years thinking up imaginative ways of actually answering those questions.

But, in direct response to the question, as the law officer, my priorities are supporting the Government to deliver its programme for government, upholding the rule of law, improving access to the laws of Wales, and ensuring that we can secure the best deal for the people of Wales.

I thank the Counsel General for that response, and I welcome him to his new role, of course, by saying that I’m looking forward to five years of asking questions of him, as I asked of his predecessor.

Among those priorities, how important does the Government of the Counsel General consider the fact that the European convention on human rights is part of Welsh law through Welsh legislation? Of course, there is some mention that the Westminster Government will replace that with some sort of bill of rights that will be a lot more ambiguous. Is it the Government’s intention to defend the fact that the convention is part of the law and is a foundation of how we work here in the Assembly?

Of course, the convention and the Human Rights Act 1998 are rights that we have to incorporate into our own Welsh legislation. In fact, the UK Government has to do the same with its own legislation. Of course, we had the comments today from the Secretary of State for Wales that there was going to be the introduction of a bill of rights. I imagine that you as well, along with many others, met with the original committee that was set up to look at a bill of rights. It actually came to the conclusion that they could not fulfil their function without undermining some of the fundamental rights that were already in place.

I think that the European convention on human rights is one of the great legacies that the United Kingdom has given to Europe. It was drafted by European lawyers; it was drafted and had the involvement of some great and well-established Welsh lawyers—persons who quite often learnt their trade and their understanding of the importance of these principles during the Nuremberg trials. Of course, among them was Lord Elwyn-Jones, and many others from Wales who made that. So, I think the contribution we have made to it—. We have actually set the standards. We have set the legislative framework by it. It was promoted by Winston Churchill, and it is recognised internationally as one of the great contributions to the establishment of standards, of rights, across the world. It would be, in my view, a very serious step indeed to actually do anything that undermined or withdrew from those particular standards.

I think the Member will appreciate that I’ve only been in position for seven days, so it’ll be no surprise that I have had no discussions with other law officers on this matter, but it is clear that withdrawal from the EU is a massive constitutional shift for the UK. It will also have far-reaching implications for the devolution settlement.

I thank the Counsel General for his response. May I tell him at the outset that his answers have been far more comprehensive than those I’ve received over the past five years, and that he himself received, on occasion, over the past five years?

I respect the fact that there hasn’t been a great deal of time since his appointment, or since the referendum itself, of course. But, in terms of the debate that we’ve just had in this Chamber, it is clear that the way in which European law has been transposed into Welsh law and UK law is going to be a very complex question to be resolved over the next few years. May I refer to an article in today’s ‘Western Mail’ by the barrister Emyr Lewis, who looks at how Welsh law will be part of the very complex question facing the legal profession over the next few years?

What steps will be in place? For example, does the Counsel General intend to announce some sort of scoping exercise that could cover the various directives that impact on law here, so that we can at least understand the scope of the work before we try and understand how to withdraw?

It’s a very important supplementary question that you raise. I know that Welsh Government departments are already starting this particular process, and I am as well, because there are many aspects and complications around this whole process. For example, we don’t know what approach the UK Government is going to adopt to Brexit—for example, what the procedure might be for actually invoking article 50. I’ve seen reports—I’m sure the Member has as well—that there may be a legal application for a declaration from the court as to whether it’s the royal prerogative or whether legislation has to be laid. That might be significant, if that were to be proceeded with and successful, because it would mean that something would have to come before Parliament that would set parameters for the actual negotiations themselves.

I think also the other question is that, of course, many of the pieces of legislation that affect people, whether it be from the UK, whether it be through our own legislation—whether we would want to retain those, whether we can retain those—they impact very much in terms of aspects of policy, for example, of Government. We’ve had many discussions on procurement and we’ve had the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which give very significant standards, too, that we want to see applied in respect of those who actually work in this country. And, of course, there may be impacts, because much of what has been said is about abolition of red tape, but, of course, no-one has been able to get any clear clarification of which are the laws—what is the red tape—that those who supported Brexit would want to have reduced.

I can only go back to the debates we had when the UK Government signed the social chapter, that it was, actually, many of the social rights and the employment rights. If we, as a Government, are supporting the maintenance of high standards of employment, steps that might be taken to reduce those pieces of legislation will obviously be of great consequence. For example, I notice there was an evaluation of some 2,500 pieces of legislation from the European Community, and, in fact, out of all of those, there were only 48 where the United Kingdom didn’t actually get its way.

So, what we’re talking about are many aspects of legislation that actually are ones that Wales representatives, UK representatives, UK Government and so on, have actually promoted and wanted. So, if these are pieces of legislation that we’ve been involved in actually supporting and wanting, why would we actually want to see those abolished? Why would we want to see those revoked? Why would we not, for example, want to see those retained? So, I think there are many questions, but, yes, I will be certainly reviewing this very, very carefully. There are many complications, not least because we don’t quite know the direction we’re going. It’s clear there was no plan A or plan B or plan C in respect of the consequences of this, but it is clearly serious and we have to deal with it.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Counsel General.

We move on to item 4 on the agenda, which is the United Kingdom Independence Party debate on the impact of the EU referendum on Tata Steel, and I call on Caroline Jones to move the motion.

Okay. Thank you—diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. I formally move the motion tabled in the names of Neil Hamilton and myself.

The UKIP motion before you today reflects our belief that the European Union has shackled British business with masses of red tape and an industrial policy that has not been designed for our industrialists in the British manufacturing sector. The problems facing companies like Tata Steel in my region have been discussed here many times, but, until the British public voted to leave the EU, it seemed there was little we could do to save the steel industry, and every party represented in this Chamber today agrees that the UK has to maintain an independent production capacity.

When we joined the forerunner of the European Union in 1973, the UK was producing nearly 26 million tonnes of steel per year. Over the four decades of EU and EEC membership, this has fallen dramatically. Over the four decades of EU membership, our GDP per head grew by 71 per cent, the EU as a whole by just 62 per cent, whereas the GDP per capita in China grew by over 1,000 per cent and Singapore by over 500 per cent—a stark difference in the economic performance between east and west.

There are those who wish to continue to shackle the EU’s economy to the lacklustre economy of Europe, warning of dire consequences if we fail to remain part of the single market. We don’t need to be members of the single market in order to trade with the EU 27. We can still buy New Zealand lamb, Australian wine, Brazilian beef, American cars and Chinese electronics, despite none of those countries being members of the single market. In fact, the EU has monumentally failed to secure trade agreements with any of these countries.

In the last few years, the EU has sought to complete five key trade deals with the USA, Japan and India as well as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations and Mercosur trading blocs. Because of protectionism in other European countries, the EU has failed to get a trade deal with any of those countries or blocs. The EU’s own figures show that this has cost the UK nearly 300,000 jobs. Members, far from being the saviour of British jobs, the EU has been a barrier to job creation, a stagnant economy dragging down the UK with it. Thankfully, the people of the UK voted to reject continued membership of the EU. They voted to reject increasing red tape. They voted to reject an institution unable to deal with the rest of the world. But, above all, they voted to reject an institution at odds with our national interest.

At a time when our exports to the rest of the world are growing, we should be pursuing trade agreements, not leaving it to the European Union. The future of our manufacturing sector depends on our ability to trade with the rest of the world, but, more importantly, our steel industry’s future is reliant upon us leaving the EU. The global recession left China with an estimated 200 million tonnes of excess steel, which they proceeded to dump on the world markets. The rest of the world put up tariffs to prevent their markets being flooded with cheap Chinese steel. The US introduced 522 per cent trade tariffs on Chinese steel. The EU introduced tariffs of just 16 per cent. As a result, Chinese steel imports to the EU—

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, I will.

Thank you for taking the intervention. Do you therefore regret the role UKIP MEPs took in 2014 when they didn’t support the modernisation and movement of trade tariff and trade defence mechanisms? The words were, by a UKIP representative:

‘UKIP does not vote for the EU doing things on our behalf.’

They did not care for the steel industry.

UKIP MEPs voted against a Labour group amendment that Labour claimed would result in higher anti-dumping measures. But there was little evidence of this and UKIP abstained—abstained—as part of principle. The EU tariffs of just 16 per cent—as a result, Chinese steel imports to the EU rose by over 50 per cent. This has had a devastating effect on UK and Welsh steel.

Three years ago the UK used not a single length of Chinese concrete reinforcing bar, and last year Chinese rebar accounted for nearly half of all the concrete reinforcing bars in the UK. According to UK Steel this level of growth is unprecedented and threatens the very existence of rebar production in the United Kingdom. Members, the future of the Welsh steel industry is under threat. It’s under threat because of cheap Chinese steel. It’s under threat because of high energy prices in the UK, and it’s under threat because of an under-performing European Union, more interested in bureaucracy than trade.

Now that the majority of the Welsh and British public voted to leave the EU we can save our steel industry. Following Brexit the new owners of Tata Steel, together with the Welsh and UK Governments, can look to the rest of the world for markets for what is undoubtedly the best steel in the world: Welsh steel. In future, we will be able to insist that all construction taking place in the UK uses British and Welsh steel without falling foul of EU tendering and procurement rules. Once we’re free of the shackles of the EU we will be able to assist our steel producers with their energy bills—the most expensive in Europe—without the restrictions of EU state-aid rules. As you know, we couldn’t intervene in any loans of any kind because of state-aid rules. [Interruption.] We couldn’t and we didn’t.

You don’t have to have a conversation across the Chamber. Just carry on with your speech, please.

Thank you. Members, following Brexit, Tata Steel in my region has a better chance of survival and I urge you to support the motion. Moving to the amendments, I urge Members to reject the Welsh Conservative amendment. We do not disagree with the points you are making and, if you had decided to add those points to our motion, we would have supported you. However, perhaps your group is still divided on the subject of Europe; you choose to delete our motion. We cannot, therefore, support you. We will also be rejecting the Welsh Labour amendment. Continued membership of the EU does not guarantee the future of Welsh steel and our decision to leave does not jeopardise a sustainable future for steel making in Wales.

With regard to Plaid’s amendments, we will be supporting amendments 2 and 3. Of course, the UK and Welsh Governments should already be doing all they can to support the steel industry. We should also be looking at all sources of funding to support the steel industry, whether that is money we have sent to the EU and get back or funding direct from the UK and Welsh Governments. We will be abstaining on Plaid’s amendment No. 4. We do not believe there will be the huge uncertainty and economic upheaval that is predicted by other parties that will come as a result of our vote to leave the EU. In fact, the stock market has already started recovering the losses that were seen on the news after we had secured a Brexit vote. Finally, on amendments 1 and 5, we will be voting against. The single market is not the be-all and end-all. We need to be able to trade freely with the EU 27 and not be shackled by the restrictions imposed by the single market. Amendment 5 is mischief making. Plaid Cymru know full well that a number of UKIP members vote against all EU Commission proposals on the basis that they want to see democratically elected parliamentarians, such as in Westminster, making laws and regulations and not unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.

Dirprwy Lywydd, I commend this motion to the Chamber. Diolch yn fawr.

I have selected the seven amendments to the motion. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. If amendment 2 is agreed, amendment 3 will be deselected. I call on Bethan Jenkins to move amendments 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7 tabled in the name of Simon Thomas.

I stand to move Plaid Cymru’s amendments. There is premature and then there is this debate. Look at the chaos engulfing British politics. The Prime Minister gone. What was his most likely successor gone. A leadership battle in the Labour Party. And yet, even as their own party leader resigns, for now, and leaves his mess for the rest of us to sort, we have the UK Independence Party somehow trying to argue that Brexit would be better for the steel industry without even contemplating a plan for that realisation.

As abstract arguments go, this would be entertaining if it wasn’t so serious. That is why, on amendment 1, we decided to replace the motion rather than rewording it, because its premise is absurd. While the value of iron and steel imports is greater than exports for the whole of the UK, for Wales it is considerably higher. Last year, we imported 400 million tonnes of iron and steel but exported one billion—two and a half times as much. Of that amount, some 69 per cent—over two thirds—goes to the European market. Frankly, it is impossible to argue that the steel industry will benefit from losing its ability to trade on the open market. The EU has made this clear; there are no special deals to be had. You’re either in or you’re out. [Interruption.] No, sorry. The size of the economy and reciprocal markets don’t enter into it. So far, it’s been fine for UKIP and other ‘leave’ supporters to argue that this is not true, but we should only give that some credence once a single one of the ‘leave’ campaign’s predictions proves to be true.

I’ll address amendments 4 and 5 together. Plaid Cymru’s provided two very clear ideas on what we could be doing here in Wales to support Tata in Port Talbot to become more competitive and sustainable. It can be done without breaching EU competition rules, in spite of what has been previously said. How do I know this? Because the European Commission staff—those faceless bureaucrats that you keep talking about—told me so when I bothered to go and visit them. Regardless of what some Members of this Chamber might think of them, the ones I’ve met I hold in the highest regard. They are better placed than anyone else, I think, to know what constitutes unacceptable state aid.

So, let’s park that argument and talk positively about what can be done. Well, the Welsh Government already makes use of the European fund for strategic investments. We had a statement from the former Minister for finance in the last Assembly updating us on its progress, and that of Horizon 2020. The EFSI, I was also told in Brussels, is well suited to funding Tata’s plans for a new power station. These proposals are fully realised and have the requisite permissions. The new plant would reuse gases that are a by-product of steel making. This environmental aspect, which would reduce the site’s emissions, is a significant factor in deciding whether such a project should receive money. It will also, crucially, reduce Tata’s energy costs.

I thank the Member for taking the intervention. Do you therefore agree that it’s important that we reuse that waste gas, and that it’s important therefore that we keep the heavy end in the steelworks to actually produce that waste gas, so that the integrated works stays as an integrated works?

Yes, of course, I would definitely agree with that. There have been a lot of myths peddled about the policy cost of energy. What we do know is that it constitutes a fraction of the price of utility bills, and we also know that there is a snowball’s chance in hell of seeing that market reformed. So, a renewable energy power station remains the best option—the only option.

Similarly, the EU has a pot it must spend in four years that is aimed at encouraging research and scientific advancement. We have a steel department based in Swansea University’s new innovation campus that is already working with Tata Steel. Indeed, a new department was established to support engineering and the foundation industries, and it wants to strengthen that relationship. Staff at the university believe they have an unrivalled advantage in having blast furnaces within sight of their campus, and for the cost of around £17 million spent over five years, we could establish a research and development institute that would lead the world in steel innovation. Both of these projects would sustain the plant and other sites across Wales. I want to get an update from the Welsh Government as to what they are doing with regard to the taskforce and with regard to what they’re doing to be proactive in this sense. With the Brexit vote, we must make sure that there is urgency behind this.

Lastly, I’d like to reflect on the issue that has been mentioned already in relation to the voting on the dumping of steel. Nigel Farage did not turn up to the overall legislative vote on the dumping of Chinese steel. If UKIP really did care about the dumping of Chinese steel that makes Port Talbot less viable then you would have turned up to vote for that legislation in favour of higher tariffs on Chinese steel and shame on you for not doing so. [Interruption.]

Thank you, we won’t have—. I’ve said once before we won’t have conversations across the Chamber. If you wanted to intervene you should have stood up and intervened on the Member, but we’ve lost that one. I call on Russell George to move amendment 2, tabled in the name of Paul Davies.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I’d like to move the Welsh Conservative amendment in the name of Paul Davies. Now, the Welsh Conservatives and I welcome this debate on the future of the steel industry in Wales. Welsh steel production is of course of vital importance to the Welsh economy, to workers and their families, and to those communities that rely on steel making.

We will not be supporting the proposed motion without amendment as we don’t believe that the motion adequately reflects the complexity and uncertainty of the difficult situation facing steel communities across Wales. The steel industry across the UK and Europe is facing very challenging economic conditions with a global collapse in demand for steel and there is a major over-production going on across the world. This is a truly global issue and as such I believe that the situation facing Tata in Wales cannot be seen in isolation of a Brexit vote.

I acknowledge the fact that the result of the EU referendum means that it is all the more important for the UK Government to work with the Welsh Government to secure a strong future for steel making in Wales. The EU, of course, remains the most important market for steel, with over half of our exports going to the EU and more than two thirds of our imports coming from the EU. In that context, we are therefore happy to support the Government’s amendment in the name of Jane Hutt and amendment 4 in the name of Simon Thomas. I should say we also support the wording in amendment 1, in the name of Simon Thomas, but we can’t support that amendment in voting as it would delete, of course—our amendments would fall.

I suspect that all Members in this Chamber, Senedd, Parliament, recognise the importance of Welsh steel to our nation’s economic well-being and I’m pleased, to date, that there has been a significant amount of cross-party consensus to support our steel industry. Therefore, in the spirit of co-operation I was very keen that the Welsh Conservatives’ amendments were uncontentious, and I hope that Members will agree with that. I’m disappointed that UKIP can’t support our amendments in that spirit. But, you know, the steelworks play an important part in the Welsh economy and it’s important that the UK and Welsh Governments continue to work together to maximise the viability and the potential of Welsh steel production into the future.

Tata Steel contributes £200 million in wages to the Welsh economy and a further £3.2 billion in total economic impact to Wales as a whole—that’s according to the Members’ research brief that I read. It also employs 4,000 people at Port Talbot with many more, of course, in the region reliant on the steel industry for their livelihoods. We therefore believe it’s essential that the Welsh and UK Governments continue to work closely together to devise a strategy to help Tata secure a credible buyer for the steelworks that offers the best possible opportunities for future economic growth and safeguards jobs and the Welsh steelworkers.

I think, as well, that it’s critical that this strategy isn’t a knee-jerk approach, such as those calling for nationalisation, but is rather a long-term plan to secure the future of the Welsh steel industry within the private sector. We therefore support amendment 6, in the name of Simon Thomas, which looks to the Welsh and UK Governments to provide additional funding if that’s necessary. Of course, the UK Government has already taken action to create a competitive environment for steel making in Wales by providing a package of support worth hundreds of millions. Also, the Welsh Government has created a package for those threatened with redundancy, and the UK Government has also taken action on the high energy costs.

Other measures to offset the burden of high energy on steel manufacturing would also be welcome, and I am therefore interested in considering Plaid’s amendments and details in amendment 5 for a new renewable energy plant and further reducing energy costs, and how a new steel research and development centre would fit into Treasury support for an enterprise zone for Port Talbot. I also want to, myself, encourage the UK and Welsh Governments to work together with other nations—not just in Europe, but around the world—to secure the best possible trade agreements for the Welsh steel industry. In the light of the Brexit vote, there does remain a great deal of uncertainty—that’s got to be recognised—of how future trade deals will be formulated. That’s uncertain yet, and it is, of course, essential that future trade agreements are arranged with other nations and they don’t ignore the importance of the steel industry.

Now, I would say—

You’ve got to wind it up now.

Yes, I will, in that case, wind up, Deputy Presiding Officer. Just to say that, from my perspective, I hope the Welsh and UK Governments continue to work together towards a positive outcome.

Thank you very much. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure to formally move amendment 3 tabled in the name of Jane Hutt. You can stand to do it; it’s very nice. [Laughter.]

Move, formally.

Move formally, thank you. David Rees.

Diolch, Ddirprwy Lywydd. As Members are fully aware, steel is the beating heart of my home town and I welcome another opportunity to debate the future of that industry here today. However, today, we should be debating how we secure a sustainable future through working together to build a stable economic environment and tackle the challenges facing steelworkers; not using the steel industry as an excuse for welcoming a Brexit vote, which is what this motion is.

The steelworks in Port Talbot has been part of our skyline for over a century and I hope that it will continue to dominate that skyline for many, many more years to come. The steel industry in Wales—not only in Port Talbot, because there are other plants in Wales—is a vital part of the economy. But we can’t hide from the fact that there are pressures across Europe, which are resulting in the UK steel industry actually experiencing a greater uncertainty, leaving its employees with that feeling of having the sword of Damocles hanging over them. Many of my constituents, their families and the wider community in Aberavon are still unsure about the future of the plant at Port Talbot, and our commitment must be to work to secure that future and provide the much-needed reassurances. I know that there is a meeting in Mumbai of the Tata board this Friday, which will definitely have an impact upon what the future is there.

A range of factors has led to thousands of job losses in the sector across the UK and over a thousand have actually been lost in my own constituency—we cannot forget those contractors and the supply chain workers who are also affected by the steel crisis. One major factor has been the cheap imports, but not just from China, it’s also from Turkey and Russia. As we know, the EU has had levers to put tariffs on imported steel to tackle dumping, and they have done so in the past. It’s been mentioned that they’ve only got 16 per cent, but let’s remind ourselves that the UK Government actually didn’t push for the change in the lesser duty rate; they actually blocked it. That’s something we need to address. Perhaps the fact that we have a Brexit actually might remove the blocking of the lesser duty rate, but it won’t apply for us; it’ll apply against us, possibly, and that’s something we have got to watch. So, don’t blame the EU for that, blame the current UK Government.

As I said, as a consequence of Brexit, we may be subject to those tariffs in the future, particularly if the UK cannot agree on a deal for the single market, and that is something that is clearly in question at this moment in time. This will affect the price per tonne of steel and you’ll remember that Port Talbot actually exports a third of its market to the EU. So, that’s a huge amount of impact upon us if we have to pay additional costs.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

Does the Member recognise that, since the Brexit vote, the level of the pound has now declined by some 10 per cent and will that not flow through into significantly improved competitiveness for the Welsh and UK steel industry?

Yes, I accept that point that the pound is down, therefore the exports are cheaper and possibly more enticing to buyers, but, of course, we are buying raw materials in dollars, and the pound has dropped like a rock to a 31-year low against the dollar, so the consequences are that we’ve probably got, perhaps, a worse situation, not necessarily a better situation.

I won’t take a second one, no.

I actually welcome the amendment by the Welsh Conservatives, which encourages UK and Welsh Governments to actually work together to devise a strategy to maximise the long-term viability and potential of steel production in Wales. This is something I’ve been calling for for a long time. I actually marched alongside Port Talbot steelworkers in May as they lobbied the UK Government to bring forward an industrial strategy to strengthen our steel sector. I feel that the Welsh Government should have a part to play in those discussions as the majority of steel making now lies in Wales.

With regard to Plaid Cymru’s amendment 5, I agree with the sentiment behind it totally, highlighting the need to support the development of the power plant and the establishment of a research hub based in Swansea University, centred on Swansea University. The amendment, though, asks the Welsh Government to act when I don’t think it has the authority to do so, but we must stress the fantastic work that Swansea University has been undertaking in conjunction with Tata and emphasise that it should lead any research and development hub within the UK. I have visited the innovation campus at the university and specific projects also in Baglan bay on numerous occasions along with the First Minister and the Minister for Skills and Science. These are world-leading research facilities and should be supported in the years ahead. I agree with any call for Welsh Government to engage in support for these areas.

Finally, we must now ensure that any potential buyers of Tata Steel UK business are offered the support they were offered before the referendum result. We must also ensure that Tata continues to be a responsible employer and seller. Only a fortnight ago, I was assured that there would be when I met with Mr Jha, the chief executive officer of Tata Steel UK. Let’s hope that continues and that will continue to happen.

But, through all this huge uncertainty, the workers at Port Talbot have continued to demonstrate their commitment to steel making and have broken production records, despite having that cloud of uncertainty hovering over them. We must ensure that Welsh Government continues to pressure the UK Government to bring forward the tax breaks promised and the pension consultation, which closed on the twenty-third—strangely enough, the same day the UK voted on Brexit, but that’s when the pension consultation closed—and that it’s looked at very carefully, scrutinised properly, and we come to some conclusion. Because the last thing we want is the pensions going into the pension protection fund because that would be devastating for pensioners and the workers in the works now.

I continue to believe that steel making in Port Talbot has a future. We must all unite to ensure that we protect this foundation industry. I, for one, will continue to work with the trade union colleagues, management, workforce and all people in Port Talbot to secure that future.

The steel industry in Wales is facing a crisis, which threatens jobs and livelihoods. So, I feel it is right and proper that we do deliberate on this issue in the Assembly. My UKIP colleague Caroline Jones has already pointed to the issue of tariffs and the way in which membership of the EU has constrained the UK’s ability to respond to Chinese steel dumping. This point is, as ever, contentious in this Chamber. I personally endorse the point Caroline made, but I won’t go over it again now as it’s been argued several times in this Chamber. Obviously, we will never come—

Will you take an intervention?

Go on. Go ahead, then.

The point is the British Government also opposed those amendments.

Yes, I am coming to that.

Why is, therefore, better in the hands of the British Government if they also voted in that way?

Okay. That’s a good point, and I do address that later in my contribution.

Right. The only addition I would make to the tariffs argument is this, and it goes along with what David Rees just raised: David rightly raised the important point—actually, it’s the same point that Bethan raised as well—that the Conservative Government in Westminster has itself acted and voted against taking retaliatory tariffs against China. So, in this aspect—you’re quite right, they have done that—the point I would make is that leaving the EU gives a UK Government a theoretical right to raise tariffs. It is up to the UK Government itself to decide whether or not to use that right. Unfortunately, at the moment, it has decided not to. It’s far better to have that theoretical right to act than not to have it at all. At least the UK electorate has the right to vote out the UK Government if it disagrees with its industrial policy. It had no such right to vote out the EU bureaucrats who hitherto controlled our industrial policy. Please note, Bethan, I didn’t call them faceless.

Once we have left the EU and regain the measure of control over our industry, what can we then do as a nation to support Welsh steel? Is there, indeed, a viable future for Welsh steel? Well, in fact, if we look at the market situation currently, world demand for steel is likely to rise as advanced economies gradually recover from the slump of 2008 and as more emerging economies raise living standards. As they do so, more people want and can afford cars, domestic appliances and other products with a steel content. In the UK itself, the Government has pledged to buy more British steel as part of UK public sector contracts. Several of the large infrastructure and equipment programmes have a substantial steel content.

However, another problem we have to overcome is the relatively high cost of energy for UK industry, compared with many of its European rivals. Much of this is due to carbon emissions penalties that were introduced, not by the EU, but by a previous UK Government. In 2008, Gordon Brown and his Labour Cabinet took the momentous decision to rename the Department of Energy as the Department of Energy and Climate Change. Under the stewardship of Ed Miliband—that man of wonderful foresight—this department then brought in the Climate Change Act 2008 and with it the stiff emissions taxes that the UK steel industry now faces. Many independently minded political pundits predicted at the time that this would lead to industrial disaster, and we may now be staring that disaster fully in the face. While the UK steel industry stands on the precipice, German and Dutch steelworkers face nowhere near such a menacing future. That is because, in part, but in large part—

Will you take an intervention?

I’m just coming to the end, so, sorry. Their energy costs are relatively much lower than ours. So, we must look to regain control of our steel industry from the tentacles of EU bureaucracy, but we also need to legislate sensibly at home. Thank you.

I’m pleased to be able to contribute to this debate because it is a very important matter, the Tata steelworks. Could I, in the first place, congratulate David Rees and Bethan Jenkins on their contributions? They’ve been excellent this afternoon. I won’t repeat their points, but it’s worth noting that the Tata steelworks is the source of thousands of local jobs with high salaries, with thousands of residents from Port Talbot, Neath and Swansea being employed directly and indirectly in this area.

Now, in February, the European Commission announced tariff payments to try to stop China from dumping cheap steel here in the UK, which is very relevant, as we’ve heard, to Port Talbot, of course. Now, this is the exact mechanism that the United States has used to set anti-dumping tariffs of 266 per cent, and 256 per cent tariffs on cold rolled steel from China—a total of 522 per cent, as we’ve heard already from Caroline Jones. The mechanism that has brought that tariff to the United States, the exact same mechanism, is available in Europe, but the UK Government voted against that, using the veto. That’s why the tariff is only 16 per cent on Chinese steel—because the UK Government voted against it. It’s very misleading to blame Europe for that. If you want to blame anyone, and someone should be blamed for this, the UK Government is to blame. It doesn’t make any sense, therefore, to blame Europe for a problem that the London, the UK Government, has caused.

We’re in a worse situation now, out of Europe. We depend on the decisions of the UK Government, and it has been against these tariffs. That’s why the payments are so low. The argument makes no sense at all, and all because the current UK Government wants to favour its new friends in China at the expense of industry in the UK, and Wales in particular.

We do regret, as Bethan and several others have mentioned, UKIP’s decision to vote against the Commission’s measures in the EU Parliament this year. They decided to vote against measures that would have raised tariffs, much higher tariffs, on Chinese steel. So, blame is also in your hands, and I can’t understand the kind of thinking that can bring this debate before us this afternoon when you are partly to blame for that problem.

Following the referendum, naturally, we accept the result, but we need to act in the interests of trade and business in Wales, and for steelworkers in Port Talbot. We’ve heard the history of the blow—.

Oh, here we go again.

Last November the UK Government Minister asked Brussels to convene a meeting to discuss the tariffs. They agreed to that, but the time delays after that led to the outgoing economy Minister here, Edwina Hart, saying two months ago the rules were ‘rather inflexible’ and had driven her mad. When I raised this with the First Minister and what discussions he had had with the European Commission when we were recalled at the beginning of April, all he said was,

‘we have been in correspondence with the Commission’.

Do you agree with me that we need to know what dialogue has been occurring between the Welsh Government and the European Commission over these months?

No, we don’t. I don’t agree with you there. Just accept the fact that, when it had the chance, the Government at British level opposed—vetoed—the increased tariff situation, otherwise we would be with the USA at 522 per cent, not at 16 per cent. Just accept that as fact. [Interruption.] Last November was last November. This was February when things were evolving and the chance was there and the UK Government vetoed it. Stop blaming Europe. And it’s time to grow up. Blame the UK Government. Now, you’ve left us at the mercy of the UK Government.

Ac i orffen, felly, rwyf yn gobeithio y bydd yna gydweithio rhwng Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Gyfunol a’r Llywodraeth yma yng Nghymru. Mae yna sialens anferthol o’n blaenau ni. Mae gyda ni filoedd o bobl yn fy rhanbarth i yn wynebu dyfodol ansicr, ansicr iawn. Nid oes angen chwarae rhagor o gemau. Wrth gwrs, mae’r sefyllfa nawr mewn stad o barlysiad—mae’r holl system wleidyddol wedi’i pharlysu, ond mae’n rhaid gweithredu nawr. Diolch yn fawr.

I want to start by noting the amended title of this debate and I welcome the realisation that our steel industry in Wales is much more than simply one site. Whilst I recognise the importance of our foundation industry, not just to our economy but to society as a whole in Wales, it won’t surprise Members that I wish to focus my contribution today on Shotton.

I cannot emphasise enough the success of Shotton steel. Not one but two profitable, viable, innovative businesses with a highly skilled and motivated and loyal workforce committed to the future. A bright future, as I said before and I’ll say again, with the right support. On that I must credit our Government and the First Minister, the Cabinet Secretary and my colleagues in Flintshire for the support and the collective working that’s gone in to support Shotton going into the future. But like our steel industry across Wales and the UK, we need certain external factors and actions in order not just for it to survive but to thrive.

Firstly, we need a proactive or even an active UK Government that prioritise the future of our steel industry rather than the future Prime Minister. We also need, as my colleague from Aberavon said, a deal to access the single market. Now, the UKIP spokesperson said, ‘It’s all right; we’ll get trade agreements instead’, but trade agreements do not happen overnight. Our steel industry needs action right now, right away, to support its future. It’s more important than ever that the UK Government works with the Welsh Government to secure a sustainable future for our steel industry.

Finally, as an Assembly Member in Flintshire and a political product of that steel industry, now more than ever I’ll give the workforce there my reassurance that, post the EU referendum, I will be fighting for their future to make sure they are successful into the future.

Similarly to Hannah, I will stress the wider picture in Wales regarding steel and the need to support the steel industry moving forward, Dirprwy Lywydd, because, obviously, in my area of Newport we have the Llanwern Tata works, we have the Orb works, which is part of Tata Steel, and also Liberty and a number of smaller operators as well. So, steel is still very important to Newport and the surrounding regional economy. I think it’s clear from the debate already here today that the effects of Brexit in the majority view does make life more difficult, more stressful and more worrying for the steel industry and steelworkers in Wales. That’s why I’m pleased that the Welsh Government amendment recognises that and puts it in the context of, following Brexit, the need for UK Government and Welsh Government to work ever more closely together to address the needs of the steel industry in Wales. So, although the wording of this motion concentrates on Port Talbot, we know very well that Port Talbot is integrated with the other Tata steelworks in Wales, and we do have to look at the holistic picture if we’re going to do the job for steel in Wales that the people of Wales, and steelworkers especially, would expect of us.

As far as Newport is concerned, then, Dirprwy Lywydd, we have had, I think, a very productive working relationship with Welsh Government over a period of time. I recently visited the Llanwern steelworks, along with the First Minister. It was quite clear that there is a good working relationship. There is a very good quality of product there at Llanwern, exemplified by the Zodiac plant, for example, which produces very high-quality steel for the car industry. And, similarly, in a recent visit to the Orb works, they were absolutely crystal clear that they have a good working relationship with Welsh Government. It’s about support for investment, support for new processes, and, indeed, skills development, and they want to see that relationship strengthened and taken forward in the light of the new situation and the new concerns. And particularly with Liberty, having visited there just the other week, they, of course, are part of the bidding process for Tata Steel, but they also have independent operations in Newport that incorporate energy development as well as steel. They are ambitious; they’re a multinational company with real resource. They have the current coal-fired power station at Uskmouth, which they would like to convert to biomass. They are part of the consortium that wishes to take forward tidal lagoons in Swansea, of course, and in Newport and Cardiff, and the energy that those lagoons produce could be an important part of their overall plans. They term it ‘green steel’, Dirprwy Llywydd, and it is about energy production to meet the great energy needs of steel. It’s about recycling scrap and perhaps bringing electric arc furnaces to that Newport site to provide the facility to process that scrap metal.

So, putting all of that together, their requirement—and this was their plea to me, really—was to work with Welsh Government to get the message across to the UK administration that they require important decisions to be taken in a timely fashion, for example, with regard to those energy needs, with regard to the conversion to biomass for that Uskmouth power plant, and with regard to decisions on the tidal lagoons. They are impatient to see progress with these decisions and I very much understand that impatience. I would like to say today, Dirprwy Llywydd, that in the current context, with all the uncertainty that’s around, we could have greater certainty on the way ahead if we had timely and, you know, the right decisions on those energy questions. I hope very much that the UK Government is listening and will act in very short order.

I must confess that when I first read the motion, that, following Brexit, Tata Steel in Port Talbot has a better chance of survival, I thought it was a sick joke. I don’t want to begrudge those who campaigned to leave the EU their moment to enjoy their victory, but I would ask them not to be flippant. I have constituents working in Port Talbot, and hundreds of families reliant on the Trostre works in Llanelli who are deeply worried about the fallout from the decision to leave the EU, and today’s motion is insensitive to their concerns.

The early signs, I must say, are not encouraging. The downgrading of the UK’s credit rating has already led to a halt in business investment in Wales. Just yesterday, I was told that a major pension fund had pulled out of a development in south Wales because they cannot put money into an economy that does not have a AAA rating. Grand claims about the benefits that will flow to us from being outside the EU already appear hollow, and the backtracking on the promise of extra money for the NHS is not encouraging.

Of course, the truth is we don’t know what the trade and tariff arrangements will be. It is possible they might be better. I doubt it, but let’s be generous and optimistic; they might be. But the fact is that it’s uncertain and is likely to be uncertain for several years to come. That uncertainty poses a significant risk to the future of the steelworks in the short term.

Will the Member give way?

I will.

I’m surprised by his comment about pension funds. France and the US have been downgraded from AAA—there are very few AAA economies out there. Surely, the one thing we do know is that exports from these plants are now 10 per cent cheaper than they were two weeks ago. We heard from Bethan that there are two and a half times more exports than imports. Surely, that’s already improved competitiveness, and that’s why our motion is a very serious motion—it should be addressed as such.

I’m simply reflecting the views of business, and he’s taking a very selective view of the economic picture to justify the hell that has been unleashed on the markets. An economic policy based simply on the cheap exchange rate is a very short-sighted one, I would argue.

A few weeks ago, as David Rees, the Member for Aberavon, has already said, he and I met with the chief executive of Tata Steel in the UK, Mr Bimlendra Jha, here in the Assembly. It was clear from his conversation that if he was able to put a deal together to persuade the board of Tata in India to retain ownership of the UK plants, he would do his best, but he was worried about the liabilities of the pension fund and he was worried about the UK pulling out of the EU. Indeed, it is rumoured that a rescue deal was on the cards, but was pulled the morning after the vote. It is now harder to raise investment, so we cannot know whether the other bidders can proceed.

The future of all the works in Wales and the workers’ pensions is in doubt. So much for a better chance of survival being outside the EU. The Welsh Government, we know, has put money on the table, and Mr Jha made clear to us that Tata warmly welcomed that, in contrast to the lack of forthcoming information from the UK Government, who’ve yet to make good on their promises of help. But, the Brexiteers now need to deliver, and UKIP would do well to stop treating people’s fears as a political plaything.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, Ken Skates.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Can I thank Members for their contributions today? I do know that everyone will be concerned about the impact that the referendum has had on the UK’s steel industry, and there is no doubt that the referendum result has created considerable uncertainty, but also a deep sense of anxiety. I endorse the contribution made by Lee Waters, who I think captured the degree of anxiety that steelworkers and their families now face.

I’m not at all convinced by UKIP’s strategy that killing the national currency is the best way to grow an economy. I don’t recall the Member who currently sits here today, but was in another place for many years, celebrating the devaluation of the pound back in the 1990s.

Will you give way?

Yes, of course I will.

On the contrary, I think it was the most extraordinary moment, which I’ve always called ‘White Wednesday’ rather than ‘Black Wednesday’. However, unlike then, on the latest data, we have a current account deficit of 7 per cent of gross domestic product. His boss has gone on about how the high pound has handicapped steel production. Surely, in order to become more competitive, we need a lower currency.

The Member has repeatedly ignored the fact that raw materials imported from abroad are now even more expensive and will stifle growth in this sector. There is no doubt about it; there is no net benefit. There is also, as Members have already pointed out—Bethan Jenkins, Dai Lloyd and others—a tragic Shakespearian irony in what UKIP Members have said today and what they’ve actually done in previous times, where they have today claimed that protective tariffs will be great for the steel industry, but in the past, when they had an opportunity to introduce tariffs that would favour our steel industry, they did precisely the opposite. A cynic might suspect that UKIP in the past have deliberately sabotaged the steel industry in order to make political gain from the uncertainty that it led to.

I think members of the public would rightly suspect any politician who stands up now and says, definitively, ‘This is great’ or ‘This is dire.’ Let’s leave it to the experts. Just in the final few days, UK Steel have published their manifesto, which opens with a pretty clear statement. I quote:

‘The result of the EU Referendum was a blow to the steel industry.’

It’s my belief that Brexit is still not the best course for Britain’s steel industry to be taken on, but I can assure you of this: the people have spoken and, as a Welsh Government, we will do all we can to deliver a secure future. We are working relentlessly to support the sales process and the communities involved, and we will continue to put every resource we have as a Government to that purpose. The First Minister has consistently and directly pressed this message with Tata’s senior leaders in Europe and in Mumbai, as well as at the highest levels of the Westminster Government. We will continue to press this message. Indeed, the deputy permanent secretary, my most senior official, is flying out to the board meeting on Friday to convey in the strongest possible terms our position.

Nevertheless, both the referendum result and the UK Government changes do pose important questions about the future. It is essential that leadership uncertainty at a UK Government level does not impact on their stated commitment to do all they can to secure the future of our steel industry. I do hope that attention at Whitehall on the future of our steel plants here in Wales has not slipped as a result of recent events, will not waver and will not cease. One of our key priorities is keeping the blast furnaces at Port Talbot operating, but, of equal importance is ensuring that Port Talbot continues to be the primary supplier of steel to other Welsh sites, as well as to Hartlepool and to Corby.

Hannah Blythyn raised the important issue of securing all of our steel sites, and I’d like to commend her for the work she has done in representing workers at the Shotton site. Hannah Blythyn also, rightly, pointed to the fact that considerable uncertainty would be caused during the course of negotiating a new framework agreement, which could take a decade or more—uncertainty and, of course, as I’ve said already, anxiety for those employed in the steel industry.

We are waiting for updates from Tata on how it is progressing with the sale process, and we remain ready to support any bidders that will see jobs and sustainable steel production remain in Wales. Our offer of support remains on the table, but we can only consider the detail of any particular proposal when we get to the next stage and have greater clarity about a bidder’s plans. [Interruption.] I’d like to, but I’m sorry.

Whilst Tata is continuing to give the matter due consideration, it is more vital than ever before, as Russell George said and as John Griffiths said, that the UK Government continues to work with us, the steel industry, steel trade unions and other partners to instil confidence that we are all working together to create the right business environment that will support a sustainable steel industry in the United Kingdom. Last month, I attended the UK Government’s steel council. The council has four industry-led working groups that are considering not only how we respond to the current steel crisis, but also how to enable the long-term sustainability of steel making in the future. Of course, we also have our own steel taskforce. I will be chairing future meetings of the taskforce to ensure we keep up the momentum and maintain the positive partnership that is being developed to support workers. And, I would be pleased to update Member in the coming weeks on the progress that has been made.

Work is also advancing well to strengthen our procurement policy, which will clarify the importance of opening up opportunities for UK steel suppliers. There has been progress, too, on the newly established Port Talbot waterfront enterprise zone, which held its first meeting last month. The board will develop its strategy by building on the world-class advanced manufacturing skills and strong manufacturing heritage. It will focus on research and development, innovation-driven entrepreneurship, including opportunities related to the university and Swansea bay city region, as outlined by my friend and colleague, Dai Rees.

Deputy Presiding Officer, we will continue to work with the UK Government, Tata Steel and representatives of the steel industry in Wales and the UK to reiterate that Wales, as a country, is committed to doing all we are able to to ensure a sustainable steel industry. We expect all those we are engaging with to do their utmost to ensure this is achieved. Despite the referendum result, Wales is—and I am determined to keep it—open for business, and I am equally determined to build a bright future for our steel industry, too.

Thank you very much. I call on David Rowlands to reply to the debate. David Rowlands.

Diolch yn fawr. Well, I have to say that much has been said in this Chamber about the necessity to keep confidence in both the Welsh and the British economy. Well, over the last two weeks since Brexit, anybody who had been listening to the comments in this Chamber would have no confidence whatsoever in our ability as a nation to run a good, confident, expanding economy.

It goes without saying that we all regret the instability with regard to the Tata Steel plant in Port Talbot and the consequences that would arise were it to close, not only for employees and their families, but for the wider economy of Port Talbot as a whole. But I feel a point has to be made here that the Labour Party are coming very late to the table in the fight to save jobs in the steel industry, both here in Wales and in the UK as a whole. Under the Labour Government and, of course, whilst we were in the UK—the EU—the UK lost around—[Interruption.] The UK lost around 33,000 jobs in the steel industry, falling from 68,000 when Labour came to office in 1997 to around 35,000 when they left in 2010, including falling from 17,000 to 7,000 in Wales in the same period. [Interruption.] No, I’m sorry. [Assembly Members: ‘Oh.’] I put it to you that, far from helping the British steel industry, our presence in the European political project has been a massive disadvantage to the industry.

Under EU procurement rules, for instance, 100 of the British Army’s new Ajax fighting vehicles will be built in Spain using Swedish steel. This was at the request of Brussels, who used EU grants in order to support Spanish jobs. [Interruption.] I could enumerate—[Interruption.] I could enumerate many such instances. Since joining the European Union we have all but lost vast areas of our manufacturing industries—shipbuilding, train and rolling stock construction, the chemical industry in terminal decline, textiles in crisis, the fishing industry and farming all but decimated.

The First Minister has cited several times, if I recall, how clean our rivers and beaches are as a result of EU environmental legislation. Well, I’m sorry to inform the First Minister that it’s got nothing to do with EU regulations; it’s because we no longer have the industries to pollute them. [Assembly Members: ‘Oh’.] We have heard ad infinitum from Members of this Assembly of the catastrophe that will befall the Welsh economy if we do not receive grant money.

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

Are your proposals then—? Are you therefore prepared to scrap all industry in Wales so you can have a clean environment, because that’s what you’ve just said?

Well, that’s what’s happening. [Interruption.] That’s what’s happening. [Interruption.] It’s a consequence of not having the industry. The answer lies in the fact that, after 17 years of Labour rule in this institution, and for many years with a Labour Government in Westminster, we qualified for those grants—. I’m sorry, I’ll just repeat this, because I was interrupted.

We have heard ad infinitum from Members of this Assembly of the catastrophe that will befall the Welsh economy if we do not receive EU grant money or, of course, the equivalent money from the UK Government following Brexit. If this is true we must ask the question ‘why?’ The answer lies in the fact that, after 17 years of Labour rule in this institution, and for many years with a Labour Government in Westminster, we qualified for those grants because we are still one of the poorest regions of Europe. Many of the Members of this Assembly act as if this European money is the lifeblood of this nation. They ignore the fact that all the moneys we receive from Europe are dwarfed by the sums we get from the Barnett formula, even with its evident deficiencies. [Interruption.] We in UKIP are confident that if the parties of the house act in concert with the other parties, as we have all pledged to do, we will get funding from the UK Government that will match—no, exceed—that which we receive from Europe.

We in UKIP, unlike most of the opposition in the Assembly, believe we can trust our own Welsh and British politicians in Westminster rather than a collection of unaccountable, undemocratic foreign commissioners in Brussels, and it is through our own auspices that Tata Steel will have the prospect of surviving for many years to come. Thank you.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. There has been an objection, therefore we—[Interruption.] Thank you. I know everybody’s getting excited about an event that may happen tonight but, if we don’t calm down, we’ll still be here voting before the start of that event, so can we do the voting in quiet, please? I will defer the voting now until voting time.

We’ve agreed that voting time will take place before the short debate. Unless three Members wish the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time. Does anybody wish the bell to be rung? No.

Right, we shall move on to voting. I call for a vote on the motion tabled in the name of Neil Hamilton and Caroline Jones. If the proposal is not agreed, we will vote on the amendments tabled to the motion. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion five, against the motion 43. There were no abstentions. Therefore the motion is lost.

I will now call for a vote on the amendments. If amendment 1 is agreed, amendments 2 and 3 will be deselected. So, I call for a vote on amendment 1, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 34, against the motion—sorry, the amendment, sorry. So, for amendment 1 34, against amendment 1 14, no abstentions. Therefore amendment 1 is agreed.

As amendment 1 was agreed, amendments 2 and 3 are deselected.

We move to a vote on amendment 4. I call for the vote on amendment 4, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 46, against the amendment two. Therefore amendment 4 is carried.

I call for a vote on amendment 5, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 10, against 27, and there were 10 abstentions. Therefore amendment 5 is lost.

I call for a vote on amendment 6, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 44, against the amendment two, with one abstention. Therefore that amendment is agreed.

I call for a vote on amendment 7, tabled in the name of Simon Thomas. Open the vote. Close the vote. For the amendment 34, against the amendment five. There were nine abstentions. Therefore that amendment is carried.

I now call for a vote on the motion as amended.

Open the vote. Close the vote. For the motion 43, against the motion five. There were no abstentions.

It has been agreed that the short debate will be postponed until Wednesday, 13 July. Therefore, this brings today’s proceedings to a close. And, as the Presiding Officer mentioned at the start of the proceedings, good luck to the football team, and, wherever we’re watching it, can we all say, ‘Stronger together, united as a country’? And I’m sure we’ll all return tomorrow with the right result. Diolch yn fawr iawn.