Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

11. In the context of infrastructure, we have just heard that Brexit rebel Lord Heseltine, who had been overseeing work on the already overdue Swansea city deal, has been ousted by the Government. What hope have we of securing similar deals for the rest of Wales if experts are axed at the whim of an insecure Executive who are fearful of parliamentary sovereignty?

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Lady highlights an issue that is in the news today. It should be emphasised that the Swansea Bay region city deal has a bottom-up agenda. Lord Heseltine did contribute significant expertise during a challenge session, and I am confident that we will have a city deal for the region, followed by further growth deals for Wales as a result of the Government’s work to ensure that Wales benefits from investment in the same way as any other part of the United Kingdom.

Welsh Affairs

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 2nd March 2017 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I thank the hon. Members for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen), for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) and for Gower (Byron Davies) for securing the debate, which is just about spot on, because, of course, it follows on from yesterday’s St David’s day celebrations and last week’s welcome announcement that we will be allowed, under certain circumstances, to address Parliament in Welsh. Mae fy nghyd-Aelodau Seneddol Plaid Cymru a finnau yn edrych ymlaen yn awchus at gael siarad Cymraeg am y tro cyntaf yn yr Uwch-bwyllgor Cymraeg. It is all right, there is nothing particularly terrifying in that: I am celebrating the fact that we will be allowed to speak Welsh in the Welsh Grand Committee—that is pretty much a spontaneous translation.

There is merit in embracing small victories here in Parliament, but while there is cause for celebration—after all, “Gwnewch y pethau bychai”, or “Do the little things”, is what St David advised us to do—I cannot help but think that, in the age of big and bold political decisions, Wales needs more than just the little things. By voting to leave Europe’s political union, people in Wales quite rightly voted to uproot the very foundations on which the Westminster establishment has rested so comfortably for so long. Contrary to the long-held small-c conservative belief, people want change—change with a capital C.

On the UK’s withdrawal from the EU, powers will be repatriated to the UK. A determination will need to be made about those powers that are to be in devolved areas. At the moment, there is little experience of shared competence as practised in the EU.

A St David’s day poll revealed that more and more people in Wales are demanding that power lies closer to them, with 44% wanting a National Assembly with greater powers. Brexit offers a unique opportunity for the Welsh National Assembly to satisfy that demand.

Let us take this opportunity to rethink drastically the UK constitution in a changing Europe. It is essential that the great repeal Bill, and measures taken under it at central UK level, give appropriate attention to the devolution settlement. It should recognise the continuation of EU measures already adopted in Welsh law for Wales, as well as the competence of Welsh Ministers to pass secondary legislation reviewing the post-Brexit acquis in devolved areas. The Bill may significantly impact, intentionally or not, on the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales. The UK’s exit from the EU must not result in devolved powers being clawed back to the UK Government. Any attempt to do that will be firmly resisted by my colleagues and me.

Managing these newly repatriated policy areas will require much more serious and intensive intergovernmental mechanisms and governance structures than those currently in place—a complete overhaul of the way the nations of these isles co-operate. Let us be frank: the current constitutional structures are already at fault. Dithering on UK infrastructure spend on energy projects, for instance, is serving neither rural communities nor the Welsh economy well. We need to realise the opportunities that await in potentia in such enterprises as tidal lagoons and new nuclear energy, and ensure that the people of Wales are equipped with the skills to make the best of such opportunities.

The Plaid Cymru spokesperson for external affairs in the Assembly, Steffan Lewis, has long been an advocate of transforming the existing Joint Ministerial Committee into a UK Council of Ministers covering the various aspects of policy for which agreement between all four UK Administrations is required. We are pleased that the Welsh Labour Government have adopted our position in the paper we worked on together, “Securing Wales’s Future”.

To finish, I will, like many Members today, return to St David. I urge the UK Government to do not only the little things he so famously preached. I urge them to rise above populist politics, just as St David did on the ground he caused to rise when people struggled to hear him preach. I urge them to rise to the challenge of Brexit in a way that will truly empower the Welsh people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

I again thank the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) for spearheading efforts to secure this timely debate. If he will excuse me, however, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on her campaign and what she has achieved so far. The work is unfinished, and I hope the Government are listening to her words, but no one can doubt her determination, off the back of a terrible tragedy, to pursue this issue. I salute her for what she has done, as I am sure does everyone across the House.

I had a long list of things to talk about, but time is against me, so I shall touch on them only briefly before talking at greater length about my universities—like the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), I represent a university constituency—in a European context.

I seem always to be talking about broadband in mid-Wales, as does the hon. Member for Ynys Môn. People acknowledge the huge achievements that have been gained through superfast broadband, but according to Ofcom, four of the 10 constituencies with the highest percentage of slow connections, and five of the 10 with the lowest fixed broadband speed, are in mid-Wales, and alas Ceredigion is on both the lists. There is therefore work still to do. It is not just about householders connecting either; it is about ridding ourselves of an impediment to business thriving in mid and west Wales. That is why we need more concerted action.

I have not had an answer from the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport or the Minister about the DCMS future contribution to S4C’s budget. The former Secretary of State promised that the contribution would be frozen pending the outcome of a review, but we still have not had that review. Is there a commitment from DCMS to freeze S4C’s budget in the year ahead?

On transport connections, I will only mention the spirited campaign to reopen a railway line between Aberystwyth and Carmarthen. I am grateful that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), met campaigners last week. On business rates, I endorse what the right hon. Member for Delyn (Mr Hanson) said about how businesses will be grievously affected unless the UK Government, in addition to the Welsh Government, step in.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

On business rates, will the hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to ask what is being done about the Valuation Office Agency, which is responsible for the means by which the revaluations are done? It is, of course, a Westminster responsibility.

[Mr Williams]

Indeed. I am not sure if the hon. Lady is alluding to the structures through which it undertakes its valuations, or some of the weird decisions it is coming up with, but a business in my constituency whose business rates have doubled from £12,500 a year to £25,000—this is in a seasonal tourist area of Ceredigion—would be very sympathetic to her question.

Higher education is critical to Ceredigion. We have Aberystwyth University, of course, and the Lampeter campus of the University of Wales Trinity Saint David. Lots of geographical references have been made to Dewi Sant. When the land rose so that he could deliver one of his great sermons, it was in Llanddewi Brefi, which is famous for other things on television these days, but fundamentally famous for Dewi Sant. Aberystwyth University is one of the top 200 universities in the world for agriculture, English, geography, environmental sciences and politics. Some 95% of our research is of an internationally recognised standard or higher, and the university contributes £250 million to our local economy.

I want to use this opportunity to celebrate the investment that is in place now, which is largely from the EU. Some £20 million from the European regional development fund, which is safe because it will be delivered before 2020, will fund the building of an innovation and enterprise campus at Aberystwyth University. That will provide world-leading facilities and expertise to create market-focused solutions for the agri-tech industry. It will also encourage business and academic collaboration, drawing a link between academic excellence and commercial opportunities. Those are lofty words, but they are valid ones. Academia is often accused of working in a silo—apart from business—but this initiative with Aberystwyth will certainly move away from that.

I particularly celebrate the European money that came in. The project could not happen without Europe and the £20 million from the regional development fund, but it is going to happen. There is no scaremongering—it is going to happen. I celebrate the good work that will take place but, as the hon. Member for Cardiff Central said, there are huge concerns about future research grants, participation in EU projects and, critically, the status of non-UK EU staff. Countless people have come to my surgeries genuinely fearful about whether they should stay and if they should apply for jobs in the future. That is a real concern. We are missing a trick—a fundamental and humane trick—if we do not allow people to come here in the numbers that they have done in the past to contribute to Wales and our economy.

I should also make a more general point about research funding. There has been a historical concern that Wales has not had its share of research funding. I could say a lot about this, but I will just cite Professor Dylan Jones-Evans, who I think is more known on the other side of the House than on my side, who has said that if research had been “Barnettised”, we would have seen an extra £500 million of research funding in Wales over the past decade. That is very important.

Finally, I want to talk about Dewi Sant—the great, compassionate saint. I think that he would have been alarmed by the direction of immigration policy in this country, and not least what has happened with the Lord Dubs amendment made in the House of Lords. I hope that the Government reflect on that. People in my constituency are very keen that more refugees should come to Wales.

Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Ping Pong: House of Commons
Tuesday 24th January 2017 Commons Chamber

Building on the existing funding floor, the Welsh Government will continue to have a fair level of funding for the long term, taking into account Welsh tax capacity and treating population change consistently. For the first time, we have agreed to add a need-based factor of 115% into the Barnett formula, as Holtham recommended. We are embedding the funding floor that we announced in December 2015 into the mechanisms that decide how Wales is funded. The significance of this measure should not be understated: the Labour party called for it from Cardiff Bay for many years while it was in power in this place, but it has taken a Conservative Government to introduce that needs-based factor and deliver on Wales’s needs. I hope that the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), will recognise the significance of bringing the needs-based factor into the Barnett formula.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Does not the Secretary of State share my concern that the needs-based factor will be based on sums ascertained in 2009-10, which will be effectively 10 years old when it comes into effect? There should be a review before it starts.

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, and for the scrutiny and interest she has rightly given the Bill, but I hope she recognises the significance of the fiscal framework. The needs-based factor to which she refers is 115%, and the current level is well above that. It will fall to 115% over time, recognising the fair settlement that Wales gets because of its needs. It is significant that that needs-based factor is being introduced into the Wales settlement for the first time. It is something for which the hon. Lady and her party have been calling for some time, but it took a Conservative Government to deliver it.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Crabb]

To be absolutely honest, I do not think that this represents the end of the book on Welsh devolution, but we need a prolonged period in which the Welsh Government learn to deploy their powers and use their competencies in a way that benefits the people of Wales. We were talking about the M4 upgrade earlier; an early deal that I did when I was Secretary of State for Wales involved making new money available to the Welsh Government to crack on with it. The project had been talked about for years. I remember taking a question on it during Welsh questions and William Hague leant across to me and said that people were talking about it 20 years ago when he was Secretary of State for Wales. We are still waiting for any substantial action despite the money being available. That is the challenge that risks corroding public support for devolution in Wales—the sense that the Welsh Government, despite their additional powers, seem unable to crack on and take big, bold decisions to improve the lives of people in Wales.

Returning to my previous point, the Bill meets the core objectives that we set out. The reserved powers model and additional powers for the Assembly and for the Welsh Government create a stronger devolution framework. Amendment 9 will create a clearer and fairer settlement as a result of the fiscal framework and the funding floor for the Welsh Government’s new borrowing powers. I remember being told two and a half years ago that the four things that we wanted to achieve had no chance of success. I was told that the Treasury would not agree to them, that the Welsh Government would not agree to take tax-raising powers—income tax powers—and that my own Back Benchers would not agree. However, all the parties worked together to sketch things out while respecting each other’s’ differences. Plaid Cymru has long-standing aspirations and ambitions for Welsh devolution that, frankly, no Wales Bill has met, but the tone was constructive and that has laid a good foundation and has provided smooth passage for a reasonably good Bill. It is not the end of the story, but I hope that it is the end of an interesting chapter for Welsh devolution.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure that the House will join me in wishing the best to my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), who is expecting the imminent arrival of the latest member of his family. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I sympathise with all MPs who have to balance family life and parliamentary duty.

I, of course, welcome to an extent the fact that a fiscal framework is on the verge of being in place, giving the Welsh Government a degree of financial accountability that is intrinsic for any functioning democratic Parliament. Judgment is still very much out, however, on whether it can really deliver the economic accountability and levers for growth that are required in this tumultuous time. I therefore want to start with a few brief comments about the framework’s ambition, or lack thereof. I then want to ask the Minister a specific question about how the framework will operate before finally discussing the capital expenditure limit outlined in amendment 9.

Despite finally having this fiscal framework in place, we still lag behind every other devolved Administration in terms of powers and responsibilities. Earlier today—like most days—we were embroiled in the Brexit conundrum and all its unravelling economic implications, but the Government’s insistence on a patchwork approach to devolution means that Wales will not have the real levers for growth that it needs at this most difficult of economic times. If the Conservative party wants to talk about the real opportunities that a single market and customs union exit brings for Wales, it should be looking at the fiscal levers for growth, including VAT, the most important tax for Wales, and how it could be devolved. I hope the Minister will indicate that he plans to review the framework in the light of recent developments to ensure that Wales has such fiscal levers.

I briefly want to touch on a technical point that my party colleague, Adam Price AM, has already raised with the Welsh Government’s Cabinet Finance Secretary. The much trumpeted relative need provision of the fiscal framework—the 115% rule, which is referred to as the Holtham floor—was based on a set of criteria that determined Wales’s relative need in 2009-10. There seem to be no plans to conduct a review of that relative need when the floor is set to be implemented approximately three years from now, meaning that those relative needs will be based on figures that are 10 years out of date. This was discussed briefly in earlier interventions, but the 115% rule surely cannot be set in stone for all time, so I ask the Minister to propose a review to investigate that.

[Alun Cairns]

I am happy to clarify that the fiscal framework agreement, which is supported by the Welsh Government, includes opportunities for periodic reviews.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I welcome those comments about periodic reviews as opposed to using 10-year-old statistics. I also have some concerns about the framework’s dispute resolution mechanism, but there may not be the time to discuss them here. We may be able to resolve that problem in future discussions.

I want to finish by emphasising the fact that both Governments lack ambition. In the Lords, Plaid Cymru called for a £2 billion capital expenditure limit, which was supported by Labour. However, under pressure from the devo-sceptic Tory party, we can see in amendment 9 that we are left with a capital expenditure limit of exactly half that. Although I am pleased that a fiscal framework is finally in place, I cannot avoid the observation that Wales is once again being short-changed through a lack of vision and ambition.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in a debate that is hugely important to me. As someone who served as a Member of the National Assembly for Wales for eight years before my six years here, almost all of my political life has been dogged—if I can use that word—by Wales Bills of one sort or another. I do not know whether I will still be a Member of this Parliament when the next round comes but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) said, I am sure that there will be one.

It is a great honour to debate a particularly important Wales Bill, which makes devolution much more stable than it has been since it was first established in 1999. I could speak about a host of matters and on some of them there would be disagreement across the Floor of the House, but two principles are hugely important to me. The first relates to the fiscal issues, which I will come to, but I believe also that moving to a reserved powers model is of fundamental importance. There will be disagreements about what should be reserved to the Westminster Parliament, but, generally speaking, moving to a reserved powers mode will be a big step forward. People—including me—have been calling for it since 1999, and we should not forget that in the discussions about finance.

This debate is about financial issues, one of which relates to borrowing powers. I greatly support the measure, which gives the Welsh Government new and important borrowing powers. Other Members have suggested that the ceiling is not high enough, but I have heard Mark Drakeford, the responsible Minister in Cardiff, say that the Welsh Government will probably not borrow the £1 billion allowed in the first instance. I believe that the borrowing power will make a significant difference to the way the Welsh Government can operate.

--- Later in debate ---

The Government have let down local people in Wrexham and Chester, where Dee Valley Water supplies water, and the regulators have let the people down. The proposals in the Bill are very welcome indeed, but I wish that they had been introduced a year ago. If they had been, the people of the community that I represent would have been listened to by a Government who had influence and authority and who would have exerted influence to prevent the predatory takeover of our local business, which is serving our community well and being let down badly by the proposal.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to speak to the second group of amendments, led by amendment 10. My noble Friend Lord Wigley originally welcomed the Government’s announcement that they would devolve power over water, and in Committee he eloquently outlined how an historic wrong could be righted. He set out in great depth how the drowning of Welsh valleys has motivated his politics and the emotions of so many people in Wales, and how 50 years ago in Capel Celyn the compulsory eviction of families from their homes and land meant the destruction of whole communities. Llyn Celyn and Afon Tryweryn are in my constituency.

The high-handed way in which Westminster treated the people of Tryweryn still has repercussions in this place, as well as in communities across Wales. Amendment 30, in which the so-called water protocol is outlined, embodies the entrenched Tory resistance to addressing this injustice in any meaningful terms. What format the so-called protocol may take has never been fleshed out. In this Bill, we do not have a protocol or a draft protocol, and for that matter we do not have an outline of a draft protocol or a protocol by which to arrive at a protocol. However, despite that lack of clarity, the Government are willing to include clauses watering down this already thin provision.

Lords amendment 31 explicitly charges Welsh Ministers with the interest of English consumers when it comes to any changes to our water supply. It is important to note that the amendment specifically references English consumers. We are not concerned with communities or individuals even, but consumers matter and Wales’s natural resources are still not ours to dispose of to our best advantage. That is because the Government are prioritising the primacy of competition over the interests of Wales. The amendment refers us to the Water Industry Act 1991 to define consumers, but that Act was based on promoting competition. Does this mean that the protocol will be based on the Thatcherite dogma that the wellbeing of the consumer—in this case, the water consumer—is tied up with the tenets of free market competition?

[Guto Bebb]

rose—

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I thank the Minister for explaining this earlier, but perhaps he will explain it further.

[Guto Bebb]

The contents of the protocol and whether it includes a Thatcherite dogma are surely a matter for the Welsh Government to agree with Westminster, so there will be no Thatcherite dogma unless the Welsh Government agree to it.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

The Minister explained earlier that competition is a reserved matter. In this case, that prompts the question, what does such a dogma have to do with the reserved powers model for Wales, in relation to this most emotive of all subjects? My party and many people in Wales feel cheated. When the Minister played the card of water devolution, we were led to believe that this would be a real game changer, but I am afraid it is no more than smoke and mirrors.

We considered pushing Lords amendment 30 to a vote, but we will spare the Chamber such an exercise, given that we might only manage to tweak the wording of something we have already opposed. I want the record to reflect, however, that my hon. Friends and I will not be taken in by empty words dressed up as substance from the Government. This remains a cynical political sleight of hand—endeavouring to gain capital from an historical event of deep emotional significance in Wales.

[Susan Elan Jones]

As much as two words can ever encapsulate a feeling or a sense, the two words “Cofiwch Dryweryn”—“Remember Tryweryn”—probably do so. I hope that we will not look back at this year and think of another four words, “Cofiwch Dwr Dyffryn Dyfrdwy” —“Remember Dee Valley Water”—as encapsulating the spirit of our age.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian C. Lucas) spoke very powerfully about a difficulty in our part of north-east Wales that threatens the livelihoods of many people working for the local water company. In a sense, it is a David and Goliath battle, but there is real fear that David may not win on this occasion. David is in the courts tomorrow, so we cannot speak about many of the intricacies of the situation. We can say, however, that one of the UK’s smallest water companies—indeed, it may be the smallest, but I need to check that—which has the fourth lowest bills of any water company in the United Kingdom, is in court against its Goliath on issues involving the votes of shareholders.

In north-east Wales, we have seen what used to be called the unacceptable face of capitalism, with a nasty, large predator coming in and trying to take over a local company quite against the will of the local workforce and the local consumers. That, I fear, is a cause of great regret. I will not repeat what my hon. Friend said about the issues concerning us—the role of the Competition and Markets Authority, and its lack of linkage in terms of devolution to the Welsh Assembly, and that of Ofwat—but he made some very serious and important points about the future of water in our area. I know that great symbolism attaches to Tryweryn, and rightly so. The chair of the action committee of Tryweryn, T. W. Jones, was also a resident of my constituency. T. W., as he was known, fought valiantly for that campaign.

I urge this House and Ministers, as we approach the welcome devolution of water, to think carefully about what is happening with Dee Valley Water and to look carefully at aspects of company law. Surely this cannot be right, given the views of local people, shareholders and the employees of the company. If local ownership matters to us, surely a predatory takeover is in nobody’s interests, other than the large predator itself. I urge the Minister to give thought to the points that my hon. Friend and I have made. I welcome the proposals that devolve water to the Welsh Government. I agree that it is totemic and symbolic, but most of all, I want something that works, especially for people in north-east Wales.

Exiting the EU: Businesses in Wales

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Diolch yn fawr. I thank the hon. Member for Ogmore (Chris Elmore) for securing this important debate. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr McCabe. We find ourselves in a situation whereby there is a real risk that the UK Government will set sail on a course that is counter to the interests of Wales. The way in which we exit the EU is clearly still an ongoing fight. My priority is to argue for the least damaging option for the Welsh economy, which includes campaigning for the best possible outcomes for businesses across Wales and in my constituency.

Plaid Cymru has been united and consistent in its campaign to maintain membership of the single market and customs union from the very beginning. That is by far the least damaging option for the Welsh economy, first because of the wide-reaching benefits that being a single market and customs union member has for trade in Wales as an exporting economy. Of course, Wales has an annual goods trade surplus of £5 million whereas the UK has a deficit. Secondly, continued membership would enable Wales to qualify for certain cross-border and transnational programmes that promote research and innovation, both of which are integral to a dynamic and entrepreneurial business community.

The last report of the Federation of Small Businesses’ UK small business index showed that, for the first time in four years, more businesses were pessimistic than positive about the future. That was the third quarter in a row in which there had been a downturn in confidence. A glimmer of hope is that 55% of the businesses stated they wanted to grow in the coming year, which shows that ambition is still strong. Businesses want to prosper and, of course, they will do that only if they have the nurture they require, which only Government can provide.

Having spoken to various stakeholders in my constituency, it is clear that the certainty and stability of the UK market has taken a hit. They are very much alert to the fact that the forthcoming negotiations will have long-term implications across the country. The Federation of German Industry in the UK, which represents German companies in the UK, has representatives in my constituency who are particularly concerned about the loss of confidence in the UK market. Among those companies, CeKa, long-established in Pwllheli, has expressed clear apprehension about the volatile exchange rate. It is also concerned about cost increases from possible new tariff and non-tariff barriers. The Government should be doing all they can to mitigate those uncertainties now. We could achieve that by remaining part of the single market and customs union.

SMEs are the backbone of the Welsh economy and, with the right support, they can be adaptable, responsive and resilient. When handled well, they have every potential to flourish as one of our most important assets in Wales. We need to put a support framework in place now and do everything we can to help them weather the storm.

Continuing with the German theme, Plaid Cymru has long emphasised the need for a Welsh “Mittelstand”—that is the term used to describe indigenous medium-sized firms in German-speaking countries. Such companies are locally grounded but successful exporters, with strong brands in specialised niches and with long-term growth potential. They characterise one of the strongest and most resilient global economies.

Another area of concern for a company in my constituency, which is of substantial significance to the local economy, is the uncertainty surrounding that which will replace the rural development programme and, for that matter, the common agricultural policy. South Caernarfon Creameries employs 130 staff and also has 130 suppliers selling Welsh milk from Welsh farms. I emphasise that it collects milk from farms across Wales. As a result, the creamery generates at least £30 million a year for the local economy. It has recently expanded as a result of moneys provided by the EU and is planning on doing so once more. Since the vote to leave the European Union, however, the Government have failed to shed any light on how they intend to compensate for the millions of pounds lost.

[Kirsten Oswald (East Renfrewshire) (SNP)]

It is interesting to hear how South Caernarfon Creameries, which is of great significance to the rural economy in the hon. Lady’s constituency, has relied on money generated by the EU for expansion. Will she join me in expressing concern about the way in which the common agricultural policy is repatriated and implemented in the eventuality of the UK leaving the EU?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I share the hon. Lady’s concern, not least because the National Farmers Union has presented evidence to the Welsh Assembly that indicates that if the money that reaches Wales from the common agricultural policy were to be Barnettised—to go through the Barnett formula—that would result in a 40% decrease in the money reaching Wales.

To return to the creamery issue, we have yet to see any real clarity on how that will be addressed, and that is of considerable importance to anyone involved in agriculture and the rural economy. As we know, Wales is a net beneficiary from the EU to the tune of £79 per individual a year. Businesses must not be left second-guessing where their future lies and how they can plan ahead.

I will refer specifically to business rates. Businesses in Gwynedd have experienced an average increase of 8.9%, which I believe is the second highest after the county of the Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Aberconwy (Guto Bebb), who will address us anon. I join my Assembly colleagues in pressing Labour’s Welsh Government to investigate all available powers to ensure that business rates do not penalise businesses. For example, they could use index business rate multipliers to the consumer prices index rather than the retail prices index; variable multipliers, so that small businesses are not disproportionately taxed; three-yearly revaluations, because Gwynedd waited eight years for its most recent revaluation, which had a considerable impact on the increase; and an equitable valuations appeals process. In addition, I strongly urge the Welsh Labour Government to consider adopting Plaid Cymru’s business rates support scheme, which would be likely to benefit tens of thousands of businesses across Wales.

[Ian C. Lucas]

I want to make the point that the delay in the revaluation was because of a decision by the UK Conservative Government. It was nothing to do with the Welsh Labour Government.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I emphasise that business rates are devolved and that there is great potential for the Welsh Government to use that as a means to support business. Businesses are seeing 100% increases in their business rates valuations under the present arrangements, and that is extremely difficult for them. Plaid Cymru’s scheme would mean that all businesses valued at £15,000 or less would benefit, and those valued at under £10,000 would not pay anything at all. That would be likely to affect 80% of businesses in Wales, and I think some 70,000 would end up paying no business rates at all, which, knowing my local businesses, I am sure would be greatly welcomed.

Businesses are the backbone of the Welsh economy, and with the right support they can be resilient. To enable that, the UK Government need to come clean on their strategy and Labour’s Welsh Government need to use their devolved powers creatively and boldly to do everything to enable Welsh businesses to weather the storm. Every possible safety net must be put in place to mitigate the potentially tempestuous period in front of us, and both the UK Government and the Welsh Government should have a plan to ensure the long-term resilience of Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 30th November 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the Department in question on this issue. No member of staff working on behalf of the state should be threatened or subject to violence in their workplace, so it is essential that we support prison officers in that context and crack down hard on anybody who is responsible for violence within or outside the prison sector.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I speak as the co-chair of the cross-party justice unions parliamentary group. HMP Berwyn is due to open in less than three months’ time. Given that the National Offender Management Service is committed to ensuring that it gives equal treatment to English and Welsh in Wales, will the Minister tell the House how he is monitoring the language skills of staff in Wrexham? The MOJ has told me that:

“Data on the number of bilingual Welsh and English speakers…is not collected centrally.”

[Guto Bebb]

First, I hope that the hon. Lady welcomes the fact that the prison in Wrexham is being built, as it is a significant investment in north-east Wales and a significant opportunity for the north Wales economy. On the Welsh language issue, it is fair to say that the Department responsible has made it clear that the number of jobs being created at Wrexham will reflect the demographic realities in north Wales, and as a result there will be Welsh-speaking staff in the prison at Berwyn. That will be a great improvement on the current situation, where Welsh-speaking prisoners end up in the estate in England.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

I agree entirely with the comments made by my right hon. Friend.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Department for Transport and its predecessors have prevaricated over funding rail electrification in north Wales for more than 40 years, and can he give us a definite date for the project to move ahead?

[Guto Bebb]

I agree with the hon. Lady that the situation in north Wales has been one of under-investment for a very long time, so it is important to highlight the current investments: £43 million for signalling in north Wales, and a significant investment in the Chester links into Wrexham. It is important to look at the Growth Track 360 proposals carefully and coherently to see how we can improve connectivity through rail in north Wales.

Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I will come back to the hon. Member, but I want to finish my point.

I would remind Members that the whole debate around a separate legal jurisdiction came as a consequence of the necessity test in the draft Bill. The necessity test has been removed and the consequence could be that that call and demand for a separate jurisdiction should therefore fall. However, it is almost as though it has taken on a life of its own, but I still question the purpose, because I am still trying to find out what difference a separate legal jurisdiction would make for anyone living or working in Wales, other than uncertainty for investors when the reputation of the England and Wales legal system is recognised right around the world.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

But surely the purpose of a distinct legal jurisdiction would be the quality of justice provided in Wales, and at the end of the day this is the only legislature in the world which does not have a jurisdiction. This situation is crying out to be resolved, and if not now, when?

[Alun Cairns]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to support amendment 60, which stands in my name and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues, and relates to the creation of a distinct legal jurisdiction. When the Wales Bill was re-announced in the Queen’s Speech, the Government claimed it would offer a “strong” and “lasting constitutional settlement” for Wales. The Minister has keenly told us that this settlement will last a “generation”, so it is a long-term devolution road map. But the Government’s obsessive desire to retain a 16th-century relic of a legal system has increasingly called into question the idea that this devolution settlement will last any longer than its predecessor. The former Counsel General for Wales, Theodore Huckle, QC, put it bluntly, saying:

“across the common law world the creation of new legislatures has been coupled with the formation of a distinct legal jurisdiction. But not in Wales.”

Furthermore, the Welsh Governance Centre’s “Justice in Wales” report, released this morning, stated that

“the administration of justice will require continuing reform to accommodate increasing divergence between the laws and policies of England and Wales.”

The Government’s proposed piecemeal and fragmented approach to this issue will only cause greater confusion, weaken the ability of the Welsh legal sector to operate effectively and create the need for constant “tweaking” by the Government, as we have been discussing today. Surely the Minister can see it is only logical that if he truly wants a lasting devolution settlement for the people of Wales, as I do, the Bill must recognise the need for a distinct Welsh legal jurisdiction.

Despite the logic in a move to put Wales on the same footing as Scotland and Northern Ireland by giving us our own separate legal jurisdiction, we recognise the Government’s concerns and want to work constructively with them.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

In the hon. Lady’s last few sentences, she went from talking about a distinct legal jurisdiction to discussing a separate one. On a distinct legal jurisdiction, I certainly agree that there will be an emerging body of Welsh law. But if a separate legal jurisdiction were to be introduced, how would that not increase barriers to access to justice, given that on every single cross-border case—I can remember those as a barrister—there may have to be that additional requirement of serving cross-border? Surely she would not want her constituents to have to face that.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I mentioned a separate legal jurisdiction, which is what Plaid Cymru would prefer, but we are prepared in this instance, as a compromise, to work towards a distinct one, as it would not create additional costs in the court structure in Wales and would not provide a barrier for the legal profession. It is important to say that although we are presenting a compromise, Plaid Cymru has used exactly the same words as those of the alternative Wales Bill provided by the Welsh Government. I note the official Opposition’s announcement, whereby Labour in Wales has done a U-turn on this policy. We used these words very much with it in mind that we were trying to develop a spirit of compromise and agreement, as in Wales it was felt that this was necessary. When I address the official Opposition, I am genuinely curious to know who initiated this policy somersault: did it come from Welsh Labour or London Labour? We worked with a spirit of compromise in mind.

For this reason we are compromising and putting forward our amendment today calling for a distinct, as opposed to a separate, legal jurisdiction. A raft of leading constitutional and legal experts has outlined the cold hard facts about why a distinct Welsh legal jurisdiction needs to be created.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her generosity in giving way again. In answer to the question, what happened is that the Bill has changed dramatically. The necessity test was all but taken out. That is what brought about the change. She is talking now about a distinct legal jurisdiction. Can she explain to us precisely what she means by that, and how exactly it would differ from the separate legal jurisdiction that I thought Plaid Cymru was advancing?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I hope the hon. Gentleman will forgive me; I thought I had explained that previously.

Our proposal will require no extra court construction. We have the structures for justice in place already. What is proposed is a dividing of those court structures, as the amendments explain. This was recommended by a number of experts in these areas, including the Silk Commission and the vast majority of witnesses to the Welsh Affairs Committee. I must admit that on the Committee we almost felt that we were seeking witnesses to give an alternative view. The vast majority spoke in favour of a distinct or separate jurisdiction.

[Mr Mark Williams]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s last comment, having served alongside her on the Welsh Affairs Committee. She mentions Paul Silk, who spoke about the need to review this matter within 10 years. The “Justice in Wales” report from the Wales Governance Centre referred to a standing commission. I think that was the view of the First Minister as well, when he announced the Bill that the hon. Lady mentioned. Given that there is an evolving picture, surely we should be monitoring it with a view to changing it in the near future? I may well share the final destination that she and her hon. Friends seek to reach, but there is a case for carrying people forward on the basis of experience over the next few years.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree that we are seeing a gradual momentum in favour of the change. As I said earlier, if not now, when? We in Plaid Cymru feel that objections, rather than any real argument, are being cast up in front of us. We know that we are travelling on a trajectory. When will we reach the end point, without hindrances being thrown in our way?

Other advocates of our approach include Sir Roderick Evans, QC, the former High Court judge and pro-chancellor of Swansea University, barrister Rhodri Williams, QC, and solicitor Michael Imperato—greatly respected lawyers who felt so strongly about the issue that they created the Justice for Wales group. Further supporters were the constitutional experts at the Wales Governance Centre and the UCL constitution unit. Even the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, whom I quoted in the last debate on the Bill, has spoken in favour of a distinct legal jurisdiction.

I know that many people in the Minister’s party have spent the first half of this year telling us not to listen to experts, but I implore him to do so in this instance. He should drop the political and ideological obsession with a unified Welsh and English legal jurisdiction and take heed of the clear and logical advice of so many experts on this issue. With a new constitutional settlement, an increasingly divergent statute book, and Brexit set to change the shape of the UK, it is time for the Government to recognise the facts and the need for a distinct legal jurisdiction in Wales.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I, too, sat through many Welsh Affairs Committee inquiries and lots of evidence from academics and legal experts on this matter. Yes, they all wanted a separate or a distinct legal jurisdiction, but the hon. Lady has not explained how it would work and, more importantly, how it would benefit the people of Wales to have a separate legal system.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, the amendment goes into detail, even in relation to the court structures and the professional structures that would be required. I argue strongly that we are travelling on this trajectory, and what is important is the quality of justice and the quality of decisions made in Wales in relation to legislation made in Wales.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)]

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) asked a pertinent question: what are the advantages to Wales? The St David’s Day agreement was about powers for a purpose. Has the hon. Lady read the fantastic article by Gwion Lewis in this month’s issue of Barn, in which he highlights the way in which the Supreme Court met in Cardiff and made a decision in relation to Welsh language education in Denbighshire, a decision which I am sure the hon. Lady would welcome? What would a distinct legal jurisdiction have decided differently in that case?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

We would argue that a distinct legal jurisdiction is needed for the quality of decisions to be made consistently. We are travelling in that direction. We need clarity on the matter. To be simple about it and not to reiterate the details that are in the amendment, the Welsh Assembly is the only legislature in the world that does not have its own jurisdiction. That in itself is a pretty clear argument.

We offer the Government a pragmatic solution to the issue that will ensure the long-term sustainability of this devolution deal for the people of Wales. Obviously, Plaid Cymru would prefer to see a clean break, with the creation of a separate legal jurisdiction, but our amendment offers a reasonable position that I hope the whole House will recognise as necessary. For this reason, I will be pressing the amendment to the vote.

On the Government and Opposition amendments, new clause 4 stops the devolution of decision-making powers over when to hold elections for police and crime commissioners in Wales. As it is another example of this Government’s shameful misunderstanding of what devolution means, we will not support this amendment if it is pressed to the vote, but we do not intend voting against it. Government amendments 3 to 8 are uncontentious and technical, and warrant no further discussion at this point.

A number of Government amendments are based on recommendations made in July by the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, Elin Jones. Plaid Cymru had tabled these amendment in earlier stages and we are pleased to see that the Secretary of State has now endorsed our position. We are disappointed, however, that the Government have failed to recognise the Presiding Officer’s recommendations concerning the legislative consent process and the restoration of the Assembly’s current ability to legislate in an “ancillary” way on exceptions from competence.

Amendments 9 to 12 give the Presiding Officer, rather than the Secretary of State, powers over when to call a Welsh general election. These amendments, based on the Presiding Officer’s recommendations, are welcomed by Plaid Cymru and will be supported. We support Government amendments 14 to 18, which make changes to the finance provisions in the Bill. These are further examples of amendments proposed by the Presiding Officer which the Government have accepted. We also support the related consequential amendments, Government amendments 30, 31, 44, 48 and 51.

Amendments 19 to 22 laid by the Government insert the Welsh names of institutions into the Bill for clarity. These amendments are not controversial. Government amendment 26, which clarifies the ability of an Assembly Act to specify the prosecutor of an offence within devolved competence, is also based on the recommendations made by the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s explanation of this clarifying amendment, which we support.

Plaid Cymru also supports Government amendments 28 and 29. Amendment 28 allows for changes to the role of the Children’s Commissioner by the Assembly. Amendment 29 removes prohibition on the ability of an Assembly Act to modify sections 145 and 145A of the Government of Wales Act 1998, relating to examinations and studies by the Auditor General for Wales—again, a change suggested by the Presiding Officer. Government amendments 32 and 34 to 36 are technical changes or remove errors in the wording of the Bill. Government amendment 33 clarifies areas in which areas UK Ministers will retain authority. Although this is a technical change, we fundamentally disagree with the principle of this section of the Bill and will, if necessary, vote against the amendment.

Government amendments 39 to 42 increase the number of devolved bodies listed in schedule 4. We are pleased that the list has expanded, but the fact that the Government has had to expand it before the Bill is even enacted illustrates what Plaid Cymru has said from the beginning—that the Bill is overly restrictive and in the long term will inevitably become unworkable.

Amendment 43, tabled by the Government, allows Orders in Council to be used to make provision for proclamations related to the timing of elections, as provided for by amendments 11 and 12. As we support amendments 11 and 12, we will also support this amendment. Government amendment 49 is a technical change relating to the understanding of Wales public authorities. This amendment is not contentious. Government amendments 52 to 57 are either consequential or technical amendments. There is no need for comment on them at this time.

In conclusion, I look forward to the Secretary of State’s response.

[Nia Griffith]

I rise to speak to new clause 3, on railways, and to amendment 2, on the community infrastructure levy.

Back in our Labour manifesto for the 2011 Assembly elections, we put forward the idea of exploring the possibility that a not-for-profit organisation should have the option to bid for the Wales and Borders rail franchise, in the same way that Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is owned by a not-for-profit organisation. Giving the Welsh Government further powers over rail transport brings decision making closer to people in Wales. Currently, the provisions of the Railways Act 1993 mean that it is not possible for a public sector body to bid for the franchise, which limits the options. Yet, ironically, a German state-owned company can operate the very same franchise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I agree entirely that it has been very generously funded, and funded without very much review for 25-odd years until fairly recently. [Interruption.] Indeed—and then what happened? The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am aware of the genesis of S4C. Let me say clearly that I have the conviction to prove that I am very well aware of what happened during that period. I think I had better leave it at that.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that S4C’s funding has resulted in it currently running more than 50% repeats, which is not satisfactory.

[Hywel Williams]

The television landscape has certainly changed enormously. Many broadcasters are now running a great number of repeats. The point about Welsh language television is that it has a purpose beyond just providing entertainment, or even informing or educating: it is there as part of the national project to sustain, speaking in dramatic terms, the rescue of the language.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a hypothetical assertion. I shall refrain from doing so, but it is important to highlight that the Silk commission considered very carefully the difference between the porous nature of the border between England and Wales and the situation in Scotland. On balance, it is my view that the Silk commission came to the right conclusion, which is why we will reject the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. The Wales Act 2014 legislated for the vast majority of the recommendations in the Silk commission’s first report, and our focus should be to work with the Welsh Government to implement it.

On new clause 8, the youth justice system, as with other elements of the criminal justice system, is not currently devolved, but significant responsibilities in relation to the management and rehabilitation of young offenders are exercised by local authorities in Wales, working in partnership with the police and devolved services such as health, children’s services and education. Devolved and non-devolved services already work successfully together in Wales to prevent youth offending, and to manage and support young offenders in the community. The Youth Justice Board provides national oversight and monitoring of those arrangements, and the Youth Justice Board Cymru has worked closely with the Welsh Government to develop a joint youth offending strategy. That establishes a coherent framework for all those involved in delivering youth justice services and ensures that there is an effective youth justice system that meets the needs of young people in Wales.

The Silk commission noted that many of the causes of youth offending relate to devolved matters, and its recommendation on devolution was aimed at promoting greater integration. However, there was no consensus in favour of devolution when youth justice was discussed as part of the St David’s Day process. The Government believe it is important that legislative competence for youth justice remains reserved to allow us to develop a consistent and coherent approach to criminal justice, and the management of offenders across all age groups, within the single legal jurisdiction. There would be significant practical challenges in devolving responsibility for youth justice in Wales while responsibility for the police, courts and other elements of the criminal justice system are reserved.

We place a high priority on addressing youth offending and maintaining a strong relationship with the Welsh Government on those matters. The Ministry of Justice is currently considering the final report of Charlie Taylor, the former chief executive of the National College of Teaching and Leadership, on his review of the youth justice system. As part of his review, he visited Wales to meet Welsh Ministers and to see local youth offending services. The Ministry of Justice will work closely with the Welsh Government to consider the recommendations made in the final report with a view to publishing the report later this year with plans for reform. Given the co-operation that exists between devolved and non-devolved organisations, which we will seek to maintain in taking forward any plans for reform, we are not persuaded that devolving youth justice to create a separate youth justice system in Wales would result in a more flexible, economical or effective response to youth offending.

New clause 9, proposed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), would open the door to the apprenticeship levy becoming a devolved tax. When introducing the apprenticeship levy, the Government wanted to make the system as simple as possible for employers to operate, and to avoid adverse impacts on the integrated UK-wide single market. Operating a UK-wide levy based on the national insurance definition of earnings is the best way to achieve this outcome. In particular, it is applied consistently to employers wherever they operate within the UK single market, while this definition of earnings is something that employers are familiar with and is information they readily have in their payroll. This also avoids considerable practical difficulties that would arise if there were different rates and thresholds of the apprenticeship levy in different parts of the UK, which appears to be the thrust of new clause 9. For example, as the charge is on the employer, it would be necessary to determine how such a system would operate for organisations working across borders. This would create additional burdens for businesses that we believe are sensibly avoided. In addition, the Government have made it quite clear that devolved nations will get their fair share of the levy, and discussions are ongoing.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I would like the Minister to answer my question in this case. There is real uncertainty about how much would go to Wales. How will there be transparency in relation to the apprenticeship levy when there will be companies with a head office in another area outside Wales with employees in Wales?

[Guto Bebb]

The aim of the negotiations between the Welsh Government and the Treasury is to ensure a fair funding formula for Wales. On transparency, I think the hon. Lady is aware that decisions on spending in Wales are decisions for the Welsh Government, so the transparency issue will arise at that point. I can assure her that the ongoing discussions between the Treasury and the Welsh Government are being conducted in the spirit of co-operation. We want the levy to succeed. Whether a young person is from Wales or England, the aim is to ensure there is support for that person’s training. We are therefore fully committed to working with the Welsh Government, but to devolve this tax would create a complexity that is unjustified in the context of the border between England and Wales, and owing to the fact that the border is so different to the situation in Scotland. That is why we think the amendment is misguided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

That is because of the wisdom of the socialist Welsh Government in taking it over—nationalising it. I am glad that the Minister draws attention to that fact—this triumph of practical socialism, which is turning out to be a success, even without the level playing field and level flying field that we need. Plaid Cymru has tabled this new clause, and we believe that devolving airport duty would allow Welsh airports to compete on a fair basis with the others. We need only to look at the geography. That tells us that the airports at Prestwick and Cardiff are disadvantaged because of the whole nature of flying and the magnetic attraction to the hubs around which the population is distributed. This measure will have to happen at some time in the future. We should acknowledge the success of the Welsh Government’s action over Cardiff airport.

On keeping the devolution of policing under review, the Minister prayed in aid the four police and crime commissioners in Wales. What he did not mention was the fact that those four PCCs are agreed on the need for the control of policing to go to the Welsh Assembly. Our new clause 11 requires the Secretary of State for Wales and his Ministers to

“keep the functioning and operation of policing in Wales under review”.

It is not asking much to suggest that we should look at it every year. This issue has been around for a long time.

Having spent a number of years sitting on the Home Affairs Committee, I would like to see some police forces kept at some distance from the Welsh police forces. I refer to some in Yorkshire and the Met, about which I have some misgivings relating to incidents involving some of my constituents and indeed constituents of my hon. Friends. I believe that there is a tradition of ethical policing in Wales that has its own values and it would be beneficial to keep possibilities in place and under review. We should keep the light shining in the distance as we move towards it.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree with me on this issue. I took part in the parliamentary policing scheme this summer, and I know that there are great concerns among the North Wales police about the drive for them to co-operate with forces over the border. Although that might make sense in terms of combating crime, it will actually result in fewer police officers in many areas of Wales. Our police forces are really concerned about that.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, which we should bear in mind. I believe that we should appreciate and build on the Welsh tradition of policing. The cause is a modest one. We are not asking for full independence of the Welsh police forces straight away, but that is the mood within the police force. The new clause does not call for an immediate devolution of policing, but would allow policing—and particularly the devolution of policing—to be kept under review by both the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers. The people of Wales should have a greater say over policing, and plans for it should be drawn up by the Welsh Assembly.

The first draft Wales Bill was an affront to devolution. The Welsh Government published an alternative Bill, in which they set out plans for a 10-year strategy for the devolution of policing. I hope that that is not too fast a pace for the Government, but we are not rushing into this. Ours is a modest, sensible approach which the Government should accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to speak to new clauses 8 and 9, in my name and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues. These provisions aim to guarantee the devolution of the youth justice system and the funds generated by the apprenticeship levy respectively. I will first discuss new clause 8.

Continuing with the ineffective and complex mix of devolved and non-devolved bodies to manage our youth justice system is not congruent with the Government’s promise of a clear devolution settlement for Wales. The illogical settlement of the current system was highlighted by former Youth Justice Board chair Professor Rod Morgan, and reiterated by the Silk commission, which found that

“factors linked to youth offending were often related to devolved services, such as education and training, social services, and health, while youth offenders were dealt with through non-devolved services, such as the police, Youth Offending Teams and youth courts.”

The 61 youth offenders currently in custody in Wales could receive significantly better treatment as a result of a simple change in the Bill. Equally, youth offenders in north Wales, who are, as a matter of course, sent over the border because of a lack of provision in the region, would be much better served by a devolved system. Why does the Minister, therefore, wish to retain the current unwieldy and unclear system when the evident priority should be to rehabilitate these children and young people?

As with every Plaid Cymru amendment brought forward, this is not a matter of politics, but common sense. Independent experts—independent experts, once again—are lining up to tell the Minister why he should devolve youth justice. I have already mentioned the Silk commission and Professor Rod Morgan, but the list goes on. Wales’s second Children’s Commissioner, Keith Towler, stated quite clearly that devolution responsibility over youth justice would make a massive difference in the way young people caught up in the justice system are supported, and it might even help cut crime. Leading legal academic, Richard Owen, has undertaken research to show the huge potential benefits of devolving youth justice.

However, perhaps the strongest statement came from the Howard League for Penal Reform, which has campaigned on the issue of youth justice for many years. When it found out that Plaid Cymru was putting forward this new clause, it wrote to me directly saying:

“When it comes to Welsh children in trouble with the law, Wales should be able to come up with a Welsh solution to a Welsh concern. This is particularly the case because both social services and education policy are already devolved and it is a welfare-led approach which will prove most effective for troubled children.”

The Youth Justice Board in Wales already recognises that in its children-first approach, and there is an opportunity to build on that distinctiveness and to protect it from any Westminster-led reforms that fail to take into account the specific needs of Welsh children. Why do the Secretary of State and the Government continue to fail to listen to these independent experts?

The indications are that the Government’s upcoming report into youth justice, undertaken by Charlie Taylor, the former chief executive of the National College for Teaching and Leadership, is likely to come out in favour of further devolution. Why not, therefore, use the biggest legislative vehicle for devolution in Wales for years to remove youth justice from the reservations now? I anticipate that this matter, like many matters relating to justice, will be discussed here once again and without delay when that report is published later this year.

The Government have already said that they are looking to devolve aspects of youth justice to other areas of the UK. Can the Minister explain to the people of Wales why such authorities as the Greater Manchester combined authority are set to gain increased competence over youth justice, when the established National Assembly for Wales, with a track record on closely related issues, is not? Is he not standing up for Wales among his Tory Cabinet colleagues?

The relatively insignificant £300,000 cost the Government estimate would be involved in setting up a Welsh youth justice system would pale into insignificance compared with the positive outcomes for young people caught up in the criminal justice system. Financial savings might even be made if, as predicted by many experts, offending rates decrease following its devolution. The benefits for the UK Government and the Welsh Government are clear. This is not only a morally responsible policy, but a logical and financially sensible thing to do. Although we will not push the new clause to a vote, will the Minister please outline why he is not listening to the Silk commission and the plethora of experts urging him to devolve youth justice?

New clause 9 relates to the devolution of the funds generated through the apprenticeship levy. The Government’s chaotic and haphazard approach to the apprenticeship levy has left all the devolved Administrations in confusion. While the specifics are clear for businesses in England, the way in which businesses, public organisations, colleges and training providers in Wales will be able to access and benefit from the moneys generated by the levy remains completely opaque. Plaid Cymru has a long-standing commitment to improving the standard and increasing the number of apprenticeships in Wales. With every other area of apprenticeships, skills and training already devolved, it is incomprehensible that the Government have chosen to impose this as a blanket policy across the UK. Beyond the issues I have outlined as a matter of principle, an unacceptable number of questions remain unanswered. How will the levy work in relation to companies that employ people across the border? How will Wales receive the money owed to it through the levy, and how will we know that it is a fair allocation? Although we do not wish to press the new clause to a vote, we are asking for a clear commitment from the Secretary of State to ensure that Wales gets its fair and transparent share of the receipts generated by the apprenticeship levy.

I now turn to amendments tabled by the Government and Opposition Front Benchers. The Government’s new clause 5 is based on the premise of giving Welsh Ministers power to demarcate safety zones around renewable energy installations in Welsh waters and prohibit activities within such safety zones. That does indeed seem empowering. Unfortunately, however, it further highlights the senseless limit of 350 MW capacity on renewable energy projects, to which we are fundamentally opposed. Amendment 45 and its consequential amendment 47 remind us again of this limit. We welcome new clause 1, tabled by the official Opposition, which would amend the Coastguard Act 1925 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 so as to require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers in relation to the activities of the coastguard in Wales.

New clause 11 relates to keeping the devolution of policing to Wales under review. I could say much, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), I have discussed these matters so many times in this Chamber that I feel it does not need to hear me reiterate them. I am glad that there is consistency in Plaid Cymru’s argument and that Labour is perhaps moving in the right direction.

Amendments 70 to 82 attempt to increase the limit on the Welsh Government’s legislative competence in the field of energy from 350 MW to 2,000 MW. That would of course be welcome. However, why do the official Opposition still believe that we must put an arbitrary limit on the Welsh Government’s powers at all when there is no such limit on the powers of the Scottish Government? I was pleased that for once the official Opposition supported our amendment in Committee to remove the limit altogether, so I am disappointed that in these amendments they appear to have rowed back on their support for allowing Welsh natural resources to be in the hands of the people of Wales.

I would greatly appreciate from the Minister clarification of amendment 50, which relates to the negative resolution procedure for Welsh Ministers under the Energy Act 2004, as that is not particularly clear as it stands.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Rail: franchising of passenger services

“(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (public sector operators not to be franchisees) is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of subsection (2A) insert “or a franchise agreement in respect of services that are or include Wales-only services.”

(3) After subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) For the purposes of this section a “Wales-only service” has the same meaning as in section 57 of the Railways Act 2005.”

(4) This section does not have effect in relation to any invitation to tender under section 26(2) of the Railways Act 1993 issued before the day on which this section comes into force.”—(Paul Flynn.)

This new clause would remove a restriction in section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 on certain public sector bodies bidding to operate a rail franchise that is made up of or includes rail services within Wales.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman is a champion of the agricultural sector—there is no doubt about that. I can assure him, once again, that the Wales Office has already had meetings with the farming unions. We can certainly offer the guarantee that the current funding arrangements will be in place until at least 2018, but the ongoing support for Welsh farming will be subject to agreements involving this Government, the way in which we exit the European Union and the decisions taken by the future Prime Minister.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Given that the common agricultural policy and rural development programme contribute hundreds of millions of pounds to the Welsh rural economy, what UK exit scenario could possibly best serve Wales?

[Guto Bebb]

As the hon. Lady knows, I argued for Wales and the UK to stay within the EU, but the reality is that Wales voted to leave. It is therefore crucial that we support the industries that are dependent on exporting to the EU. We have a quality product offered by Welsh agriculture, so it is imperative that we talk up that market and support the sector to the best of our abilities. Again, I give assurance to the farming unions that the current funding situation is in place until 2018.

Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I have never received anything but praise for Conservative signage, and I received even more praise for the vote leave signs that were notable by their presence throughout Wales.

This is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I would be grateful to hear from Ministers the rationale for these two proposals. Let me say again that at the very least they are confusing and at the very worst they have the potential to be positively dangerous.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I must take this opportunity to congratulate the Welsh team on giving us the brightest, most joyful memories of the past few weeks—it is safe to say that.

I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues. They seek to amend schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and, thus, relate to clause 3 of this Bill, which deals with the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales. The vast majority of our amendments in this group seek to omit certain reservations from that schedule. The amendments are intended in some cases to restore competence in areas that are already devolved. In others, they are intended to devolve competence to the Assembly in areas that are devolved to Scotland. If the Government are not prepared to give the Welsh Assembly parity with the Scottish Parliament in these areas, we would ask for specific reasons to be given in each instance. Both the Welsh Affairs Committee in this place and the National Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee have written reports on the draft Wales Bill, with both calling on the UK Government to provide individual justifications for each of the reservations now contained in schedule 7A. As such, it is a great disappointment to my colleagues and I that the Government have not seen fit to provide us with these justifications. I invite the Secretary of State to explain why the Government have not been forthcoming in this instance. If valid justifications cannot be provided, the Government should amend the schedule so as to omit those areas outlined in our amendments.

Plaid Cymru has not been alone in saying—over many years—that the National Assembly should move to a reserved powers model. Indeed, the independent, cross-party Silk commission made just such a recommendation. Legal experts and much of civil society in Wales, recognise that adopting a reserved powers model should, in theory, provide greater legal clarity and workability. The idea of moving towards a reserved powers model has also been taken in Wales to symbolise a shift in Westminster’s attitude towards the Assembly, because it was assumed to be synonymous with a maturing of relations between the two institutions. Rather than having to justify devolving an area of competence, Westminster would be compelled to justify reserving an area of law; again, that should have represented a significant attitudinal shift, and a recognition of greater parity. The sheer length of the list of reserved areas in schedule 1 has made a mockery of that notion.

It should therefore have come as no surprise to the Wales Office that the original draft Wales Bill was met with such dismay by the Welsh Assembly and by civil society in our nation. The dismayingly long list of reservations, and the way in which the Bill went so far in some cases as to curtail powers already devolved, would fundamentally undermine the Assembly’s competence. It would do the opposite of what was, presumably, intended. Although we are grateful that the previous Secretary of State announced a pause in introducing the legislation, we still believe that schedule 7A shows a paucity of ambition for Wales and her legislature, and that is why we have drafted the amendments in this grouping.

Amendments 83, 86, 110 and 111 should be considered together, as they seek to devolve aspects of the justice system to the Assembly: the legal profession and legal services are dealt with in amendment 110; crime, public order and policing are dealt with in amendment 83; the rehabilitation of offenders is dealt with in amendment 86; and prisons and offender management are dealt with in amendment 111. As has been pointed out in this House on many occasions, and as was championed by my predecessor, Elfyn Llwyd, Wales is the only legislature that has no separate or distinct legal jurisdiction of its own. The matter of a separate legal jurisdiction was debated last week, so I will not repeat my arguments. Although I accept that the Tories fundamentally disagree with the need for a separate jurisdiction, I remain somewhat confused by the position of the official Opposition, who said last week that they supported it but abstained because the Government do not support it. If the official Opposition can only vote in favour of measures that are supported by the Government, they are not well fitted to being the official Opposition. However, given that our amendment was defeated last week, we will use the Report stage of the Bill to bring forward proposals on a distinct, rather than separate, jurisdiction. I hope that the House will be more open to working with us when that time comes.

As is well known, the Silk commission recommended the devolution of policing and related areas of community safety and crime prevention, and my party is resolute in our standpoint that Wales, like the other nations of the United Kingdom, should have responsibility for its police forces.

We are presenting amendment 83 at a time when it is being proposed that policing is devolved to English city regions—Manchester and Liverpool, for example. If the policing of these cities can be held to account in a devolved landscape, why not the policing of Wales?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

Does my hon. Friend not think it scandalous that there is no provision for women prisoners in Wales? There are very few women prisoners, but they are held in England in Styal and in Eastwood Park outside Gloucester. That causes problems for prisoners’ families, particularly from the west of Wales.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Indeed. We are aware that in the north that there is no prison for women or for young offenders. There are many steps afoot, which are to be welcomed, to improve how women who enter the criminal justice system are treated in Wales, alongside imprisonment. HMP Styal is a long way from people’s homes and there must be a better way to deal with offenders’ families.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the rehabilitation of young offenders. Devolution of these matters would support the critical interrelationship between health and education services in making rehabilitation successful. Recognition of that fact is a gross omission from the Bill.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I can only agree.

[Jonathan Edwards]

As always, my hon. Friend is making a compelling case, full of strong arguments. Does she agree that it is slightly ironic that a referendum has just been won by those arguing for the UK to leave the European Union, partly on the basis of democracy and sovereignty, yet here we are, debating a Wales Bill which, compared with the settlement for Scotland and Northern Ireland, seems to deny sovereignty and democracy to Wales?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

With the Bill we are moving ahead in small steps—inching forward, painfully. I await the time when we will move ahead in a way that grants sovereignty to the people of Wales.

Many of the amendments that I have discussed so far were recommended by the Silk commission, as I mentioned previously. Other amendments in the group include amendment 85, which would remove prostitution from the list of reserved powers; amendment 117, which would remove the reservation of knives; and amendment 109, which would remove the reservation of abortion, to bring Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. Again, I challenge the Secretary of State to stand up and tell us why he voted for Scotland to have those powers, but is now telling us in Wales that we cannot have equivalent powers.

Amendment 155 is distinct in that it seeks to clarify a reservation contained in schedule 7A, and not to omit it entirely. The amendment would clarify as a reserved matter “the Crown Prosecution Service”, rather than the broader term “prosecutors”, as currently drafted. This amendment is crucial, as the existing wording of the schedule could prohibit Assembly legislation from enabling devolved authorities, such as local authorities and Natural Resources Wales, to prosecute. I hope that the Government will take note of this distinction and amend the schedule accordingly.

Amendment 156 would remove the necessity test in relation to the law on reserved matters. The test of necessity is objectionable on grounds of clarity and workability, as it is capable of a number of different interpretations. One possible interpretation is extremely restrictive and would represent a reduction in the Assembly’s current competence. The difference between a “reserved matter” and the “law on reserved matters” is explained in paragraphs 409 to 411 and 413 and 414 of the explanatory notes to the Bill.

The notes give the example of an Assembly Bill which related entirely to planning, which is not a reserved matter, but which modified a provision of a UK Act concerning telecommunications. That modification might be within the Assembly’s competence, as its purpose might relate entirely to planning, and so it would meet the test set out in new section 108A(6) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, inserted by clause 3. However, by modifying a provision of a UK Act of Parliament, which concerned a reserved matter, it would modify the “law on reserved matters”. The Assembly should be able to do so in a purely ancillary way, without also having to show that the modification made has

“no greater effect…than is necessary”.

An equivalent to the Bill provision is contained in the Scotland Act 1998. However, in the context of the Scottish devolution settlement, it is much less restrictive, as the Scottish Parliament has competence over considerably greater fields, including, of course, justice matters, and the Scottish system of civil and criminal law. Therefore, what might appear to be wider latitude for the Assembly would in practice still amount to narrower competence than that of the Scottish Parliament.

Amendment 157 would remove the criminal law restriction in paragraph 4 of schedule 7B and replace it with a restriction which provides that the Assembly cannot modify criminal law unless that is for a purpose other than a reserved purpose. It reflects the Assembly’s current competence—that is, the criminal law is a silent subject, and the Assembly can modify the criminal law if it relates to a devolved subject, or if the modification is ancillary. The Assembly, therefore, could not modify the criminal law if it was for a reserved purpose, thus protecting the criminal law around the 200 or so reservations in the Bill. The amendment would also make it clear that the Assembly could not modify the criminal law for its own sake: there must be a devolved purpose behind the modification of the criminal law. It would align the criminal law restriction with the private law restriction in paragraph 3 of schedule 7B. This would provide consistency and clarity.

I have already spoken of my party’s dismay that the Bill threatens in places to dilute, rather than augment, the legislative competence of the Assembly. In this vein, a number of the amendments in this group seek to clarify the Assembly’s powers in relation to its internal functions, as well as its overall competence to legislate. Amendments 148 and 149 seek to restore the Assembly’s competence closer to its current level. Currently, the Assembly is able to affect, in a minor way, matters that are listed as exceptions from competence in schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Most of these exceptions have been converted into reservations in the proposed new settlement—for example, consumer protection. However, under the new settlement, the Assembly would have no competence to legislate in a way that touches on reserved matters at all.

The Assembly can currently legislate in relation to “silent subjects”—that is, topics that are not listed either as subjects of competence, or as exceptions from competence, in schedule 7 to GOWA. The Assembly can do so only where it is also legislating on a subject that is specifically devolved by schedule 7. Many of these silent subjects—for example, employment rights and duties—have been converted into reservations in the Bill. The amendment would restore the Assembly’s competence to affect those topics in a purely ancillary way. However, that ancillary competence would still be narrower than the Assembly’s present competence to legislate on “silent subjects” when that legislation also relates to expressly devolved subjects.

In an attempt to allow the aforementioned institution to have control and oversight over its law making, amendment 6 would give the Assembly the power to consolidate, in both English and Welsh, the statutes containing the current constitutional settlement affecting Wales. No matter what our position on empowering the Assembly, I am sure we can all agree that it is important, whatever settlement we have, that that settlement is easily understood. It is disappointing that this Bill does not consolidate all existing legislation, but the amendment would allow the National Assembly to do that, in the interests of clarity. It would not allow the National Assembly to go beyond current legislation and broaden its competence.

Amendments 34 to 37 would amend paragraph 7 of schedule 2, which sets out the sections of the Government of Wales Act 2006 which the Assembly will have competence to modify. Paragraph 7(2)(d) specifically refers to those sections of part 5 of the 2006 Act which are amendable without restriction. As it stands, this does not include the ability to amend sections 120(1) or 124(3) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 which provide for “relevant persons”—otherwise known as “direct funded bodies”—which receive funding directly from the Welsh consolidated fund. That means, for example, the Welsh Government, the Assembly Commission, the Auditor General and the public services ombudsman for Wales.

Amendments 35 and 36 would allow the Assembly competence to add to, but not remove from, the list of “relevant persons”. It would allow it to enable a body that is independent of the Welsh Government also to be financially independent where that is deemed appropriate. Any use of such competence to add to the “relevant persons” would require an Act of the Assembly.

Paragraph 7 of schedule 2 provides that the remaining provisions of part 5 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 are amendable where the amendment is incidental to or consequential on a provision of an Act of the Assembly relating to budgetary procedures, and the Secretary of State consents to that amendment. I see no reason why the consent of the Secretary of State should be required to an amendment that will have no impact beyond the Assembly’s financial procedures, so amendment 37 removes that requirement.

On the remaining amendments in this group tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, as I have already said, the majority of these amendments highlight areas of competence that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, yet for some unstated reason are being reserved to Westminster in the case of Wales. No justification has been given for reserving those matters. Consequently, I shall list a number of amendments: 84, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 106 and 103. I give the amendment numbers for a reason. It feels like the Secretary of State is allowing Whitehall to pick and choose the powers it wants to hold on to. We argue strongly that he must draw up a list of reservations based on principles. These reservations make no practical sense and the absence of principle is obvious. They range from the reservation of dangerous dogs to hovercraft, sports grounds and health and safety. We need a reason why those areas should be reserved.

In addition, there are amendments 105, 107, 104, 112, 113 and 89, which is on Sunday trading and safeguards the long-standing tradition in Wales of protecting shop workers’ terms and conditions, and amendments 114 and 115. Over and above that, Plaid Cymru has long argued that Department for Work and Pensions functions should be devolved to the Assembly. Thus amendment 100 would devolve all working age benefits that are to be replaced by universal credit and any benefit that is introduced to replace universal credit. Amendments 101, 102, 108 and 99 all relate to those areas of DWP functions that we have long argued should be devolved.

Amendments 96, 61 to 63 and 69 deal with the newly created Welsh harbours of “reserved trust ports”. Once again, this creation has no justification. A port will now be devolved unless it has a turnover of above a certain threshold. Again, that is the case not for Scotland or Northern Ireland, but only for Wales. It is yet another example of Westminster holding on to as much power as possible while appearing to be offering significant devolution. Once again, I challenge the Secretary of State to tell us why this is necessary in Wales, when he voted to devolve full control to Scotland.

Amendment 2 is consequential on new clause 1, which seeks to devolve Executive and legislative competence of the Crown estate in Wales to the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales, as has been done in Scotland. New clause 7 would devolve general legislative competence in respect of agricultural, aquacultural and fisheries levies. Again, those are areas that Plaid Cymru has long argued should be devolved to the National Assembly.

Before I come to a close, I wish to note concerns expressed to me by the Welsh language commissioner regarding the Bill’s potential effect on the National Assembly’s powers to legislate in matters concerning the Welsh language. A possible effect of schedule 2 is that the National Assembly, should it wish to legislate for the Welsh language, would require the consent of the relevant UK Minister to confer, impose, modify or remove within that legislation the Welsh language functions of Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments and other reserved authorities. Under the current settlement, that ministerial consent is required only when legislating to impose Welsh language functions on Ministers of the Crown. The ministerial consent provisions of the Wales Bill in relation to the Welsh language would appear to be applicable to a wider range of persons than is currently the case, and would thus be more restrictive. I hope that that can be considered in the later stages of the Bill.

The amendments in this group should not be considered as mere separate, distinct “tweaks” to the Wales Bill. Rather, we present them as a collection of amendments, which, by their sheer number, make evident the many ways in which the current proposed legislation is deficient. No justification has been given by the Government as to why these many policy areas have been reserved, and no justification has been given as to why the Welsh Assembly should not be granted the same competence as the Scottish Parliament in these areas.

--- Later in debate ---

Test 4 is that an Assembly Act provision must not breach any of the restrictions in new schedule 7B, which I shall say more about in a moment. Finally, test 5 is the requirement that the Assembly Act provision must comply with the European convention on human rights and EU law. Those five tests represent clear, proportionate and reasonably parameters on the Assembly’s legislative competence, and it is important that I have put them on the record.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has listed a number of tests, but does he agree that, for them to be justifications in a reserved power model, we should see how the reservations apply to each area?

[Alun Cairns]

I will cover those points, but I have sought to underline the importance of the tests because they are so fundamental to the reserved powers model. Of course, the reservations will be equally fundamental. The hon. Lady mentioned a significant number of them. As I make progress, I will cover many of the points she made and invite her to intervene then.

Amendments 118 and 119, tabled by the main Opposition party, and Plaid Cymru’s amendments 148 and 149 seek to broaden the Assembly’s competence significantly by enabling it to legislate in relation to reserved matters so long as the provision is ancillary to a provision on a devolved matter. These amendments would drive a coach and horses through the key principle underpinning the new model, which is a clear boundary between what is devolved and what is reserved. They would give the Assembly the power to make unfettered changes to reserved matters such as the justice system, which we debated in detail last week, provided only that some connection to a devolved provision was established. What is more, they are simply not needed. We want to ensure that the Assembly can enforce its legislation and make it effective. We provide for this in paragraphs 1 and 2 of new schedule 7B by enabling the Assembly to modify the law on reserved matters. This is suitable to ensure that the Assembly’s devolved provisions can be enforced without compromising the principle of reserved matters.

I turn now to the proposed new schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act, which sets out the reserved matters, referred to in general in the legislation as the “reservations”. These matters must be seen through the prism of the purpose test. A reservation is a succinct description of the subject area covered. It includes reserved authorities carrying out functions relating to that subject and criminal offences relating to that subject.

The general reservations in part 1 of the new schedule reserve the fundamental tenets of the constitution: the Crown, the civil service, defence and the armed forces, the regulation of political parties, and foreign affairs. As a single legal jurisdiction operates in England and Wales, we also reserve matters such as courts and non-devolved tribunals, judges, and civil and criminal proceedings. However, we have made appropriate exceptions to these reservations to enable the Assembly to exercise devolved functions. For example, the Assembly can confer devolved functions on the courts or provide for appeals from devolved tribunals to reserved tribunals.

Amendment 6, tabled by Plaid Cymru, seeks to modify these core reservations by allowing the Assembly to consolidate the constitutional arrangements for Wales. It surely must be a fundamental principle that the UK’s constitutional arrangements, including Parliament’s authority to devolve its own powers, are reserved. We have a constitutional settlement for Wales, the Government of Wales Act 2006 as amended, and amendment 6 is simply not necessary.

Part 2 lists the specific reservations. We want there to be no doubt where the boundary of the Assembly’s legislative competence lies. The list is lengthy because it is quite specific in its reservations and provides exceptions to those reservations. Previously, in the draft, there were some broad headlines, but the current Bill is far more specific, which necessitates further detail on what is included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

I am very sympathetic to the concept of tidal lagoons, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a review is being undertaken at this time and I would not want to prejudge it. It is being undertaken by Charles Hendry, who is well respected across this House.

Clause 37 allows Welsh Ministers to make declarations extinguishing public rights of navigation, so as to ensure safety out to the seaward limits of the territorial sea in relation to generating stations up to 350MW. Clause 38 aligns, in a single authority, the ability to consent both to a generating station itself and the associated overhead line which would connect that station to the transmission system. It does so by removing consenting applicable requirements under either the Electricity Act 1989 or the Planning Act 2008 for certain associated overhead lines with a transmission capacity of up to 132kV necessary for connecting generating stations of up to 350MW capacity. This is an attempt to generate a one-stop shop for energy opportunities of that size in Wales. The Silk commission rightly identified that a one-stop shop should be developed, and the Bill tries to deliver that in a Welsh context.

Government amendments 47 to 49 correct an inadvertent constraint in the current drafting of clause 38 by removing the presumption that Welsh Ministers are the devolved consenting authority.

On clause 39, the Planning Act 2008 introduced the concept of “associated development”—development that the Secretary of State could consent to as part of the development consent orders which underpin and facilitate major development projects. The ability to grant associated development allows for more of the complete projects to be delivered within a single consent, to try to make the situation easier for developers. In Wales, the benefit of this approach has hitherto been restricted only to certain activities around the construction of underground gas storage facilities. Clause 39 amends relevant definitions in the Planning Act 2008 to extend the scope of associated development in Wales to include activities accompanying generating projects above 350 MW and larger overhead lines connections of 132 kV. Again, it fulfils a St David’s day commitment and implements a Silk commission recommendation.

I think it is fair to say that amendments 158 to 160, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), seek to re-open matters which have already been debated in the context of the Energy Act 2016. That Act delivered the Government’s manifesto commitment to give local people the final say on wind farm applications. It also ensured that in Wales it is for the Assembly and Welsh Ministers to decide how decisions are taken. I see no basis for rowing back from that position now, but I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that the Welsh Government should ensure that local people in Wales have the final say on these matters.

In our discussion of the Bill, we have talked about the importance of financial accountability, but this is also a case of political accountability. In my constituency, Aberconwy, we had the development of the Gwynt y Môr wind farm. I think I am right in saying that every single councillor in the Conwy local authority area voted against the development, but it was imposed by diktat by the then Energy Secretary. The important point is that the changes and the power given to local communities as a result of Acts passed by the coalition Government were a direct response to that political need for change. If the Assembly Government are guilty of taking powers into their own hands, there is political accountability there which needs to be challenged and needs to be part of the political discourse in Wales.

The Energy Act has ended subsidy for new onshore wind. If an onshore wind project does not already have planning permission, it is not going to be eligible for subsidy under the renewables obligation. In all the circumstances, therefore, the amendment should not be pressed to a vote.

Clauses 40 and 41 devolve further powers to Welsh Ministers in respect of equal opportunities. The powers follow as closely as possible the approach adopted in Scotland, but the two approaches are not identical. Clause 40 covers the operation of the public sector equalities duty. It removes the requirement in section 152 of the Equality Act 2010 that the Welsh Ministers consult a Minister of the Crown prior to making an order amending the list of Welsh public authorities that are subject to the duty, replacing it with a requirement to inform.

Clause 41 provides for the commencement and implementation of part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in Wales. Part 1 imposes a duty on certain public bodies to have due regard to socio-economic considerations when making strategic decisions. Clause 41 allows the Welsh Ministers to bring part 1 into force in Wales on a date of their choosing. It also enables Welsh Ministers to amend the 2010 Act to add or remove relevant authorities that are to be subject to the duty, without first consulting a Minister of the Crown.

Clauses 42 and 43 extend Welsh Ministers’ existing responsibilities for marine licensing and marine conservation in the Welsh inshore region to the Welsh offshore region. The clauses fulfil St David’s day commitments and implement recommendations in the Silk commission’s second report.

Clause 44 enables the Secretary of State to intervene on legislation or Executive activities where she has reasonable grounds to believe that these might have a serious adverse impact on sewerage in England. As part of this Bill, legislative competence for sewerage will be devolved, subject to the matters set out in C15 of new schedule 7A. These powers of intervention are similar to those already held by the Secretary of State in relation to water. They may be used where an Act of the Assembly, or the exercise, or failure to exercise, a relevant function might have a serious adverse impact on sewerage services and systems in England.

Amendments 81,125 and 126, tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon, seek to take forward the recommendations of the Silk commission in relation to water and sewerage. The Silk report recognised that water and sewerage devolution is complex and that further work to consider the practical implications was needed. The Government set up the Joint Governments Programme Board with the Welsh Government to look at these issues and report on the likely effects that implementing the commission’s recommendations would have on the efficient delivery of water and sewerage services, consumers and the water undertakers themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained earlier, that work has concluded and the Government are considering the evidence before deciding whether and how the recommendations will be taken forward. We will consider carefully the interests of customers and businesses on both sides of the border before reaching that decision. It should be stressed that this issue is under consideration.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will this material be available when we are next discussing the Bill? If I remember correctly, I first heard about that working group when we were discussing the 50 years since Capel Celyn. As we are now nine months down the road, it would be appropriate for it to be reported to the House before the Bill comes to the end of its journey.

[Guto Bebb]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Her recollection is correct. We have only just received the report, so consideration of it must now take place. It is now with the Wales Office, and, after it has been considered, we will, in the manner described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, discuss the contents of the report with other parties who have an interest in the Wales Bill.

Clause 45 fulfils a St David’s day commitment and a Silk commission recommendation to devolve to Welsh Ministers the power to make building regulations for “excepted energy buildings” such as generating stations and gas storage facilities. Clause 46 formalises the current differing arrangements for consulting the Welsh Ministers on renewable energy incentive schemes.

Amendments 130 to 132, which were submitted by the Opposition, would require the Secretary of State to gain the consent of Welsh Ministers, rather than to consult them. Energy policy is a reserved matter as regards Great Britain. Maintaining consistency provides for workable schemes, certainty to the industry and fairness to consumers. It is right that responsibility for renewable energy incentive schemes should rest with UK Ministers. I hope that that comment has been welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies).

Clause 47 implements for Wales the conclusions of the HM Treasury review of the Office for Budget Responsibility, published last year. The OBR has a statutory duty to carry out a number of core functions, including to produce fiscal and economic forecasts. This clause ensures that it will continue to receive information from Wales as necessary to fulfil that duty. It reflects the increased fiscal devolution to the Assembly, and the Welsh Government’s competence for economic development. These roles mean that the OBR is more likely to require and use information held in Wales to fulfil its remit.

Clause 48 increases the accountability of Ofgem to the Assembly. Clause 49 provides that where a coal operator wants to mine in Wales, it must seek the approval of Welsh Ministers as part of its application for a licence. Clause 50 increases the accountability of Ofcom to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers. It goes further by giving Welsh Ministers the power to appoint one member to the Ofcom board who is capable of representing the interests of Wales.

Clauses 51 and 52 and schedule 5 and 6 make consequential and transitional provision relating to the Bill. Clause 51 allows the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments by regulations in connection with this Bill, and through amendments 82, 144 to 147 and 150 to 154, the Opposition parties are seeking to give the Assembly a role in approving those regulations. Amendments 144 to 147 would require the Assembly also to approve those regulations where such consequential amendments are within the Assembly’s competence or where they alter the Assembly’s competence. Amendments 82 and 150 to 154 would achieve the same with regard to consequential amendments that amend Acts or measures of the Assembly or secondary legislation made by the Welsh Ministers.

Clause 51 is a fairly typical consequential provision that ensures that the Government are able to tidy up the statute book where required in connection with this Bill. Indeed, similar provisions are included in Assembly legislation as well. Giving the Assembly a role in approving the Secretary of State’s regulations made under this clause would be as unjustified as giving Parliament a role in approving Welsh Ministers’ regulations made under Assembly Acts. It would also make the process far more complicated and time consuming than it needs to be. In reality, we would discuss any proposed changes that impacted on the Assembly’s competence with the Welsh Government before regulations were laid.

Gwynfor Evans and Welsh Politics

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention, which shows the very close links between Plaid Cymru and the SNP. I shall be referring to the Hamilton by-election shortly.

Gwynfor’s victory was no fluke. In March 1967, Vic Davies won 39.9% of the vote in the Rhondda and cut the Labour majority to just 2,000. In 1968, the polymath Professor Phil Williams won more than 40% of the vote in Caerphilly, losing by only 1,800 votes, with a swing of 29%. The Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was in a state of panic about the national upsurge in Wales and Scotland, where the SNP’s Winnie Ewing had won the Hamilton by-election in November 1967, so he set up a royal commission. The resulting report by the Kilbrandon commission was published in 1973 and recommended legislative Parliaments for Scotland and Wales.

For Plaid Cymru, Gwynfor’s victory led to representation in this House over the past 50 years by politicians of incredible calibre. Gwynfor was followed by Dafydd Wigley and Dafydd Elis-Thomas in 1974; Ieuan Wyn Jones in 1987; Cynog Dafis and Elfyn Llwyd in 1992; Simon Thomas in a by-election in 2000; and my direct predecessor, Adam Price, and Plaid Cymru’s current parliamentary leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), in 2001. I was elected in 2010, and my talented hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) was elected in 2015. I genuinely stand on the shoulders of giants—politicians whose names will be celebrated in Welsh history for eternity. Without Gwynfor, though, it is highly unlikely that any of the aforementioned individuals would have graced this place and made their own vital contributions in developing our nation.

In this House, Gwynfor made his mark on a plethora of political subjects. His deep commitment on issues such as nuclear disarmament, industrial democracy, social co-operation and international concord allowed him to make a significant impact on Westminster politics. Men of conviction often face ridicule from their detractors. As they say, “First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they agree with you”. That was certainly the case for Gwynfor, who faced personal hostility unworthy of this House. However, much like other great political leaders across the world, from Ghandi to Mandela, at the time of his death there was a general recognition across the political spectrum that his contribution transcended partisan lines.

[Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a credit to Gwynfor Evans’ vision of nation building that the poll to which he referred earlier shows that Plaid Cymru’s support is at its highest ever level?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I definitely believe that we would not be where we are without Gwynfor’s contribution. Even if they did not agree with him, everybody accepted that he based his politics on principle, and that everything he did was aimed at creating a better Wales.

Gwynfor was born in 1912 in the Barry. He was brought up in a deeply Christian family, and his religious non-conformism was very important to him. Despite the huge political pressures on him, Gwynfor continued to teach Sunday school at his local chapel in Llangadog after moving to Carmarthenshire. While I was doing research for this speech, I learned of Gwynfor’s great love of cricket. He represented the Welsh schools team during the 1930 season. Since being elected, I have campaigned for a Welsh national side. Considering the fact that in the past decade our great nation has reached a rugby world cup semi-final and won three grand slams, and that tomorrow our football team will play for a place in the Euro 2016 final—I am wearing a Welsh national football tie in their honour—it is about time we had a national cricket team.

Gwynfor awakened to the cause of Wales while at Aberystwyth University. It must be contagious, as both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd were fortunate enough to study there, as was the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—I am delighted to see him in his place and that he will be responding to the debate. I am informed that the piece of literature that sealed the proverbial deal was the masterpiece “The Economics of Welsh Self-Government”, by my political hero D. J. Davies. D. J. had written his booklet in 1931, and by 1934 Gwynfor was a fully paid up member of Plaid Cymru. As Gwynfor’s biographer, the BBC journalist Rhys Evans, said, that changed Welsh history:

“It was Gwynfor who created the national movement…Gwynfor was also the founder of the Parliament for Wales campaign…There is now a lasting memorial to that organisation in Cardiff Bay—it is the Assembly, the unmistakable symbol, for better or worse, of the desire of the people of Wales to live as a democratic nation.”

In 1937, Gwynfor became a member of the party’s national executive committee and by 1943 he was vice-president. Then, at the Llangollen conference of 1945, just five days before the atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima, he was elected as president of Plaid Cymru, aged just 32. He would remain the party’s leading political figure for the next 36 years.

Despite his burning nationalism, it is important to remember that Gwynfor was a great internationalist. He was also a committed pacifist, so I am sure that he would have been proud that I am probably the only living person on Earth who has entered the Pentagon and proclaimed, in a meeting with the top military brass, that I am a member of an anti-war party. I am sure Gwynfor would have enjoyed my mischievous intentions.

For Gwynfor, his pacifism was arguably even more important than his nationalism, and he campaigned vigorously against the Vietnam war. His economics strongly supported economic units that are larger than nations, which I suppose is a lesson for Brexiters. He believed that a free market is a device that safeguards the individuality of nations. He strongly supported a British single market and I suspect that if he were alive today he would be doing everything he could to secure tariff-free access to the European single market.

It is not called “the national struggle” for nothing, and Gwynfor’s career is living proof of that. He had to overcome several bitter electoral losses. In his darkest moments, he would walk from his home in Talar Wen, near Llangadog, and climb the slopes of the Garn Goch. Like many of my fellow citizens, I find that our beautiful landscape is a source of endless inspiration and therapy. The love for our land and our people is the basis of our politics. It is fitting, therefore, that Gwynfor’s memorial is suitably located on that barren mountain, which overlooks the beautiful Tywi valley.

However, there is no doubt that for Gwynfor the biggest political blow was the devastating loss of the 1979 referendum. With a Government majority of only three, Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party MPs skilfully forced the concession of national referendums in their respective countries. While Scotland voted yes, only to be denied their own parliament by a clause that required a threshold of 40% of the electorate voting for change, Wales voted overwhelmingly against even a meagre form of self-government.

Dafydd Wigley wrote that Gwynfor wanted to accept that the Labour Government were sincere in their promise that they supported devolution, despite the proposed model being far weaker than the model recommended by the Kilbrandon Commission, as it had no legislative or taxation functions. However, Labour allowed its MPs based in Wales to campaign for a no vote. In the end, 79.74% of people voted against self-government, and there is no doubt that Gwynfor took the loss personally. He felt completely betrayed by Labour, which had allowed its MPs to work with the Tories against their own party. Soon after, the Labour Government lost a vote of no confidence and a general election was held, which the Tories, under Margaret Thatcher, won by a landslide. Gwynfor, after the morale-sapping defeat of the referendum, lost Carmarthen. He would never hold elected office again and there were genuine concerns about his health.

Gwynfor was offered a peerage, but he turned it down flatly, telling the party’s new Westminster Leader, Dafydd Wigley, that there was only one Lord and that he did not abide in a palace on the banks of the Thames. A lesser man would have been crushed mentally and physically by the twin political blows of 1979. However, Gwynfor was about to embark on arguably his most famous battle.

The new Conservative Government had pledged during the election in 1979 to create a new Welsh language television channel. Gwynfor viewed such a channel as a vital step to help secure Welsh as a living language in the modern world. In his epic autobiography, “For the Sake of Wales – The Memoirs of Gwynfor Evans”, he recounts the battle for S4C in great detail. On 12 September 1979 in Cambridge, the new Home Secretary, William Whitelaw, announced in a surprise statement that the new Government would not honour their pledge to set up a new Welsh language channel.

Gwynfor suspected that the decision of the Home Secretary was a case of the Westminster establishment taking advantage of the desperation in the national movement. The response in Wales to the decision was uproar. Getting both main Westminster parties to agree to a Welsh TV channel had been one of the great successes of the Welsh national movement in the 1970s, which was won only after heavy terms of imprisonment had been imposed on many patriots. For the language campaigners of Cymdeithas Yr aith, the TV channel was a priority if Welsh had any hope of surviving as a living language.

Gwynfor saw the decision as a direct attempt to break the spirit of the Welsh people once and for all. In his memoirs, he quotes the bard T Gwynn Jones:

“Ysbryd Gwlad! Os badog lu

Cas Iwyth fu’n ceisio’i lethu

Iddo trwy hyn ni ddaw tranc

Heb ddiwedd y bydd ieuanc.”

That roughly translates as:

“A country’s spirit! If treacherous and vicious throng ‘have tried to quench it, it will never be overcome by this, but will remain endlessly young.”

Gwynfor therefore viewed the decision as a direct challenge to the existence of the Welsh nation. Considering the crushing personal blows that he had just received, it says everything about the stature of the man that he had the clarity of thought to motivate himself once more. With patriots across the country—including some of the greats of the nation, such as Cynog Dafis, Meredyth Evans, Ned Thomas and Pennar Davies—up in arms and even taking direct action against TV transmitters, Gwynfor committed himself to one last action for his country.

Dafydd Wigley has recounted how he and Gwynfor were returning in a car from a St David’s day dinner in Llanberis in 1980 when Gwynfor said, out of the blue, that he would not be with Dafydd the following year as it was his intention to fast until death over the betrayal of the new Government. Gwynfor did not expect the Thatcher Government to back down; he expected to die. However, it was a sacrifice he was willing to make, because his primary aim was to motivate the Welsh nation to believe once again in their country and face down the challenge of the British establishment.

Gwynfor decided that he would make his statement in May and, following the advice of his son-in-law, the great language campaigner Ffred Ffransis, he decided to give the Government five months’ warning before beginning the hunger strike in his study in Talar Wen. He would begin his fast to death on 5 October 1980, but before then he embarked on a national tour. The response of the Welsh establishment was hostile to say the least, but Gwynfor galvanised the national movement.

Media coverage extended far beyond the borders of Wales; The Sunday Times even carried a sympathetic article in the language of heaven itself. TV crews from Canada and Germany turned up at Talar Wen. Articles appeared in the main newspaper of Catalonia, in Scandinavia and in The New York Times. The campaign gained momentum, leading many people to plead with Gwynfor that he could achieve far more if he called off his threat to fast. However, his mind was set; he felt that he could achieve far more for Wales by dying than by living, and that that was the appropriate action to take.

Peter Hughes Griffiths and the party’s chief executive, Dafydd Williams, helped Gwynfor to arrange 22 meetings between 6 September and the beginning of the fast. About 2,000 people turned up to the launch of the series of talks at Sophia Gardens in Cardiff, the home of Welsh cricket. The following night, Gwynfor was in Glasgow, where over a thousand people attended the meeting at the McLellan Galleries. At the same time, the great and the good of Wales, including the Archbishop of Wales, Gwilym O Williams, Sir Goronwy Daniel, Michael Foot and Cledwyn Hughes, held meetings with Government Ministers and implored them to reconsider. However, Gwynfor received feedback that the Government had no intention of making a U-turn.

The speaking tour continued and, as Gwynfor wrote in his memoirs, there were signs that Welsh nationalism was on the verge of becoming an overwhelming force. He wrote that it is a simple truism that that is the only thing that Westminster fears in Wales, and it fears it greatly. I personally live for the day when the people of Wales grasp this simple reality, as the people of Scotland have.

On Wednesday 17 September, the Government yielded and Margaret Thatcher would perform her first and possibly her only U-turn as Prime Minister. However, Gwynfor’s first reaction was disappointment, not elation. He thought that a few more weeks of campaigning would have shifted the tectonic plates in Wales for ever.

The meeting that night was scheduled for Crymych, and when Gwynfor announced his intention to withdraw his threat of going on hunger strike, the 800-strong crowd erupted in emotion. It was his greatest political victory and to make the point somebody mischievously painted on the banks of the Embankment, opposite this House, “Gwynfor 1 - Thatcher 0”. We will settle for that score tomorrow night, Mr Stringer.

A half-hour debate of this nature could never do justice to the contribution of Gwynfor Evans. If I had a full day of debate, I could talk about Gwynfor the Christian, Gwynfor the internationalist, Gwynfor the pacifist, Gwynfor and Europe, and Gwynfor the historian. He was also a prolific writer, publishing well over a million words. If the opportunity to speak about Gwynfor arises again in future, I am confident that I would comfortably beat the record four-hour speech that William Gladstone made in this House when he delivered his 1853 Budget.

Following the events of the last few weeks, I have given some thought in preparing this speech to how Gwynfor would have reacted if he was alive today. It would not be right of me to presume to know the thinking of a far superior intellect than mine, but based on his writings I think we can safely assume that he would now be advancing the need for our country to position ourselves economically within a tariff-free single market as an imperative; that politically Wales must have the freedom to choose its own future; and that when the UK ceases to exist following Scottish independence, as I foresee, that will be a material change in condition, and our nation will again need to have a debate and a vote about where our future lies.

Gwynfor’s place in history is secure. He was chosen by readers of Wales on Sunday and the weekly Welsh-language publication Y Cymro as a millennium icon, ahead of Lloyd George and Aneurin Bevan, and even ahead of Owain Glyndwr. Glyndwr was ranked the seventh most prominent global figure of the past millennia by The Sunday Times, which gives an indication of the esteem in which Gwynfor is held within Wales, and across the world.

Gwynfor Evans died at his home in Pencarreg on the morning of Thursday 21 April 2005, at the age of 92. His biographer, Rhys Evans, says:

“Gwynfor wanted to return to Garn Goch, to the soil, the land of Wales where his politics had taken root. Nevertheless, as his ashes blow in the wind, his legacy survives.”

As I said earlier, my great friend Dafydd Wigley offered incredible help in composing this speech. When I asked him to summarise Gwynfor’s political contribution to our country—and I will finish with this as I could not put it better myself—he replied:

“Gwynfor Evans was Wales’ greatest 20th century patriot. Without his dedication and unswerving determination, Wales wouldn’t today have the degree of national autonomy we enjoy and neither would the Welsh language have secured its official status. Future generations will look back to the 1966 by-election as a turning point in our history and salute the good people of Carmarthenshire for making it happen.”

Diolch yn fawr iawn.