Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 17, page 1, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—

“In section 1 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (the Assembly), after subsection (1), insert—”.

The amendment changes the place in the Government of Wales Act 2006 in which the text inserted by Clause 1 appears. Rather than in section 92A, references to the permanence of the Assembly would appear in section 1 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 8, page 1, leave out line 8 and insert “CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR WALES”.

This amendment amends the title of the new Part 2A inserted by Clause 1 in consequence of the proposal in amendment 7 to require the review of the functioning of the justice system in Wales.

Amendment 18, page 1, line 10, leave out

“and the Welsh Government are”

and replace with “is”.

The amendment gives effect to separate provisions relating to the National Assembly for Wales, as the Legislature, and the Welsh Government, as the Executive.

Amendment 19, page 1, line 14, leave out “and the Welsh Government.”

The amendment gives effect to separate provisions relating to the National Assembly for Wales, as the Legislature, and the Welsh Government, as the Executive.

Amendment 20, page 1, line 16, leave out

“and the Welsh Government are”

and replace with “is”.

The amendment gives effect to separate provisions relating to the National Assembly for Wales, as the Legislature, and the Welsh Government, as the Executive.

Amendment 21, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

“( ) In section 45 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (the Welsh Government), for the words in subsection (1) before paragraph (a) substitute—

(1) There is to be a Welsh Government or Llywodraeth Cymru.

(1A) The Welsh Government is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.

(1B) The purpose of subsection (1A) is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Welsh Government.

(1C) In view of that commitment it is declared that the Welsh Government is not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales voting in a referendum.

(1D) The members of the Welsh Government are—”.”

The amendment gives effect to separate provisions relating to the National Assembly for Wales, as the Legislature, and the Welsh Government, as the Executive. The amendment changes the place in the Government of Wales Act 2006 in which the text relating to the permanence of the Welsh Government would appear.

Amendment 22, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

“( ) In the Government of Wales Act 2006, after Part 2 (the Welsh Government) insert—”.

The amendment is required as a consequence of changing the location of the provision relating to the permanence of the Assembly.

Amendment 5, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 6 and insert—

“Part 2B

Separation of the Legal Jurisdiction of England and Wales

Introductory

92B New legal jurisdictions of England and of Wales

The legal jurisdiction of England and Wales becomes two separate legal jurisdictions, that of England and that of Wales.

Separation of the law

92C The law extending to England and Wales

(1) All of the law that extends to England and Wales—

(a) except in so far as it applies only in relation to Wales, is to extend to England, and

(b) except in so far as it applies only in relation to England, is to extend to Wales.

(2) In subsection (1) “law” includes—

(a) rules and principles of common law and equity,

(b) provision made by, or by an instrument made under, an Act of Parliament or an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) provision made pursuant to the prerogative.

(3) Any provision of any enactment or instrument enacted or made, but not in force, when subsection (1) comes into force is to be treated for the purposes of that subsection as part of the law that extends to England and Wales (but this subsection does not affect provision made for its coming into force).

Separation of the Senior Courts

92D Separation of Senior Courts system

(1) The Senior Courts of England and Wales cease to exist (except for the purposes of section 6) and there are established in place of them—

(a) the Senior Courts of England, and

(b) the Senior Courts of Wales.

(2) The Senior Courts of England consist of—

(a) the Court of Appeal of England,

(b) the High Court of England, and

(c) the Crown Court of England, each having the same jurisdiction in England as is exercised by the corresponding court in England and Wales immediately before subsection (1) comes into force.

(3) The Senior Courts of Wales consist of—

(a) the Court of Appeal of Wales,

(b) the High Court of Wales, and

(c) the Crown Court of Wales, each having the same jurisdiction in Wales as is exercised by the corresponding court in England and Wales immediately before subsection (1) comes into force.

(4) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England is the court corresponding to the Court of Appeal of England and the Court of Appeal of Wales,

(b) Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England is the court corresponding to the High Court of England and the High Court of Wales, and

(c) the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is the court corresponding to the Crown Court of England and the Crown Court of Wales.

(5) References in enactments or instruments to the Senior Courts of England and Wales have effect (as the context requires) as references to the Senior Courts of England or the Senior Courts of Wales, or both; and

(6) References in enactments or instruments to Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England, Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England or the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 (however expressed) have effect (as the context requires) as references to either or both of the courts to which they correspond.

92E The judiciary and court officers

(1) All of the judges and other officers of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England or Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England become judges or officers of both of the courts to which that court corresponds.

(2) The persons by whom the jurisdiction of the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is exercisable become the persons by whom the jurisdiction of both of the courts to which that court corresponds is exercisable; but (despite section 8(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981)—

(a) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in Wales may not by virtue of this subsection exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court of England, and

(b) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in England may not by virtue of this subsection exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court of Wales.

92F Division of business between courts of England and courts of Wales

‘(1) The Senior Courts of England, the county courts for districts in England and the justices for local justice areas in England have jurisdiction over matters relating to England; and (subject to the rules of private international law relating to the application of foreign law) the law that they are to apply is the law extending to England.

(2) The Senior Courts of Wales, the county courts for districts in Wales and the justices for local justice areas in Wales have jurisdiction over matters relating to Wales; and (subject to the rules of private international law relating to the application of foreign law) the law that they are to apply is the law extending to Wales.

92G Transfer of current proceedings

(1) All proceedings, whether civil or criminal, pending in any of the Senior Courts of England and Wales (including proceedings in which a judgment or order has been given or made but not enforced) shall be transferred by that court to whichever of the courts to which that court corresponds appears appropriate.

(2) The transferred proceedings are to continue as if the case had originated in, and the previous proceedings had been taken in, that other court.”

This amendment replaces the Bill’s proposed recognition of Welsh law with provisions to separate the legal jurisdictions of England and of Wales, as drafted by the Welsh Government.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 1, after “law” insert

“and review of the justice system in Wales”.

This amendment amends the heading of Clause 1 in consequence of the proposal in amendment 7 to review the functioning of the justice system in Wales.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(2) The Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers must keep the functioning of the justice system in relation to Wales under review with a view to its development and reform, including keeping under review the question of whether the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales should be divided into a jurisdiction for Wales and a jurisdiction for England.

(3) In exercising their duty in subsection (2) the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers must have regard to—

(a) divergence in the law and its administration as between England and Wales,

(b) the need to treat the Welsh and English languages on the basis of equality, and

(c) any other circumstances in Wales affecting operation of the justice system.

(4) The Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers may appoint a panel to advise them on the exercise of their functions in this section.

(5) The Lord Chancellor must make an annual report on the functioning of the justice system in relation to Wales to the Welsh Ministers.

(6) The Welsh Ministers must lay the report before the Assembly.

(7) The Lord Chancellor must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”

The provision in the Bill recognises the existence of a body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers. The new subsections to be inserted after that provision by this amendment require the Secretary of State to keep the justice system as it applies in relation to Wales under review with a view to its development and reform, having regard in particular to divergence in the law as between England and Wales.

Amendment 10, page 2, leave out lines 4 to 6.

This amendment removes subsection (2) of the proposed new section 92B of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (recognition of Welsh law). Subsection (2) seeks to explain the purpose of subsection (1) of that section.

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out “normally”.

This amendment removes the word “normally” from the recognition that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 12, leave out “legislate with regard” and insert “enact provisions relating”.

This amendment is a consequence of amendment 4, which defines the meaning of “devolved matters”.

Amendment 24, page 2, line 13, after “Assembly” insert—

“(a) there is an imminent risk of serious adverse impact on—

(i) the national security of the United Kingdom, or

(ii) public safety, public, animal or plant health or economic stability in any part of the United Kingdom,

(b) the legislation specifically addresses that risk,

(c) the imminence of the risk in relation to Wales makes it impractical to seek the consent of the Assembly,

(d) no Bill has been passed under section 110(1)(a) specifically to address the risk, and

(e) no subordinate legislation specifically to address the risk has been laid before the Assembly and has come into force.”

This amendment specifies the circumstances in which Parliament can legislate on devolved matters on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales without its consent.

Amendment 4,  page 2, line 13, at end insert—

“(7) For the purpose of subsection (6), a provision relates to a devolved matter if the provision—

(a) applies in relation to Wales and does not relate to a reserved matter.

(b) modifies the legislative competence of the Assembly, or

(c) confers a function on, or removes or modifies a function of, any member of the Welsh Government.”

This amendment defines the meaning of “devolved matters” for the purpose of the statutory recognition of the convention about Parliament legislating on devolved matters proposed by Clause 2.

Amendment 25, page 2, line 13, at end insert—

“(7) In this section, “devolved matters” means matters that—

(a) are within the legislative competence of the Assembly;

(b) modify the legislative competence of the Assembly;

(c) modify a function of the Assembly;

(d) modify a function of a member of the Welsh Government exercisable within devolved competence (and “within devolved competence” is to be read in accordance with section 58A).”

The amendment defines devolved matters for the purposes of Clause 2.

Clauses 2 and 4 stand part.

Amendment 26, in schedule 4, page 94, line 10, at end insert—

“National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards.”

The amendment adds the National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards to the list of Wales public authorities.

Amendment 27, page 94, line 10, at end insert—

“National Assembly for Wales Remuneration Board.”

The amendment adds the National Assembly for Wales Remuneration Board to the list of Wales public authorities.

Schedule 4 stand part.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd. Nineteen years have passed since the 1997 referendum to establish the Assembly. It is now clear that to have our own democratically elected Government and legislature is the settled will of the people of Wales. I note with disappointment and surprise the Secretary of State’s recent refusal of an invitation from the Chair of the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee to give evidence on the Bill. I would argue that now, especially, is the time for co-operation and the sharing of knowledge.

Clause 1 is a very welcome addition to the Welsh devolution dispensation. Any clause to recognise the permanence of the institution is, of course, overdue. Amendments 17 to 22 are not controversial, and they deal with two technical issues. First, amendment 17 and amendment 22, which is consequential on amendment 17, change the place in the Government of Wales Act 2006 in which the text of clause 1 would appear. I know that the Presiding Officer in the Assembly, Elin Jones, has made this point, and I share her view that the declaration of the permanence of the Assembly should be given prominence in the Bill. Placing it in section 1 of the 2006 Act would achieve that.

Secondly, amendments 18 to 21 reflect the constitutional separation of the legislature, the National Assembly of Wales, and the Executive, the Welsh Government, by dealing with them in separate new provisions to be inserted into those parts of the Government of Wales Act 2006 that deal respectively with the Assembly and the Government. These are probing amendments and we do not intend to press them to a vote, but I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to accept these proposals and to table his own amendments at the next stage.

I do, however, intend to press amendment 5 to a Division. This amendment deals with what was perhaps the key focus of the prelegislative stage of the Bill and remains, in our view, the main reason that it fails to achieve what the Secretary of State has said he wanted to achieve: that is, to produce a lasting devolution settlement for Wales.

Since the original Government of Wales Act 1998, we have been forced to change the devolution dispensation four times. If enacted, this Bill will become the fifth dispensation. The perpetual modifications have been necessitated by sustained reluctance from successive UK Governments, both Labour and Tory, to legislate with the long term in mind. Although all of Wales’s devolution Acts were described as settlements to settle the debate for a generation, not one of them has achieved that aim. It is clear to me that this Bill will continue that trend, unless, of course, the Secretary of State changes course.

Many, if not most, of the criticisms of the Bill made by politicians, lawyers, civil society and academics alike have been of clauses or sections that have been justified as necessary by the Secretary of State in order to maintain the single unified legal system of England and Wales. The inclusion of clause 3—this will be discussed next week—and in particular its much debated necessity test is down to the fact that the Welsh legislature operates within a shared jurisdiction. The inclusion of clause 10, on justice impact tests, which have been subject to questioning and criticism since the publication of the latest Bill, is down to the fact that justice is a reserved matter—a reservation that is apparently necessary to safeguard the shared jurisdiction. These are among the contents of the Bill that are intended to prevent the Assembly from making any provisions that will impact on so-called public authorities. Again, these are in the Bill to protect the unified legal jurisdiction. As the Wales Governance Centre and University College London report stated:

“Complexity is piled on complexity...the potential for legal challenge casts a long shadow”.

I remind the House that Wales is unique in the world in having a primary law making legislature without a jurisdiction. Scotland has a wholly separate legal jurisdiction, and the Scottish settlement is simpler as a result. It avoids the complex and unnecessary exceptions and reservations. The relative stability of the Scottish devolution settlement, when compared with the turmoil in Wales, is stark. It is rare that Wales passes a law without the threat of legal challenge from somewhere.

If there were a practical need to maintain the unified legal system, it would be worth making these compromises elsewhere in the Bill and perhaps worth the legal battles. However, I have yet to hear a genuine, practical reason for doing so. The most frequently made argument against creating a separate Welsh jurisdiction is that it is unnecessary and costly, and that divergence between the law as it applies to Wales and the law as it applies to England is minimal. To those who make those arguments I say two things. First, to say that divergence is minimal is to continue the short-term approach of previous Governments and to ignore the fact that divergence will do nothing but increase as the Assembly continues its work and as the institution gains more maturity and responsibility.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Like the hon. Lady, I am a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and I can back up, to a large extent, what she is saying. Was she as surprised as I was by the body of evidence that came from civil society, the legal profession and beyond during our Select Committee inquiry into the now redundant Wales Bill?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The sheer weight of that evidence underlines the fact that we struggled to find other points of view.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Amendment 5 is very well worded, if I may say so, because it was drafted, word for word, by the Labour Government in Cardiff. They wanted a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales, and they promised it as a major pledge before the Assembly election. What does my hon. Friend think it will say about the authority of Carwyn Jones among his colleagues here in London if the Labour party does not support that amendment today?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I would expect there to be some concordance between both points of view, but that seems not to be the case.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

What the hon. Lady has said is entirely fair, but we must come to a practical conclusion. It is clear that the undertaking we gave as a party to support the line taken by Plaid Cymru still stands, but the practical problem is that the Government have firmly rejected it. In these circumstances, the sensible thing to do is to seek a compromise between the two positions, and that is what our amendment is designed to do.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It is unfortunate to hear that argument in relation to standing up for Wales. On the one hand we have a Secretary of State who will not meet the Committee in the Assembly, and on the other hand we have a parliamentary Labour party that is not standing up for its colleagues in Wales.

But we move ahead. The second argument that I would use to those who argue against a separate Welsh jurisdiction is that, in many ways, the significance of divergence is beside the point. It is evident that these complex clauses and tests have to be included throughout the new Bill simply to accommodate the fact that Wales does not have a separate legal jurisdiction. Such clauses and tests, incidentally, have been described by distinguished legal experts, as I have mentioned, as

“a failure of comparative legal method”,

and according to the constitution unit they

“jar with basic constitutional principle”.

The inclusion of those clauses specifically because of the need to shore up the unified legal system is reason enough in itself, I would argue, to create a Welsh jurisdiction. To argue that it is unnecessary is to disregard completely the wealth of evidence that has emerged since the publication of the draft Bill last autumn. Stubbornly resisting that evidence will only lead to continued cases in the Supreme Court. I challenge anyone to justify making a Government accountable to a judge rather than to a legislature, but the Bill effectively enshrines such resort in law.

As our explanatory statement makes clear, amendment 5 was drafted by the Welsh Government, and it was included in annex C to the report by the constitution unit at UCL and the Wales Governance Centre earlier this year. I am, as I have mentioned, therefore very surprised to see the amendments tabled by Labour Members, which go against the views of their own party in Wales. I recognise that the official Opposition Front-Bench team has been through something of a reshuffle recently, and I am, incidentally, very pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has finally been offered the job that he should have been given a long time ago. I take this opportunity to welcome him to his post.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

There is a conciliatory note in what the hon. Lady says. In this great new world of conciliation, does she agree with her party leader in Cardiff, Leanne Wood, that what we need at this time is greater working together, even if it sometimes means in Cardiff greater working together between Plaid and Labour?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure we will work together when it is for the best for Wales, but I understand that that is not the case in Cardiff, and Plaid Cymru will, of course, be standing for the arguments that we believe in our hearts to be for the best for Wales.

To reiterate, I ask the shadow Secretary of State for Wales to support our amendment, which will implement what his colleagues in the Welsh Government have been calling for. We have had the prelegislative scrutiny, and the evidence is there. It is clear that we must act to create a new Welsh jurisdiction, and the amendments tabled by Labour would simply kick the issue into the long grass. As I have said, Plaid Cymru is far from alone in making this call. The evidence supports our position and the Labour-run Welsh Government have called for this step—the wording on the amendment paper is theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am not disagreeing with those on my Front Bench—I have made it clear that we are looking for a pragmatic way forward. For Scotland and Northern Ireland the history is very different, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. In Wales we can go back to the 1530s and the Tudors for the origins of the single legal jurisdiction, but the position is very different for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Why do we now have the opportunity to consider a more pragmatic way forward? Amendment 7 makes it clear that there will be a review to consider the functioning of the system. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd made a point about having two legislatures within the single legal jurisdiction. That is unusual, but it does not mean that there cannot be a pragmatic way forward for the years ahead. Indeed, the amendment includes a proposal to always have regard to the divergence in the law. The Bill explicitly recognises the Welsh body of law, and there will be one because as the legislature goes forward, it will produce the case law to form that. There must be an annual report on the functioning of the justice system—something that I suggest all Members of the House should welcome.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current situation, whereby issues or disagreements about the status of legal proposals by the Welsh Assembly are resolved in the Supreme Court, is a satisfactory way for the legislature to proceed?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Of course we would all like the Supreme Court to be used far less to resolve conflict between the Governments in Wales and in Westminster, but I am not sure that having a separate legal jurisdiction would have any real substantial short-term impact on that. The Bill is now far better and we have sought to improve it, but the clarity of the provisions—particularly removing all but two necessity tests—has made a great difference and I hope it will mean that there should be far less conflict in the Supreme Court.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore propose that clauses 1 to 4 and schedule 4 stand part of the Bill, and urge Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to close this debate, Sir Alan. I will restrict my comments to amendments 5 and 7 on jurisdiction, although I appreciate the comments the Under-Secretary made about the areas that he will reconsider. I intend to withdraw amendment 17 and to divide the Committee only on amendment 5.

In my opening speech, I referred to the arguments about divergence that are made against separate legal jurisdictions, but the overriding need to maintain a single legal jurisdiction leads to many of the complications and areas that cause a lack of clarity in the Bill.

Other issues were raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made much of somewhat speculative cross-border cases. It is evident that Hadrian’s wall is no more a barrier to the functioning of law in the United Kingdom now than Offa’s Dyke would be in the future. It is effectively an argument for the right of Welsh lawyers to practise in Bristol, which is a very worthy cause but not what we are here to discuss.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It was not so much speculation as experience that I was drawing upon. My point was not about lawyers, but about the uncertainty that would be created for my constituents and others by such cross-border cases if there were different jurisdictions.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

That very question is dealt with across the land border between Scotland and England. There is also a tradition in respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I felt that Labour was almost clutching at straws to find ways to disagree with what Plaid Cymru was proposing. Indeed, our amendment 5 uses the very words proposed by the Labour Welsh Government.

I reiterate what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) said: the issue of jurisdiction will not go away and we will continue discussing it in the future. It is an argument about gradualism that we have here today. We know that a separate body of Welsh law is developing, and as the Welsh Assembly matures, that body will grow. These questions cry out for an answer in the shorter term, rather than this piecemeal approach.

In closing, the historical realities of Northern Ireland and Scotland are indeed different from that of Wales, but we are making the historical reality of Wales today in this Committee and we should be proud of what we achieve. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 5, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 6 and insert—

“Part 2B

Separation of the Legal Jurisdiction of England and Wales

Introductory

92B New legal jurisdictions of England and of Wales

The legal jurisdiction of England and Wales becomes two separate legal jurisdictions, that of England and that of Wales.

Separation of the law

92C The law extending to England and Wales

(1) All of the law that extends to England and Wales—

(a) except in so far as it applies only in relation to Wales, is to extend to England, and

(b) except in so far as it applies only in relation to England, is to extend to Wales.

(2) In subsection (1) “law” includes—

(a) rules and principles of common law and equity,

(b) provision made by, or by an instrument made under, an Act of Parliament or an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) provision made pursuant to the prerogative.

(3) Any provision of any enactment or instrument enacted or made, but not in force, when subsection (1) comes into force is to be treated for the purposes of that subsection as part of the law that extends to England and Wales (but this subsection does not affect provision made for its coming into force).

Separation of the Senior Courts

92D Separation of Senior Courts system

(1) The Senior Courts of England and Wales cease to exist (except for the purposes of section 6) and there are established in place of them—

(a) the Senior Courts of England, and

(b) the Senior Courts of Wales.

(2) The Senior Courts of England consist of—

(a) the Court of Appeal of England,

(b) the High Court of England, and

(c) the Crown Court of England, each having the same jurisdiction in England as is exercised by the corresponding court in England and Wales immediately before subsection (1) comes into force.

(3) The Senior Courts of Wales consist of—

(a) the Court of Appeal of Wales,

(b) the High Court of Wales, and

(c) the Crown Court of Wales, each having the same jurisdiction in Wales as is exercised by the corresponding court in England and Wales immediately before subsection (1) comes into force.

(4) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England is the court corresponding to the Court of Appeal of England and the Court of Appeal of Wales,

(b) Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England is the court corresponding to the High Court of England and the High Court of Wales, and

(c) the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is the court corresponding to the Crown Court of England and the Crown Court of Wales.

(5) References in enactments or instruments to the Senior Courts of England and Wales have effect (as the context requires) as references to the Senior Courts of England or the Senior Courts of Wales, or both; and

(6) References in enactments or instruments to Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England, Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England or the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 (however expressed) have effect (as the context requires) as references to either or both of the courts to which they correspond.

92E The judiciary and court officers

(1) All of the judges and other officers of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England or Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England become judges or officers of both of the courts to which that court corresponds.

(2) The persons by whom the jurisdiction of the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is exercisable become the persons by whom the jurisdiction of both of the courts to which that court corresponds is exercisable; but (despite section 8(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981)—

(a) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in Wales may not by virtue of this subsection exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court of England, and

(b) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in England may not by virtue of this subsection exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court of Wales.

92F Division of business between courts of England and courts of Wales

(1) The Senior Courts of England, the county courts for districts in England and the justices for local justice areas in England have jurisdiction over matters relating to England; and (subject to the rules of private international law relating to the application of foreign law) the law that they are to apply is the law extending to England.

(2) The Senior Courts of Wales, the county courts for districts in Wales and the justices for local justice areas in Wales have jurisdiction over matters relating to Wales; and (subject to the rules of private international law relating to the application of foreign law) the law that they are to apply is the law extending to Wales.

92G Transfer of current proceedings

(1) All proceedings, whether civil or criminal, pending in any of the Senior Courts of England and Wales (including proceedings in which a judgment or order has been given or made but not enforced) shall be transferred by that court to whichever of the courts to which that court corresponds appears appropriate.

(2) The transferred proceedings are to continue as if the case had originated in, and the previous proceedings had been taken in, that other court.”—(Liz Saville Roberts.)

This amendment replaces the Bill’s proposed recognition of Welsh law with provisions to separate the legal jurisdictions of England and of Wales, as drafted by the Welsh Government.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

It does not much matter what I or the hon. Gentleman think—it has far more to do with what the electorate in Wales think. In all seriousness, this is about how we get the best deal for people in Wales, and for those of us who have never had an ideological objection to the Assembly having tax-raising powers, what we are proposing is sensible, workable, and goes with the grain of the majority of opinion in the Assembly, in this House and across Wales. The hon. Gentleman will probably disagree with me, but he said something interesting about how the Welsh Assembly, which was elected in 1997 with a small majority, has turned into something that very few people in Wales would want to get rid of, and quite right too. I think that this change and incremental increase in devolution, and the support for further fiscal powers, is right and proper, and it is time that the House supported it.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to speak against clause 10 and the imposition of an obligation on the Assembly to undertake and publish justice impact assessments for Assembly Bills. Such assessments are intended to set out the potential impact of a Bill’s provisions on the justice system in England and Wales, and specifically on the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, courts and prisons. The obligation to undertake justice impact assessments—or justice impact tests—in Westminster Departments is voluntary in the sense that the UK Ministry of Justice provides guidance as a tool to help policy makers find the best way to achieve their policy aim. If the guidance approach is appropriate for Westminster, why should it be deemed acceptable to place an obligation on the Assembly by means of its own Standing Orders?

[Mr Mark Williams]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns over clause 10. In many ways the Bill includes a welcome approach for the Assembly to regulate its own affairs, so does she agree that this measure is inconsistent with the rest of the Bill?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It is also being imposed on the Assembly through its own Standing Orders. In that same spirit, surely the Standing Orders of the Assembly should be a matter for Assembly Members alone, especially bearing in mind that the Bill trumpets its credentials as the harbinger of a new model of reserved powers. No other legislature in the UK is denied the freedom to decide on its own legislative process and Standing Orders. There is nothing of the kind in Northern Ireland, Scotland or England, and nothing currently in Wales. No reciprocal arrangement is in place whereby UK Government Bills are required—voluntarily or otherwise— to assess what impact they will have on Assembly responsibilities in Wales. What impact, for example, will the building of the super-prison in Wrexham have on public service provision in the area, the national health service and transport?

Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Craig Williams]

I am going to touch on something that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said. I agree that this is a pragmatic solution to a thorny issue, and I cannot see why the distinct arrangements would not stand the test of time as the body of Welsh law emerges. This is a significant change.

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

In that case, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the findings of the working group will be extremely important to our discussions on the Bill? Given that it is going to report back in the autumn, should we not ensure that its findings are incorporated in the Bill?

[Craig Williams]

Being a new Member of Parliament, I am guessing that that will fit into the timetable of the Bill’s passage through the House, given that we do not exactly rush things here. I think the Secretary of State alluded to the fact that that work would be carried out coterminously. I look forward to the findings; they will be important and they will perhaps bring Members together to deal with the thorny issue of jurisdiction. I am looking forward to the findings of the working group and I hope that they will be produced in a timely fashion so that we can consider them in Committee. These proposals represent a significant change from those in the draft Bill.

I support the proposals on the judicial impact assessments. I do not follow the rationale behind the objections to them. Any sensible institution or Government would have them, but I look forward to sitting down and discussing that rationale with anyone who opposes them. Adopting those assessments would be a sensible approach. Similarly, the electoral arrangements have been a long time coming. As I have said, it is not right that we in this place should debate how many Assembly Members there should be or at what age people in Wales should have the vote. The new arrangements are quite right, and if the Assembly chose to call itself the Welsh Parliament, I would be entirely relaxed about that—a rose by any other name—given that it is making laws, generating revenue and borrowing against capital.

In drawing my contribution to a close, I wish to talk about two practical things. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned ports and the protections on trust ports, particularly Milford Haven. Some 62% of all UK natural gas is coming through that port, so I judge it to be a port of national infrastructure on a UK level, and it is entirely warranted that there is protection there. I have alluded to a welcome, practical measure on bus regulation, which I see as an excellent step forward for what the Welsh Government have been trying to do on integrating transport. It is also an excellent step forward for local authorities. I served on the board of Cardiff Bus, the largest south Wales bus company, and I think this measure will enable the integrated approach between buses, city regions and the train services.

I hope that the Bill has a speedy and successful passage through the House, and I very much look forward to seeing what the Welsh Government do with these powers and, as I said to the hon. Member for Islwyn, the business rates and the huge powers and levers the Welsh Government currently have to better the lives of my constituents and the people of Wales. I commend this Bill, I thank the Secretary of State and his team, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Am fod yn bowld, fe gymeraf y cyfle i ddweud rhyw frawddeg arall yn Gymraeg. If I was braver, I would probably carry on, but it did seem appropriate to get more than the usual introduction and salutation in Welsh in today on the Floor of the House.

As a relatively new MP, one of the 2015 generation, it seems to me that successive Secretaries of State for Wales are fond of bigging up Wales Bills as “generational milestones”. These landmarks of legislation are intended to stand as rocks of ages, directing the flow of governance with their permanence. I am a new MP, yet already I have seen Wales Bills come and Wales Bills go. Although I am impassioned with the will to empower Wales, I fear that the House must be concerned that this Bill, yet again, is a cypher for the ongoing tussle between Westminster Departments desperate to protect their little empires and the National Assembly for Wales—not the Welsh Government—seeking the tools to do its job.

For a second time, the laudable concept of reserved powers, which was so well explained by my neighbour the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies)—the hon. Member for Trefaldwyn—is in a reality little more than a series of glosses scribbled over the Government of Wales Act 2006: a cross-referencing exercise for lawyers and academics, shuffling backwards and forwards among documents. The people of Wales deserve clarity and permanence, whereas this remains an exercise in safeguarding the status quo and legislative sacred cows. The Government make much of lessons learnt from the draft Bill: the necessity tests have almost disappeared; ministerial consents no longer apply to so-called “Wales public bodies”, but they remain none the less; and the previous 267 reservations have been whittled down to 250. This is hardly evidence of a change of heart, although I particularly welcome the devolution of powers of heritage railways, having six in my constituency—very lovely they are, too, and I recommend a visit to any of them.

The Government have still got us jumping through hoops to maintain the fiction of a unified legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, when the very existence of the legislature at the Senedd, the growing body of Welsh legislation and the vast majority voice of civil and professional opinion together, in consensus, prove otherwise. Perhaps talk of distinct legal jurisdiction is the domain of political obsessives—we have heard this already this afternoon—but it is the very fabric of the infrastructure of government. It is boring, in the same way that the infrastructure of a country is boring, and roads and railways are boring—unless we have to travel to get somewhere and be there on time.

Wales is on a journey. Each new piece of constitutional legislation promises to deliver us at our destination, but the road ahead is not yet clear. We have had 17 years of learning to walk, but why are we still to be hobbled when we want to run? The present England and Wales single legal jurisdiction is past its sell-by date; it yokes together two diverging legal landscapes. Acknowledging this reality will remove the problem. Attempting to tie them together with legal shackles only underlines how much this is really about asserting London’s sovereignty over Wales—the last of the home colonies—and how little it is about mutual respect and support among equals.

What we have allegedly gained in the vaunted listening exercise between this Bill and the draft Bill runs the risk of being little more than a sleight of hand and a change of name. Out go necessity tests and in come justice impact assessments and a diktat to Assembly Standing Orders, which impose—as compulsory—something that Westminster treats as optional in its own affairs.

We are told that the protocol for dealing with disputes as a result of these assessments will be determined by the Justice in Wales working group—I am glad to learn of that working group, as it reflects the concern that some of us on the Welsh Affairs Committee had with the draft Wales Bill and that we raised in our report. None the less, it does concern me that there is no mention of these justice impact assessments in the working group’s remit. Indeed, there are concerns all round.

[Alun Cairns]

Does the hon. Lady accept that a justice impact assessment is a sensible thing for any mature legislature to have in relation to the scrutiny of legislation? If she does, what is her objection or question when I say that it is merely a statement of fact that helps with the scrutiny of a Bill, as we have not had justice impact assessments up until now?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I note first of all that the impact assessments are compulsory in that they would be compulsory in their effect. However, for this Bill, they are not compulsory, but optional. We do not know for sure what results they could trigger. It interests me that they are not in the working group remit, but that they appear in the Bill. We should explore more fully what their impact is likely to be. Yes, at face value, they are to be welcomed, but we need to know more about them. We need to know the mechanism by which we will know more about them, and we need to be sure that that will feed into the process of this Bill.

Indeed, there are concerns all round about the pace of the Bill’s introduction, the need for scrutiny on its workability and how it synchronises with the timetable of the justice working group, which reports in the autumn. I anticipate that the Secretary of State will outline how these material issues co-ordinate, but I am disappointed that we are being asked to vote today on matters about which so many questions remain unanswered.

In passing, I also note further concerns about the working group. I seek a guarantee that the interests of Westminster departmental workings will be secondary to the best interests of Wales with regard to membership, remit and stakeholder evidence. To reiterate, I ask the Secretary of State to assure me that this Bill will not reach its Committee stage until the working group has reported. It would be unacceptable to move ahead in the present state of uncertainty.

I recall that, in discussions on the draft Bill, the sheer unworkability of the foundation principles meant that the reservations themselves did not receive proper attention. That must not happen again. We have had many speeches about the potential of Wales—I applaud the speech of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) who is no longer in his place—and how the Wales Bill should be looking to realise the fantastic future for Wales. We should be optimistic in our anticipations.

In fact, rather than giving the people of Wales more control over their own resources, some aspects of the Bill give the UK Government a greater hold. Clause 44 amends section 114 of the Government of Wales Act 2006—a section that gives the UK Government a veto on any Welsh legislation or measure that has an adverse impact on water quality or supply in England. Incidentally, that section is exclusive to the Welsh devolution settlement. It appears in neither the Scottish nor the Northern Ireland settlements. Rather than removing this section, bringing Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, clause 44 extends the veto to cover anything that has an adverse impact on sewerage systems in England, too—so we have water and now we have sewerage.

In last October’s debate on the flooding of Capel Celyn, I recall the Secretary of State referring to the joint Government review programme and how it was considering the Silk commission’s recommendation on water. I understand that this group is to report shortly. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be minded to amend the Bill to include a reciprocal power for the Welsh Government to veto UK Government measures that impact on Wales, or perhaps he will see sense and remove clause 44 from the Bill. That will, at long last, right the wrong of Capel Celyn and give Wales full powers over our own water.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

Well—[Interruption]—as the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) just said from the Treasury Bench, it took 13 years for it to become a Labour manifesto commitment, yet we have delivered it within a few months of having a majority Conservative Government. I think we should be very proud of the fact that we have delivered that funding floor.

Significant questions have been asked about the retention of the two necessity tests. Those two tests are justified. We are saying clearly that there is a necessity test where the Assembly is legislating on matters that affect England. That is the right thing to do because there is an issue of accountability and democracy, and I do not think the Assembly should be legislating on issues that relate to England without having the necessity test. In the same way, where the Assembly seeks to legislate on matters that relate to reserved powers, it is important to have that necessity test. It should be noted that that second test is also in the Scottish Bill.

The hon. Member for Llanelli asked whether there will be a disincentive for devolved ports to grow. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill is clear that the sum in question is a fixed sum at the point at which this Bill is passed. For example, if a port has a turnover of £14 million, it will be devolved; if it then grows, it will remain devolved. There is no prospect of a clawback. In relation to a trust port, the argument for retaining responsibility for Milford Haven in Westminster is clearly made by the fact that it is responsible for 62% of all our gas imports. But this is again a step in the right direction and if, for example, as a result of the Welsh Government or the Welsh Assembly’s activity there is growth in the ports of Holyhead or Newport, they will remain part of the responsibility of the Welsh Government. That is a step in the right direction.

The hon. Member for Arfon mentioned that there is a difference between the way we treat water services and sewerage. The reason why one is mentioned in the Bill and the other is not is because we are now equalising the situation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are also looking carefully at the situation in relation to water, and more information will be forthcoming at a future point.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West, highlighted issues in relation to energy. It is fair to say that this House has legislated to pass responsibility for wind farm developments to local authorities in Wales, and I think there should be a challenge to the Welsh Government as to why they do not trust local authorities with that responsibility. The Energy Act 2016 made that commitment to a local level of control on wind farms. I think we should all challenge the Welsh Government as to why they are unwilling to trust the local people on an issue of that nature.

The capacity of power lines was also touched on. Again, clarity is required here. It is correct to say that there will be a limitation in that power lines going across the border at a higher level than 132 kV will remain the responsibility of Westminster whereas other such matters will be devolved. This, too, is a significant step in the right direction that will make a real difference for economic development in Wales.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion highlighted three matters on the reservation list and asked why they had been reserved. One was the Severn crossing, which I touched on in an intervention. We believe that it is inappropriate to devolve powers over the Severn bridges when three of the four landing points are in England. That would be taking devolution to an extent that would bring it into disrepute. He also asked about prostitution, which does not fall into the category of legislating for criminal behaviour. It falls under schedule 2, because the aim is to ensure that there is no possibility of changing the legislation. We had to place it separately within the legislation in order to respond to legal constraints. He also asked about heating and cooling systems, and the aim there is to ensure that everything to do with electricity and gas appliances is regulated in the same manner across England and Wales. Again, this is an effort to ensure clarity.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West asked about speed limits being devolved. It is important to point out that that was a recommendation by the Silk commission. The proposal was also part of the St David’s day process and there was agreement on it at that stage. Also, changes to speed limits in Wales are already being implemented at local authority level, so we believe that this is an appropriate change.

It is fair to say that this is a complex and difficult Bill. It has had a long gestation period, and it is been subject to significant scrutiny here in the House and in the Welsh Assembly, as well as by civic society in Wales.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

A number of Members have asked about the timing in relation to the Justice in Wales working group. I would appreciate a response on whether we will get the report back from the working group before the Bill goes into Committee, because it will be relevant to our work there.

[Guto Bebb]

In my view, it is unlikely that the report will be produced before the Committee stage, but it is possible that it will be with us before Report and Third Reading. Obviously, decisions relating to Report and Third Reading will be made by the Leader of the House. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some certainty.

As I was saying, this is an important Bill. It clarifies the devolution settlement and puts into place the St David’s day agreement. It makes devolution clearer by putting in place a reserved powers model of devolution for Wales, with a clearer line between what is devolved and what is reserved, and I think that most people in Wales—especially the politicians—will welcome that clarity. It strengthens devolution through a further historic transfer of powers, and those powers will make a real difference to the lives of people in Wales. It will make devolution fairer, and it removes the requirement for a referendum before the devolution of income tax in order to ensure that that accountability exists. It is fair to say that we have listened to the concerns raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and made significant changes to try to address those concerns. As a result, we have in front of us a much improved Bill that deserves to go before a Committee of this House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.



WALES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Wales Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee

2. Proceedings in the Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.

3. The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.

4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

We of course discuss a range of issues that affect the Welsh economy. A Brexit vote would of course affect the Welsh economy in a negative way, with a £2 billion cost to the Welsh economy, costing 24,000 jobs. As we speak, we are seeing some spectacular employment data, but they are based on strong economic foundations and access to 500 million customers across Europe.

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

11. Given that Wales is already underfunded by the Barnett formula and the UK Government, what detailed guarantees can the Secretary of State give that the £245 million actually reaches Wales?

[Alun Cairns]

I do not necessarily recognise the basis of the question. The hon. Lady forgets the historic funding floor, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced at 115%. That demonstrates the strength of the commitment that this Government are showing to Wales.

Macur Review of Historical Child Abuse

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Macur Review into historic child abuse.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today. I am sure we are all saddened by the news we are hearing from Brussels.

I will start by putting on record my thanks to the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for his statement last week. I also congratulate him on his new role in government. I also congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister on their promotions. I look forward to working constructively with both of them in what I am sure will be an eventful year. I also pay tribute to many colleagues across the House for their work, especially the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who I am delighted to see with us this afternoon. She has campaigned tirelessly for the victims and survivors of child abuse in Wales and beyond.

The publication of the Macur review’s report was long overdue. For the survivors of these abhorrent events, it represented hope: that they would see justice; that their accounts of events would be vindicated; that the nagging doubts and conspiracy theories would be either verified or dispelled; and that the whole would be conducted disinterestedly without fear or favour. Unfortunately, the report, which includes more than 600 redactions, adds virtually nothing to our understanding of how the state failed so many children over so many years in north Wales.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady has already had survivors contact her to say how disappointed they were. The report was their hope that there would be recognition, but all it does is leave unanswered questions still unanswered.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree. It seems to have been very much a matter of process and documentation, with survivors and victims as a second consideration. I will return to that.

The report culminates in a bland list of eight conclusions, which mainly state that Waterhouse was necessary, agree with the instigation of this inquiry, say that neither is a substitute for criminal proceedings and that the experience of giving evidence is difficult for survivors. The six recommendations include the platitudes that inquiries should be “above reproach”; that evidence should not be lost; that there is no purpose in further inquiries; and about the hazards of hindsight. I will return to recommendation 5 later.

Macur was the third review of its kind after the Jillings panel and the Waterhouse tribunal. We will have to wait a further two and a half years before we learn of the findings of Goddard’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in particular criticised the timescale, saying that despite the “drawn out process”, the report reveals “barely anything”. It expressed concern that that might deter victims from coming forward during the ongoing Operation Pallial.

I turn to redactions: the removal of names and details by which people might be identified. On my count—I may be wrong, although I counted twice—there are 633 redactions in the report. Although many will be duplications, the Secretary of State and the Minister must appreciate that that number is extremely high. The previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, said in his statement last week that redactions had been “kept to a minimum”. While I, and I am sure many people here, accept that some redactions must be made, particularly given the ongoing court proceedings and the potential for further actions, I put it to the House that to claim that redactions in the report have been kept to a minimum is frankly disingenuous.

I am particularly concerned about the extremely high number of redactions in chapters 7 and 8 on freemasonry and establishment figures respectively. Lady Justice Macur made recommendations in her report to the Secretaries of State on what should be redacted in the published report. She said:

“It is for the Secretaries of State to determine any further redaction of my Report weighing public interest with the caution”.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. One of the few positives to come out of Waterhouse was the setting up of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales. Given the strong statement that the commissioner made, does she agree that the Government must be clear about the methodology that arrived at so many redactions?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree entirely. I will refer to what the Children’s Commissioner for Wales said anon and I hope that the Minister will be in a position to respond to her call as well as those we are making today.

The previous Secretary of State also said that the rationale behind making the redactions, as set out in the letters to the Secretaries of State by the Treasury Solicitor and the director general of propriety and ethics, “explain the reasons…fully”. However, I put it to the Minister that those justifications are weak and bland. I sympathise with the views expressed by victims and by the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, as just mentioned, who believe that the UK Government need to be more open about the process by which redactions were made. First, I ask the Minister to tell the House how many redactions were made in addition to those suggested by Lady Macur. Secondly, will he publish further information about why those additional redactions were made and what the process was in coming to a decision on them?

Especially alarming—possibly more so—are the numerous serious cases of missing or destroyed evidence at several different points during the various inquiries. Lady Justice Macur’s report refers to individuals who have implied in written evidence that they hold information about abusers who were not investigated by the police or the tribunal. She states that following an interview with—redacted name—she made a request for materials said by that person to be relevant to the review and stored by a solicitor. She goes on to say that that solicitor had since left the relevant practice and that the files in question were destroyed. She even says that the person at the firm dealing with her request recalled that, before the files were destroyed, the solicitor in question had visited the office and

“may have taken any documents he considered worthy of retention.”

The report states that the solicitor in question had failed to respond to correspondence from Lady Macur. Does the Minister consider that a satisfactory conclusion to that line of inquiry? Is simply ignoring correspondence until the problem goes away all one needs to do to get away with a crime? Even ignoring the allegation that the solicitor may have removed evidence, is the Minister satisfied that it would be standard practice to destroy recently archived data?

Unfortunately, that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to missing or destroyed evidence. The greatest cause for concern in relation to the process and documentation is of course the fate of the Waterhouse tribunal’s evidence originally handed over to the Welsh Office in 1998. Those documents—it says this in the report—were supposed to be archived securely for 75 years. That did not happen. The evidence received scant respect at the Welsh Office and it was then shuffled over to the Welsh Government.

This is simply a catalogue of data mismanagement: dependency on technology that becomes dated and corrupted; destruction of hardware and tapes; boxes of evidence in disorder; and a reference index that lists 718 boxes while only 398 were initially made available. It remains unclear how many boxes of evidence were finally handed over to Lady Justice Macur, but documents were still coming to light on 1 December last year. It should be noted that the report was presented on 10 December. That methodology does not instil confidence.

The significance of the destroyed computer database cannot be overestimated. That was the record of all documentation. Against that database, if extant, it would have been possible to come to a view as to whether significant evidence was present or missing. Macur states:

“It is impossible to confidently report that I have seen all the documentation that was before the Tribunal.”

We cannot therefore come empirically to an opinion on whether material has been lost, removed or concealed.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I interviewed six young men some years ago in the Cynon Valley. Those boys were taken to north Wales, and that may be true of boys from other parts of south Wales as well. This is talked about as the north Wales abuse inquiry, but it is sometimes forgotten that the children came from all over Wales. Those boys’ reports were harrowing, as Members can imagine. It is an absolute disgrace that there are so many missing documents; I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. Where have they gone? Who is responsible? Lots of the evidence given to the Jillings report, which preceded the Waterhouse inquiry, has also gone missing. Where is it? Who did that, and what were they hiding?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree. There is a history, as the right hon. Lady mentioned, of a loss of evidence associated with child abuse. I refer also to the Geoffrey Dickens dossier. I ask the Minister to consider whether victims and survivors of abuse in Wales—not only north Wales, of course—can, in all honesty, be satisfied with the findings of this report.

Now that the Macur review has been published, we are left with the overall lasting impression that documentation and process have been more important than securing justice for the victims and survivors of the abuse that was perpetrated, which should have been the overarching responsibility and purpose of the review. Symptomatic of that concern for documentation and process rather than for the victims and survivors of abuse was the failure to speak to them individually. The review held a public session in Wrexham in June 2013. The review’s website states that, on that day, Lady Justice Macur

“met privately with anyone who asked to do so”

and that the review

“met with numerous individuals with relevant information.”

However, I have spoken with one of the survivors, Keith Gregory, who is a point of contact for other victims and survivors of abuse, and he has informed me that arrangements for interviews were forgotten by the review.

Adding to the undermining of the victims and survivors of abuse are the definitions of “unreliable witnesses” and “multiple hearsay”. Those unfortunate terms were used at the time by people working within the Wales Office to dismiss those who had approached them to demand that attention be focused on investigating abuse that later turned out to be true and to be widespread. The terms are still in use today and are very potent.

It is unfortunate that, due to misguided and wild accusations that emanated from multiple investigations into prominent public figures, sympathy for the survivors and victims of historical child abuse has swung away from them to incorrectly accused individuals. Obviously, the cases of figures such as Lord Edwin Bramall and Harvey Proctor—this, of course, is relevant to news we have heard in recent days—have demonstrated the need to proceed with care and caution when investigations are carried out. However, the danger is that the popular and media perception focuses on sympathy for wronged figures at the expense of genuine victims and survivors. The sensationalist and prurient nature of the subject matter makes a good tabloid story, but surely society should make every effort to respect the suffering of all innocents caught up in both perpetration and accusation.

Ultimately, after reading the Macur review, I am left with the impression that many points still need to be explained and explored under the public gaze. I am particularly concerned about recommendation 5, which I do not interpret in the same way as the Secretary of State for Wales did in his statement last week. He referred to one alleged incident of criminal charges, but Lady Justice Macur’s recommendation seems far more wide-reaching. It concerns me that the Secretary of State appears to have been at pains to restrict the scope of recommendation 5, and I seek a further explanation of what steps will be taken.

The role of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales should be strengthened, which she mentioned in an interview on “Sunday Politics Wales” at the weekend. The commissioner, Sally Holland, called for greater powers, noting that the commissioner’s powers in relation to complaints, advocacy and whistleblowing should be extended to include any area that involves the abuse of children. Might I suggest the Government examine that point and perhaps, if appropriate, include it when they inevitably strengthen and revise the initial draft of the Wales Bill? Will the UK Government work with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Children’s Commissioner has the full range of powers she believes she needs to ensure the full and adequate protection of children?

The Children’s Commissioner also called for the Government to publish or explain information regarding who identified what number of redactions and in which chapter; that is an important point. We are aware that an unredacted copy of the review has been forwarded to the Goddard inquiry, but that will not report until the end of 2018 and will therefore be another long process for the survivors, who have waited for many years already. Victims and survivors need to know what the methodology and process for deciding upon redactions were; the Government owe them that. I note that the only politicians to have had sight of the unredacted version so far all belong to the Government. That does not seem right. It is also clear that there needs to be a strengthened status for evidence from child abuse inquiries, including its preservation, which is a wider point for any Government inquiry.

There undoubtedly needs to be a commitment to ensure that children’s voices are heard in the criminal justice system, in health and social care and in any other sector that involves the care of children and contains the potential for abuse. Rather than simply a platitude that seeks to soothe and reassure in the face of public anger and is then forgotten as time rolls on, we need to change the way in which children’s voices are heard during such processes, in concrete and administrative terms.

[Mark Tami]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about children’s voices being heard. In many of these cases, because the children were in a home, they were not considered to have any value, and that is why they were treated in the way they were. That, in some ways, is the worst aspect of this whole miserable, dreadful business.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

One thing that has saddened me is perceiving how vulnerable these children were, which made them vulnerable to abuse in the first place, and how that abuse in turn has affected them for the rest of their lives and in part condemns them to being unreliable witnesses. We have not served them well; there is no denying that.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the speech she is making. In terms of process, is she surprised, as I am, at the paucity of reference to the linguistic context in which this happened in Wales—specifically in north Wales and north-west Wales, where a percentage of the children would be Welsh-speaking? I detect very few references to that in either the Macur report or, in fact, the Waterhouse report, which I read many years ago.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Indeed. We are talking about children’s voices, and one aspect of that is whether people are able to use their first language, in which they are most confident and express their emotions most fluently.

Finally, one critical lesson to be learned—I again echo the Children’s Commissioner for Wales—is that reviews from now on must be centred on the victims and the survivors. They should have the opportunity to advise on both the remit and process of an inquiry and should be properly supported at all stages. They, of course, are the people who live with this experience for their whole lives, and it has been a terrible experience. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Macur Review

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

We absolutely put on the record today our thanks for and appreciation of the hard work of those who work in the care sector, supporting vulnerable children wherever they are in the United Kingdom

The National Crime Agency has kept me regularly updated with the progress of Operation Pallial. Just yesterday, I had further discussions with the agency’s deputy director. I am absolutely confident that the NCA is vigorously pursuing all lines of investigation.

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

Abuse survivors will be dismayed at this morning’s litany of name-concealing and the destruction of evidence. They may rightly feel that their evidence is transient, disposable and not worth safeguarding. How will the Secretary of State work with the Children’s Commissioner for Wales and the Welsh Government to ensure that lessons are learned and that this never happens again?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady is right that people will still be feeling like that. All I would say is that they should take the time to go through the report and look at how Lady Justice Macur has handled to the very best of her ability all the sensitive, difficult questions that have plagued survivors for years and years. A lot of lessons have already been learned from the events we are talking about. As I said in answer to a question a few moments ago, that is not to say we are complacent, as there is always more we can learn as a society. But in terms of where we are in Wales right now, we have the Children’s Commissioner and the work that the Welsh Government are doing. There is good collaboration between UK Departments and the Welsh Government on these issues to do with social services, childcare and vulnerable people. The work is positive and will carry on.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 24th February 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this issue. He highlights the fact that the HS2 project is truly a national scheme. The Crewe hub offers significant potential to north Wales and to the northern powerhouse. I recently met the North Wales-Mersey Dee alliance rail taskforce, which also recognises the potential of north Wales for the northern powerhouse and the northern powerhouse for north Wales.

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

Much is rightly made of trends in employment in Wales, but average full-time workers’ pay in my constituency has dropped by 12% in the past two years. What is the Secretary of State doing to bring infrastructure projects, along with science and technology salaries, to Llanbedr and Trawsfynydd in Dwyfor Meirionnydd?

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Lady is naturally a true champion not only of her own constituency but the whole of north Wales. She will welcome the significant investment in the prison in Wrexham and the £20 billion investment that Wylfa Newydd will bring. She has also shown interest in the modular nuclear projects at Trawsfynydd. I recently met the leader of Gwynedd Council to discuss the prospects that could result from my right hon. Friend the Chancellor’s announcement in the Budget making £250 million available for this scheme.

Draft Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

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

Have we not been told that we cannot even consider a distinct legal jurisdiction? We have not even got to the position where we discuss maturely what this actually means. That surely is something that we should look at and go into greater detail about, but we have not had the room to discuss it properly.

[Craig Williams]

I have never known Plaid Cymru to wait for permission to discuss or look at something. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that she should seek our permission before exploring anything, I welcome that due deference, but I do not think that that is the case. If someone had a clear definition of “distinct jurisdiction” it would have been published and it would be out there. There would be a clear answer, but no one in the Committee can answer the question of what a distinct jurisdiction is.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

To be fair, there are three models in the Bill.

[Craig Williams]

At least. The hon. Lady emphasises my point for me. She is asking for clarity in the draft Bill, and this is the panacea that people come up with. There are already three models. If we want clarity, “distinct jurisdiction” does not solve the problem. I think that in many areas of law Wales already has it, so I do not see why we need to make reference beyond this practical solution. I accept what the Secretary of State said about protocol and looking at the way in which our legal system operates. That is a separate issue—a distinct issue—from what we are talking about, but there is bit of maturity in Welsh politics and where the Assembly is at. We should recognise that it now has the power to effect laws, and it has, for the sake of argument, a distinct jurisdiction, but I still holds my hands up, as I have no idea what that means.

On reserved matters, we have seen some welcome movement by the Secretary of State and the Wales Office, but I see the complications. Space is an obvious one. Why on earth is that in the Bill? I wholly welcome the spaceport—it should of course go to north Wales. The industry, the sector and the technology are developing and they need to be future-proofed. The Bill should be future-proofed, and space should be a reserved matter—but we could argue at length about hovercraft.

To conclude, there is a clash between political reality and academia. I find completely bemusing the emotive terms that some academics and Welsh politicians have used when discussing the Bill. I can see how people can get emotional about a Commonwealth games bid from Wales and about the city deal for Cardiff and the transformational effect on south Wales, but I cannot see how people can get so emotive about the deep constitutional debates that we are having at the moment. Of course, the onus is on us to get excited about it, because if we do not get excited, I do not think anyone in Morrisons in Aberystwyth, or in Tesco or Asda in Cardiff, will be getting excited at all. I call for a mature, pragmatic approach to the Bill, which is a huge step for Wales. I welcome the responsibility that the Bill would bring to Wales with income tax devolution—true responsibility for the Welsh Government.

Draft Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

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

Have we not been told that we cannot even consider a distinct legal jurisdiction? We have not even got to the position where we discuss maturely what this actually means. That surely is something that we should look at and go into greater detail, but we have not had the room to discuss it properly.

[Craig Williams]

I have never known Plaid Cymru to wait for permission to discuss or look at something. If the hon. Lady is suggesting that she should seek our permission before exploring anything, I welcome that due deference, but I do not think that that is the case. If someone had a clear definition of “distinct jurisdiction” it would have been published and it would be out there. There would be a clear answer, but no one in the Committee can answer the question of what a distinct jurisdiction is.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

To be fair, there are three models in the Bill.

[Craig Williams]

At least. The hon. Lady emphasises my point for me. She is asking for clarity in the draft Bill, and this is the panacea that people come up with. There are already three models. If we want clarity, “distinct jurisdiction” does not solve the problem. I think that in many areas of law Wales already has it, so I do not see why we need to make reference beyond this practical solution. I accept what the Secretary of State said about protocol and looking at the way in which our legal system operates. That is a separate issue—a distinct issue—from what we are talking about, but there is bit of maturity in Welsh politics and where the Assembly is at. We should recognise that it now has the power to effect laws, and it has, for the sake of argument, a distinct jurisdiction, but I still holds my hands up, as I have no idea what that means.

On reserved matters, we have seen some welcome movement by the Secretary of State and the Wales Office, but I see the complications. Space is an obvious one. Why on earth is that in the Bill? I wholly welcome the spaceport—it should of course go to north Wales. The industry, the sector and the technology are developing and they need to be future-proofed. The Bill should be future-proofed, and space should be a reserved matter—but we could argue at length about hovercraft.

To conclude, there is a clash between political reality and academia. I find completely bemusing the emotive terms that some academics and Welsh politicians have used when discussing the Bill. I can see how people can get emotional about a Commonwealth games bid from Wales and about the city deal for Cardiff and the transformational effect on south Wales, but I cannot see how people can get so emotive about the deep constitutional debates that we are having at the moment. Of course, the onus is on us to get excited about it, because if we do not get excited, I do not think anyone in Morrisons in Aberystwyth, or in Tesco or Asda in Cardiff, will be getting excited at all. I call for a mature, pragmatic approach to the Bill, which is a huge step for Wales. I welcome the responsibility that the Bill would bring to Wales with income tax devolution—true responsibility for the Welsh Government.

Draft Wales Bill (Morning sitting)

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Stephen Crabb]

I will, and I will be very clear. In my discussions with Carwyn Jones, he told me that he regards “distinct” and “separate” as the same thing. They are words. He said that he regards a distinct and separate jurisdiction as amounting in practical terms to the same thing.

What I do believe is that as the body of Welsh-specific law grows, the judicial system will need to take account of the distinctiveness within Wales. I have discussed that with the Lord Chief Justice and the Lord Chancellor here. Work is needed to ensure effective delivery of the justice function in Wales to take account of the growing body of Welsh law, but that does not necessarily lead to a path of separate jurisdiction and splitting the single England and Wales jurisdiction, which has served the people of Wales well for centuries.

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

Surely we need to look more closely at what “separate” and “distinct” mean. “Separate” implies a different legal profession with a whole new set of courts. “Distinct” does not have to mean that. What we are hearing from the Assembly is “distinct”. All the requirements that go alongside that—necessity clauses—are what we would require to make this Bill work.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady, for whom I have huge respect, is very knowledgeable about legal and constitutional matters. If, through the Select Committee of which she is a member or independently, she would like to provide me with details of what she regards as a distinct jurisdiction, we can measure it against what other people are saying they regard as a distinct jurisdiction.

Part of the problem is that no one knows what “distinct jurisdiction” means. We understand what “separate jurisdiction” means, but people are bandying about this term “distinct jurisdiction” as if it is now the answer, in the same way as people used to say, “We need a reserved powers model; that will sort out Welsh devolution” without thinking of the complexity underneath it. People are now saying “separate jurisdiction” or “distinct jurisdiction” without really having thought through what it means.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. After the Scottish independence referendum in 2014, the Prime Minister made a promise to the people of Wales that just as the rights of Scottish voters would be respected, reserved and enhanced, so too would the rights of Welsh voters. He promised that Wales would be at the heart of the devolution debate. Since then, the Wales Office has published a draft Wales Bill and presented it as the UK Government’s response to the cross-party Silk Commission. However, it was immediately apparent that the draft Bill has utterly failed to deliver the recommendations of the Commission, which the Tories established. I believe that there are people present in this room who were party to that.

Throughout Wales’s devolution journey, Plaid Cymru has consistently sought the best possible deal for everyone who has chosen to make Wales their home. That has and always will be our driving motivation as Wales’s national party. We hold true to the principle that the people who live in Wales are best placed to make decisions for Wales.

[David T.C. Davies (Monmouth) (Con)]

Does the hon. Lady accept that it is for people living in Britain to make decisions about what is in Britain’s best interests?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It was distressing to hear about the students in Cardiff who have no one to speak for them. We recognise, however, that not all parties share this view. That is why we agreed to sign up to the Silk Commission—a cross-party Commission with nominees from each of the four parties represented here and in the Assembly, along with academic experts. It carried out extensive engagement and consultation with the public across all parts of Wales. It was a truly representative Commission.

It was deeply disappointing, therefore, to find the Secretary of State then choosing to forgo genuine consensus in favour of a process that can only be described as a means of determining the lowest common denominator. Far from being an agreement, as the Secretary of State likes to call it, “Powers for a Purpose” and the resulting draft Wales Bill that we are discussing today fall well short of the consensus that Silk worked so hard to achieve.

The heavy criticism that the draft Bill has received from all sides, including the Secretary of State’s party, is striking when contrasted with the consensus previously evident in Wales. What happened to the consensus that Wales’s natural resources should be in the hands of the people of Wales? What happened to the consensus that Wales’s Welsh language television channel should be in the hands of the people who use it? We find ourselves with a cherry-picked menu that trusts people in Wales to set their own speed limits, but considers drink-drive limits far too complicated.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her passionate speech. Does she agree that perhaps the most revealing aspect of these proceedings is the way the new shadow Secretary of State for Wales is distancing herself from her predecessor’s position?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I cannot say because I was not here at that time, but that is what I understand.

It is interesting that the menu on offer considers water to be too valuable a resource to be left in the hands of the people of Wales, but—fair play—it gives us control over sewage.

I have many concerns regarding the current list of reserved policy fields and will return to this later in my contribution, but I will start by focusing on the foundations of the draft Bill. I should stress first that Plaid Cymru warmly welcomes the move to a reserved powers model as a matter of principle; that is, to move away from the current model whereby the devolution settlement lists areas where the Assembly can legislate, to a model in which the settlement lists areas where it cannot.

There was an unusual and welcome consensus across all six of Wales’s biggest parties on the need to move to a reserved powers model over a number of years. This consensus stems from the frequency with which Welsh legislation is challenged in the Supreme Court and the lack of clarity on where responsibility lies, especially when compared with the Scottish dispensation. Moving to a reserved powers model was also about shifting the mentality and attitudes towards devolution. It should put the onus on the UK Government to justify why something should be reserved, rather than justifying why something might be devolved—devolution based on subsidiarity rather than on retention.

However, those principles—the foundations of the argument in favour of a reserved powers model—have been lost, and the result is a Bill that is simply not fit for purpose. We have unfortunately gone from a position as recently as May last year where all four parties represented in this Chamber today, as well as UKIP and the Greens, agreed on a way forward, to a position where, I am sad to say, it appears the Secretary of State is the only person who thinks the Bill delivers a workable settlement.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady is making a good and important speech. Agreeing on moving to a reserved powers model, to use her phrase, is the easy bit. Of course, everybody can sign up to the principle of moving to a reserved powers model. The really hard bit is doing the wiring underneath it. How do you do that in the context of preserving the combined England and Wales jurisdiction? Even if one moves down the road of a distinct or separate jurisdiction, one does not get over the complexities. The hard bit is doing the detailed work to get the wiring right to make the reserved powers more able to work.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Perhaps that is why the Presiding Officer of the Assembly has asked for a consolidation of previous Welsh legislation, because we are effectively building on the previous conferred models and trying to build a reserved model out of that. That is part of the problem we face. I will return to distinct legislation anon.

We are facing a draft Bill that claws back the powers for which the people of Wales voted overwhelmingly in favour in 2011; a draft Bill that, had it been implemented in that year would have required 20% of the current Assembly’s Acts to seek the consent of UK Government Ministers. We are facing a draft Bill that would allow Welsh legislation to be enacted only if it passes no fewer than 10, or perhaps a debatable number of tests on each provision within the Bill in question—certainly a wide range, a battery, of tests. Incidentally, distinguished legal experts have described the tests as

“a failure of comparative legal method”

and claimed that they

“jar with basic constitutional principle”.

Members of the Welsh Affairs Committee have been warned that this could lead to situations whereby legislators would choose to avoid amending the law—a chilling effect—despite it being the better option, for fear of opening a Pandora’s box of debate about what constitutes “necessary”.

Perhaps the most concerning legal aspect of the draft Bill is the reservation of criminal law and private law. These are not policy reservations, they are mechanisms—means—necessary for the enforcement of law. They are what animates the law. They will put policies into effect. They were not discussed as part of the St David’s day process, and, as Professor Thomas Glyn Watkin told the Welsh Affairs Committee, the introduction of these restrictions

“appears to deliberately ignore the express decision of the people of Wales regarding their Assembly’s legislative powers”.

Placing restrictions on the Assembly’s ability to make such modifications to the law not only drastically rows back on the 2011 referendum, but also restricts directly elected Welsh Governments from implementing their policies. It is no wonder that so many people have described the Bill as unworkable.

In fairness, it is proposed that the Assembly should be able to make modifications where such modification is:

“(a) necessary for a devolved purpose or is ancillary…to a provision which has a devolved purpose, and (b) has no greater effect on the general application of the private law than is necessary to give effect to that purpose.”

Simple. I hope Members will have detected that I did not understand what I have just said, although I may have said it with confidence. It asks the question of who is to decide whether a modification to the law is necessary for a devolved purpose or whether a modification has no greater effect than is necessary to give effect to a provision’s purpose. This is not a matter of semantics and niceties; it is a lawyers’ playground.

[Mr David Jones]

I agree with the hon. Lady. The word “necessary” is unworkable. Does she have an alternative formulation that would define the boundaries between what is and what is not devolved?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I will come to that anon, rather than trying to answer briefly and then repeating myself. As I said, this is a lawyers’ playground and, exactly as the Secretary of State said earlier, means that we will end up in the Supreme Court, which is what we do not want.

[Stephen Crabb]

Nobody has argued more forcefully than Plaid Cymru that the Welsh devolution settlement should mirror the Scottish devolution settlement. However, the necessity test, which the hon. Lady has taken a few minutes to malign and attack, appears in the Scottish devolution settlement.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It does appear in the Scottish devolution settlement but it appears three times in the draft Bill. In Scotland, it refers to reserved matters but here, it also refers to criminal and private law. That is the significant question.

I challenge anyone to justify making a Government accountable to a judge rather than to a legislature, as the draft Bill effectively promotes. The report released this week by the Wales governance centre at Cardiff University and the constitution unit at UCL states:

“To restrict the choice of National Assembly members in matters likely to form parts of a great many Assembly Acts may be said to undercut their role as primary legislators, and to deny the institution…proper esteem in ‘the union of the nations of Wales and England’.”

The reasons that these mechanisms are listed as reserved is, according to the Secretary of State,

“to protect the unified legal system of England and Wales”.

All the criticisms that the Secretary of State has faced since the publication of the draft Bill—the cries of “unworkable,” “badly drafted,” “overly complex,” and so on—are a consequence of his blind loyalty to preserving the unified legal system, which has almost unanimously been described to the Welsh Affairs Committee by the legal profession as unnecessary, damaging and paradoxical.

Plaid Cymru, along with many legal experts, believes that it would be a sensible and—crucially—sustainable solution to create a separate legal system for Wales and the Welsh legislature. As the Wales governance centre’s report says,

“it would bring Wales more into the mainstream of sub-state constitutional arrangements in the common law world”.

It is noteworthy that that is also the long-term aim of the Labour Welsh Government.

We acknowledge that it would have financial and practical implications that would need careful consideration but, if the UK Government are serious about delivering a devolution settlement that stands the test of time, they need to adopt a long-term approach. Although that would be Plaid Cymru’s preferred solution, we recognise that not all parties have caught up with our position. The same cannot be said, however, of the creation of a so-called distinct but not separate jurisdiction. The evidence that the Welsh Affairs Committee has heard has been overwhelmingly in favour of this solution, as has that heard by the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee in the National Assembly. I suspect that those who remain sceptical of this solution mistakenly fear the practical and financial implications that a separate jurisdiction might have, and do not fully understand—or perhaps do not want to fully understand—the simplicity of what is actually being proposed.

Creating a distinct jurisdiction need not be any more complicated—perhaps this is the definition that we have been looking for—than simply acknowledging in statute the existence of the law of Wales and the law of England that extend to the territory of Wales and the territory of England respectively.

[Antoinette Sandbach]

Can the hon. Lady explain why Welsh law does not have that current status and why she feels it needs to be put into statute? Surely it has that status already.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Because we are arguing about the leeway and lock model, and the necessity clauses in criminal and private law, and that is creating so much complication. With this acknowledgment, we could move ahead.

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady is making an incredibly intelligent speech. I was struck by what she said about the geographical boundary and that moving to a distinct jurisdiction is as simple as that. Would she acknowledge that the Welsh Government, through their law making in the Assembly, have the ability to have impacts on reserved matters and matters affecting England? The draft Bill preserves that, albeit with a necessity test. What she is proposing with that geographically sharp distinction ends their freedom to do that altogether.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It does seem to be a way forward in dealing with the necessity clauses, which are such a problem. The territory acknowledgement—

[Stephen Crabb]

That is rolling back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

If I may continue, creating a distinct jurisdiction need not entail establishing a separate system of courts and separate legal professions, and it would evidently avoid the costs associated with doing so. It would, however, provide clarity on the territorial extent of the laws of the National Assembly for Wales, thus avoiding the need for the complex and restrictive drafting in the Bill, which has been the subject of such criticism.

The National Assembly does not want to legislate for England. It wants to legislate for Wales, and a distinct jurisdiction would allow it to do so effectively. In the words of the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales:

“there is no reason why a unified court system encompassing England and Wales cannot serve two legal jurisdictions”.

The Secretary of State can hardly accuse the Lord Chief Justice of being a “nationalist lawyer”.

Returning to the list of reservations more broadly, the draft Bill is 71 pages long. Some 34 of those pages—half of the Bill—is a list of reservations. Provisions need only “relate to” one of the more than 220 matters in that list, making the Bill all the more problematic. As the report by the Wales governance centre and UCL states:

“Complexity is piled on complexity...The potential for legal challenge casts a long shadow.”

As I have said, the shift to a reserved powers model was supposed to be made in tandem with a shift in mentality to determine what needed to be reserved, rather than what might be devolved. It is clear that the Secretary of State has instead facilitated a Whitehall trawl of powers based on no evident principles. If he is serious about creating a lasting devolution settlement, he cannot simply flip the current settlement from the conferred powers model to the reserved model and then just allow Whitehall to pick and choose what powers it wants. The process must be built on the principles of clarity and workability, coherence and subsidiarity.

The Silk Commission expressed hope that the move to a reserved powers model would be an opportunity to rewrite the settlement to remove the defects of haste and inconsistency that have so far marred legislative devolution in Wales. The list of reservations certainly does not reflect that hope. The authors of the report by the Wales governance centre and UCL go as far as to say that

“it even suggests an unwillingness to take Wales seriously.”

In practical terms—this is only to be regretted—it will undoubtedly lead to even more partisan blame-shifting between Cardiff and London, which is the last thing that the public of Wales want or deserve.

The original report from the Wales governance centre, which was released before the draft Bill was published, offered a list of considerations for identifying functions that should be devolved:

“Is its retention…necessary for the functioning of the UK as a state…Does retention of a particular function make the governance of the UK generally less clear or comprehensible?...Does retention of a particular function undermine the workability, stability or durability of the devolution settlement?”

I will not return to the examples, but it is easy to put the reservations listed in the draft Bill through that test and to come up with some obvious questions. Those are the questions that the Secretary of State should be asking himself for each and every reservation in the Bill. He should justify each individual reservation. Simply making hundreds of reservations for no good reason is not acceptable. I welcome his comment that he will shorten the list of reservations in the Bill, but I hope he hears the calls of commentators and those of us in this room today that all reservations need to be individually justified.

The draft Bill has come under heavy criticism from all directions: from academia, business experts, legal experts and all four parties, including the Secretary of State’s. The workability of the Bill and the legal drafting—including the necessity tests, ministerial consents and the reservation of criminal and private law—stem from the Secretary of State’s obsession with maintaining a unified legal jurisdiction. The same unified legal jurisdiction was the excuse for opposing Wales-only legislation in the 1880s and the creation of a Secretary of State for Wales in the last century. Most recently, it was the reason for not giving Wales a reserved powers model from the outset of devolution. It is an unnecessary and damaging block on Welsh devolution that has affected, and continues to affect, the effectiveness of Welsh governance. The Tory party cannot deny the existence of the National Assembly for Wales, which, by existing, makes self-evident the existence of legislation that is distinct to Wales.

As the Wales Governance Centre and UCL report concludes, there is no quick fix to the legal problems in this draft Bill. It is not possible simply to replace the term “necessary” with an alternative such as “appropriate”. The problem is not terminology but the whole model, which the report calls

“the leeway and lock model”

and which is built around the unnecessary preservation of the unified legal system.

I recognise that the Secretary of State wants to hurry this Bill through and get the job done, but this issue is too important to pass legislation on with a nod and a wink. This Bill will be the foundation upon which the Welsh Government will operate for the foreseeable future—how it will govern health, education and economic development. It is in everybody’s interest that the Wales Bill makes devolution work better.

I hope that the Secretary of State will please recognise that the criticisms he faces are not merely political attacks. They are criticisms from experts, legal and otherwise, who want to see something that achieves exactly what he himself says he wants to achieve: a clear and lasting devolution settlement. The Bill as it stands will move us further away from achieving that goal.

Members will have read the conclusion of the comprehensive second report from the Wales governance centre and UCL, which recommended that Assembly Members reject the Bill. The opportunity to shape Wales’s constitution does not come around very often. This Bill is crucial to all of us who care about the future of our country, and when the time comes to vote, I do not want to be forced to vote against it. There are many things in the Bill that we welcome: powers over fracking; devolving further planning consenting powers over energy; electoral arrangements; and so forth. I should also take this opportunity to say that we welcome and are grateful for the opportunity to discuss a draft Bill. I think we have discussed it very thoroughly.

For Plaid Cymru—the Party of Wales, whose primary purpose is to empower the nation and the people of Wales to run their own affairs to vote against those powers would be a painful decision. I sincerely hope that the Secretary of State will not force me to do so. I urge him to take these criticisms on board in the constructive spirit in which they are intended, and to make the necessary changes before publishing the Bill itself. Finally, I urge him to reflect on the significance of what he is building. I suggest that the task of reshaping Wales’s constitution is far more important than keeping a date with a particular time slot in the parliamentary calendar. I am encouraged by his comments that suggest that the Bill will be drastically altered before it is published, as a result of this pre-legislative stage, but the Bill requires reconstruction and not mere tinkering. The Secretary of State needs to pause, to listen to the concerns of everybody around him and—please—to come back with a different Bill.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 13th January 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

The hon. Lady took part in that debate and she will recognise the way in which the Minister responded. He said that he was listening to the arguments and that he wanted to engage as positively as he could. I hope that she recognises the spirit in which that was intended.

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

Last July, the Culture Secretary and the Treasury informed the director-general of the BBC in a letter that S4C’s grant might be cut by the same percentage reduction as the BBC itself and that:

“It will be up to the Government to decide how to make up the shortfall.”

This is therefore not the only Government-driven cut facing S4C. What additional funds will the Government be providing over and above these DMCS cuts?

[Alun Cairns]

As the hon. Lady knows, charter renewal negotiations and discussions are under way at the moment, and I do not want to pre-empt any of the issues that will come out of that. Clearly, there will be a widespread consultation and I hope that she and other Members will engage positively in it.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I understand, of course, that we are facing the BBC charter consultation, but given the BBC’s response in the current situation there is surely now room for cross-party consensus on Silk II’s recommendation that the funding of the public expenditure element of S4C should be devolved to the National Assembly for Wales.

[Alun Cairns]

I do not accept the basis of the question. During my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State’s discussion that led to the St David’s day agreement, there was not agreement on this issue. We are keen to progress in consensus so that we can take everyone forward. We need to remember that it was a Conservative Government who established S4C, which has been a great success since 1982. I hope that the hon. Lady will share in and recognise that success.