Prisons and Courts Bill (First sitting)

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Liz Saville Roberts

Committee Debate: 1st Sitting: House of Commons
Tuesday 28th March 2017 Public Bill Committees

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Q Rachel, a moment or two ago, you were taking about what the prisoners themselves have to offer in this. I know that the RSA has spoken about things such as rehabilitation culture—I think “rehabilitation capital” is the phrase that is used by the prisons. Can I pick up on that and, in a general sense, ask you whether you think the Bill incorporates that sort of culture and those sorts of measures in the way you would like to see?

Rachel O'Brien: I am slightly nervous of the new HMPPS defining this thing. We know a lot about wellbeing: for example, we can measure people’s ability to make good decisions and their self-confidence—all sorts of things that are prerequisites for the resilience they will need going forward. We are working with a high-security prison at the moment to develop a community-wide strategy. The outcome is going to be great. It is about thinking about, in a very closed system, how you have a better relationship with the outside world, family and so on. Actually, it is about the process of engagement with those prisoners, when they are talking strategies and tactics. They would not necessarily agree to do desktop publishing, but they will do it because they are producing a newsletter to communicate. It is that kind of approach, and you can measure people’s progress—partly because they will tell you and partly because you see it. It is that kind of approach that we need to replicate. Prisons need to be able to do things themselves rather than outsource them, because that is how staff can get those really valuable relationships.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Q Nigel Newcomen, you mentioned the dichotomy between supply reduction and demand reduction. There are aspects of this Bill that deal with supply reduction per se. To what degree do you and other members of the panel feel that the demand reduction aspect is sufficiently considered within the Bill?

Nigel Newcomen: As I said, I impute from the purposes onward that some of the balances that we have been struggling to put across to you are required are implicit in the Bill’s structure. Demand reduction is a necessary partner of supply reduction. If you have only one, you are going to have only part of the solution. It is essential to have supply reduction, both for phones and for drugs, but you equally have to have work to mitigate the demand and the need for those illicit goods. Without that balance, I think we are on a hiding to nothing. There is nothing in the Bill that I can see that precludes that balance.

Wales Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Liz Saville Roberts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Liz Saville Roberts]

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Liz Saville Roberts]

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

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

Wales Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Liz Saville Roberts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[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 ---

[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.

Barnett Floor (Wales)

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Liz Saville Roberts

Tuesday 10th November 2015 Westminster Hall

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree entirely. The matter is urgent, but we are concerned about the Government’s lack of interest. The coalition’s programme for government in the previous Parliament stated that the priority was to reduce the deficit and that changes to the system could await stabilisation of the public finances, although why exactly the coalition Government were incapable of paying sufficient attention to Wales to deal with the issue—or even to start dealing with it—remains entirely unclear.

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

Given that the Barnett formula has been in question since 1978, why did the hon. Gentleman’s party not rectify the Welsh funding shortfall while it was in government?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I repeat to the hon. Lady a point made powerfully by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies): in 1997 to 2010, we had what he called “Barnett-plus”, which was record investment in public services in Wales, to the benefit of both my constituents and hers.

Off-patent Drugs Bill

Debate between Nick Thomas-Symonds and Liz Saville Roberts

Friday 6th November 2015 Commons Chamber

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. Repurposing is becoming increasingly common. Approximately 10% of the Brain Tumour Research portfolio is in repurposed drugs. For the Cure Parkinson’s Trust, the figure is 50%, and for the Alzheimer’s Society it is 13.6%. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point.

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

The debate is poignant for me. Breast Cancer Now is very supportive of the Bill, and my best friend and the mother of my goddaughter is currently in hospital recovering from her second treatment for breast cancer in 10 years. I should like to take the opportunity to say this. Christine Lennon, the most organised, capable and scary of my friends: we all want you home as soon as possible. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]

Some 850,000 people suffer from dementia, and that number is likely to increase to 1 million in 10 years’ time. The matter raised by the Bill is relevant to 20% of the drugs that the Alzheimer’s Society support, and it claims that the Bill will enable it to work on off-patent drugs. Does he agree that that is very significant, given that the disease affects so many people?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

On the second part of the hon. Lady’s intervention, I entirely agree that it would assist the Alzheimer’s Society. On the first part, I am sure the whole House wishes her best friend a speedy recovery.

Given the time restraints, I will touch on just one benefit that the Bill would have. zoledronic acid, a type of bisphosphonate, was originally used to treat bone fractures in advanced cancer and osteoporosis, but it can also reduce by 28% the risk of breast cancer spreading to the bone in post-menopausal women. If it were routinely available to 34,000 women, it could save 1,000 lives a year, at the cost of about 5p per day per patient. That is precisely the kind of benefit the Bill could bring.