Draft Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012 (Legal Aid for Separated Children) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2019

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 8th October 2019 General Committees

[Imran Hussain (Bradford East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Roger. This is the first time that the Minister and I have been together in Committee, and I welcome her to her new role.

The plight of vulnerable unaccompanied and separated children—many fleeing truly desperate and dangerous situations around the world—who have sought safety, refuge and sanctuary in the UK should alarm us all and induce us to action. The Opposition unreservedly support today’s measure to bring those cases involving separated children back into the scope of legal aid. However, we must note not only that access to legal aid should never have been taken from this vulnerable group, but that the Government never intended to introduce today’s measure, and would never have done so if left to their own devices.

We must be clear that we are here this morning to consider the order not because the Government have, all of a sudden, had a change of heart and realised that the misery, pain and suffering that they imposed upon the children affected was too great, but because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central alluded to, of a legal challenge to their decision under the 2012 LASPO legislation to remove separated children from the scope of legal aid by the Children’s Society, an independent, third-sector charity, supported by lawyers, barristers and other legal professionals.

The Government have not introduced the draft order willingly and out of their own compassion; they did so because they have conceded to the legal case that was brought against them, fearing another damning defeat. Migrant children are among society’s most vulnerable groups, and unaccompanied children are even more so given the unique migratory factors at play and the particular vulnerabilities that they have as children without caregivers. Indeed, the Government’s own impact assessment for this statutory instrument states that these children have “distinct vulnerabilities” and needs. According to the previous special rapporteur on human rights of migrants, writing in his final report to the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2011, children who are unaccompanied or separated from their parents are “particularly vulnerable” to human rights violations and abuses at all stages of the migration process. Even the Children’s Commissioner for England has stated that children arriving unaccompanied in the UK are some of the most vulnerable that they deal with, due to the triple vulnerabilities they face.

Yet despite that, and despite the fact that children need access to high-quality immigration advice to regularise their status and protect themselves while being unable to properly represent themselves, the Government have kept unaccompanied migrant children out of the scope of legal aid for six years. Consequently, vulnerable children have been forced to represent themselves in legal cases, even though representing themselves properly is impossible due to their age, language barriers and vulnerability. That is a complex enough cocktail of factors before we even get on to the myriad immigration rules and the intricate nature of immigration law.

That has led to unaccompanied children now being at a heightened risk of having to support and represent themselves through legal processes and procedures, being more likely to receive an unfavourable legal outcome, being less likely than other children to be able to fund and apply for legal advice, and also being at increased risk of exploitation through the need to fund legal services, as the Children’s Commissioner for England has found. This is damming. It is no way to treat vulnerable children. It is no wonder that the Joint Committee on Human Rights has declared that

“the Government’s reforms to legal aid have been a significant black mark on its human rights record”

and that children more generally are being denied the use of the law to assert their rights and legal needs following the changes under LASPO.

Where free legal support does exist, many children are also restricted and frozen out of it due to the postcode lottery of legal support that sees most free legal advice concentrated in certain areas such as London and the south-east, while the number of law centres and other advice services is in decline across the whole country.

Together with the scale of the challenge faced by these unaccompanied children and the urgency of the need to address their inability to access legal aid in order to prevent abuses of their human rights, we are also deeply critical of the length of time it has taken the Government to lay the order before the House. A year went by between a Minister making a written statement conceding that removing separated children from the scope of legal aid was a reprehensible decision and the order being laid in order to reverse the changes under LASPO. Yet the Minister responsible at the time had declared in her written statement:

“The amendment will be laid in due course”.

When dealing with such sensitive issues and such vulnerable children, we should expect a speedier response, particularly considering that the Government are doing nothing new; they are simply restoring what had been taken away by LASPO. Will the Minister identify just how many separated children have been unable to access legal aid support to bring their cases to court since July 2018, when that written statement was published?

I expect that the Minister will response to that question by repeating the words of her predecessor, the hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer), in that written ministerial statement:

“Legal aid for other immigration matters is available via the Exceptional Case Funding (ECF) scheme”—

something to which this Minister has also alluded today—

“which is intended to ensure legal aid is accessible in all cases where there is a risk of a breach of human rights.”—[Official Report, 12 July 2018; Vol. 644, c. 47WS.]

However, if the Government were anticipating breaches of human rights as a result of their changes under LASPO, why did they enact those changes in the first place? Is the ECF scheme sufficient, and has it been so, given that the Children’s Society and the review of the Bach commission on access to justice found that it had failed to provide a safety net and still left children vulnerable? The Government’s own figures show that thousands of children and young people would have been helped through the exceptional case funding. The reality is that the number helped through that fund is in the tens, not the thousands. Again, the Government have some serious questions to answer on that.

Although we will not oppose the order—

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Well, no; you have just spoken in favour of it.

[Imran Hussain]

We will certainly not pat the Minister on the back and congratulate the Government, given that it has taken them more than a year to lay the order before the House after conceding defeat in the legal case, and almost a further three months to bring it forward for debate. During that time, inevitably, many more children have been unable to access the legal aid support that they have a right to, and many more children will have suffered as a result by being removed from the UK and returned to the desperate and dangerous conditions that they escaped from.

By putting off and delaying the order, the Government have neglected their duty of care to those vulnerable children and discarded their own humanity. We must never forget that, just as we must never forget that the Government removed those children’s access to legal aid to begin with, which put us in this sorry and deplorable situation. They cannot be proud of correcting such a colossal mistake and they must hang their head in shame that it has taken them so long to bring the matter back to the House.

Legal Aid: Post-Implementation Review

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Thursday 7th February 2019 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

I hope it will be helpful to the House if I put this debate in a little context. A significant rise in the cost of legal aid took place over a number of years, a point recognised by the last Labour Government. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to, I could give him a long list of quotations from Labour Ministers raising their concerns about the increase in the cost of legal aid. That is why Labour’s 2010 manifesto contained a commitment to cut the costs of legal aid, and I suspect it is the reason why in both 2015 and 2017 Labour gave no commitment to reverse those cuts. Therefore, there has been a consensus that we cannot return to what happened in the past. What is important is that we find a way in which limited resources are directed in the most effective and proportionate way, and that is what this review has been about.

The hon. Gentleman raises the issue of early intervention. The conclusion from our research is that the empirical evidence is not necessarily clear that early intervention will make savings, but there is a strong case for wanting to explore this further. That is why we are proceeding with pilots in the area of social welfare. It may be in the context of housing that we should look to proceed in this area to see whether there is a case that early intervention can make savings and we can build that case. That is precisely what I want to do.

There will continue to be areas of disagreement with the hon. Gentleman. I am sorry that he has not been more welcoming of what has been put before the House, because this is a constructive attempt to address this issue, in an environment where there are not unlimited resources. I point the House to the comments made by the Law Society this morning about how there is much to be welcomed in what we have announced.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I welcome the action plan. Particularly on the civil side, the Government seem to be improving the situation for those who need help. I welcome the extra help for litigants in person and the further reviews that are to take place. A lot of money was taken out of legal aid and it is right to see a building back, which is certainly happening on the civil side, with further reviews to come.

I note there is to be an evaluation of criminal practitioners and the way forward. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is important to our justice system to have a good pipeline of talented criminal lawyers? That is one of the strengths of our system and the fact we have that is widely admired around the world. In the evaluation, will he look to see that there is an adequacy of income for people as they come through the pipeline, so that we can continue to have the high-quality criminal lawyers we have in this country?

[Mr Gauke]

My right hon. and learned Friend raises an important point. It is important that we have a strong and vibrant criminal Bar and I want to do everything I can to support that. I make it clear that it is important that we have a vibrant situation for solicitors as well. He will be aware that last year we announced changes to the advocates’ graduated fees scheme. I hope we have a constructive relationship with the criminal Bar, and we have been able to take steps and prioritise this area. We are also undertaking the review, which we anticipate will report in mid-2020.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

I think the hon. Lady will have been pleased to see a paragraph in relation to extradition in the future framework.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Ministers will be aware of the very low attainment in reading among prisoners. Is anything being done to try to improve the situation? I understand that the average reading age in a prison is 11.

[Rory Stewart]

It is a very serious problem. As my right hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, almost half the prisoners have a reading age of under 11. Perhaps 25% of prisoners have a reading age of six. There is an enormous amount that we can do and that is where the education and employment strategy comes in, which is about making sure that the education is relevant and leads to a job.

Criminal Legal Aid

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 8th May 2018 Commons Chamber

[Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That the Criminal Legal Aid (Remuneration) (Amendment) Regulations 2018 (S.I., 2018, No. 220), dated 20 February 2018, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23 February, be revoked.

The gravest consequences for anyone accused of a serious crime in our criminal justice system is that their liberty is taken away from them. When that is at stake, no one should be left unrepresented in a court. When that is at stake, we have a duty, as a society, to guarantee the future of effective legal representation. Failing to do so creates the real risk of injustices. This motion today is about the threats posed to our justice system and specifically to criminal defence by the Government’s changes to the payments for the criminal legal aid system. These changes are why around 100 chambers are now, in effect, striking, taking co-ordinated industrial action, and refusing more publicly funded work. The serious consequences of this action are clear for all to see. As the BBC reported on 4 April:

“A murder case at the Old Bailey has become one of the first to be affected by a strike by barristers.”

On 9 April WalesOnline explained:

“A woman accused of murdering Swansea pensioner John Williams has appeared in Crown Court without legal representation because of a barristers’ strike.”

There are many other examples.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the Bar was strongly in favour when this was consulted on, with statements such as

“the bar council and the young barristers committee welcome new proposals published today”,

and

“as circuit leaders over the period of the negotiations it is our shared view that we should support the implementation of the scheme”.

The Criminal Bar Association was in favour. So what exactly is the hon. Gentleman talking about?

[Richard Burgon]

Well, this is not the CBA’s scheme and it does have serious concerns about aspects of this provision. Tonight is an opportunity for the Government to think again and make some sensible concessions on the most controversial aspects. If everyone was happy with the measures, the criminal barristers would not have voted by 90% to take strike action.

We have a responsibility to contribute to resolving this situation by encouraging negotiation and facilitating a solution before there is further escalation. That means that the Government should withdraw these controversial changes, go back to the drawing board and come up with a scheme that attracts widespread support, rather than provoking a backlash.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I think everyone would acknowledge that to go out and do the job of a criminal barrister is incredibly demanding, and that the profession faces challenges of various sorts. On the negotiations on the advocates’ graduated fee scheme, great efforts were made to involve the Bar at every stage. The Legal Aid Agency put a huge amount of work into the talks, as did the Ministry of Justice. The intention was to find a better way of paying barristers, not to do anyone down. Does the Minister agree that the response to the consultation document, which was so positive, seems to have evaporated for some reason?

[Lucy Frazer]

My right hon. and learned Friend, who was a Minister at an early stage in this process, makes a very important point. The scheme we are debating today came about because both the Bar and the Government accepted that the old scheme was outdated. Advocates told us that it did not reflect the amount of time and effort they put into their cases. For example, under the old scheme there were no separate fees for the second day of a trial and there were no fees for a sentence hearing. The new scheme is the result of a two-year exercise involving the leadership of the Bar—the Bar Council—the Criminal Bar Association and the circuit leaders. When the scheme was put forward in a consultation in 2017 it was widely welcomed by those organisations.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 24th April 2018 Commons Chamber

[Lucy Frazer]

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the Bill is in the hands of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and it will respond.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

May I update my hon. and learned Friend? Some 34 out of the 41 police commissioners in this country support the Service Animals (Offences) Bill, and lawyers up and down the country, including Sarah Dixon, who runs the Finn’s law campaign, have identified a gap in the law. Is it not time that the Government backed my Bill?

[Lucy Frazer]

I am grateful for a third opportunity to address this issue and to speak again—this is the third time that I have heard my right hon. and learned Friend express his support for the Bill in the Chamber. As I have said, the Government are looking at this issue, and the matter is primarily for DEFRA.

Oral Answers to Questions

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

And doubtless with the right hon. and learned Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald).

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

I am very grateful to the Minister for that kind offer. I just make the point that there is a gap in the law. There are legal difficulties with prosecuting under the Animal Welfare Act 2006, because of the drafting of section 4. Prosecuting for criminal damage means that the value of the animal determines the sentence. However, a police dog like Finn, who was eight years old, is not worth much money—he is of course invaluable to PC Dave Wardell and the country’s police enforcement efforts, but he is not worth a lot of money. I am therefore grateful that the Minister will to talk to us about this issue.

[Mr Speaker]

Perhaps we could have an Adjournment debate about Finn, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman has not already procured such.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

I have already done that, Mr Speaker, and I have a ten-minute rule Bill as well.

[Mr Speaker]

Very well done. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is obviously ahead of events. I was enjoying the family history he was educating us on just now.

European Union (Withdrawal) Bill

Oliver Heald Excerpts

Committee: 7th sitting: House of Commons
Wednesday 13th December 2017 Commons Chamber

[Yvette Cooper]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point about parliamentary sovereignty, which was indeed a key issue that was debated in the referendum. In fact, many people argued in the referendum that what they were doing was bringing sovereignty back here, from having shared sovereignty with the EU. I do not think we are arguing that sovereignty should be handed over in a concentrated way to a small group of Ministers instead. That is the responsibility on us. We know that of course there are times when Parliament needs to give Ministers power on our behalf to use through secondary legislation, but we should do so cautiously and sensibly and make sure that the right safeguards are in place. That is the problem with the Henry VIII powers in this Bill, and not just in clause 9 but in clause 7. The challenge, too, is that we are being asked to do that on an issue that will define our country for generations. Each and every one of us will be judged on what we did in this place to get that Brexit deal right.

[Sir Oliver Heald (North East Hertfordshire) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Lady agree that it is most welcome that, since my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) tabled his amendment 7, it has been agreed that there does need to be an Act of Parliament? Is not the weakness of clause 9 that there is still no trigger requiring the consent of Parliament to the withdrawal agreement before the regulations can be laid and used?

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is exactly right, and that is why we have a cross-party interest in these issues. Not only is there no trigger on the face of the Bill—clause 9 will still allow Ministers this huge concentrated power to go ahead and implement the withdrawal agreement without Parliament’s agreement—but there is also a second difference, certainly for me in what Ministers have set out so far, about how a meaningful vote should take place. I want to come on to that as well.

New clause 3 says that Parliament will not yet give the Government permission to use secondary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement, and that instead the Government must set out their plans for primary legislation to implement the withdrawal agreement. If secondary legislation is needed at that time, as part of the implementation process, those powers should be taken in the withdrawal agreement Bill—the second Bill—so that Parliament is not just handing over a blank cheque, but is deciding what powers are needed and making sure that the proper scrutiny and checks and balances are in place at that time.

I do not think this is really a controversial proposal. It is basically saying that Parliament should hand over no more power to the Executive than it needs to and should not hand over power to the Executive until it needs to and until it knows what is going on. New clause 3 also has the effect of requiring a meaningful vote in primary legislation on the withdrawal agreement before it can be implemented. That is not really a controversial proposal either. It simply says that we should have a proper vote on the most important thing to pass through Parliament in a generation—and a meaningful vote in primary legislation, as is fitting for something so important—and that we should do so before and not after we give Government the powers to start implementing it.

Amendment 7, which was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), has broadly the same effect. Rather than removing the powers from clause 9, it simply says that they cannot be used until a statute or primary legislation has been passed supporting the withdrawal agreement. Again, that means that Parliament does not blindly hand over powers to the Executive in a trusting way without knowing what the consequences will be or what the agreement looks like.

--- Later in debate ---

[Yvette Cooper]

I do agree, and I think that goes to the heart of our concern.

It ought to be possible for the Government to agree to my new clause 3, or to amendment 7. Let us think about the points that they have already made. First, they have recognised that there is a problem if too much power is concentrated in the hands of the Executive. They said so yesterday during the debate on clause 7, and I think that they recognise the importance of safeguards on the use of Executive powers. Secondly, they have said that there will be a meaningful vote on the withdrawal agreement. I welcome that, but I think there is still a difference between us on what counts as a meaningful vote. Thirdly, they have said that there will now be primary legislation on the withdrawal agreement, and I welcome that as well. If we put all those three things together in the right way—the commitment to primary legislation, the commitment to a proper vote and say for Parliament, and concern about the concentration of powers—we get amendment 7 or new clause 3. It is the same thing.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Following the point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Anna Soubry), may I ask whether the right hon. Lady agrees that the statutory instruments that we are discussing relate to matters of constitutional significance—matters of the sort that we normally only debate on the Floor of the House? It would be wrong for those matters to be dealt with in Committee when the House has not necessarily even agreed to the withdrawal agreement.

[Yvette Cooper]

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely right. This is not the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006, which was all about minor and detailed changes and consolidating legislation through secondary legislation—or that, at least, was its intention. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman says, this is about hugely constitutionally significant legislation and changes that will affect the course of events in this country for generations.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Clarke]

I agree entirely, and my next point is linked to that. The nature of the parliamentary approval cannot just be a motion; it must have statutory basis, which is the route that the Prime Minister has followed. There are various reasons for that, but the obvious one is the extremely uncertain status of resolutions of this House under current parliamentary practice. The Brexit Secretary is only the latest example of someone saying that anything that is not statutory is not legally enforceable, but just a “statement of intent”. The House of Commons keeps passing all kinds of motions with which I ferociously disagree, but they get carried by this House and make all kinds of criticisms of what the Government are doing. We have moved into a new era in which the Government are allowed to keep saying, “Parliament may pass motions, but they are worthless expressions of opinion. They are not part of our being accountable to the elected body of the House.”

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Of course the original plan was not to have a Bill, but to rely on statutory instruments under clause 9 to effect changes of constitutional significance. It was then made clear recently—I think on 17 November—that we will in fact have a Bill. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that to try to make such changes by secondary legislation just is not on? It is very unlikely that the courts would say that such constitutionally significant changes could be made under secondary legislation.

[Mr Clarke]

Again, I agree entirely, and that takes me back to something that has occurred all the way through this process. I am obviously standing here in disagreement with the Government, of whom I am critical in many respects, due to both the policy and how it has been conducted, but I have had some sympathy with them since the election, because they are trying to carry through this enormous, controversial and historic measure when they do not have a parliamentary majority, except when they can persuade the Democratic Unionist party to turn up and support them.

The process started with the extraordinary suggestion that the royal prerogative would be invoked, that treaty making was not going to involve Parliament at all, and that leaving did not require parliamentary consent. Rather astonishingly, that matter had to be taken to court, and it came to a fairly predictable conclusion. The next idea—I will not repeat what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Sir Oliver Heald) said—was that everything would be done by statutory instruments under broad powers. However, we are slowly getting to what I would have thought is the fundamental minimum that a real parliamentary democracy should be demanding: the country will not be able to enter into a binding treaty commitment until the details have received full parliamentary approval. How we get there is no doubt a matter of some difficulty, but it must be addressed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Sir Oliver Letwin]

I am surprised by that, because my right hon. and learned Friend has a long and distinguished record of voting for good law. I do not think that this is good law, for the reasons I have identified. I think it really would be better if we had a correct amendment at a later stage of proceedings.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that the current plans create the risk of parallel legislation, with an Act of Parliament dealing with our withdrawal agreement going through at the same time as all sorts of orders, because there is no trigger mechanism for, or constraint on, the order-making power? Therefore, is not my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), the former Attorney General, doing the House a service by seeking to avoid the risk of parallel proceedings, which is something that this House never does?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dominic Raab]

It is just not practicable. I will come on to address the timeframe for how we are going to approach the agreement, the meaningful vote on a resolution, and then the withdrawal agreement Bill.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Does not my hon. Friend think that there should be a trigger within clause 9 to require the consent of the House to the overall withdrawal agreement that is reached before the powers are exercised? Otherwise those powers are unrestrained, and that seems wrong. Does he have a view on that?

--- Later in debate ---

[Angus Brendan MacNeil]

Brexit has had many titles, but in my view it is fast becoming the Laurel and Hardy Brexit, because it is one never-ending fine mess—a multifaceted fine mess, indeed. My hon. Friend the Member for Inverclyde (Ronnie Cowan) keeps a running total on how time is passing. It is 530 days since the Brexit vote, when apparently all the voters knew what they were voting for, yet we are still working out what it meant—there are Committees in this place trying to work out what it meant. He also tells me that there are 470 days to go before the cliff edge. The fine mess and the vanity are coinciding with the Government’s avoidance of a meaningful vote. They are tied to the timescale of article 50 as laid out in the Lisbon treaty—a strange place for a Brexiteer Government to be.

To me, it is pretty obvious. If the vote is between a deal and a crash-out, a deal wins. If the vote is between a deal and the status quo, with access to the single market, the status quo wins. Surely nobody is going to put the country—our constituents, themselves and their families—into a worse situation than we have now or raise the possibility of higher trade tariffs with up to 94 countries, as well the base load of the 27 EU countries. Another question: is this going to be a transition deal or a maintenance deal? Last Monday, the Prime Minister said she did not want two cliff edges, so it looks as if there is going to be a maintenance deal.

Opponents of amendment 7 are treating it as if it somehow aims to block Brexit or remove powers from their hands. It does not block Brexit. This is a Brexiteer Parliament, unfortunately. It is rolling over to article 50. Both Front-Bench teams want out of the single market and out of the customs union. The amendment, tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve), would put power in the hands of parliamentarians. To reject the amendment would be like setting sail on a cruise liner, striking an iceberg and finding out you had refused to bring any lifeboats. The hon. Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Baron) fears that the other side will not be incentivised to make a deal. If that situation arises, deal with it then—do not tie our hands now for the sake of actions we might want to take in the future. The hon. Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg) finds himself deferring, I think, to the European Parliament, which is a very interesting thing.

My final plea tonight is to wider society. As Chair of the International Trade Committee, I have companies coming to me moaning and telling me about Brexit. They have to step up to the plate and take part in this debate. We should have had impact assessments tonight, but we did not get any—they are more elusive than Donald Trump’s tax returns. Companies in the City have to start informing this debate. They should have been doing it before now, because it would have helped tonight. My plea is aimed at boardrooms across the UK: they must get their voices heard, because if they do not, they will go down with this lot here.

[Sir Oliver Heald]

Parliament should have a meaningful vote on the EU withdrawal agreement before it is implemented. Clause 9, which is the subject of amendment 7, allows Ministers to implement the EU withdrawal agreement by secondary legislation. That was always a mistake. The courts were never going to accept a situation whereby the EU withdrawal agreement was brought into our law by secondary legislation—major constitutional legislation brought in by statutory instrument.

The Government, to be fair, acknowledged that. After presenting the Bill to Parliament, there came a point where they said, “No, we will need a Bill to implement the EU withdrawal agreement.” That is right, but what a mess. In my view, Parliament is entitled to have a meaningful vote on the agreement before the powers in clause 9 are used, so there needs to be a trigger in clause 9; otherwise, once the Government have reached agreement with the EU, they would be able just to start laying legislation.

Of course, we have had some welcome commitments tonight and during the day, but on something as important as this, where there are very significant powers involved, I feel that as parliamentarians and lawmakers we should have a say and the Bill should reflect what the Government are saying. If they are saying, as I believe they are, that what I have described will not happen until Parliament has approved the agreement, it should say that in the Bill. Indeed, it was noticeable that those who do not agree with the amendment, such as my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Sir Oliver Letwin) and hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset (Mr Rees-Mogg), all agree that the provisions are flawed. It has been some time now that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr Grieve) has been saying, “Come forward with your own amendment, O Government, so that this is in the right order and it has the protections that lawmakers would expect in the Bill.”

I am sad to vote, as I am going to, for article 7—[Interruption.] I said “article”, just like my hon. Friend the Member for North East Somerset. I am sad to vote for amendment 7, but I feel I should and that it is an important principle that, when we make the law, we get it right in the Bill.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I rise to speak to amendment 355, which stands in my name and that of my hon. Friends and sets out our position that an affirmative vote by devolved bodies prior to enactment is required.

If the process of Brexit could be summed up in one word, it would be “control”. For me, taking back control also means bringing the exercise of powers as close as possible to the people. The final deal will be subject to ratification by all EU member states, the EU Parliament and sub-state parliaments, variously numbered at 33, 37 or 38—take your pick. By the same token, I believe that the constituent parts of the UK should have the same final say as our counterparts in the EU. The final deal with the EU should be approved in statute passed by both the Westminster Parliament and the devolved Administrations, hence amendment 355.

We have repeated our arguments many times for remaining in the European single market and customs union. Wales’s goods-based, export-led economy relies on its close links with the EU single market, with 67% of all Welsh exports going to the EU and the single market sustaining 200,000 jobs. We already know that the stakes are high for Wales, so Wales must have a stake and a say in the final deal. I will not revisit the arguments I have made during previous debates on the Bill about the constitutional intricacies of the Sewel convention, but I wish to say to my Labour friends that not giving the devolved Governments a stake in the final deal risks subjecting our nation to policies, and indeed an ideology, that have so far caused our country grievous harm.

To conclude these brief remarks, the whole argument boils down to control. Following the referendum, the principle of returning control is not at issue. What is at issue is where that control lies. The minority Government party asserts that finally control rests here and here alone, but if the UK is a shared enterprise, based on mutual respect between Westminster and the devolved Governments, that party should also accept my amendment 355, which, to adapt a phrase from the Father of the House, is the fundamental minimum for a devolved parliamentary democracy.