Wales Bill

Debate between David T C Davies and Nick Thomas-Symonds

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[David T. C. Davies]

There was no mechanism but there was a second referendum a few years later. I forget the percentages, but a much clearer level of support was expressed for the Welsh Assembly in that referendum. Realistically, now, by the time of the next election there will be people who have lived their entire lives with a Welsh Assembly. I do not think that it is a greatly loved institution, but it is not greatly hated, either. It is just accepted, as part of the furniture.

The only point I would make to the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) is this. Regardless of whether her amendment 21 gets the support of the Committee today, I think it is absolutely inconceivable that there will ever be any attempt to get rid of the Welsh Assembly. It is our duty to work with it and to remember what the Welsh public have said to us twice through referendums. I hope that we will all take the same view about all referendums in which the Welsh public have expressed their voice.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)]

I will speak in favour of amendments 9, 7 and 10. It is always a pleasure to follow my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies). I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) to the Front Bench. He follows in a fine tradition of octogenarians serving in the Labour Front-Bench team. The one who sprang to my mind was Lord Addison, who left the Attlee Government in 1951 at the age of 82. I am sure that in my hon. Friend we have a fine 21st century successor to Lord Addison. When I first came to this House, I thoroughly enjoyed reading my hon. Friend’s book “How to be an MP”; I look forward to the sequel, “How to be a Front Bencher”.

I will speak on the issue of a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) spoke about the wording of amendment 5. When the Wales Bill still contained the vast number of necessity tests that it did, there was a more powerful argument for a separate legal jurisdiction, but now that the necessity tests have been all but removed, save in two very specific circumstances, I do not think that any urgency for that remains. That allows us the chance to move forward far more pragmatically.

We have to be absolutely clear about the consequences of having a separate legal jurisdiction. I should say that prior to coming to this House I spent 11 years as a practising barrister in Cardiff and am still a door tenant, though non-practising, at Civitas Law. I have looked at situations where the permission of the court would be required to serve outside the jurisdiction—in other words, an additional barrier to access to justice would exist—if there was a separate legal jurisdiction. The list includes interim remedies, contracts, claims in tort, enforcement, claims about property within jurisdiction, trusts, claims by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, claim for costs order in favour of, or against, third parties, admiralty claims, claims under various enactments, and claims for breach of confidence or misuse of private information. All those areas would require permission to serve outside the jurisdiction. That may have been rather a legal list, but let us think of its practical consequences. For example, let us suppose a constituent from Torfaen goes to Bristol and falls over. They will be put in a complicated legal position.

Health is also a cross-border issue. If someone who lives in Wales crosses the border for treatment, there will be complications in cases of medical negligence. When people from Wales drive to London on the M4 and if they have an accident on the other side of the Severn bridge, that will have suddenly taken place in a different jurisdiction. If someone buys a washing machine or some other product from England, consumer protection law will cause complications for someone in Wales who is seeking a remedy for a problem.