Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 3rd July 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point. The independent production sector in Wales is not only innovative but extremely important to the Welsh economy and I am sure it was very relieved by the Government’s announcement last week.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

As the Secretary of State will know, total pay in Wales has fallen by 8% since 2007, one of the biggest falls in living standards in Europe. The spending review will not help the Welsh economy very much, taking a further £1 billion out of the Welsh economy—and the Labour party has now signed up to that. It is for Ynys Môn to decide whether it wants Labour cuts or Conservative cuts. Which does the Secretary of State think would be appropriate?

[Mr Jones]

I will make no apologies for the way in which the Government have treated the interests of Wales since we came to power. We have seen more infrastructure investment in Wales under this Government than under 13 years of Labour and I am proud of the support we are giving to Welsh families and the Welsh economy.

[Mr Llwyd]

The IMF—the high priests of austerity—said that the Government should cut less and start spending more on infrastructure projects. The re-announcement of HS2 last week was sort of welcome, but the cost has gone up to £50 billion. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that Wales will not be given the £2.5 billion consequential?

[Mr Jones]

HS2 is a United Kingdom project and both north and mid-Wales will benefit from it. I know that the right hon. Gentleman uses the north Wales line regularly, so I presume that he will support our campaign for electrification of that route.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 15th May 2013 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

As ever, my hon. Friend is correct. The Opposition’s position is characterised by two things: opportunism and hypocrisy. They know they will not reverse the changes if they ever form a Government again.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Today, 10 brave families will be applying to the High Court to declare the immoral bedroom tax unlawful. They are parents of disabled children and, in many instances, are disabled themselves. Will the Minister update the House on what steps his Government are taking to exempt those families from this immoral, unjust and unworkable tax that, according to an all-party report in March, will not save a penny?

[Stephen Crabb]

I am not going to comment on the specifics of the legal case, but the right hon. Gentleman rightly asks what we are doing to protect the most vulnerable people—those with severe disabilities in housing with adaptations. [Hon. Members: “Nothing.”] Opposition Members are heckling from a sedentary position, but contrary to what they are saying, we have set aside an extra £25 million for people with severe disabilities living in adapted accommodation and who need additional support at this time.

[Mr Llwyd]

I hear what the Minister says, but I would like him to respond to recent research conducted by BBC Wales, which revealed that there are approximately 28,000 individuals in Wales living in social housing that is considered to be under-occupied, with 400 one-bedroom homes available for them to move to. What will happen about that disconnect, or does he not care?

[Stephen Crabb]

There is a mixture of housing stock throughout Wales. Decisions will be taken on a localised basis, which is why we have more than doubled the amount of discretionary housing payment to more than £6 million to help meet the issue that the right hon. Gentleman raises.

Royal Charter on Press Conduct

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Monday 18th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

This is an important debate, but there has been a bit of hyperbole surrounding it. Today has been described as momentous, but I think that it is momentous for being the 10th anniversary of the war in Iraq; we should remember that.

No one in any part of this Chamber, or anywhere else in Parliament, would deny that a strong and free press is an essential pillar of our democracy. However, the corrupt press behaviour that we are trying to deal with, even though it takes place only in a minority of areas in the fourth estate, is a side effect of near-monopolies. We have had legislation for many years to combat unhealthy near-monopolies, but we have failed to apply that legislation properly or scrupulously to the media. This scandal is an exemplar of that fact.

I want to place on record my party’s gratitude—I am sure I speak for others—for the careful way in which Sir Brian Leveson undertook his inquiry. I also want to associate myself with some of the comments made about the proceedings over the past few days, which have perhaps not been the best demonstration of parliamentary democracy at work. During the last few hours, however, a broad compromise has been reached, and I am pleased about that. I am glad that Her Majesty’s Opposition have now reached agreement with the Government.

I should like to say in passing that I am grateful to the official Opposition for keeping me and my colleagues, and those in the Scottish National party and the other minority parties in the loop. The Prime Minister is in his place, and I want respectfully to place on record that, during the last Parliament, my party played a vital part in setting up the rather imperfect body known as the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority. I could give him details of some of the changes that were made as a result of arguments put forward by me and my hon. Friends. Some of our arguments won the day and, in one case, we preserved the freedom of Members of Parliament to speak out in this Chamber when the draft proposals would have defeated our privilege in that regard. With the greatest respect, I urge the Prime Minister to remember that, should there be a similar occasion, we are ready and available as good parliamentarians and democrats to get stuck in, if I may use an inelegant phrase.

On the events of last week, I shall leave aside the matter of the amendments that were tabled, but I would welcome some clarification from the Government on what exactly has happened and why we have suddenly reached this decision in such a short time. The hon. Member for Wellingborough (Mr Bone) made the important point that we have not had sufficient time to decide these matters. Be that as it may, we are now dealing with the decision. Today, we have at least got an agreement that we can work on, and that is to the good of all. I commend the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and Her Majesty’s Opposition for arriving at that agreement. Our proceedings will have been listened to by Joan Smith, Ben Loakes, Paul Dadge and Jacqui Hames, who were all in their own ways victims of the awful behaviour that we are complaining about. Today, we have an institution on which to build.

The press is the latest institution to have taken a knock as a result of scandal, corruption and illegal practice. Since the establishment of the Leveson inquiry, my party has called for the establishment of a regulatory body that is independent of Government and of industry, whose independence is guaranteed by law. We have argued, as have others, that access to restitution and a simple, easy-to-navigate complaints process should be central to any new system that is established. The new compromise provisions before us have dealt with those aspects, but the question of statutory underpinning is open to debate. If we go further into that question we might appear to be dancing on the head of a pin, however.

[Geraint Davies]

I agree that any response to a mistake should be equal and proportionate, but does the right hon. Gentleman think that the proposals could make investigative journalists more risk-averse, if there is a chance that they might not get a complete answer?

[Mr Llwyd]

No, I do not think so. It is a time-honoured practice for journalists always to check their sources, and they will need to revisit that aspect of their behaviour and ensure that they get it right the first time round. The proposals will not be welcome in all areas, however. The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Sir Edward Garnier), for example, could find himself considerably disadvantaged financially if what the hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) said were true. I make that joke in passing, weak as it was.

Lord Leveson’s report stated that statutory underpinning was necessary in order to set up a statutory recognition process and to provide for costs and damages incentives for publishers who subscribe to a recognised regulator. The Government have at least seen the merits of the latter provision, and tabled amendments accordingly. Sir Brian’s report recognised that publishers would need to be incentivised to sign up voluntarily to recognised regulators. He also recognised that there would be circumstances in which a court would determine that a publisher must give a claimant exemplary damages, albeit rarely, as a result of reckless behaviour. The cross- party amendments to which I initially put my name would have implemented Leveson’s suggestion that incentives should exist for publishers in respect of exemplary damages and costs in such situations. I am pleased that the Government saw fit to table similar amendments.

I have some concerns about the proposals before us, however. I realise that, due to the short notice for tabling amendments, it will not be possible for us to enter into a deep debate on these points, but I wish to put my concerns on the record none the less. First, the amendments to which I was a co-signatory, and which were due to be debated today and have now been withdrawn, would have ensured that any new commission that was established, as well as any regulatory body, would have been subject to freedom of information provisions. That is a crucial provision that would have ensured greater transparency in the new bodies, and I sincerely hope that the Prime Minister, or the Minister responding to the debate, will be able to give us an assurance that that will still be the case.

Secondly, I welcome the assurances from the Government that any arbitration service will be free for claimants to use. I am pleased about that. Another amendment to which I had put my name would have placed a duty on courts to take account of a defendant’s means, including readership and assets, when awarding exemplary damages. I welcome the fact that the proposals fulfil that requirement. Although the proposals do not meet every recommendation made by Lord Justice Leveson, I welcome the fact that the House has been able to reach a compromise, albeit at the eleventh hour, to get at least some reference to the royal charter in statute.

[Caroline Lucas]

The right hon. Gentleman has spoken powerfully about the perils of media concentration and the fact that today’s agreement, while welcome, is still unfinished. Does he agree that, in addition to what has been agreed today, we should call for urgent attention to be paid to measuring and tackling the concentration of media ownership, as Lord Justice Leveson recommended?

[Mr Llwyd]

That is a vital issue for the health of the press, and for the health of democracy. I see that the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee, the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr Whittingdale), has heard what my hon. Friend has said, and he will no doubt consider the matter.

It is surely clear by now that we need, and will get, a credible alternative to the Press Complaints Commission that will work in the interests of the public and of the responsible parts of the press. In Ireland, the press has been regulated by an independent voluntary body since 2008. Although the Press Council of Ireland is not a statutory body, it is recognised in legislation—namely, the Defamation Act 2009. Interestingly, all UK papers that are also published in Ireland have joined the PCI, even those that oppose statutory regulation in the UK.

Press regulation is devolved to the Scottish Parliament, and I am aware that a panel is considering the Leveson recommendations and their application in Scotland, headed by the former Solicitor-General and senator of the College of Justice, Lord McCluskey. I understand that the First Minister, Alex Salmond, has suggested in the past that he would be keen to implement Leveson’s recommendations in full, advocating an independent ombudsman and a Scottish press council similar to the Irish model.

I welcome today’s announcements and I am very pleased that this accommodation has been reached, but I agree with the right hon. Member for Belfast North (Mr Dodds) that we must be extremely vigilant as we go along. This is the beginning of the story, not the conclusion. I am sure that people who have been aggrieved will now see that something positive is and will be happening, and I am pleased about that.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 27th February 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

Yes, indeed—particularly as Wrexham is currently top of the Blue Square league.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

6. What discussions he has had with Ministers in the Welsh Government who have partial responsibility for justice and law and order.

[The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr David Jones)]

I have meetings with Ministers in the Welsh Government on a wide range of issues, including justice and law and order, although they are of course not devolved.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I will wish the Secretary of State a happy St David’s day on St David’s day and not today.

There is an all-Wales legal circuit, four excellent police forces and an all-Wales probation trust. It is high time that we devolved justice and policing to Wales. The Secretary of State will know that there is a huge clamour of enthusiasm for this move. I hope he will join it.

[Mr Jones]

I understand that Plaid Cymru has made its submission to the Silk commission, which will no doubt consider those proposals. It will report in spring next year. The Government have shown our commitment to devolution of policing by creating the office of police and crime commissioner, which brings policing as close as possible to the policed public.

[Mr Llwyd]

I heartily disagree with the Secretary of State on that—police and crime commissioners are nothing of the sort—but the obvious point is that laws in Wales are diverging naturally from those in England, including in administrative law, family law and criminal law. It is high time that the legislature in Wales had its own system. Otherwise, it will probably be the only legislature in the world without such a system.

[Mr Jones]

I hear the right hon. Gentleman’s point. No doubt the Silk commission will hear it too, and will take it into account when deciding whether the matter should be taken forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 16th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

The hon. Gentleman will know that Swansea made a bid for super-connected status, which was considered. Newport got super-connected status, which I am sure is welcomed by the people of Newport. He will know that a business case has to be made. He was very much to the fore in the business case for the electrification of the railway line to Swansea, and I hope he will play a similar role with regard to super-connected status.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

5. When he last met representatives of the tourism industry in Wales and what representations he received at that time; and if he will make a statement.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Crabb)]

The Wales Office continues to work closely with both the tourism industry and the Welsh Government, who have principal responsibility for policy in this area. Wales remains, of course, the very best part of the UK in which to holiday.

[Mr Llwyd]

I thank the Minister for that reply, and I fully agree with him for once. I remind him that the tourism industry in Wales accounts for 10% of employment, both direct and indirect, which is higher than in Scotland, England and Northern Ireland. As I am sure he is aware, at the end of next month we have Wales tourism week. What steps is his Department taking to ensure that this very important industry is given the political priority it requires?

[Stephen Crabb]

The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, of course, about the critical importance of the tourism industry to Wales. I recall from last year that the Wales Office team had a busy Wales tourism week, and we look forward to a similarly busy week at the end of this month, going out promoting tourism in Wales and meeting tourism representatives and operators.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The tourism industry in mid-Wales—

[Mr Llwyd]

rose—

[Mr Speaker]

Order. I apologise. The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) is taking a second supplementary on his own question. I had not realised he was going to do that, but he is welcome.

[Mr Llwyd]

What efforts will now be made—the industry is concerned about this—to ensure that Wales is marketed effectively abroad by VisitBritain? For many years now we have suffered because we have been undersold—knowingly or otherwise—by VisitBritain.

[Stephen Crabb]

Again, the right hon. Gentleman is quite right. VisitBritain has an important role to play in promoting Wales as part of promoting the UK more generally. He will be aware of the additional resources that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in the autumn statement for VisitBritain. The challenge for Wales is how we capture a greater share of the UK tourism spend coming into the country. We look forward to meeting VisitBritain very soon to talk about the specific challenge facing tourism in Wales.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Tuesday 8th January 2013 Commons Chamber

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As the hon. Gentleman may know, back in October the Chief Secretary to the Treasury made it clear that we would work with the Welsh Administration to look at the convergence or, as is the case at the moment, divergence of funding in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom. We have also made it clear that while there is a legitimate debate around the future of the Barnett formula, our priority remains the stabilisation of the public finances.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Given the need for change, supported by all parties on the Silk commission, and the Deputy Prime Minister’s enthusiasm, together with that of his party, will he make every effort to ensure that part 1 of Silk is legislated on during this Parliament?

[The Deputy Prime Minister]

As I said, we all need to take a careful look at part 1 and take a collective decision within the coalition Government on how we respond to it. As Ministers in all parts of the coalition have said, it is an extremely thorough and thoughtful piece of work representing a cross-party approach in Wales, and we will respond to it with similar seriousness before the spring of this year.

Justice and Security Bill [Lords]

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Tuesday 18th December 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Clarke]

The inference I would draw is that at least a judge, doing the best that he or she can, has had a chance to consider the evidence, and has delivered a judgment. If the judge is not allowed to consider the evidence, obviously no useful judgment can be pronounced at the end of the case. Of course it would be very much better if the evidence were given in an open procedure—in normal cases, the openness of justice is one of the proudest boasts of our system—but in cases in which national security will be jeopardised if evidence is given openly, it must be ensured that the evidence can be given in the best possible circumstances in the light of the obvious limitations of the case.

British judges are quite capable of deciding whether or not national security is involved. British judges do not need us to lecture them on the rule of law and the duty to be impartial between the parties. British judges will want to hear evidence openly if they think that that can possibly be practicable. British judges will be able to judge—they do it all the time—the weight to be given to evidence. Once the judges discover who was the source of the information, people can be challenged about the reliability of that source. Of course the system is not ideal—if we could only persuade all the country’s enemies to close their ears, there could be a perfectly ordinary single-action trial and we could hear everything—but I believe that the Bill will move us from what is currently a hopeless position to a better position that will allow us to hear the judgment of a judge in appropriate cases.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware of a criminal trial that took place some years ago in Caernarfon Crown court in north Wales, involving the damage to second homes, in which MI5 officers gave evidence behind a screen? Their anonymity was not compromised, and nor were the interests of the state.

[Mr Clarke]

Nothing in the Bill will affect the criminal law. No one will be prosecuted on the basis of secret evidence. However, there are plenty of cases—for instance, those involving MI5 or involving victims of certain types, such as vulnerable victims—in which it is proper to screen witnesses from public view, or otherwise protect them. The Bill, however, has nothing whatever to do with criminal cases.

The purpose of closed procedures is not just to ensure that no one can see what the agent looks like; there are some cases in which we cannot let people know what the agent was doing. The plaintiff may have been compromised as a result of terrorist or other activity, and he and his friends may be dying to know how they were caught. What were the British agents doing that put them on to it? They want to know who shopped them, and that will make things very difficult for a person who they come to suspect is the source of the material that is emerging. As I think everyone knows perfectly well, it is not possible to share that information with the parties in each and every case of this kind. However, while some people might consider it satisfactory to say “Well, in those cases the Government never defend themselves and we just pay millions of pounds”, I really do not think that we need tolerate that situation any longer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

It is interesting to follow the right hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes). He said that there was a lack of evidence to support the need for change, which was reminiscent of where the proposal for 90-day pre-charge detention fell down. I believe that part 2 of the Bill threatens to undermine the principle of natural justice that demands that parties to an action should be given access to the case they confront. The Bill is deeply contentious, but some vital amendments have been made by the other place and I think that they must be upheld as a bare minimum, although I am sure that I am not alone in wishing that certain elements of the Bill should be removed entirely. On my reading, even as amended the Bill could result in members of the public losing their cases against the state without ever having been told why, in the Government’s being allowed to hide evidence of wrongdoing, and in officials being given the power to exclude the other party from court proceedings. As Reprieve points out, that effectively means that they could place themselves beyond challenge and hence above the law.

Last week, we heard about the Finucane case. We were all heartily disgusted at what went on—the collusion between the police service and the security services. God forbid, but if such a thing happened again, I believe that the Bill would make it easier for the state to prevent a family from suing in such circumstances. Have we thought about that?

Part 2 also sets out the Government’s intention to remove the courts’ power to order someone who has been involved in wrongdoing to disclose information—the Norwich Pharmacal jurisdiction, which needs to be considered in Committee.

I shall restrict my remarks to the proposed extension of closed material procedure—known as “secret courts” in outside parlance—to all civil proceedings in clauses 6 to 13. Responding to those provisions, the president of the Law Society and the chairman of the Bar wrote to the Minister without Portfolio saying:

“CMPs…undermine the principle that public justice should be dispensed in public and will weaken fair trial guarantees and the principle of equality of arms. These are both essential elements of the rule of law.”

I might also add, as others have, that they undermine the principle that justice must be seen to be done.

We have heard what the Joint Committee on Human Rights has said. It has been vocal in its criticism of the legislation and has drawn attention to the

“troubling lack of evidence of any actual cases demonstrating the problem which the”

Government “asserts to exist.” At no point have the Government produced any known case that could not be tried under the current public interest immunity system, which I have seen operate over many years as a legal practitioner myself.

The special advocates memorandum says

“CMPs are inherently unfair and contrary to the common law tradition...the Government would have to show the most compelling reasons to justify their introduction...no such reasons have been advanced; and...in our view, none exists.”

It speaks volumes that the special advocates memorandum was so scathing about what the legislation purports to do; special advocates, of course, are better qualified to comment than anyone else. Among their concerns was the fact that the Bill as originally drafted required a judge to allow the Government’s application for a CMP if there was any material at all that could damage national security, even if the judge considered that the case could be fairly tried under the existing PII. The memorandum also makes the point that the decision on whether to trigger a CMP should lie with a judge and not the Secretary of State—an amendment to that effect has been carried and is most welcome; I hope that it will remain in the Bill.

Furthermore, under clause 6 as it originally stood, only the Government would have been able to apply for a CMP and not both parties. That is objectionable. The amendment on that is also welcome and I hope that it will be retained, although I am sure that the circumstances in which a plaintiff or claimant would apply would be limited.

I wish to refer to comments made by Lord Hodgson on Report in the other place. He said:

“I would like to see enshrined in the Bill a set of steps-hurdles…that the Government of the day will have to clear before they can resort to a CMP. The first is a requirement to go through the public interest immunity procedure, from which the judge can reach a balanced conclusion on whether the interests of national security require a closed court.”

In the same debate, Lord Pannick, a pre-eminent Queen’s Counsel, is recorded as arguing that

“a judge in an individual case should have a discretion, not a duty, to order a CMP.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 November 2012; Vol. 740, c. 1812-14.]

I urge the Government to take heed of those arguments and to uphold the amendments carried in the other place.

Perhaps the most disturbing provision of all is in clause 7(1)(d), which provides that, if a CMP is triggered, a court is not required to give the excluded party a summary of the closed material. Rather, the Bill as drafted requires only that the court should “consider requiring” that such a summary be given. Clause 7(1)(e) provides that the court must ensure that where a summary is given it

“does not contain material the disclosure of which would be”

against

“the interests of national security.”

[Mr Robert Buckland (South Swindon) (Con)]

I am listening very carefully to the right hon. Gentleman. Is not the problem with his argument on clause 7 that there will be cases, if only perhaps a very few, where gisting will not be possible without revealing the essence of what needs to be secret? Therefore, is it not essential to retain some discretion for the court to “consider”, and does that not give more power to the judges?

[Mr Llwyd]

The hon. Gentleman has obviously thought about this, and he may well be right, but at the moment we are all looking into a rather dark room as we do not know what we are actually facing. What he says is quite logical, and I accept it, but I remain concerned.

[Steve Baker (Wycombe) (Con)]

I am tempted on the whole to agree with the thrust of the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, but I draw his attention to clause 7(3), which, if I understand it correctly, requires that the court would direct that the party would not be able to rely on such points unless they provided a summary. I am therefore not sure that his argument stands.

[Mr Llwyd]

I believe that it does.

[Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD)]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Llwyd]

I would like to make some progress.

I have no time to deal with that at this stage. The hon. Member for Wycombe (Steve Baker) may be right; I do not know. I would like to discuss it with him on another occasion, perhaps in Committee.

If clause 7 goes through unamended, there will be no requirement to give excluded parties sufficient information about the case. I have heard the arguments about gisting, but surely in 99.9% of cases the gisting procedure will be the answer, coupled with other safeguards, one hopes.

Nicholas Blake QC, in giving evidence to the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-Terrorism and Human Rights, made the following comments on the situation that would arise after a judgment is given:

“If the special advocate thinks there is an error of law in the closed judgment, he gets permission to say, to pass the message out to the other team to say ‘I think that you should be appealing, I can’t tell you why’...So there is a sort of open appeal. ‘We think there is something wrong but we don’t know what it is.’ And then the court goes into closed session, so it is antithetical to every”

principle

“of due process and open justice.”

The Joint Committee on Human Rights has urged the Government to ensure that if CMPs are to be extended, there must be a

“statutory requirement in all cases to provide the excluded party with a gist of the closed material that is sufficient to enable him to give effective instructions to his Special Advocate.”

That is entirely reasonable, while taking on board what the hon. Member for South Swindon (Mr Buckland) says about avoiding breaches of national security, and so on. The Constitution Committee said in its report on the Bill published in June this year:

“In our view, the court should be required, for example, to consider whether the material could be disclosed to parties’ legal representatives in confidence and whether the material could be disclosed in redacted form.”

A related point that must be raised is the knock-on effect that clause 7 may have on appeals in civil cases, which is something that we really need to think through.

The Law Society has pointed out that the extension of CMPs will have wider implications for civil litigation and the professional ethics of solicitors. Solicitors will be impaired in advising their clients on the merits of a case and the prospects of success if they are unable to see the evidence brought by the other party. They will also be unable to advise on any prospect of an appeal, so undermining the client’s right to legal assistance in the determination of their civil rights and the fair trial guarantees under article 6 of the European convention on human rights.

The provisions contained in part 2 of this Bill will mark a departure—I am not saying that it will be radical, but it will be a departure—from the principles of open justice, and it will possibly undermine confidence in our justice system. I sincerely hope that this House will follow the example of the other place in seeking to amend what appears to be an unbalanced Bill. Discretion as to whether a CMP should be used must ultimately lie, of course, with a judge and not the Secretary of State. Although courts should be required to balance the interests of national security against those of fairness, either party in proceedings should be able to apply for a CMP and, perhaps most importantly of all, there should be a statutory requirement in all cases to provide the excluded party with a summary of the material to enable him or her to give cogent instructions to the special advocate representing his or her interests in court.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work he has done in seeking to obtain new nuclear on Anglesey. He knows that I have always been anxious to work closely with him on all aspects of nuclear generation on Anglesey and of course I am prepared to meet him, because he has raised a very important point.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

As the Secretary of State knows, Wales is very well placed for energy generation and the Swansea bay tidal lagoon project plans to offer educational services to the university in Swansea to foster skills in green energy creation. Will he commend the project and those similar to it for their commitment to creating jobs and local expertise in Wales?

[Mr Jones]

The right hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Green energy presents enormous opportunities to Wales and I commend the project he mentions. We now have the green investment bank, which has just been launched today. It will provide the most enormous opportunity to leverage investment into that important future sector.

[Mr Llwyd]

I thank the Secretary of State for being so positive. He knows that renewable energy generation in Wales increased by 58% between 2004 and 2010 and employs hundreds of people, including in the solar panel industry in mid-Wales, and of course we have seen the developments on Ynys Môn, the energy island. Does he agree that now is perhaps the time for us in Wales to showcase our skills, our resources and our prospects to the rest of the world at a green energy summit? If he is so minded, would it not be a good thing to place that summit in the enterprise zone at Trawsfynydd?

[Mr Jones]

Actually, I had not thought of that, but it is an excellent idea that we should take further. I was speaking to the leader of Gwynedd council, Councillor Dyfed Edwards, the other day and discussed the important enterprise zone at Trawsfynydd. Let us explore the prospects of a summit at Trawsfynydd.

European Council

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Monday 26th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[The Prime Minister]

I think that it is perfectly possible to save money in the Commission’s budget. Its staff have things such as automatic promotions, very generous pension arrangements and expatriation allowances for living in Brussels, even if they have been there for 30 years. It is time to have a clear-out of such things and the Commission needs to be convinced of that. Part of the point of building the alliance is to say to the Commission, “You really have to look at your own budget.” That is not the whole answer, because administration makes up only 6% of the total, but it can make a contribution.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I am concerned that the Prime Minister says that there are savings to be made in cohesion and structural funds. He is aware that many areas of the UK, such as west Wales and the valleys, enjoy receiving such payments. Is he saying that he can foresee a cut in that support?

[The Prime Minister]

There is a need for cuts in the overall cohesion and structural funds budget of the European Union, given the fiscal constraints that the net contributors are operating under. We should be frank and honest as a country in saying that, although there are regions of the UK that still benefit and should go on benefiting from structural funds, such funds should, on the whole, be for the poorest regions of the poorest countries. Britain’s negotiating position is different from that of many countries in that we do not go to Brussels and simply defend every penny that we receive; we try to seek an outcome that is right for the whole European Union. We cannot for ever argue for restraining the budget if we want to keep hold of structural funds for countries that are better off than most.

Oral Answers to Questions

Elfyn Llwyd Excerpts

Wednesday 17th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

It is true that under the Welsh Development Agency, Wales was regularly the most important destination for inward investment, but I support both Governments working closely together to continue to attract inward investment into Wales.

[Mr Elfyn Llwyd (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)]

I warmly associate myself and my colleagues with the right hon. Gentleman’s remarks regarding Dyfed-Powys police and all the emergency services which are looking for little April Jones. I also congratulate the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary on their appointments.

What assessment has the right hon. Gentleman made of the loss to Wales of inward investment since the disappearance of the Welsh Development Agency brand? Who has the last word on inward investment—this Government or the Government in Wales?

[Mr Jones]

It is clear, as the right hon. Gentleman says, that Wales needs a strong brand in order to promote itself around the world. It is clear also that although economic development is devolved to the Assembly Government, it needs to have the leverage that it will get from UKTI. That is why I am encouraging the Welsh Government to work closely with UKTI.

[Mr Llwyd]

What discussions have the UK Government had with the Welsh Government about the establishment of a dedicated trade promotion agency, either sitting within the Welsh Government or as a private sector vehicle, as recommended by the Welsh Affairs Committee back in February?

[Mr Jones]

I have regular discussions with the Welsh Government about inward investment, and I hope the Welsh Minister for Business is giving consideration to that.