Wales Bill

Guto Bebb Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Paul Flynn]

I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. In my book, which begins with a dramatis personae, I awarded Welsh politicians a number of pompoms for being poodle-ish or flames for being dragon-like. I think he emerged with no pompoms and five flames, which was the top award. His point is absolutely right.

During the pre-legislative scrutiny, it became clear that the question of the jurisdiction was a fundamental one that had to be addressed in the Bill. As the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnyddp said, the Plaid Cymru amendment adopts the approach in the Welsh Government’s alternative Bill. That is fine—we agree with that—but we are proposing a compromise that would address the issue in a more consensual way. That is the spirit in which we approach consideration of the Bill. In response to the intervention from the Secretary of State, I must say that I welcome the concept of working with the Welsh Assembly. I know that the Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee of the Welsh Assembly will be meeting throughout August to consider the Bill under our former colleague Huw Irranca-Davies. I am sure that it will have a great deal to contribute, and I hope that its suggestions will meet with an open door.

There is common ground among legal and constitutional experts that the current arrangements are not sustainable. The challenges can only grow as the Welsh statute book develops further in the fifth Assembly term—“the Welsh statute book” has a nice ring to it. We have not yet risen to the heights of cyfraith Hywel Dda and the days in the 10th century when Wales led Europe with progressive legislation. There was a law that said if a starving person had gone to three villages without being fed, he or she was entitled to steal without risk of prosecution. They had wonderful rules on the rights of women that were far in advance of anywhere else and they had practically no capital punishment. Eight hundred years later, England had 220 crimes for which people could be punished with death, including stealing from a rabbit warren and cutting down a tree. So we are building on the shoulders of the giants of the 10th century and Hywel Dda. We are a long way from it, but this is another step towards that progress.

The joint jurisdiction was based on the premise that there was a common body of law across England and Wales with a single set of administrative arrangements. That premise worked for the centuries following the Acts of Union but is now out of date. In essence, that premise is inconsistent with legislative devolution; it is simply impossible to argue for retention of the joint jurisdiction when the criminal and private law in England and Wales will increasingly diverge as a result of Assembly legislation. The starting point is that there must be robust joint arrangements between the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers to work through the issues and identify solutions, and the UK Government’s proposed official working group might add some value. In his intervention, the Secretary of State said that an invitation had been sent to the Welsh Government. I do not know about that, but we would like to see that joint working. It is certainly the desire of the Welsh Government.

Our amendments would achieve three things. First, there would be a duty on the Lord Chancellor and Welsh Ministers to keep the operation of the justice system under review, including the jurisdiction question. Secondly, they would be able to appoint an expert panel to advise them, which could be an invaluable source of legal expertise to focus on the practical issues. Thirdly, the work would have to be transparent and sustained, with an annual report laid before the National Assembly and Parliament.

The Secretary of State, like his predecessor, wants the Bill to offer a lasting settlement, and so do we, but that will not happen unless they put forward a credible and serious process for reforming the joint jurisdiction. There is a major gap in the Bill as it stands. Amendment 7 is proposed as a constructive solution that deserves cross-party support and we hope to press it to a Division.

Clause 2 provides statutory underpinning for the Sewel convention. Under our constitution, both Parliament and the Assembly can legislate for Wales on devolved matters, so it is important that there be a clear understanding between the two legislatures as to which will be the principal legislature on these matters. The convention normally resolves that issue in favour of the Assembly. Amendments 23 and 24 address that issue further. The convention also requires that if Parliament proposes to amend the legislative competence of the Assembly, that too should require the Assembly’s formal consent.

To be fair to the UK Government, they have always acknowledged that the Bill will require the Assembly’s consent if it is to proceed to Royal Assent. This is a matter not of controversy but of common sense and consensus between the parties. This aspect of the convention, however, is only set out in rather obscure terms in a devolution guidance note for civil servants. As drafted, clause 2 makes no reference to this aspect of the convention at all, so it is an incomplete statement of the real position. Clarity would be appreciated.

Amendment 4 is designed to fill that gap. It would provide a comprehensive statement of the circumstances when Assembly consent is required for parliamentary legislation. In particular, it would make it clear in the Bill that Assembly consent is required when a parliamentary Bill proposes changes to the Assembly’s legislative competence. I note that amendment 25 is broadly to the same effect. This is an important element in the Welsh devolution settlement, so clarity is required; it should not depend on what is written in devolution guidance note. I urge the Government to accept these reasonable and constructive amendments.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)]

I join hon. Members in welcoming the hon. Members for Newport West (Paul Flynn) and for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) to their places on the Front Bench. I fear that I have followed the hon. Gentleman’s political career for more than 40 years, which makes me feel very old. When he was the candidate in Denbigh during the 1974 general election, my father was the election agent for Ieuan Wyn Jones, who stood for Plaid Cymru. The hon. Gentleman clearly made a huge impression on my father, who followed his career avidly, but I am surprised that as a resident of Llansannan he did not appreciate the beauty and importance of the agricultural community in the way that he perhaps should have. When my wife had a bookshop, we recommended “Dragons led by Poodles” to many of our customers. It was one of our bestsellers in the year in question, so he undoubtedly contributed to my coffers then.

On behalf of myself and the Secretary of State, may I also thank the hon. Members for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) and for Clwyd South (Susan Elan Jones) for their constructive engagement on the Bill prior to the change of guard on the Opposition Front Bench? The Bill has been brought forward in a measured way, and we have attempted at all times to have a constructive engagement with all Opposition parties. The constructive engagement we had with the hon. Members for Llanelli and for Clwyd South was particularly appreciated.

I need to go through the amendments in some detail to provide reassurance where necessary and to explain the Government’s position on them. Let me deal first with amendment 17, which was tabled by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts). This is clearly an attempt to change the place where new part 2A is inserted into the Government of Wales Act 2006. The new part inserted by clause 1 enshrines the permanence of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government and recognises the body of Welsh law. Amendment 8, which was tabled by the Opposition, would change the title of new part 2A, making it broader in scope. Amendments 17 and 8 are consequential amendments, so I shall explain the Government’s position on them when I speak to other amendments.

Amendments 18 to 22, tabled by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, are designed to insert into the Government of Wales Act 2006 separate statements on the permanence of the National Assembly for Wales and of the Welsh Government. The amendments rightly recognise the importance of new part 2A in confirming without any doubt in law what is widely understood—that the National Assembly and the Welsh Government are a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (David T. C. Davies) and his work as Chairman of the Welsh Select Committee. I pay tribute, too, to his speech in which he highlighted the permanence of the Welsh Assembly in the UK’s constitutional arrangements. I accept his argument that a majority is a majority in a democratic vote. My mother-in-law argued on Sunday that we should try to avoid the result of the EU referendum, highlighting the fact that it was a very small majority on a very small turnout, whereupon I said to her that she was of the view that the 50.3% of the people of Wales who voted for the establishment of the Welsh Assembly should be respected. I stood by the democratic principle that a majority is a majority, but it was good to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth being so clear in his view that the Assembly is part and parcel of the UK’s constitutional arrangements.

It is fair to say that a great deal of consideration has been given to the content of this clause and its place in the 2006 Act, not only in the context of the draft Wales Bill, published last October, but in terms of the read-across from the Scotland Act 2016. As in the context of Scotland, I am keen to see this commitment expressed in a single clause to reflect the fact that the Assembly and the Welsh Government belong together as a part of the UK’s constitutional arrangements. I would, however, like to give further consideration to the most appropriate place to insert new section 92A in the Government of Wales Act 2006.

I shall deal next with amendments 5, 7, 9 and 10, which amend new clause 92B on the recognition of Welsh law. In its second report, published in March 2014, the Silk commission recommended that there

“should be further administrative devolution in the court system”,

and it specifically provided for devolution in respect of the various divisions of the High Court, which should sit in Wales on a regular basis to hear cases—other than highly specialist cases—that arise in Wales. The commission stated that a High Court office should be established in Wales to co-ordinate High Court sittings in Wales; that the divisions of the Court of Appeal should continue to sit in Wales on a regular basis to hear cases that arise in Wales; and that High Court and Court of Appeal judges should be allocated to sit in Wales only if they satisfy the Lord Chief Justice that they understand the distinct requirements of Wales.

I am pleased to be able to state clearly from the Dispatch Box that many of the recommendations relating to administrative devolution in fact reflect the current position in Wales: the senior courts already sit in Wales; the administration of Welsh courts is overseen by Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service Wales; and court sittings are co-ordinated locally.

--- Later in debate ---

[Jonathan Edwards]

There has, of course, been a material change in conditions, following the events of the last few weeks and the EU referendum. From our perspective, we just want to get the Bill on the statute book, so that we can move on to the next big debate about the future of our country. Is the Minister seriously saying from the Dispatch Box today, after the events of the last few weeks, with Scottish independence imminent in the next few years and with Irish unification never being closer since Lloyd George decided to split that country in two, that this Bill will hold Wales together for the next generation?

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman is a passionate speaker and a strong advocate for his position. In a debate in Westminster Hall this morning, however, I warned of the dangers of creating history as we want to believe it to happen. I am not as yet convinced that there is enough evidence to suggest that Scotland is imminently about to leave the United Kingdom—[Interruption.] I am not convinced. There was a referendum two years ago that provided a fairly clear result. I think it would therefore be inappropriate to legislate on the basis of the wish list of the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards)—much as I enjoy that wish list and the passion with which it is articulated.

The Government are fully committed to maintaining the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales. It has served Wales very well. It is also our firm view that it is the most effective, efficient and consistent way to deliver justice. The issues raised by the hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) highlighted some of the complexities that would be created if we moved away from that single jurisdiction at this point in time. The vast majority of law is not devolved, so there is no justification for a separate jurisdiction that would create significant upheaval and huge costs. It is worth highlighting that cost issues cannot be swept under the carpet. There would be a cost implication with very little benefit. I wonder whether Plaid Cymru Members have carried out a cost-benefit assessment to weigh up the benefits and the costs that would be incurred.

Amendment 5 envisages separate legal and court jurisdictions, administered by a common judiciary and court staff. It is designed to provide clarity, but I am not sure that it would. I think it would create more confusion, having the opposite effect—a point made by the hon. Member for Cardiff West (Kevin Brennan). The same people would be charged with administering two separate legal regimes where there is currently a commonality of law and procedure. This would have downstream consequences and it would impact on how the legal system works. It is difficult to justify such an impact on the basis of the current body of Welsh law.

We have heard the argument that the situation in Scotland and Northern Ireland is simpler because they have separate legal jurisdictions. I expected to hear that argument, but it ignores the historical reality that there has been—there always has been for that matter—a separate Scottish legal jurisdiction. I have engaged previously with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr on the laws of Hywel Dda, who is rightly remembered for the legal system he put in place.

[David T. C. Davies]

Does the Minister also accept that Hywel Dda was very well known for the importance he placed on working with the English Government at the time, particularly with Edward the Elder and Athelstan? Is there not a great lesson for all of us here in terms of co-operation with the Welsh Assembly?

[Guto Bebb]

I appreciate that there are quite a few experts on Hywel Dda in this place. It is certainly the case that he took a co-operative approach. As I said previously in a debate with the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr, Hywel Dda was perhaps very good in some respects, but he allowed the murder of his brother-in-law for his own personal gain in the kingdom. So perhaps he was not perfect.

Let me return to the serious issue of the separate legal entity. I think that, for all the talk of Hywel Dda, it would be a mistake to ignore the historical context. We are where we are. We legislate not in terms of what we would like to see, but in terms of what is practical and what is right at this point in time, and I think that the Bill has struck the right balance in that respect.

We recognise the validity of some of the points that were raised during pre-legislative scrutiny. Wales has a distinctive legal identity. It has two legislatures, and a growing body of law made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers. The Bill recognises that, and there is clearly a need to ensure that it does so in the context of maintaining the single jurisdiction of England and Wales. Our position is clear: we are recognising reality in the context of a system that currently works very well for Wales and the United Kingdom.

Amendments 7 and 9 call for the Lord Chancellor and Welsh Ministers to keep under review the functioning of the justice system in relation to Wales, including the question of whether the single legal jurisdiction should be separated into a jurisdiction for Wales and a jurisdiction for England. The case for that was argued by the hon. Members for Torfaen and for Newport West.

This is an important issue, and it should be considered carefully. The St David’s day process considered the position for and against devolving justice, and ultimately found no consensus in favour of implementing the Silk commission’s recommendation. As I have said, the Government firmly believe that the most effective, efficient and consistent way to administer justice is under a single legal jurisdiction.

Despite the devolution of powers to Wales, under this Bill and the Government of Wales Acts before it, and despite the increasing amount of legislation made by the Assembly, the vast majority of laws apply equally across England and Wales, and will continue to do so. The Government therefore pledged to continue to reserve justice and policing in their election manifesto, as I mentioned earlier. However, I agree with the principle that the functioning of the justice system must be kept under review, especially given the continuing divergence in law to which I have referred.

It is for that very reason that my right hon. Friends the Justice Secretary and the Secretary of State for Wales have established a working group to consider the administrative changes needed to meet the administrative and operational demands of diverging legislation in a Welsh context. The group will represent the key areas affected by the changing legislative Welsh landscape, and will consider a range of circumstances affecting the operation of justice in Wales. I can tell the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams), who raised the point in his speech, that the Welsh Government have been invited to be represented on the group, but the invitation was issued to officials in that Government, so there should be no condemnation of any political forces—any Ministers—in the Assembly. We expect a positive response to the invitation.

[Mr Mark Williams]

Will the Minister clarify—I am sure that he is on the verge of doing so—the time frame for the joint working group? I understood that it would conclude its work in the autumn. The amendment proposes a real review over a lengthier period as the divergence between Welsh and English legislation becomes a reality.

[Guto Bebb]

It is currently envisaged that the group will report in the autumn, and, as things stand, that is its aim. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman, at least in terms of clarity.

It is important to understand what the group will and will not do. It will consider the administrative and operational implications of a shared but single legal jurisdiction, but it will not discuss broader constitutional questions such as whether there should be a separate jurisdiction. The Government’s view is clear: the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales is the most effective, efficient and consistent way to deliver justice. I hope that provides the clarity for which Members have been asking.

Amendment 10 seeks to omit subsection (2) of the proposed new section 92B of the Government of Wales Act. Subsection (2) recognises that a body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and by Welsh Ministers forms part of the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, while giving due regard to the boundaries of competence set out in the Bill. It is important for the Assembly to have full and effective powers to enforce its legislation on devolved matters, and in order to achieve that, a growing body of distinct law will necessarily continue to be made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers.

The Bill provides for that throughout. In particular, paragraphs 3 and 4 of new schedule 7B, which schedule 2 inserts into the Government of Wales Act and which the Committee will debate next week, make it clear that the Assembly may modify the private law for a devolved purpose, and that only certain core elements of the criminal law are outside its competence. Those elements are listed in paragraph 4 of the new schedule. The Assembly will, for example, be able to create and modify offences when they are for the purpose of enforcing devolved provisions.

Subsection (2) of new section 92B is intended to be helpful, explaining that the purpose of the provision is to recognise the ability of the Assembly and Welsh Ministers to make laws forming part of the unified legal system of England and Wales. The new section constitutes a declaratory statement, and does not bestow any further powers on the Assembly than are provided for elsewhere in the Bill. It is, however, important in that it enables the contribution made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers to the law of England and Wales to be recognised for the first time, while having due regard to the other provisions in the Bill. Subsection (2) is required to clarify that the statement must be considered in the context of the rest of the Bill. Without it, there might be uncertainty about the meaning of subsection (1).

[Stephen Doughty (Cardiff South and Penarth) (Lab/Co-op)]

So that the public can understand the divergence that has, to a limited degree, taken place so far, will the Minister tell us what proportion of the current law he considers to be distinctly Welsh, as opposed to England and Wales law? May we, in future, be given a regular update on that distinction, so that ordinary people understand where the law is diverging?

[Guto Bebb]

That is a good question, because it highlights the importance of ensuring that people in Wales understand where law is made. The percentage of Welsh law is currently tiny by comparison with the overall impact of the law on those people, but I think we should keep an eye on the position.

Clause 1 sets the scene for the new model of Welsh devolution that is presented in the Bill. It inserts a new part 2A into the Government of Wales Act, ensuring that, for the first time, the permanence of the National Assembly for Wales and the Welsh Government is confirmed. It recognises both as a permanent element of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements, and as part and parcel of our nation’s constitutional fabric, and reflects the importance of the National Assembly and the Welsh Government to political life in Wales.

The Silk commission recommended that it be recognised that the National Assembly for Wales is permanent for as long as that is the will of the majority of people in Wales. In the St David’s day agreement, the Government gave an undertaking to enshrine that commitment in legislation, which we are delivering in clause 1; we did the same for the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government in the Scotland Act 2016. I think it fair to say that most Members welcome that certainty.

New section 92A also provides that the Assembly and the Welsh Government are not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision by the people of Wales voting in a referendum. I hope that such a referendum will not be forthcoming, but I think it important to recognise that the decision on whether we have a Welsh Assembly and a Welsh Government is a decision for the people of Wales, to be made by them.

New section 92B underpins the commitment to permanence by recognising that there is a body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers that forms part of the law of England and Wales. It is important that we recognise that in statute—which we are doing for the first time—while also recognising the elements that are common to England and Wales. Clause 1 is a declaratory statement, but its recognition of the contribution made by the Assembly and Welsh Ministers to the law of England and Wales is important none the less. Meanwhile, the Justice in Wales working group of officials that I mentioned earlier will consider what changes are necessary to reflect the distinctiveness of Wales within the administrative arrangements for justice, and, as I have said, I expect a report in the autumn.

Amendment 23, tabled by the hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd, seeks to broaden the scope of the commitment given in relation to the convention about Parliament’s legislating on devolved matters by removing the word “normally”. The commitment in clause 2 that Parliament will not normally legislate with regard to devolved matters without the consent of the Assembly reflects the current convention on legislative consent. We gave a commitment to put that convention on a statutory footing in the St David’s day agreement, and that is what clause 2 does. The clause is also in line with the provision made in relation to the Scottish Parliament in the Scotland Act 2016. Since the convention was established, a legislative consent motion has always been sought before Parliament has passed legislation for Wales in relation to devolved matters. This is part of the normal working arrangements between the UK Government and the Welsh Government and we expect it to continue, but to remove “normally” from the clause would fundamentally change the convention. The “not normally” element of both the convention and clause is essential as it acknowledges parliamentary sovereignty and, within the clause, signals to the courts that this clause is not intended to be subject to adjudication.