Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 19th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

I agree entirely with the comments made by my right hon. Friend.

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

Does the Secretary of State agree that the Department for Transport and its predecessors have prevaricated over funding rail electrification in north Wales for more than 40 years, and can he give us a definite date for the project to move ahead?

[Guto Bebb]

I agree with the hon. Lady that the situation in north Wales has been one of under-investment for a very long time, so it is important to highlight the current investments: £43 million for signalling in north Wales, and a significant investment in the Chester links into Wrexham. It is important to look at the Growth Track 360 proposals carefully and coherently to see how we can improve connectivity through rail in north Wales.

Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 12th September 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

I will come back to the hon. Member, but I want to finish my point.

I would remind Members that the whole debate around a separate legal jurisdiction came as a consequence of the necessity test in the draft Bill. The necessity test has been removed and the consequence could be that that call and demand for a separate jurisdiction should therefore fall. However, it is almost as though it has taken on a life of its own, but I still question the purpose, because I am still trying to find out what difference a separate legal jurisdiction would make for anyone living or working in Wales, other than uncertainty for investors when the reputation of the England and Wales legal system is recognised right around the world.

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

But surely the purpose of a distinct legal jurisdiction would be the quality of justice provided in Wales, and at the end of the day this is the only legislature in the world which does not have a jurisdiction. This situation is crying out to be resolved, and if not now, when?

[Alun Cairns]

rose—

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Liz Saville Roberts]

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

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

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

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

[Liz Saville Roberts]

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

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

[Mr Mark Williams]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s last comment, having served alongside her on the Welsh Affairs Committee. She mentions Paul Silk, who spoke about the need to review this matter within 10 years. The “Justice in Wales” report from the Wales Governance Centre referred to a standing commission. I think that was the view of the First Minister as well, when he announced the Bill that the hon. Lady mentioned. Given that there is an evolving picture, surely we should be monitoring it with a view to changing it in the near future? I may well share the final destination that she and her hon. Friends seek to reach, but there is a case for carrying people forward on the basis of experience over the next few years.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree that we are seeing a gradual momentum in favour of the change. As I said earlier, if not now, when? We in Plaid Cymru feel that objections, rather than any real argument, are being cast up in front of us. We know that we are travelling on a trajectory. When will we reach the end point, without hindrances being thrown in our way?

Other advocates of our approach include Sir Roderick Evans, QC, the former High Court judge and pro-chancellor of Swansea University, barrister Rhodri Williams, QC, and solicitor Michael Imperato—greatly respected lawyers who felt so strongly about the issue that they created the Justice for Wales group. Further supporters were the constitutional experts at the Wales Governance Centre and the UCL constitution unit. Even the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd, whom I quoted in the last debate on the Bill, has spoken in favour of a distinct legal jurisdiction.

I know that many people in the Minister’s party have spent the first half of this year telling us not to listen to experts, but I implore him to do so in this instance. He should drop the political and ideological obsession with a unified Welsh and English legal jurisdiction and take heed of the clear and logical advice of so many experts on this issue. With a new constitutional settlement, an increasingly divergent statute book, and Brexit set to change the shape of the UK, it is time for the Government to recognise the facts and the need for a distinct legal jurisdiction in Wales.

[Chris Davies (Brecon and Radnorshire) (Con)]

I, too, sat through many Welsh Affairs Committee inquiries and lots of evidence from academics and legal experts on this matter. Yes, they all wanted a separate or a distinct legal jurisdiction, but the hon. Lady has not explained how it would work and, more importantly, how it would benefit the people of Wales to have a separate legal system.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, the amendment goes into detail, even in relation to the court structures and the professional structures that would be required. I argue strongly that we are travelling on this trajectory, and what is important is the quality of justice and the quality of decisions made in Wales in relation to legislation made in Wales.

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

My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) asked a pertinent question: what are the advantages to Wales? The St David’s Day agreement was about powers for a purpose. Has the hon. Lady read the fantastic article by Gwion Lewis in this month’s issue of Barn, in which he highlights the way in which the Supreme Court met in Cardiff and made a decision in relation to Welsh language education in Denbighshire, a decision which I am sure the hon. Lady would welcome? What would a distinct legal jurisdiction have decided differently in that case?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

We would argue that a distinct legal jurisdiction is needed for the quality of decisions to be made consistently. We are travelling in that direction. We need clarity on the matter. To be simple about it and not to reiterate the details that are in the amendment, the Welsh Assembly is the only legislature in the world that does not have its own jurisdiction. That in itself is a pretty clear argument.

We offer the Government a pragmatic solution to the issue that will ensure the long-term sustainability of this devolution deal for the people of Wales. Obviously, Plaid Cymru would prefer to see a clean break, with the creation of a separate legal jurisdiction, but our amendment offers a reasonable position that I hope the whole House will recognise as necessary. For this reason, I will be pressing the amendment to the vote.

On the Government and Opposition amendments, new clause 4 stops the devolution of decision-making powers over when to hold elections for police and crime commissioners in Wales. As it is another example of this Government’s shameful misunderstanding of what devolution means, we will not support this amendment if it is pressed to the vote, but we do not intend voting against it. Government amendments 3 to 8 are uncontentious and technical, and warrant no further discussion at this point.

A number of Government amendments are based on recommendations made in July by the Presiding Officer of the National Assembly for Wales, Elin Jones. Plaid Cymru had tabled these amendment in earlier stages and we are pleased to see that the Secretary of State has now endorsed our position. We are disappointed, however, that the Government have failed to recognise the Presiding Officer’s recommendations concerning the legislative consent process and the restoration of the Assembly’s current ability to legislate in an “ancillary” way on exceptions from competence.

Amendments 9 to 12 give the Presiding Officer, rather than the Secretary of State, powers over when to call a Welsh general election. These amendments, based on the Presiding Officer’s recommendations, are welcomed by Plaid Cymru and will be supported. We support Government amendments 14 to 18, which make changes to the finance provisions in the Bill. These are further examples of amendments proposed by the Presiding Officer which the Government have accepted. We also support the related consequential amendments, Government amendments 30, 31, 44, 48 and 51.

Amendments 19 to 22 laid by the Government insert the Welsh names of institutions into the Bill for clarity. These amendments are not controversial. Government amendment 26, which clarifies the ability of an Assembly Act to specify the prosecutor of an offence within devolved competence, is also based on the recommendations made by the Presiding Officer. I appreciate the Secretary of State’s explanation of this clarifying amendment, which we support.

Plaid Cymru also supports Government amendments 28 and 29. Amendment 28 allows for changes to the role of the Children’s Commissioner by the Assembly. Amendment 29 removes prohibition on the ability of an Assembly Act to modify sections 145 and 145A of the Government of Wales Act 1998, relating to examinations and studies by the Auditor General for Wales—again, a change suggested by the Presiding Officer. Government amendments 32 and 34 to 36 are technical changes or remove errors in the wording of the Bill. Government amendment 33 clarifies areas in which areas UK Ministers will retain authority. Although this is a technical change, we fundamentally disagree with the principle of this section of the Bill and will, if necessary, vote against the amendment.

Government amendments 39 to 42 increase the number of devolved bodies listed in schedule 4. We are pleased that the list has expanded, but the fact that the Government has had to expand it before the Bill is even enacted illustrates what Plaid Cymru has said from the beginning—that the Bill is overly restrictive and in the long term will inevitably become unworkable.

Amendment 43, tabled by the Government, allows Orders in Council to be used to make provision for proclamations related to the timing of elections, as provided for by amendments 11 and 12. As we support amendments 11 and 12, we will also support this amendment. Government amendment 49 is a technical change relating to the understanding of Wales public authorities. This amendment is not contentious. Government amendments 52 to 57 are either consequential or technical amendments. There is no need for comment on them at this time.

In conclusion, I look forward to the Secretary of State’s response.

[Nia Griffith]

I rise to speak to new clause 3, on railways, and to amendment 2, on the community infrastructure levy.

Back in our Labour manifesto for the 2011 Assembly elections, we put forward the idea of exploring the possibility that a not-for-profit organisation should have the option to bid for the Wales and Borders rail franchise, in the same way that Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water is owned by a not-for-profit organisation. Giving the Welsh Government further powers over rail transport brings decision making closer to people in Wales. Currently, the provisions of the Railways Act 1993 mean that it is not possible for a public sector body to bid for the franchise, which limits the options. Yet, ironically, a German state-owned company can operate the very same franchise.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

I agree entirely that it has been very generously funded, and funded without very much review for 25-odd years until fairly recently. [Interruption.] Indeed—and then what happened? The hon. Gentleman asks whether I am aware of the genesis of S4C. Let me say clearly that I have the conviction to prove that I am very well aware of what happened during that period. I think I had better leave it at that.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that S4C’s funding has resulted in it currently running more than 50% repeats, which is not satisfactory.

[Hywel Williams]

The television landscape has certainly changed enormously. Many broadcasters are now running a great number of repeats. The point about Welsh language television is that it has a purpose beyond just providing entertainment, or even informing or educating: it is there as part of the national project to sustain, speaking in dramatic terms, the rescue of the language.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman asks me to comment on a hypothetical assertion. I shall refrain from doing so, but it is important to highlight that the Silk commission considered very carefully the difference between the porous nature of the border between England and Wales and the situation in Scotland. On balance, it is my view that the Silk commission came to the right conclusion, which is why we will reject the hon. Gentleman’s proposals. The Wales Act 2014 legislated for the vast majority of the recommendations in the Silk commission’s first report, and our focus should be to work with the Welsh Government to implement it.

On new clause 8, the youth justice system, as with other elements of the criminal justice system, is not currently devolved, but significant responsibilities in relation to the management and rehabilitation of young offenders are exercised by local authorities in Wales, working in partnership with the police and devolved services such as health, children’s services and education. Devolved and non-devolved services already work successfully together in Wales to prevent youth offending, and to manage and support young offenders in the community. The Youth Justice Board provides national oversight and monitoring of those arrangements, and the Youth Justice Board Cymru has worked closely with the Welsh Government to develop a joint youth offending strategy. That establishes a coherent framework for all those involved in delivering youth justice services and ensures that there is an effective youth justice system that meets the needs of young people in Wales.

The Silk commission noted that many of the causes of youth offending relate to devolved matters, and its recommendation on devolution was aimed at promoting greater integration. However, there was no consensus in favour of devolution when youth justice was discussed as part of the St David’s Day process. The Government believe it is important that legislative competence for youth justice remains reserved to allow us to develop a consistent and coherent approach to criminal justice, and the management of offenders across all age groups, within the single legal jurisdiction. There would be significant practical challenges in devolving responsibility for youth justice in Wales while responsibility for the police, courts and other elements of the criminal justice system are reserved.

We place a high priority on addressing youth offending and maintaining a strong relationship with the Welsh Government on those matters. The Ministry of Justice is currently considering the final report of Charlie Taylor, the former chief executive of the National College of Teaching and Leadership, on his review of the youth justice system. As part of his review, he visited Wales to meet Welsh Ministers and to see local youth offending services. The Ministry of Justice will work closely with the Welsh Government to consider the recommendations made in the final report with a view to publishing the report later this year with plans for reform. Given the co-operation that exists between devolved and non-devolved organisations, which we will seek to maintain in taking forward any plans for reform, we are not persuaded that devolving youth justice to create a separate youth justice system in Wales would result in a more flexible, economical or effective response to youth offending.

New clause 9, proposed by the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), would open the door to the apprenticeship levy becoming a devolved tax. When introducing the apprenticeship levy, the Government wanted to make the system as simple as possible for employers to operate, and to avoid adverse impacts on the integrated UK-wide single market. Operating a UK-wide levy based on the national insurance definition of earnings is the best way to achieve this outcome. In particular, it is applied consistently to employers wherever they operate within the UK single market, while this definition of earnings is something that employers are familiar with and is information they readily have in their payroll. This also avoids considerable practical difficulties that would arise if there were different rates and thresholds of the apprenticeship levy in different parts of the UK, which appears to be the thrust of new clause 9. For example, as the charge is on the employer, it would be necessary to determine how such a system would operate for organisations working across borders. This would create additional burdens for businesses that we believe are sensibly avoided. In addition, the Government have made it quite clear that devolved nations will get their fair share of the levy, and discussions are ongoing.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I would like the Minister to answer my question in this case. There is real uncertainty about how much would go to Wales. How will there be transparency in relation to the apprenticeship levy when there will be companies with a head office in another area outside Wales with employees in Wales?

[Guto Bebb]

The aim of the negotiations between the Welsh Government and the Treasury is to ensure a fair funding formula for Wales. On transparency, I think the hon. Lady is aware that decisions on spending in Wales are decisions for the Welsh Government, so the transparency issue will arise at that point. I can assure her that the ongoing discussions between the Treasury and the Welsh Government are being conducted in the spirit of co-operation. We want the levy to succeed. Whether a young person is from Wales or England, the aim is to ensure there is support for that person’s training. We are therefore fully committed to working with the Welsh Government, but to devolve this tax would create a complexity that is unjustified in the context of the border between England and Wales, and owing to the fact that the border is so different to the situation in Scotland. That is why we think the amendment is misguided.

--- Later in debate ---

[Paul Flynn]

That is because of the wisdom of the socialist Welsh Government in taking it over—nationalising it. I am glad that the Minister draws attention to that fact—this triumph of practical socialism, which is turning out to be a success, even without the level playing field and level flying field that we need. Plaid Cymru has tabled this new clause, and we believe that devolving airport duty would allow Welsh airports to compete on a fair basis with the others. We need only to look at the geography. That tells us that the airports at Prestwick and Cardiff are disadvantaged because of the whole nature of flying and the magnetic attraction to the hubs around which the population is distributed. This measure will have to happen at some time in the future. We should acknowledge the success of the Welsh Government’s action over Cardiff airport.

On keeping the devolution of policing under review, the Minister prayed in aid the four police and crime commissioners in Wales. What he did not mention was the fact that those four PCCs are agreed on the need for the control of policing to go to the Welsh Assembly. Our new clause 11 requires the Secretary of State for Wales and his Ministers to

“keep the functioning and operation of policing in Wales under review”.

It is not asking much to suggest that we should look at it every year. This issue has been around for a long time.

Having spent a number of years sitting on the Home Affairs Committee, I would like to see some police forces kept at some distance from the Welsh police forces. I refer to some in Yorkshire and the Met, about which I have some misgivings relating to incidents involving some of my constituents and indeed constituents of my hon. Friends. I believe that there is a tradition of ethical policing in Wales that has its own values and it would be beneficial to keep possibilities in place and under review. We should keep the light shining in the distance as we move towards it.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would agree with me on this issue. I took part in the parliamentary policing scheme this summer, and I know that there are great concerns among the North Wales police about the drive for them to co-operate with forces over the border. Although that might make sense in terms of combating crime, it will actually result in fewer police officers in many areas of Wales. Our police forces are really concerned about that.

[Paul Flynn]

The hon. Lady makes a powerful point, which we should bear in mind. I believe that we should appreciate and build on the Welsh tradition of policing. The cause is a modest one. We are not asking for full independence of the Welsh police forces straight away, but that is the mood within the police force. The new clause does not call for an immediate devolution of policing, but would allow policing—and particularly the devolution of policing—to be kept under review by both the Secretary of State and Welsh Ministers. The people of Wales should have a greater say over policing, and plans for it should be drawn up by the Welsh Assembly.

The first draft Wales Bill was an affront to devolution. The Welsh Government published an alternative Bill, in which they set out plans for a 10-year strategy for the devolution of policing. I hope that that is not too fast a pace for the Government, but we are not rushing into this. Ours is a modest, sensible approach which the Government should accept.

--- Later in debate ---

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to speak to new clauses 8 and 9, in my name and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues. These provisions aim to guarantee the devolution of the youth justice system and the funds generated by the apprenticeship levy respectively. I will first discuss new clause 8.

Continuing with the ineffective and complex mix of devolved and non-devolved bodies to manage our youth justice system is not congruent with the Government’s promise of a clear devolution settlement for Wales. The illogical settlement of the current system was highlighted by former Youth Justice Board chair Professor Rod Morgan, and reiterated by the Silk commission, which found that

“factors linked to youth offending were often related to devolved services, such as education and training, social services, and health, while youth offenders were dealt with through non-devolved services, such as the police, Youth Offending Teams and youth courts.”

The 61 youth offenders currently in custody in Wales could receive significantly better treatment as a result of a simple change in the Bill. Equally, youth offenders in north Wales, who are, as a matter of course, sent over the border because of a lack of provision in the region, would be much better served by a devolved system. Why does the Minister, therefore, wish to retain the current unwieldy and unclear system when the evident priority should be to rehabilitate these children and young people?

As with every Plaid Cymru amendment brought forward, this is not a matter of politics, but common sense. Independent experts—independent experts, once again—are lining up to tell the Minister why he should devolve youth justice. I have already mentioned the Silk commission and Professor Rod Morgan, but the list goes on. Wales’s second Children’s Commissioner, Keith Towler, stated quite clearly that devolution responsibility over youth justice would make a massive difference in the way young people caught up in the justice system are supported, and it might even help cut crime. Leading legal academic, Richard Owen, has undertaken research to show the huge potential benefits of devolving youth justice.

However, perhaps the strongest statement came from the Howard League for Penal Reform, which has campaigned on the issue of youth justice for many years. When it found out that Plaid Cymru was putting forward this new clause, it wrote to me directly saying:

“When it comes to Welsh children in trouble with the law, Wales should be able to come up with a Welsh solution to a Welsh concern. This is particularly the case because both social services and education policy are already devolved and it is a welfare-led approach which will prove most effective for troubled children.”

The Youth Justice Board in Wales already recognises that in its children-first approach, and there is an opportunity to build on that distinctiveness and to protect it from any Westminster-led reforms that fail to take into account the specific needs of Welsh children. Why do the Secretary of State and the Government continue to fail to listen to these independent experts?

The indications are that the Government’s upcoming report into youth justice, undertaken by Charlie Taylor, the former chief executive of the National College for Teaching and Leadership, is likely to come out in favour of further devolution. Why not, therefore, use the biggest legislative vehicle for devolution in Wales for years to remove youth justice from the reservations now? I anticipate that this matter, like many matters relating to justice, will be discussed here once again and without delay when that report is published later this year.

The Government have already said that they are looking to devolve aspects of youth justice to other areas of the UK. Can the Minister explain to the people of Wales why such authorities as the Greater Manchester combined authority are set to gain increased competence over youth justice, when the established National Assembly for Wales, with a track record on closely related issues, is not? Is he not standing up for Wales among his Tory Cabinet colleagues?

The relatively insignificant £300,000 cost the Government estimate would be involved in setting up a Welsh youth justice system would pale into insignificance compared with the positive outcomes for young people caught up in the criminal justice system. Financial savings might even be made if, as predicted by many experts, offending rates decrease following its devolution. The benefits for the UK Government and the Welsh Government are clear. This is not only a morally responsible policy, but a logical and financially sensible thing to do. Although we will not push the new clause to a vote, will the Minister please outline why he is not listening to the Silk commission and the plethora of experts urging him to devolve youth justice?

New clause 9 relates to the devolution of the funds generated through the apprenticeship levy. The Government’s chaotic and haphazard approach to the apprenticeship levy has left all the devolved Administrations in confusion. While the specifics are clear for businesses in England, the way in which businesses, public organisations, colleges and training providers in Wales will be able to access and benefit from the moneys generated by the levy remains completely opaque. Plaid Cymru has a long-standing commitment to improving the standard and increasing the number of apprenticeships in Wales. With every other area of apprenticeships, skills and training already devolved, it is incomprehensible that the Government have chosen to impose this as a blanket policy across the UK. Beyond the issues I have outlined as a matter of principle, an unacceptable number of questions remain unanswered. How will the levy work in relation to companies that employ people across the border? How will Wales receive the money owed to it through the levy, and how will we know that it is a fair allocation? Although we do not wish to press the new clause to a vote, we are asking for a clear commitment from the Secretary of State to ensure that Wales gets its fair and transparent share of the receipts generated by the apprenticeship levy.

I now turn to amendments tabled by the Government and Opposition Front Benchers. The Government’s new clause 5 is based on the premise of giving Welsh Ministers power to demarcate safety zones around renewable energy installations in Welsh waters and prohibit activities within such safety zones. That does indeed seem empowering. Unfortunately, however, it further highlights the senseless limit of 350 MW capacity on renewable energy projects, to which we are fundamentally opposed. Amendment 45 and its consequential amendment 47 remind us again of this limit. We welcome new clause 1, tabled by the official Opposition, which would amend the Coastguard Act 1925 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 so as to require the Secretary of State to consult Welsh Ministers in relation to the activities of the coastguard in Wales.

New clause 11 relates to keeping the devolution of policing to Wales under review. I could say much, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Jonathan Edwards), I have discussed these matters so many times in this Chamber that I feel it does not need to hear me reiterate them. I am glad that there is consistency in Plaid Cymru’s argument and that Labour is perhaps moving in the right direction.

Amendments 70 to 82 attempt to increase the limit on the Welsh Government’s legislative competence in the field of energy from 350 MW to 2,000 MW. That would of course be welcome. However, why do the official Opposition still believe that we must put an arbitrary limit on the Welsh Government’s powers at all when there is no such limit on the powers of the Scottish Government? I was pleased that for once the official Opposition supported our amendment in Committee to remove the limit altogether, so I am disappointed that in these amendments they appear to have rowed back on their support for allowing Welsh natural resources to be in the hands of the people of Wales.

I would greatly appreciate from the Minister clarification of amendment 50, which relates to the negative resolution procedure for Welsh Ministers under the Energy Act 2004, as that is not particularly clear as it stands.

Question put and agreed to.

New clause 5 accordingly read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

Rail: franchising of passenger services

“(1) Section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 (public sector operators not to be franchisees) is amended as follows.

(2) At the end of subsection (2A) insert “or a franchise agreement in respect of services that are or include Wales-only services.”

(3) After subsection (2A) insert—

“(2B) For the purposes of this section a “Wales-only service” has the same meaning as in section 57 of the Railways Act 2005.”

(4) This section does not have effect in relation to any invitation to tender under section 26(2) of the Railways Act 1993 issued before the day on which this section comes into force.”—(Paul Flynn.)

This new clause would remove a restriction in section 25 of the Railways Act 1993 on certain public sector bodies bidding to operate a rail franchise that is made up of or includes rail services within Wales.

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 13th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Guto Bebb]

The hon. Gentleman is a champion of the agricultural sector—there is no doubt about that. I can assure him, once again, that the Wales Office has already had meetings with the farming unions. We can certainly offer the guarantee that the current funding arrangements will be in place until at least 2018, but the ongoing support for Welsh farming will be subject to agreements involving this Government, the way in which we exit the European Union and the decisions taken by the future Prime Minister.

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

Given that the common agricultural policy and rural development programme contribute hundreds of millions of pounds to the Welsh rural economy, what UK exit scenario could possibly best serve Wales?

[Guto Bebb]

As the hon. Lady knows, I argued for Wales and the UK to stay within the EU, but the reality is that Wales voted to leave. It is therefore crucial that we support the industries that are dependent on exporting to the EU. We have a quality product offered by Welsh agriculture, so it is imperative that we talk up that market and support the sector to the best of our abilities. Again, I give assurance to the farming unions that the current funding situation is in place until 2018.

Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[Mr Jones]

I have never received anything but praise for Conservative signage, and I received even more praise for the vote leave signs that were notable by their presence throughout Wales.

This is a probing amendment and I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I would be grateful to hear from Ministers the rationale for these two proposals. Let me say again that at the very least they are confusing and at the very worst they have the potential to be positively dangerous.

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

I must take this opportunity to congratulate the Welsh team on giving us the brightest, most joyful memories of the past few weeks—it is safe to say that.

I rise to speak to the amendments standing in my name and those of my Plaid Cymru colleagues. They seek to amend schedule 7A of the Government of Wales Act 2006 and, thus, relate to clause 3 of this Bill, which deals with the legislative competence of the National Assembly for Wales. The vast majority of our amendments in this group seek to omit certain reservations from that schedule. The amendments are intended in some cases to restore competence in areas that are already devolved. In others, they are intended to devolve competence to the Assembly in areas that are devolved to Scotland. If the Government are not prepared to give the Welsh Assembly parity with the Scottish Parliament in these areas, we would ask for specific reasons to be given in each instance. Both the Welsh Affairs Committee in this place and the National Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee have written reports on the draft Wales Bill, with both calling on the UK Government to provide individual justifications for each of the reservations now contained in schedule 7A. As such, it is a great disappointment to my colleagues and I that the Government have not seen fit to provide us with these justifications. I invite the Secretary of State to explain why the Government have not been forthcoming in this instance. If valid justifications cannot be provided, the Government should amend the schedule so as to omit those areas outlined in our amendments.

Plaid Cymru has not been alone in saying—over many years—that the National Assembly should move to a reserved powers model. Indeed, the independent, cross-party Silk commission made just such a recommendation. Legal experts and much of civil society in Wales, recognise that adopting a reserved powers model should, in theory, provide greater legal clarity and workability. The idea of moving towards a reserved powers model has also been taken in Wales to symbolise a shift in Westminster’s attitude towards the Assembly, because it was assumed to be synonymous with a maturing of relations between the two institutions. Rather than having to justify devolving an area of competence, Westminster would be compelled to justify reserving an area of law; again, that should have represented a significant attitudinal shift, and a recognition of greater parity. The sheer length of the list of reserved areas in schedule 1 has made a mockery of that notion.

It should therefore have come as no surprise to the Wales Office that the original draft Wales Bill was met with such dismay by the Welsh Assembly and by civil society in our nation. The dismayingly long list of reservations, and the way in which the Bill went so far in some cases as to curtail powers already devolved, would fundamentally undermine the Assembly’s competence. It would do the opposite of what was, presumably, intended. Although we are grateful that the previous Secretary of State announced a pause in introducing the legislation, we still believe that schedule 7A shows a paucity of ambition for Wales and her legislature, and that is why we have drafted the amendments in this grouping.

Amendments 83, 86, 110 and 111 should be considered together, as they seek to devolve aspects of the justice system to the Assembly: the legal profession and legal services are dealt with in amendment 110; crime, public order and policing are dealt with in amendment 83; the rehabilitation of offenders is dealt with in amendment 86; and prisons and offender management are dealt with in amendment 111. As has been pointed out in this House on many occasions, and as was championed by my predecessor, Elfyn Llwyd, Wales is the only legislature that has no separate or distinct legal jurisdiction of its own. The matter of a separate legal jurisdiction was debated last week, so I will not repeat my arguments. Although I accept that the Tories fundamentally disagree with the need for a separate jurisdiction, I remain somewhat confused by the position of the official Opposition, who said last week that they supported it but abstained because the Government do not support it. If the official Opposition can only vote in favour of measures that are supported by the Government, they are not well fitted to being the official Opposition. However, given that our amendment was defeated last week, we will use the Report stage of the Bill to bring forward proposals on a distinct, rather than separate, jurisdiction. I hope that the House will be more open to working with us when that time comes.

As is well known, the Silk commission recommended the devolution of policing and related areas of community safety and crime prevention, and my party is resolute in our standpoint that Wales, like the other nations of the United Kingdom, should have responsibility for its police forces.

We are presenting amendment 83 at a time when it is being proposed that policing is devolved to English city regions—Manchester and Liverpool, for example. If the policing of these cities can be held to account in a devolved landscape, why not the policing of Wales?

--- Later in debate ---

[Hywel Williams]

Does my hon. Friend not think it scandalous that there is no provision for women prisoners in Wales? There are very few women prisoners, but they are held in England in Styal and in Eastwood Park outside Gloucester. That causes problems for prisoners’ families, particularly from the west of Wales.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Indeed. We are aware that in the north that there is no prison for women or for young offenders. There are many steps afoot, which are to be welcomed, to improve how women who enter the criminal justice system are treated in Wales, alongside imprisonment. HMP Styal is a long way from people’s homes and there must be a better way to deal with offenders’ families.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

The hon. Lady mentioned the rehabilitation of young offenders. Devolution of these matters would support the critical interrelationship between health and education services in making rehabilitation successful. Recognition of that fact is a gross omission from the Bill.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I can only agree.

[Jonathan Edwards]

As always, my hon. Friend is making a compelling case, full of strong arguments. Does she agree that it is slightly ironic that a referendum has just been won by those arguing for the UK to leave the European Union, partly on the basis of democracy and sovereignty, yet here we are, debating a Wales Bill which, compared with the settlement for Scotland and Northern Ireland, seems to deny sovereignty and democracy to Wales?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

With the Bill we are moving ahead in small steps—inching forward, painfully. I await the time when we will move ahead in a way that grants sovereignty to the people of Wales.

Many of the amendments that I have discussed so far were recommended by the Silk commission, as I mentioned previously. Other amendments in the group include amendment 85, which would remove prostitution from the list of reserved powers; amendment 117, which would remove the reservation of knives; and amendment 109, which would remove the reservation of abortion, to bring Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland. Again, I challenge the Secretary of State to stand up and tell us why he voted for Scotland to have those powers, but is now telling us in Wales that we cannot have equivalent powers.

Amendment 155 is distinct in that it seeks to clarify a reservation contained in schedule 7A, and not to omit it entirely. The amendment would clarify as a reserved matter “the Crown Prosecution Service”, rather than the broader term “prosecutors”, as currently drafted. This amendment is crucial, as the existing wording of the schedule could prohibit Assembly legislation from enabling devolved authorities, such as local authorities and Natural Resources Wales, to prosecute. I hope that the Government will take note of this distinction and amend the schedule accordingly.

Amendment 156 would remove the necessity test in relation to the law on reserved matters. The test of necessity is objectionable on grounds of clarity and workability, as it is capable of a number of different interpretations. One possible interpretation is extremely restrictive and would represent a reduction in the Assembly’s current competence. The difference between a “reserved matter” and the “law on reserved matters” is explained in paragraphs 409 to 411 and 413 and 414 of the explanatory notes to the Bill.

The notes give the example of an Assembly Bill which related entirely to planning, which is not a reserved matter, but which modified a provision of a UK Act concerning telecommunications. That modification might be within the Assembly’s competence, as its purpose might relate entirely to planning, and so it would meet the test set out in new section 108A(6) of the Government of Wales Act 2006, inserted by clause 3. However, by modifying a provision of a UK Act of Parliament, which concerned a reserved matter, it would modify the “law on reserved matters”. The Assembly should be able to do so in a purely ancillary way, without also having to show that the modification made has

“no greater effect…than is necessary”.

An equivalent to the Bill provision is contained in the Scotland Act 1998. However, in the context of the Scottish devolution settlement, it is much less restrictive, as the Scottish Parliament has competence over considerably greater fields, including, of course, justice matters, and the Scottish system of civil and criminal law. Therefore, what might appear to be wider latitude for the Assembly would in practice still amount to narrower competence than that of the Scottish Parliament.

Amendment 157 would remove the criminal law restriction in paragraph 4 of schedule 7B and replace it with a restriction which provides that the Assembly cannot modify criminal law unless that is for a purpose other than a reserved purpose. It reflects the Assembly’s current competence—that is, the criminal law is a silent subject, and the Assembly can modify the criminal law if it relates to a devolved subject, or if the modification is ancillary. The Assembly, therefore, could not modify the criminal law if it was for a reserved purpose, thus protecting the criminal law around the 200 or so reservations in the Bill. The amendment would also make it clear that the Assembly could not modify the criminal law for its own sake: there must be a devolved purpose behind the modification of the criminal law. It would align the criminal law restriction with the private law restriction in paragraph 3 of schedule 7B. This would provide consistency and clarity.

I have already spoken of my party’s dismay that the Bill threatens in places to dilute, rather than augment, the legislative competence of the Assembly. In this vein, a number of the amendments in this group seek to clarify the Assembly’s powers in relation to its internal functions, as well as its overall competence to legislate. Amendments 148 and 149 seek to restore the Assembly’s competence closer to its current level. Currently, the Assembly is able to affect, in a minor way, matters that are listed as exceptions from competence in schedule 7 to the Government of Wales Act 2006. Most of these exceptions have been converted into reservations in the proposed new settlement—for example, consumer protection. However, under the new settlement, the Assembly would have no competence to legislate in a way that touches on reserved matters at all.

The Assembly can currently legislate in relation to “silent subjects”—that is, topics that are not listed either as subjects of competence, or as exceptions from competence, in schedule 7 to GOWA. The Assembly can do so only where it is also legislating on a subject that is specifically devolved by schedule 7. Many of these silent subjects—for example, employment rights and duties—have been converted into reservations in the Bill. The amendment would restore the Assembly’s competence to affect those topics in a purely ancillary way. However, that ancillary competence would still be narrower than the Assembly’s present competence to legislate on “silent subjects” when that legislation also relates to expressly devolved subjects.

In an attempt to allow the aforementioned institution to have control and oversight over its law making, amendment 6 would give the Assembly the power to consolidate, in both English and Welsh, the statutes containing the current constitutional settlement affecting Wales. No matter what our position on empowering the Assembly, I am sure we can all agree that it is important, whatever settlement we have, that that settlement is easily understood. It is disappointing that this Bill does not consolidate all existing legislation, but the amendment would allow the National Assembly to do that, in the interests of clarity. It would not allow the National Assembly to go beyond current legislation and broaden its competence.

Amendments 34 to 37 would amend paragraph 7 of schedule 2, which sets out the sections of the Government of Wales Act 2006 which the Assembly will have competence to modify. Paragraph 7(2)(d) specifically refers to those sections of part 5 of the 2006 Act which are amendable without restriction. As it stands, this does not include the ability to amend sections 120(1) or 124(3) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 which provide for “relevant persons”—otherwise known as “direct funded bodies”—which receive funding directly from the Welsh consolidated fund. That means, for example, the Welsh Government, the Assembly Commission, the Auditor General and the public services ombudsman for Wales.

Amendments 35 and 36 would allow the Assembly competence to add to, but not remove from, the list of “relevant persons”. It would allow it to enable a body that is independent of the Welsh Government also to be financially independent where that is deemed appropriate. Any use of such competence to add to the “relevant persons” would require an Act of the Assembly.

Paragraph 7 of schedule 2 provides that the remaining provisions of part 5 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 are amendable where the amendment is incidental to or consequential on a provision of an Act of the Assembly relating to budgetary procedures, and the Secretary of State consents to that amendment. I see no reason why the consent of the Secretary of State should be required to an amendment that will have no impact beyond the Assembly’s financial procedures, so amendment 37 removes that requirement.

On the remaining amendments in this group tabled in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, as I have already said, the majority of these amendments highlight areas of competence that are devolved to the Scottish Parliament, yet for some unstated reason are being reserved to Westminster in the case of Wales. No justification has been given for reserving those matters. Consequently, I shall list a number of amendments: 84, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 97, 98, 106 and 103. I give the amendment numbers for a reason. It feels like the Secretary of State is allowing Whitehall to pick and choose the powers it wants to hold on to. We argue strongly that he must draw up a list of reservations based on principles. These reservations make no practical sense and the absence of principle is obvious. They range from the reservation of dangerous dogs to hovercraft, sports grounds and health and safety. We need a reason why those areas should be reserved.

In addition, there are amendments 105, 107, 104, 112, 113 and 89, which is on Sunday trading and safeguards the long-standing tradition in Wales of protecting shop workers’ terms and conditions, and amendments 114 and 115. Over and above that, Plaid Cymru has long argued that Department for Work and Pensions functions should be devolved to the Assembly. Thus amendment 100 would devolve all working age benefits that are to be replaced by universal credit and any benefit that is introduced to replace universal credit. Amendments 101, 102, 108 and 99 all relate to those areas of DWP functions that we have long argued should be devolved.

Amendments 96, 61 to 63 and 69 deal with the newly created Welsh harbours of “reserved trust ports”. Once again, this creation has no justification. A port will now be devolved unless it has a turnover of above a certain threshold. Again, that is the case not for Scotland or Northern Ireland, but only for Wales. It is yet another example of Westminster holding on to as much power as possible while appearing to be offering significant devolution. Once again, I challenge the Secretary of State to tell us why this is necessary in Wales, when he voted to devolve full control to Scotland.

Amendment 2 is consequential on new clause 1, which seeks to devolve Executive and legislative competence of the Crown estate in Wales to the Welsh Government and the National Assembly for Wales, as has been done in Scotland. New clause 7 would devolve general legislative competence in respect of agricultural, aquacultural and fisheries levies. Again, those are areas that Plaid Cymru has long argued should be devolved to the National Assembly.

Before I come to a close, I wish to note concerns expressed to me by the Welsh language commissioner regarding the Bill’s potential effect on the National Assembly’s powers to legislate in matters concerning the Welsh language. A possible effect of schedule 2 is that the National Assembly, should it wish to legislate for the Welsh language, would require the consent of the relevant UK Minister to confer, impose, modify or remove within that legislation the Welsh language functions of Ministers of the Crown, Government Departments and other reserved authorities. Under the current settlement, that ministerial consent is required only when legislating to impose Welsh language functions on Ministers of the Crown. The ministerial consent provisions of the Wales Bill in relation to the Welsh language would appear to be applicable to a wider range of persons than is currently the case, and would thus be more restrictive. I hope that that can be considered in the later stages of the Bill.

The amendments in this group should not be considered as mere separate, distinct “tweaks” to the Wales Bill. Rather, we present them as a collection of amendments, which, by their sheer number, make evident the many ways in which the current proposed legislation is deficient. No justification has been given by the Government as to why these many policy areas have been reserved, and no justification has been given as to why the Welsh Assembly should not be granted the same competence as the Scottish Parliament in these areas.

--- Later in debate ---

Test 4 is that an Assembly Act provision must not breach any of the restrictions in new schedule 7B, which I shall say more about in a moment. Finally, test 5 is the requirement that the Assembly Act provision must comply with the European convention on human rights and EU law. Those five tests represent clear, proportionate and reasonably parameters on the Assembly’s legislative competence, and it is important that I have put them on the record.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman has listed a number of tests, but does he agree that, for them to be justifications in a reserved power model, we should see how the reservations apply to each area?

[Alun Cairns]

I will cover those points, but I have sought to underline the importance of the tests because they are so fundamental to the reserved powers model. Of course, the reservations will be equally fundamental. The hon. Lady mentioned a significant number of them. As I make progress, I will cover many of the points she made and invite her to intervene then.

Amendments 118 and 119, tabled by the main Opposition party, and Plaid Cymru’s amendments 148 and 149 seek to broaden the Assembly’s competence significantly by enabling it to legislate in relation to reserved matters so long as the provision is ancillary to a provision on a devolved matter. These amendments would drive a coach and horses through the key principle underpinning the new model, which is a clear boundary between what is devolved and what is reserved. They would give the Assembly the power to make unfettered changes to reserved matters such as the justice system, which we debated in detail last week, provided only that some connection to a devolved provision was established. What is more, they are simply not needed. We want to ensure that the Assembly can enforce its legislation and make it effective. We provide for this in paragraphs 1 and 2 of new schedule 7B by enabling the Assembly to modify the law on reserved matters. This is suitable to ensure that the Assembly’s devolved provisions can be enforced without compromising the principle of reserved matters.

I turn now to the proposed new schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act, which sets out the reserved matters, referred to in general in the legislation as the “reservations”. These matters must be seen through the prism of the purpose test. A reservation is a succinct description of the subject area covered. It includes reserved authorities carrying out functions relating to that subject and criminal offences relating to that subject.

The general reservations in part 1 of the new schedule reserve the fundamental tenets of the constitution: the Crown, the civil service, defence and the armed forces, the regulation of political parties, and foreign affairs. As a single legal jurisdiction operates in England and Wales, we also reserve matters such as courts and non-devolved tribunals, judges, and civil and criminal proceedings. However, we have made appropriate exceptions to these reservations to enable the Assembly to exercise devolved functions. For example, the Assembly can confer devolved functions on the courts or provide for appeals from devolved tribunals to reserved tribunals.

Amendment 6, tabled by Plaid Cymru, seeks to modify these core reservations by allowing the Assembly to consolidate the constitutional arrangements for Wales. It surely must be a fundamental principle that the UK’s constitutional arrangements, including Parliament’s authority to devolve its own powers, are reserved. We have a constitutional settlement for Wales, the Government of Wales Act 2006 as amended, and amendment 6 is simply not necessary.

Part 2 lists the specific reservations. We want there to be no doubt where the boundary of the Assembly’s legislative competence lies. The list is lengthy because it is quite specific in its reservations and provides exceptions to those reservations. Previously, in the draft, there were some broad headlines, but the current Bill is far more specific, which necessitates further detail on what is included.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

I am very sympathetic to the concept of tidal lagoons, but, as the hon. Gentleman will be aware, a review is being undertaken at this time and I would not want to prejudge it. It is being undertaken by Charles Hendry, who is well respected across this House.

Clause 37 allows Welsh Ministers to make declarations extinguishing public rights of navigation, so as to ensure safety out to the seaward limits of the territorial sea in relation to generating stations up to 350MW. Clause 38 aligns, in a single authority, the ability to consent both to a generating station itself and the associated overhead line which would connect that station to the transmission system. It does so by removing consenting applicable requirements under either the Electricity Act 1989 or the Planning Act 2008 for certain associated overhead lines with a transmission capacity of up to 132kV necessary for connecting generating stations of up to 350MW capacity. This is an attempt to generate a one-stop shop for energy opportunities of that size in Wales. The Silk commission rightly identified that a one-stop shop should be developed, and the Bill tries to deliver that in a Welsh context.

Government amendments 47 to 49 correct an inadvertent constraint in the current drafting of clause 38 by removing the presumption that Welsh Ministers are the devolved consenting authority.

On clause 39, the Planning Act 2008 introduced the concept of “associated development”—development that the Secretary of State could consent to as part of the development consent orders which underpin and facilitate major development projects. The ability to grant associated development allows for more of the complete projects to be delivered within a single consent, to try to make the situation easier for developers. In Wales, the benefit of this approach has hitherto been restricted only to certain activities around the construction of underground gas storage facilities. Clause 39 amends relevant definitions in the Planning Act 2008 to extend the scope of associated development in Wales to include activities accompanying generating projects above 350 MW and larger overhead lines connections of 132 kV. Again, it fulfils a St David’s day commitment and implements a Silk commission recommendation.

I think it is fair to say that amendments 158 to 160, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), seek to re-open matters which have already been debated in the context of the Energy Act 2016. That Act delivered the Government’s manifesto commitment to give local people the final say on wind farm applications. It also ensured that in Wales it is for the Assembly and Welsh Ministers to decide how decisions are taken. I see no basis for rowing back from that position now, but I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend that the Welsh Government should ensure that local people in Wales have the final say on these matters.

In our discussion of the Bill, we have talked about the importance of financial accountability, but this is also a case of political accountability. In my constituency, Aberconwy, we had the development of the Gwynt y Môr wind farm. I think I am right in saying that every single councillor in the Conwy local authority area voted against the development, but it was imposed by diktat by the then Energy Secretary. The important point is that the changes and the power given to local communities as a result of Acts passed by the coalition Government were a direct response to that political need for change. If the Assembly Government are guilty of taking powers into their own hands, there is political accountability there which needs to be challenged and needs to be part of the political discourse in Wales.

The Energy Act has ended subsidy for new onshore wind. If an onshore wind project does not already have planning permission, it is not going to be eligible for subsidy under the renewables obligation. In all the circumstances, therefore, the amendment should not be pressed to a vote.

Clauses 40 and 41 devolve further powers to Welsh Ministers in respect of equal opportunities. The powers follow as closely as possible the approach adopted in Scotland, but the two approaches are not identical. Clause 40 covers the operation of the public sector equalities duty. It removes the requirement in section 152 of the Equality Act 2010 that the Welsh Ministers consult a Minister of the Crown prior to making an order amending the list of Welsh public authorities that are subject to the duty, replacing it with a requirement to inform.

Clause 41 provides for the commencement and implementation of part 1 of the Equality Act 2010 in Wales. Part 1 imposes a duty on certain public bodies to have due regard to socio-economic considerations when making strategic decisions. Clause 41 allows the Welsh Ministers to bring part 1 into force in Wales on a date of their choosing. It also enables Welsh Ministers to amend the 2010 Act to add or remove relevant authorities that are to be subject to the duty, without first consulting a Minister of the Crown.

Clauses 42 and 43 extend Welsh Ministers’ existing responsibilities for marine licensing and marine conservation in the Welsh inshore region to the Welsh offshore region. The clauses fulfil St David’s day commitments and implement recommendations in the Silk commission’s second report.

Clause 44 enables the Secretary of State to intervene on legislation or Executive activities where she has reasonable grounds to believe that these might have a serious adverse impact on sewerage in England. As part of this Bill, legislative competence for sewerage will be devolved, subject to the matters set out in C15 of new schedule 7A. These powers of intervention are similar to those already held by the Secretary of State in relation to water. They may be used where an Act of the Assembly, or the exercise, or failure to exercise, a relevant function might have a serious adverse impact on sewerage services and systems in England.

Amendments 81,125 and 126, tabled by the hon. Member for Arfon, seek to take forward the recommendations of the Silk commission in relation to water and sewerage. The Silk report recognised that water and sewerage devolution is complex and that further work to consider the practical implications was needed. The Government set up the Joint Governments Programme Board with the Welsh Government to look at these issues and report on the likely effects that implementing the commission’s recommendations would have on the efficient delivery of water and sewerage services, consumers and the water undertakers themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained earlier, that work has concluded and the Government are considering the evidence before deciding whether and how the recommendations will be taken forward. We will consider carefully the interests of customers and businesses on both sides of the border before reaching that decision. It should be stressed that this issue is under consideration.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Will this material be available when we are next discussing the Bill? If I remember correctly, I first heard about that working group when we were discussing the 50 years since Capel Celyn. As we are now nine months down the road, it would be appropriate for it to be reported to the House before the Bill comes to the end of its journey.

[Guto Bebb]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question. Her recollection is correct. We have only just received the report, so consideration of it must now take place. It is now with the Wales Office, and, after it has been considered, we will, in the manner described by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, discuss the contents of the report with other parties who have an interest in the Wales Bill.

Clause 45 fulfils a St David’s day commitment and a Silk commission recommendation to devolve to Welsh Ministers the power to make building regulations for “excepted energy buildings” such as generating stations and gas storage facilities. Clause 46 formalises the current differing arrangements for consulting the Welsh Ministers on renewable energy incentive schemes.

Amendments 130 to 132, which were submitted by the Opposition, would require the Secretary of State to gain the consent of Welsh Ministers, rather than to consult them. Energy policy is a reserved matter as regards Great Britain. Maintaining consistency provides for workable schemes, certainty to the industry and fairness to consumers. It is right that responsibility for renewable energy incentive schemes should rest with UK Ministers. I hope that that comment has been welcomed by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies).

Clause 47 implements for Wales the conclusions of the HM Treasury review of the Office for Budget Responsibility, published last year. The OBR has a statutory duty to carry out a number of core functions, including to produce fiscal and economic forecasts. This clause ensures that it will continue to receive information from Wales as necessary to fulfil that duty. It reflects the increased fiscal devolution to the Assembly, and the Welsh Government’s competence for economic development. These roles mean that the OBR is more likely to require and use information held in Wales to fulfil its remit.

Clause 48 increases the accountability of Ofgem to the Assembly. Clause 49 provides that where a coal operator wants to mine in Wales, it must seek the approval of Welsh Ministers as part of its application for a licence. Clause 50 increases the accountability of Ofcom to the Assembly and Welsh Ministers. It goes further by giving Welsh Ministers the power to appoint one member to the Ofcom board who is capable of representing the interests of Wales.

Clauses 51 and 52 and schedule 5 and 6 make consequential and transitional provision relating to the Bill. Clause 51 allows the Secretary of State to make consequential amendments by regulations in connection with this Bill, and through amendments 82, 144 to 147 and 150 to 154, the Opposition parties are seeking to give the Assembly a role in approving those regulations. Amendments 144 to 147 would require the Assembly also to approve those regulations where such consequential amendments are within the Assembly’s competence or where they alter the Assembly’s competence. Amendments 82 and 150 to 154 would achieve the same with regard to consequential amendments that amend Acts or measures of the Assembly or secondary legislation made by the Welsh Ministers.

Clause 51 is a fairly typical consequential provision that ensures that the Government are able to tidy up the statute book where required in connection with this Bill. Indeed, similar provisions are included in Assembly legislation as well. Giving the Assembly a role in approving the Secretary of State’s regulations made under this clause would be as unjustified as giving Parliament a role in approving Welsh Ministers’ regulations made under Assembly Acts. It would also make the process far more complicated and time consuming than it needs to be. In reality, we would discuss any proposed changes that impacted on the Assembly’s competence with the Welsh Government before regulations were laid.

Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

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

I beg to move amendment 17, page 1, leave out lines 5 to 9 and insert—

“In section 1 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (the Assembly), after subsection (1), insert—”.

The amendment changes the place in the Government of Wales Act 2006 in which the text inserted by Clause 1 appears. Rather than in section 92A, references to the permanence of the Assembly would appear in section 1 of the Government of Wales Act 2006.

[The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:

Amendment 8, page 1, leave out line 8 and insert “CONSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS FOR WALES”.

This amendment amends the title of the new Part 2A inserted by Clause 1 in consequence of the proposal in amendment 7 to require the review of the functioning of the justice system in Wales.

Amendment 18, page 1, line 10, leave out

“and the Welsh Government are”

and replace with “is”.

The amendment gives effect to separate provisions relating to the National Assembly for Wales, as the Legislature, and the Welsh Government, as the Executive.

Amendment 19, page 1, line 14, leave out “and the Welsh Government.”

The amendment gives effect to separate provisions relating to the National Assembly for Wales, as the Legislature, and the Welsh Government, as the Executive.

Amendment 20, page 1, line 16, leave out

“and the Welsh Government are”

and replace with “is”.

The amendment gives effect to separate provisions relating to the National Assembly for Wales, as the Legislature, and the Welsh Government, as the Executive.

Amendment 21, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

“( ) In section 45 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (the Welsh Government), for the words in subsection (1) before paragraph (a) substitute—

(1) There is to be a Welsh Government or Llywodraeth Cymru.

(1A) The Welsh Government is a permanent part of the United Kingdom’s constitutional arrangements.

(1B) The purpose of subsection (1A) is, with due regard to the other provisions of this Act, to signify the commitment of the Parliament and Government of the United Kingdom to the Welsh Government.

(1C) In view of that commitment it is declared that the Welsh Government is not to be abolished except on the basis of a decision of the people of Wales voting in a referendum.

(1D) The members of the Welsh Government are—”.”

The amendment gives effect to separate provisions relating to the National Assembly for Wales, as the Legislature, and the Welsh Government, as the Executive. The amendment changes the place in the Government of Wales Act 2006 in which the text relating to the permanence of the Welsh Government would appear.

Amendment 22, page 1, line 18, at end insert—

“( ) In the Government of Wales Act 2006, after Part 2 (the Welsh Government) insert—”.

The amendment is required as a consequence of changing the location of the provision relating to the permanence of the Assembly.

Amendment 5, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 6 and insert—

“Part 2B

Separation of the Legal Jurisdiction of England and Wales

Introductory

92B New legal jurisdictions of England and of Wales

The legal jurisdiction of England and Wales becomes two separate legal jurisdictions, that of England and that of Wales.

Separation of the law

92C The law extending to England and Wales

(1) All of the law that extends to England and Wales—

(a) except in so far as it applies only in relation to Wales, is to extend to England, and

(b) except in so far as it applies only in relation to England, is to extend to Wales.

(2) In subsection (1) “law” includes—

(a) rules and principles of common law and equity,

(b) provision made by, or by an instrument made under, an Act of Parliament or an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) provision made pursuant to the prerogative.

(3) Any provision of any enactment or instrument enacted or made, but not in force, when subsection (1) comes into force is to be treated for the purposes of that subsection as part of the law that extends to England and Wales (but this subsection does not affect provision made for its coming into force).

Separation of the Senior Courts

92D Separation of Senior Courts system

(1) The Senior Courts of England and Wales cease to exist (except for the purposes of section 6) and there are established in place of them—

(a) the Senior Courts of England, and

(b) the Senior Courts of Wales.

(2) The Senior Courts of England consist of—

(a) the Court of Appeal of England,

(b) the High Court of England, and

(c) the Crown Court of England, each having the same jurisdiction in England as is exercised by the corresponding court in England and Wales immediately before subsection (1) comes into force.

(3) The Senior Courts of Wales consist of—

(a) the Court of Appeal of Wales,

(b) the High Court of Wales, and

(c) the Crown Court of Wales, each having the same jurisdiction in Wales as is exercised by the corresponding court in England and Wales immediately before subsection (1) comes into force.

(4) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England is the court corresponding to the Court of Appeal of England and the Court of Appeal of Wales,

(b) Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England is the court corresponding to the High Court of England and the High Court of Wales, and

(c) the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is the court corresponding to the Crown Court of England and the Crown Court of Wales.

(5) References in enactments or instruments to the Senior Courts of England and Wales have effect (as the context requires) as references to the Senior Courts of England or the Senior Courts of Wales, or both; and

(6) References in enactments or instruments to Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England, Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England or the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 (however expressed) have effect (as the context requires) as references to either or both of the courts to which they correspond.

92E The judiciary and court officers

(1) All of the judges and other officers of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England or Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England become judges or officers of both of the courts to which that court corresponds.

(2) The persons by whom the jurisdiction of the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is exercisable become the persons by whom the jurisdiction of both of the courts to which that court corresponds is exercisable; but (despite section 8(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981)—

(a) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in Wales may not by virtue of this subsection exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court of England, and

(b) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in England may not by virtue of this subsection exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court of Wales.

92F Division of business between courts of England and courts of Wales

‘(1) The Senior Courts of England, the county courts for districts in England and the justices for local justice areas in England have jurisdiction over matters relating to England; and (subject to the rules of private international law relating to the application of foreign law) the law that they are to apply is the law extending to England.

(2) The Senior Courts of Wales, the county courts for districts in Wales and the justices for local justice areas in Wales have jurisdiction over matters relating to Wales; and (subject to the rules of private international law relating to the application of foreign law) the law that they are to apply is the law extending to Wales.

92G Transfer of current proceedings

(1) All proceedings, whether civil or criminal, pending in any of the Senior Courts of England and Wales (including proceedings in which a judgment or order has been given or made but not enforced) shall be transferred by that court to whichever of the courts to which that court corresponds appears appropriate.

(2) The transferred proceedings are to continue as if the case had originated in, and the previous proceedings had been taken in, that other court.”

This amendment replaces the Bill’s proposed recognition of Welsh law with provisions to separate the legal jurisdictions of England and of Wales, as drafted by the Welsh Government.

Amendment 9, page 2, line 1, after “law” insert

“and review of the justice system in Wales”.

This amendment amends the heading of Clause 1 in consequence of the proposal in amendment 7 to review the functioning of the justice system in Wales.

Amendment 7, page 2, line 3, at end insert—

“(2) The Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers must keep the functioning of the justice system in relation to Wales under review with a view to its development and reform, including keeping under review the question of whether the single legal jurisdiction of England and Wales should be divided into a jurisdiction for Wales and a jurisdiction for England.

(3) In exercising their duty in subsection (2) the Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers must have regard to—

(a) divergence in the law and its administration as between England and Wales,

(b) the need to treat the Welsh and English languages on the basis of equality, and

(c) any other circumstances in Wales affecting operation of the justice system.

(4) The Lord Chancellor and the Welsh Ministers may appoint a panel to advise them on the exercise of their functions in this section.

(5) The Lord Chancellor must make an annual report on the functioning of the justice system in relation to Wales to the Welsh Ministers.

(6) The Welsh Ministers must lay the report before the Assembly.

(7) The Lord Chancellor must lay the report before both Houses of Parliament.”

The provision in the Bill recognises the existence of a body of Welsh law made by the Assembly and the Welsh Ministers. The new subsections to be inserted after that provision by this amendment require the Secretary of State to keep the justice system as it applies in relation to Wales under review with a view to its development and reform, having regard in particular to divergence in the law as between England and Wales.

Amendment 10, page 2, leave out lines 4 to 6.

This amendment removes subsection (2) of the proposed new section 92B of the Government of Wales Act 2006 (recognition of Welsh law). Subsection (2) seeks to explain the purpose of subsection (1) of that section.

Clause 1 stand part.

Amendment 23, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, leave out “normally”.

This amendment removes the word “normally” from the recognition that the Parliament of the United Kingdom will not normally legislate on devolved matters without the consent of the National Assembly for Wales.

Amendment 3, page 2, line 12, leave out “legislate with regard” and insert “enact provisions relating”.

This amendment is a consequence of amendment 4, which defines the meaning of “devolved matters”.

Amendment 24, page 2, line 13, after “Assembly” insert—

“(a) there is an imminent risk of serious adverse impact on—

(i) the national security of the United Kingdom, or

(ii) public safety, public, animal or plant health or economic stability in any part of the United Kingdom,

(b) the legislation specifically addresses that risk,

(c) the imminence of the risk in relation to Wales makes it impractical to seek the consent of the Assembly,

(d) no Bill has been passed under section 110(1)(a) specifically to address the risk, and

(e) no subordinate legislation specifically to address the risk has been laid before the Assembly and has come into force.”

This amendment specifies the circumstances in which Parliament can legislate on devolved matters on behalf of the National Assembly for Wales without its consent.

Amendment 4,  page 2, line 13, at end insert—

“(7) For the purpose of subsection (6), a provision relates to a devolved matter if the provision—

(a) applies in relation to Wales and does not relate to a reserved matter.

(b) modifies the legislative competence of the Assembly, or

(c) confers a function on, or removes or modifies a function of, any member of the Welsh Government.”

This amendment defines the meaning of “devolved matters” for the purpose of the statutory recognition of the convention about Parliament legislating on devolved matters proposed by Clause 2.

Amendment 25, page 2, line 13, at end insert—

“(7) In this section, “devolved matters” means matters that—

(a) are within the legislative competence of the Assembly;

(b) modify the legislative competence of the Assembly;

(c) modify a function of the Assembly;

(d) modify a function of a member of the Welsh Government exercisable within devolved competence (and “within devolved competence” is to be read in accordance with section 58A).”

The amendment defines devolved matters for the purposes of Clause 2.

Clauses 2 and 4 stand part.

Amendment 26, in schedule 4, page 94, line 10, at end insert—

“National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards.”

The amendment adds the National Assembly for Wales Commissioner for Standards to the list of Wales public authorities.

Amendment 27, page 94, line 10, at end insert—

“National Assembly for Wales Remuneration Board.”

The amendment adds the National Assembly for Wales Remuneration Board to the list of Wales public authorities.

Schedule 4 stand part.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Diolch yn fawr, Dirprwy Lefarydd. Nineteen years have passed since the 1997 referendum to establish the Assembly. It is now clear that to have our own democratically elected Government and legislature is the settled will of the people of Wales. I note with disappointment and surprise the Secretary of State’s recent refusal of an invitation from the Chair of the Assembly’s Constitutional and Legislative Affairs Committee to give evidence on the Bill. I would argue that now, especially, is the time for co-operation and the sharing of knowledge.

Clause 1 is a very welcome addition to the Welsh devolution dispensation. Any clause to recognise the permanence of the institution is, of course, overdue. Amendments 17 to 22 are not controversial, and they deal with two technical issues. First, amendment 17 and amendment 22, which is consequential on amendment 17, change the place in the Government of Wales Act 2006 in which the text of clause 1 would appear. I know that the Presiding Officer in the Assembly, Elin Jones, has made this point, and I share her view that the declaration of the permanence of the Assembly should be given prominence in the Bill. Placing it in section 1 of the 2006 Act would achieve that.

Secondly, amendments 18 to 21 reflect the constitutional separation of the legislature, the National Assembly of Wales, and the Executive, the Welsh Government, by dealing with them in separate new provisions to be inserted into those parts of the Government of Wales Act 2006 that deal respectively with the Assembly and the Government. These are probing amendments and we do not intend to press them to a vote, but I hope that the Secretary of State will agree to accept these proposals and to table his own amendments at the next stage.

I do, however, intend to press amendment 5 to a Division. This amendment deals with what was perhaps the key focus of the prelegislative stage of the Bill and remains, in our view, the main reason that it fails to achieve what the Secretary of State has said he wanted to achieve: that is, to produce a lasting devolution settlement for Wales.

Since the original Government of Wales Act 1998, we have been forced to change the devolution dispensation four times. If enacted, this Bill will become the fifth dispensation. The perpetual modifications have been necessitated by sustained reluctance from successive UK Governments, both Labour and Tory, to legislate with the long term in mind. Although all of Wales’s devolution Acts were described as settlements to settle the debate for a generation, not one of them has achieved that aim. It is clear to me that this Bill will continue that trend, unless, of course, the Secretary of State changes course.

Many, if not most, of the criticisms of the Bill made by politicians, lawyers, civil society and academics alike have been of clauses or sections that have been justified as necessary by the Secretary of State in order to maintain the single unified legal system of England and Wales. The inclusion of clause 3—this will be discussed next week—and in particular its much debated necessity test is down to the fact that the Welsh legislature operates within a shared jurisdiction. The inclusion of clause 10, on justice impact tests, which have been subject to questioning and criticism since the publication of the latest Bill, is down to the fact that justice is a reserved matter—a reservation that is apparently necessary to safeguard the shared jurisdiction. These are among the contents of the Bill that are intended to prevent the Assembly from making any provisions that will impact on so-called public authorities. Again, these are in the Bill to protect the unified legal jurisdiction. As the Wales Governance Centre and University College London report stated:

“Complexity is piled on complexity...the potential for legal challenge casts a long shadow”.

I remind the House that Wales is unique in the world in having a primary law making legislature without a jurisdiction. Scotland has a wholly separate legal jurisdiction, and the Scottish settlement is simpler as a result. It avoids the complex and unnecessary exceptions and reservations. The relative stability of the Scottish devolution settlement, when compared with the turmoil in Wales, is stark. It is rare that Wales passes a law without the threat of legal challenge from somewhere.

If there were a practical need to maintain the unified legal system, it would be worth making these compromises elsewhere in the Bill and perhaps worth the legal battles. However, I have yet to hear a genuine, practical reason for doing so. The most frequently made argument against creating a separate Welsh jurisdiction is that it is unnecessary and costly, and that divergence between the law as it applies to Wales and the law as it applies to England is minimal. To those who make those arguments I say two things. First, to say that divergence is minimal is to continue the short-term approach of previous Governments and to ignore the fact that divergence will do nothing but increase as the Assembly continues its work and as the institution gains more maturity and responsibility.

[Mr Mark Williams (Ceredigion) (LD)]

Like the hon. Lady, I am a member of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs, and I can back up, to a large extent, what she is saying. Was she as surprised as I was by the body of evidence that came from civil society, the legal profession and beyond during our Select Committee inquiry into the now redundant Wales Bill?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. The sheer weight of that evidence underlines the fact that we struggled to find other points of view.

[Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC)]

Amendment 5 is very well worded, if I may say so, because it was drafted, word for word, by the Labour Government in Cardiff. They wanted a separate legal jurisdiction for Wales, and they promised it as a major pledge before the Assembly election. What does my hon. Friend think it will say about the authority of Carwyn Jones among his colleagues here in London if the Labour party does not support that amendment today?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree with my hon. Friend. I would expect there to be some concordance between both points of view, but that seems not to be the case.

[Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab)]

What the hon. Lady has said is entirely fair, but we must come to a practical conclusion. It is clear that the undertaking we gave as a party to support the line taken by Plaid Cymru still stands, but the practical problem is that the Government have firmly rejected it. In these circumstances, the sensible thing to do is to seek a compromise between the two positions, and that is what our amendment is designed to do.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It is unfortunate to hear that argument in relation to standing up for Wales. On the one hand we have a Secretary of State who will not meet the Committee in the Assembly, and on the other hand we have a parliamentary Labour party that is not standing up for its colleagues in Wales.

But we move ahead. The second argument that I would use to those who argue against a separate Welsh jurisdiction is that, in many ways, the significance of divergence is beside the point. It is evident that these complex clauses and tests have to be included throughout the new Bill simply to accommodate the fact that Wales does not have a separate legal jurisdiction. Such clauses and tests, incidentally, have been described by distinguished legal experts, as I have mentioned, as

“a failure of comparative legal method”,

and according to the constitution unit they

“jar with basic constitutional principle”.

The inclusion of those clauses specifically because of the need to shore up the unified legal system is reason enough in itself, I would argue, to create a Welsh jurisdiction. To argue that it is unnecessary is to disregard completely the wealth of evidence that has emerged since the publication of the draft Bill last autumn. Stubbornly resisting that evidence will only lead to continued cases in the Supreme Court. I challenge anyone to justify making a Government accountable to a judge rather than to a legislature, but the Bill effectively enshrines such resort in law.

As our explanatory statement makes clear, amendment 5 was drafted by the Welsh Government, and it was included in annex C to the report by the constitution unit at UCL and the Wales Governance Centre earlier this year. I am, as I have mentioned, therefore very surprised to see the amendments tabled by Labour Members, which go against the views of their own party in Wales. I recognise that the official Opposition Front-Bench team has been through something of a reshuffle recently, and I am, incidentally, very pleased to hear that the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) has finally been offered the job that he should have been given a long time ago. I take this opportunity to welcome him to his post.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

There is a conciliatory note in what the hon. Lady says. In this great new world of conciliation, does she agree with her party leader in Cardiff, Leanne Wood, that what we need at this time is greater working together, even if it sometimes means in Cardiff greater working together between Plaid and Labour?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am sure we will work together when it is for the best for Wales, but I understand that that is not the case in Cardiff, and Plaid Cymru will, of course, be standing for the arguments that we believe in our hearts to be for the best for Wales.

To reiterate, I ask the shadow Secretary of State for Wales to support our amendment, which will implement what his colleagues in the Welsh Government have been calling for. We have had the prelegislative scrutiny, and the evidence is there. It is clear that we must act to create a new Welsh jurisdiction, and the amendments tabled by Labour would simply kick the issue into the long grass. As I have said, Plaid Cymru is far from alone in making this call. The evidence supports our position and the Labour-run Welsh Government have called for this step—the wording on the amendment paper is theirs.

--- Later in debate ---

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

I am not disagreeing with those on my Front Bench—I have made it clear that we are looking for a pragmatic way forward. For Scotland and Northern Ireland the history is very different, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman is aware. In Wales we can go back to the 1530s and the Tudors for the origins of the single legal jurisdiction, but the position is very different for Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Why do we now have the opportunity to consider a more pragmatic way forward? Amendment 7 makes it clear that there will be a review to consider the functioning of the system. The hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd made a point about having two legislatures within the single legal jurisdiction. That is unusual, but it does not mean that there cannot be a pragmatic way forward for the years ahead. Indeed, the amendment includes a proposal to always have regard to the divergence in the law. The Bill explicitly recognises the Welsh body of law, and there will be one because as the legislature goes forward, it will produce the case law to form that. There must be an annual report on the functioning of the justice system—something that I suggest all Members of the House should welcome.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the current situation, whereby issues or disagreements about the status of legal proposals by the Welsh Assembly are resolved in the Supreme Court, is a satisfactory way for the legislature to proceed?

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

Of course we would all like the Supreme Court to be used far less to resolve conflict between the Governments in Wales and in Westminster, but I am not sure that having a separate legal jurisdiction would have any real substantial short-term impact on that. The Bill is now far better and we have sought to improve it, but the clarity of the provisions—particularly removing all but two necessity tests—has made a great difference and I hope it will mean that there should be far less conflict in the Supreme Court.

--- Later in debate ---

I therefore propose that clauses 1 to 4 and schedule 4 stand part of the Bill, and urge Opposition Members to withdraw their amendments.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to close this debate, Sir Alan. I will restrict my comments to amendments 5 and 7 on jurisdiction, although I appreciate the comments the Under-Secretary made about the areas that he will reconsider. I intend to withdraw amendment 17 and to divide the Committee only on amendment 5.

In my opening speech, I referred to the arguments about divergence that are made against separate legal jurisdictions, but the overriding need to maintain a single legal jurisdiction leads to many of the complications and areas that cause a lack of clarity in the Bill.

Other issues were raised during the debate. The hon. Member for Torfaen (Nick Thomas-Symonds) made much of somewhat speculative cross-border cases. It is evident that Hadrian’s wall is no more a barrier to the functioning of law in the United Kingdom now than Offa’s Dyke would be in the future. It is effectively an argument for the right of Welsh lawyers to practise in Bristol, which is a very worthy cause but not what we are here to discuss.

[Nick Thomas-Symonds]

It was not so much speculation as experience that I was drawing upon. My point was not about lawyers, but about the uncertainty that would be created for my constituents and others by such cross-border cases if there were different jurisdictions.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

That very question is dealt with across the land border between Scotland and England. There is also a tradition in respect of Scotland and Northern Ireland.

I felt that Labour was almost clutching at straws to find ways to disagree with what Plaid Cymru was proposing. Indeed, our amendment 5 uses the very words proposed by the Labour Welsh Government.

I reiterate what the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr Williams) said: the issue of jurisdiction will not go away and we will continue discussing it in the future. It is an argument about gradualism that we have here today. We know that a separate body of Welsh law is developing, and as the Welsh Assembly matures, that body will grow. These questions cry out for an answer in the shorter term, rather than this piecemeal approach.

In closing, the historical realities of Northern Ireland and Scotland are indeed different from that of Wales, but we are making the historical reality of Wales today in this Committee and we should be proud of what we achieve. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: 5, page 2, leave out lines 1 to 6 and insert—

“Part 2B

Separation of the Legal Jurisdiction of England and Wales

Introductory

92B New legal jurisdictions of England and of Wales

The legal jurisdiction of England and Wales becomes two separate legal jurisdictions, that of England and that of Wales.

Separation of the law

92C The law extending to England and Wales

(1) All of the law that extends to England and Wales—

(a) except in so far as it applies only in relation to Wales, is to extend to England, and

(b) except in so far as it applies only in relation to England, is to extend to Wales.

(2) In subsection (1) “law” includes—

(a) rules and principles of common law and equity,

(b) provision made by, or by an instrument made under, an Act of Parliament or an Act or Measure of the National Assembly for Wales, and

(c) provision made pursuant to the prerogative.

(3) Any provision of any enactment or instrument enacted or made, but not in force, when subsection (1) comes into force is to be treated for the purposes of that subsection as part of the law that extends to England and Wales (but this subsection does not affect provision made for its coming into force).

Separation of the Senior Courts

92D Separation of Senior Courts system

(1) The Senior Courts of England and Wales cease to exist (except for the purposes of section 6) and there are established in place of them—

(a) the Senior Courts of England, and

(b) the Senior Courts of Wales.

(2) The Senior Courts of England consist of—

(a) the Court of Appeal of England,

(b) the High Court of England, and

(c) the Crown Court of England, each having the same jurisdiction in England as is exercised by the corresponding court in England and Wales immediately before subsection (1) comes into force.

(3) The Senior Courts of Wales consist of—

(a) the Court of Appeal of Wales,

(b) the High Court of Wales, and

(c) the Crown Court of Wales, each having the same jurisdiction in Wales as is exercised by the corresponding court in England and Wales immediately before subsection (1) comes into force.

(4) For the purposes of this Part—

(a) Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England is the court corresponding to the Court of Appeal of England and the Court of Appeal of Wales,

(b) Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England is the court corresponding to the High Court of England and the High Court of Wales, and

(c) the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is the court corresponding to the Crown Court of England and the Crown Court of Wales.

(5) References in enactments or instruments to the Senior Courts of England and Wales have effect (as the context requires) as references to the Senior Courts of England or the Senior Courts of Wales, or both; and

(6) References in enactments or instruments to Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England, Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England or the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 (however expressed) have effect (as the context requires) as references to either or both of the courts to which they correspond.

92E The judiciary and court officers

(1) All of the judges and other officers of Her Majesty’s Court of Appeal in England or Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice in England become judges or officers of both of the courts to which that court corresponds.

(2) The persons by whom the jurisdiction of the Crown Court constituted by section 4 of the Courts Act 1971 is exercisable become the persons by whom the jurisdiction of both of the courts to which that court corresponds is exercisable; but (despite section 8(2) of the Senior Courts Act 1981)—

(a) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in Wales may not by virtue of this subsection exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court of England, and

(b) a justice of the peace assigned to a local justice area in England may not by virtue of this subsection exercise the jurisdiction of the Crown Court of Wales.

92F Division of business between courts of England and courts of Wales

(1) The Senior Courts of England, the county courts for districts in England and the justices for local justice areas in England have jurisdiction over matters relating to England; and (subject to the rules of private international law relating to the application of foreign law) the law that they are to apply is the law extending to England.

(2) The Senior Courts of Wales, the county courts for districts in Wales and the justices for local justice areas in Wales have jurisdiction over matters relating to Wales; and (subject to the rules of private international law relating to the application of foreign law) the law that they are to apply is the law extending to Wales.

92G Transfer of current proceedings

(1) All proceedings, whether civil or criminal, pending in any of the Senior Courts of England and Wales (including proceedings in which a judgment or order has been given or made but not enforced) shall be transferred by that court to whichever of the courts to which that court corresponds appears appropriate.

(2) The transferred proceedings are to continue as if the case had originated in, and the previous proceedings had been taken in, that other court.”—(Liz Saville Roberts.)

This amendment replaces the Bill’s proposed recognition of Welsh law with provisions to separate the legal jurisdictions of England and of Wales, as drafted by the Welsh Government.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Susan Elan Jones]

It does not much matter what I or the hon. Gentleman think—it has far more to do with what the electorate in Wales think. In all seriousness, this is about how we get the best deal for people in Wales, and for those of us who have never had an ideological objection to the Assembly having tax-raising powers, what we are proposing is sensible, workable, and goes with the grain of the majority of opinion in the Assembly, in this House and across Wales. The hon. Gentleman will probably disagree with me, but he said something interesting about how the Welsh Assembly, which was elected in 1997 with a small majority, has turned into something that very few people in Wales would want to get rid of, and quite right too. I think that this change and incremental increase in devolution, and the support for further fiscal powers, is right and proper, and it is time that the House supported it.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I rise to speak against clause 10 and the imposition of an obligation on the Assembly to undertake and publish justice impact assessments for Assembly Bills. Such assessments are intended to set out the potential impact of a Bill’s provisions on the justice system in England and Wales, and specifically on the Crown Prosecution Service, the Serious Fraud Office, courts and prisons. The obligation to undertake justice impact assessments—or justice impact tests—in Westminster Departments is voluntary in the sense that the UK Ministry of Justice provides guidance as a tool to help policy makers find the best way to achieve their policy aim. If the guidance approach is appropriate for Westminster, why should it be deemed acceptable to place an obligation on the Assembly by means of its own Standing Orders?

[Mr Mark Williams]

I share the hon. Lady’s concerns over clause 10. In many ways the Bill includes a welcome approach for the Assembly to regulate its own affairs, so does she agree that this measure is inconsistent with the rest of the Bill?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It is also being imposed on the Assembly through its own Standing Orders. In that same spirit, surely the Standing Orders of the Assembly should be a matter for Assembly Members alone, especially bearing in mind that the Bill trumpets its credentials as the harbinger of a new model of reserved powers. No other legislature in the UK is denied the freedom to decide on its own legislative process and Standing Orders. There is nothing of the kind in Northern Ireland, Scotland or England, and nothing currently in Wales. No reciprocal arrangement is in place whereby UK Government Bills are required—voluntarily or otherwise— to assess what impact they will have on Assembly responsibilities in Wales. What impact, for example, will the building of the super-prison in Wrexham have on public service provision in the area, the national health service and transport?

Gwynfor Evans and Welsh Politics

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Westminster Hall

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for that intervention, which shows the very close links between Plaid Cymru and the SNP. I shall be referring to the Hamilton by-election shortly.

Gwynfor’s victory was no fluke. In March 1967, Vic Davies won 39.9% of the vote in the Rhondda and cut the Labour majority to just 2,000. In 1968, the polymath Professor Phil Williams won more than 40% of the vote in Caerphilly, losing by only 1,800 votes, with a swing of 29%. The Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, was in a state of panic about the national upsurge in Wales and Scotland, where the SNP’s Winnie Ewing had won the Hamilton by-election in November 1967, so he set up a royal commission. The resulting report by the Kilbrandon commission was published in 1973 and recommended legislative Parliaments for Scotland and Wales.

For Plaid Cymru, Gwynfor’s victory led to representation in this House over the past 50 years by politicians of incredible calibre. Gwynfor was followed by Dafydd Wigley and Dafydd Elis-Thomas in 1974; Ieuan Wyn Jones in 1987; Cynog Dafis and Elfyn Llwyd in 1992; Simon Thomas in a by-election in 2000; and my direct predecessor, Adam Price, and Plaid Cymru’s current parliamentary leader, my hon. Friend the Member for Arfon (Hywel Williams), in 2001. I was elected in 2010, and my talented hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Liz Saville Roberts) was elected in 2015. I genuinely stand on the shoulders of giants—politicians whose names will be celebrated in Welsh history for eternity. Without Gwynfor, though, it is highly unlikely that any of the aforementioned individuals would have graced this place and made their own vital contributions in developing our nation.

In this House, Gwynfor made his mark on a plethora of political subjects. His deep commitment on issues such as nuclear disarmament, industrial democracy, social co-operation and international concord allowed him to make a significant impact on Westminster politics. Men of conviction often face ridicule from their detractors. As they say, “First they ignore you, then they fight you, then they agree with you”. That was certainly the case for Gwynfor, who faced personal hostility unworthy of this House. However, much like other great political leaders across the world, from Ghandi to Mandela, at the time of his death there was a general recognition across the political spectrum that his contribution transcended partisan lines.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a credit to Gwynfor Evans’ vision of nation building that the poll to which he referred earlier shows that Plaid Cymru’s support is at its highest ever level?

[Jonathan Edwards]

I am grateful for my hon. Friend’s intervention. I definitely believe that we would not be where we are without Gwynfor’s contribution. Even if they did not agree with him, everybody accepted that he based his politics on principle, and that everything he did was aimed at creating a better Wales.

Gwynfor was born in 1912 in the Barry. He was brought up in a deeply Christian family, and his religious non-conformism was very important to him. Despite the huge political pressures on him, Gwynfor continued to teach Sunday school at his local chapel in Llangadog after moving to Carmarthenshire. While I was doing research for this speech, I learned of Gwynfor’s great love of cricket. He represented the Welsh schools team during the 1930 season. Since being elected, I have campaigned for a Welsh national side. Considering the fact that in the past decade our great nation has reached a rugby world cup semi-final and won three grand slams, and that tomorrow our football team will play for a place in the Euro 2016 final—I am wearing a Welsh national football tie in their honour—it is about time we had a national cricket team.

Gwynfor awakened to the cause of Wales while at Aberystwyth University. It must be contagious, as both myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd were fortunate enough to study there, as was the Under-Secretary of State for Wales—I am delighted to see him in his place and that he will be responding to the debate. I am informed that the piece of literature that sealed the proverbial deal was the masterpiece “The Economics of Welsh Self-Government”, by my political hero D. J. Davies. D. J. had written his booklet in 1931, and by 1934 Gwynfor was a fully paid up member of Plaid Cymru. As Gwynfor’s biographer, the BBC journalist Rhys Evans, said, that changed Welsh history:

“It was Gwynfor who created the national movement…Gwynfor was also the founder of the Parliament for Wales campaign…There is now a lasting memorial to that organisation in Cardiff Bay—it is the Assembly, the unmistakable symbol, for better or worse, of the desire of the people of Wales to live as a democratic nation.”

In 1937, Gwynfor became a member of the party’s national executive committee and by 1943 he was vice-president. Then, at the Llangollen conference of 1945, just five days before the atomic bomb exploded over Hiroshima, he was elected as president of Plaid Cymru, aged just 32. He would remain the party’s leading political figure for the next 36 years.

Despite his burning nationalism, it is important to remember that Gwynfor was a great internationalist. He was also a committed pacifist, so I am sure that he would have been proud that I am probably the only living person on Earth who has entered the Pentagon and proclaimed, in a meeting with the top military brass, that I am a member of an anti-war party. I am sure Gwynfor would have enjoyed my mischievous intentions.

For Gwynfor, his pacifism was arguably even more important than his nationalism, and he campaigned vigorously against the Vietnam war. His economics strongly supported economic units that are larger than nations, which I suppose is a lesson for Brexiters. He believed that a free market is a device that safeguards the individuality of nations. He strongly supported a British single market and I suspect that if he were alive today he would be doing everything he could to secure tariff-free access to the European single market.

It is not called “the national struggle” for nothing, and Gwynfor’s career is living proof of that. He had to overcome several bitter electoral losses. In his darkest moments, he would walk from his home in Talar Wen, near Llangadog, and climb the slopes of the Garn Goch. Like many of my fellow citizens, I find that our beautiful landscape is a source of endless inspiration and therapy. The love for our land and our people is the basis of our politics. It is fitting, therefore, that Gwynfor’s memorial is suitably located on that barren mountain, which overlooks the beautiful Tywi valley.

However, there is no doubt that for Gwynfor the biggest political blow was the devastating loss of the 1979 referendum. With a Government majority of only three, Plaid Cymru and Scottish National party MPs skilfully forced the concession of national referendums in their respective countries. While Scotland voted yes, only to be denied their own parliament by a clause that required a threshold of 40% of the electorate voting for change, Wales voted overwhelmingly against even a meagre form of self-government.

Dafydd Wigley wrote that Gwynfor wanted to accept that the Labour Government were sincere in their promise that they supported devolution, despite the proposed model being far weaker than the model recommended by the Kilbrandon Commission, as it had no legislative or taxation functions. However, Labour allowed its MPs based in Wales to campaign for a no vote. In the end, 79.74% of people voted against self-government, and there is no doubt that Gwynfor took the loss personally. He felt completely betrayed by Labour, which had allowed its MPs to work with the Tories against their own party. Soon after, the Labour Government lost a vote of no confidence and a general election was held, which the Tories, under Margaret Thatcher, won by a landslide. Gwynfor, after the morale-sapping defeat of the referendum, lost Carmarthen. He would never hold elected office again and there were genuine concerns about his health.

Gwynfor was offered a peerage, but he turned it down flatly, telling the party’s new Westminster Leader, Dafydd Wigley, that there was only one Lord and that he did not abide in a palace on the banks of the Thames. A lesser man would have been crushed mentally and physically by the twin political blows of 1979. However, Gwynfor was about to embark on arguably his most famous battle.

The new Conservative Government had pledged during the election in 1979 to create a new Welsh language television channel. Gwynfor viewed such a channel as a vital step to help secure Welsh as a living language in the modern world. In his epic autobiography, “For the Sake of Wales – The Memoirs of Gwynfor Evans”, he recounts the battle for S4C in great detail. On 12 September 1979 in Cambridge, the new Home Secretary, William Whitelaw, announced in a surprise statement that the new Government would not honour their pledge to set up a new Welsh language channel.

Gwynfor suspected that the decision of the Home Secretary was a case of the Westminster establishment taking advantage of the desperation in the national movement. The response in Wales to the decision was uproar. Getting both main Westminster parties to agree to a Welsh TV channel had been one of the great successes of the Welsh national movement in the 1970s, which was won only after heavy terms of imprisonment had been imposed on many patriots. For the language campaigners of Cymdeithas Yr aith, the TV channel was a priority if Welsh had any hope of surviving as a living language.

Gwynfor saw the decision as a direct attempt to break the spirit of the Welsh people once and for all. In his memoirs, he quotes the bard T Gwynn Jones:

“Ysbryd Gwlad! Os badog lu

Cas Iwyth fu’n ceisio’i lethu

Iddo trwy hyn ni ddaw tranc

Heb ddiwedd y bydd ieuanc.”

That roughly translates as:

“A country’s spirit! If treacherous and vicious throng ‘have tried to quench it, it will never be overcome by this, but will remain endlessly young.”

Gwynfor therefore viewed the decision as a direct challenge to the existence of the Welsh nation. Considering the crushing personal blows that he had just received, it says everything about the stature of the man that he had the clarity of thought to motivate himself once more. With patriots across the country—including some of the greats of the nation, such as Cynog Dafis, Meredyth Evans, Ned Thomas and Pennar Davies—up in arms and even taking direct action against TV transmitters, Gwynfor committed himself to one last action for his country.

Dafydd Wigley has recounted how he and Gwynfor were returning in a car from a St David’s day dinner in Llanberis in 1980 when Gwynfor said, out of the blue, that he would not be with Dafydd the following year as it was his intention to fast until death over the betrayal of the new Government. Gwynfor did not expect the Thatcher Government to back down; he expected to die. However, it was a sacrifice he was willing to make, because his primary aim was to motivate the Welsh nation to believe once again in their country and face down the challenge of the British establishment.

Gwynfor decided that he would make his statement in May and, following the advice of his son-in-law, the great language campaigner Ffred Ffransis, he decided to give the Government five months’ warning before beginning the hunger strike in his study in Talar Wen. He would begin his fast to death on 5 October 1980, but before then he embarked on a national tour. The response of the Welsh establishment was hostile to say the least, but Gwynfor galvanised the national movement.

Media coverage extended far beyond the borders of Wales; The Sunday Times even carried a sympathetic article in the language of heaven itself. TV crews from Canada and Germany turned up at Talar Wen. Articles appeared in the main newspaper of Catalonia, in Scandinavia and in The New York Times. The campaign gained momentum, leading many people to plead with Gwynfor that he could achieve far more if he called off his threat to fast. However, his mind was set; he felt that he could achieve far more for Wales by dying than by living, and that that was the appropriate action to take.

Peter Hughes Griffiths and the party’s chief executive, Dafydd Williams, helped Gwynfor to arrange 22 meetings between 6 September and the beginning of the fast. About 2,000 people turned up to the launch of the series of talks at Sophia Gardens in Cardiff, the home of Welsh cricket. The following night, Gwynfor was in Glasgow, where over a thousand people attended the meeting at the McLellan Galleries. At the same time, the great and the good of Wales, including the Archbishop of Wales, Gwilym O Williams, Sir Goronwy Daniel, Michael Foot and Cledwyn Hughes, held meetings with Government Ministers and implored them to reconsider. However, Gwynfor received feedback that the Government had no intention of making a U-turn.

The speaking tour continued and, as Gwynfor wrote in his memoirs, there were signs that Welsh nationalism was on the verge of becoming an overwhelming force. He wrote that it is a simple truism that that is the only thing that Westminster fears in Wales, and it fears it greatly. I personally live for the day when the people of Wales grasp this simple reality, as the people of Scotland have.

On Wednesday 17 September, the Government yielded and Margaret Thatcher would perform her first and possibly her only U-turn as Prime Minister. However, Gwynfor’s first reaction was disappointment, not elation. He thought that a few more weeks of campaigning would have shifted the tectonic plates in Wales for ever.

The meeting that night was scheduled for Crymych, and when Gwynfor announced his intention to withdraw his threat of going on hunger strike, the 800-strong crowd erupted in emotion. It was his greatest political victory and to make the point somebody mischievously painted on the banks of the Embankment, opposite this House, “Gwynfor 1 - Thatcher 0”. We will settle for that score tomorrow night, Mr Stringer.

A half-hour debate of this nature could never do justice to the contribution of Gwynfor Evans. If I had a full day of debate, I could talk about Gwynfor the Christian, Gwynfor the internationalist, Gwynfor the pacifist, Gwynfor and Europe, and Gwynfor the historian. He was also a prolific writer, publishing well over a million words. If the opportunity to speak about Gwynfor arises again in future, I am confident that I would comfortably beat the record four-hour speech that William Gladstone made in this House when he delivered his 1853 Budget.

Following the events of the last few weeks, I have given some thought in preparing this speech to how Gwynfor would have reacted if he was alive today. It would not be right of me to presume to know the thinking of a far superior intellect than mine, but based on his writings I think we can safely assume that he would now be advancing the need for our country to position ourselves economically within a tariff-free single market as an imperative; that politically Wales must have the freedom to choose its own future; and that when the UK ceases to exist following Scottish independence, as I foresee, that will be a material change in condition, and our nation will again need to have a debate and a vote about where our future lies.

Gwynfor’s place in history is secure. He was chosen by readers of Wales on Sunday and the weekly Welsh-language publication Y Cymro as a millennium icon, ahead of Lloyd George and Aneurin Bevan, and even ahead of Owain Glyndwr. Glyndwr was ranked the seventh most prominent global figure of the past millennia by The Sunday Times, which gives an indication of the esteem in which Gwynfor is held within Wales, and across the world.

Gwynfor Evans died at his home in Pencarreg on the morning of Thursday 21 April 2005, at the age of 92. His biographer, Rhys Evans, says:

“Gwynfor wanted to return to Garn Goch, to the soil, the land of Wales where his politics had taken root. Nevertheless, as his ashes blow in the wind, his legacy survives.”

As I said earlier, my great friend Dafydd Wigley offered incredible help in composing this speech. When I asked him to summarise Gwynfor’s political contribution to our country—and I will finish with this as I could not put it better myself—he replied:

“Gwynfor Evans was Wales’ greatest 20th century patriot. Without his dedication and unswerving determination, Wales wouldn’t today have the degree of national autonomy we enjoy and neither would the Welsh language have secured its official status. Future generations will look back to the 1966 by-election as a turning point in our history and salute the good people of Carmarthenshire for making it happen.”

Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Wales Bill

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Craig Williams]

I am going to touch on something that the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) said. I agree that this is a pragmatic solution to a thorny issue, and I cannot see why the distinct arrangements would not stand the test of time as the body of Welsh law emerges. This is a significant change.

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

In that case, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the findings of the working group will be extremely important to our discussions on the Bill? Given that it is going to report back in the autumn, should we not ensure that its findings are incorporated in the Bill?

[Craig Williams]

Being a new Member of Parliament, I am guessing that that will fit into the timetable of the Bill’s passage through the House, given that we do not exactly rush things here. I think the Secretary of State alluded to the fact that that work would be carried out coterminously. I look forward to the findings; they will be important and they will perhaps bring Members together to deal with the thorny issue of jurisdiction. I am looking forward to the findings of the working group and I hope that they will be produced in a timely fashion so that we can consider them in Committee. These proposals represent a significant change from those in the draft Bill.

I support the proposals on the judicial impact assessments. I do not follow the rationale behind the objections to them. Any sensible institution or Government would have them, but I look forward to sitting down and discussing that rationale with anyone who opposes them. Adopting those assessments would be a sensible approach. Similarly, the electoral arrangements have been a long time coming. As I have said, it is not right that we in this place should debate how many Assembly Members there should be or at what age people in Wales should have the vote. The new arrangements are quite right, and if the Assembly chose to call itself the Welsh Parliament, I would be entirely relaxed about that—a rose by any other name—given that it is making laws, generating revenue and borrowing against capital.

In drawing my contribution to a close, I wish to talk about two practical things. The shadow Secretary of State mentioned ports and the protections on trust ports, particularly Milford Haven. Some 62% of all UK natural gas is coming through that port, so I judge it to be a port of national infrastructure on a UK level, and it is entirely warranted that there is protection there. I have alluded to a welcome, practical measure on bus regulation, which I see as an excellent step forward for what the Welsh Government have been trying to do on integrating transport. It is also an excellent step forward for local authorities. I served on the board of Cardiff Bus, the largest south Wales bus company, and I think this measure will enable the integrated approach between buses, city regions and the train services.

I hope that the Bill has a speedy and successful passage through the House, and I very much look forward to seeing what the Welsh Government do with these powers and, as I said to the hon. Member for Islwyn, the business rates and the huge powers and levers the Welsh Government currently have to better the lives of my constituents and the people of Wales. I commend this Bill, I thank the Secretary of State and his team, and I look forward to the remainder of the debate.

--- Later in debate ---

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

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Madam Dirprwy Lefarydd. Am fod yn bowld, fe gymeraf y cyfle i ddweud rhyw frawddeg arall yn Gymraeg. If I was braver, I would probably carry on, but it did seem appropriate to get more than the usual introduction and salutation in Welsh in today on the Floor of the House.

As a relatively new MP, one of the 2015 generation, it seems to me that successive Secretaries of State for Wales are fond of bigging up Wales Bills as “generational milestones”. These landmarks of legislation are intended to stand as rocks of ages, directing the flow of governance with their permanence. I am a new MP, yet already I have seen Wales Bills come and Wales Bills go. Although I am impassioned with the will to empower Wales, I fear that the House must be concerned that this Bill, yet again, is a cypher for the ongoing tussle between Westminster Departments desperate to protect their little empires and the National Assembly for Wales—not the Welsh Government—seeking the tools to do its job.

For a second time, the laudable concept of reserved powers, which was so well explained by my neighbour the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Glyn Davies)—the hon. Member for Trefaldwyn—is in a reality little more than a series of glosses scribbled over the Government of Wales Act 2006: a cross-referencing exercise for lawyers and academics, shuffling backwards and forwards among documents. The people of Wales deserve clarity and permanence, whereas this remains an exercise in safeguarding the status quo and legislative sacred cows. The Government make much of lessons learnt from the draft Bill: the necessity tests have almost disappeared; ministerial consents no longer apply to so-called “Wales public bodies”, but they remain none the less; and the previous 267 reservations have been whittled down to 250. This is hardly evidence of a change of heart, although I particularly welcome the devolution of powers of heritage railways, having six in my constituency—very lovely they are, too, and I recommend a visit to any of them.

The Government have still got us jumping through hoops to maintain the fiction of a unified legal jurisdiction of England and Wales, when the very existence of the legislature at the Senedd, the growing body of Welsh legislation and the vast majority voice of civil and professional opinion together, in consensus, prove otherwise. Perhaps talk of distinct legal jurisdiction is the domain of political obsessives—we have heard this already this afternoon—but it is the very fabric of the infrastructure of government. It is boring, in the same way that the infrastructure of a country is boring, and roads and railways are boring—unless we have to travel to get somewhere and be there on time.

Wales is on a journey. Each new piece of constitutional legislation promises to deliver us at our destination, but the road ahead is not yet clear. We have had 17 years of learning to walk, but why are we still to be hobbled when we want to run? The present England and Wales single legal jurisdiction is past its sell-by date; it yokes together two diverging legal landscapes. Acknowledging this reality will remove the problem. Attempting to tie them together with legal shackles only underlines how much this is really about asserting London’s sovereignty over Wales—the last of the home colonies—and how little it is about mutual respect and support among equals.

What we have allegedly gained in the vaunted listening exercise between this Bill and the draft Bill runs the risk of being little more than a sleight of hand and a change of name. Out go necessity tests and in come justice impact assessments and a diktat to Assembly Standing Orders, which impose—as compulsory—something that Westminster treats as optional in its own affairs.

We are told that the protocol for dealing with disputes as a result of these assessments will be determined by the Justice in Wales working group—I am glad to learn of that working group, as it reflects the concern that some of us on the Welsh Affairs Committee had with the draft Wales Bill and that we raised in our report. None the less, it does concern me that there is no mention of these justice impact assessments in the working group’s remit. Indeed, there are concerns all round.

[Alun Cairns]

Does the hon. Lady accept that a justice impact assessment is a sensible thing for any mature legislature to have in relation to the scrutiny of legislation? If she does, what is her objection or question when I say that it is merely a statement of fact that helps with the scrutiny of a Bill, as we have not had justice impact assessments up until now?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I note first of all that the impact assessments are compulsory in that they would be compulsory in their effect. However, for this Bill, they are not compulsory, but optional. We do not know for sure what results they could trigger. It interests me that they are not in the working group remit, but that they appear in the Bill. We should explore more fully what their impact is likely to be. Yes, at face value, they are to be welcomed, but we need to know more about them. We need to know the mechanism by which we will know more about them, and we need to be sure that that will feed into the process of this Bill.

Indeed, there are concerns all round about the pace of the Bill’s introduction, the need for scrutiny on its workability and how it synchronises with the timetable of the justice working group, which reports in the autumn. I anticipate that the Secretary of State will outline how these material issues co-ordinate, but I am disappointed that we are being asked to vote today on matters about which so many questions remain unanswered.

In passing, I also note further concerns about the working group. I seek a guarantee that the interests of Westminster departmental workings will be secondary to the best interests of Wales with regard to membership, remit and stakeholder evidence. To reiterate, I ask the Secretary of State to assure me that this Bill will not reach its Committee stage until the working group has reported. It would be unacceptable to move ahead in the present state of uncertainty.

I recall that, in discussions on the draft Bill, the sheer unworkability of the foundation principles meant that the reservations themselves did not receive proper attention. That must not happen again. We have had many speeches about the potential of Wales—I applaud the speech of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) who is no longer in his place—and how the Wales Bill should be looking to realise the fantastic future for Wales. We should be optimistic in our anticipations.

In fact, rather than giving the people of Wales more control over their own resources, some aspects of the Bill give the UK Government a greater hold. Clause 44 amends section 114 of the Government of Wales Act 2006—a section that gives the UK Government a veto on any Welsh legislation or measure that has an adverse impact on water quality or supply in England. Incidentally, that section is exclusive to the Welsh devolution settlement. It appears in neither the Scottish nor the Northern Ireland settlements. Rather than removing this section, bringing Wales into line with Scotland and Northern Ireland, clause 44 extends the veto to cover anything that has an adverse impact on sewerage systems in England, too—so we have water and now we have sewerage.

In last October’s debate on the flooding of Capel Celyn, I recall the Secretary of State referring to the joint Government review programme and how it was considering the Silk commission’s recommendation on water. I understand that this group is to report shortly. Perhaps the Secretary of State will be minded to amend the Bill to include a reciprocal power for the Welsh Government to veto UK Government measures that impact on Wales, or perhaps he will see sense and remove clause 44 from the Bill. That will, at long last, right the wrong of Capel Celyn and give Wales full powers over our own water.

--- Later in debate ---

[Guto Bebb]

Well—[Interruption]—as the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, my hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr Jones) just said from the Treasury Bench, it took 13 years for it to become a Labour manifesto commitment, yet we have delivered it within a few months of having a majority Conservative Government. I think we should be very proud of the fact that we have delivered that funding floor.

Significant questions have been asked about the retention of the two necessity tests. Those two tests are justified. We are saying clearly that there is a necessity test where the Assembly is legislating on matters that affect England. That is the right thing to do because there is an issue of accountability and democracy, and I do not think the Assembly should be legislating on issues that relate to England without having the necessity test. In the same way, where the Assembly seeks to legislate on matters that relate to reserved powers, it is important to have that necessity test. It should be noted that that second test is also in the Scottish Bill.

The hon. Member for Llanelli asked whether there will be a disincentive for devolved ports to grow. I am pleased to confirm that the Bill is clear that the sum in question is a fixed sum at the point at which this Bill is passed. For example, if a port has a turnover of £14 million, it will be devolved; if it then grows, it will remain devolved. There is no prospect of a clawback. In relation to a trust port, the argument for retaining responsibility for Milford Haven in Westminster is clearly made by the fact that it is responsible for 62% of all our gas imports. But this is again a step in the right direction and if, for example, as a result of the Welsh Government or the Welsh Assembly’s activity there is growth in the ports of Holyhead or Newport, they will remain part of the responsibility of the Welsh Government. That is a step in the right direction.

The hon. Member for Arfon mentioned that there is a difference between the way we treat water services and sewerage. The reason why one is mentioned in the Bill and the other is not is because we are now equalising the situation. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are also looking carefully at the situation in relation to water, and more information will be forthcoming at a future point.

Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Ynys Môn (Albert Owen) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West, highlighted issues in relation to energy. It is fair to say that this House has legislated to pass responsibility for wind farm developments to local authorities in Wales, and I think there should be a challenge to the Welsh Government as to why they do not trust local authorities with that responsibility. The Energy Act 2016 made that commitment to a local level of control on wind farms. I think we should all challenge the Welsh Government as to why they are unwilling to trust the local people on an issue of that nature.

The capacity of power lines was also touched on. Again, clarity is required here. It is correct to say that there will be a limitation in that power lines going across the border at a higher level than 132 kV will remain the responsibility of Westminster whereas other such matters will be devolved. This, too, is a significant step in the right direction that will make a real difference for economic development in Wales.

The hon. Member for Ceredigion highlighted three matters on the reservation list and asked why they had been reserved. One was the Severn crossing, which I touched on in an intervention. We believe that it is inappropriate to devolve powers over the Severn bridges when three of the four landing points are in England. That would be taking devolution to an extent that would bring it into disrepute. He also asked about prostitution, which does not fall into the category of legislating for criminal behaviour. It falls under schedule 2, because the aim is to ensure that there is no possibility of changing the legislation. We had to place it separately within the legislation in order to respond to legal constraints. He also asked about heating and cooling systems, and the aim there is to ensure that everything to do with electricity and gas appliances is regulated in the same manner across England and Wales. Again, this is an effort to ensure clarity.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd West asked about speed limits being devolved. It is important to point out that that was a recommendation by the Silk commission. The proposal was also part of the St David’s day process and there was agreement on it at that stage. Also, changes to speed limits in Wales are already being implemented at local authority level, so we believe that this is an appropriate change.

It is fair to say that this is a complex and difficult Bill. It has had a long gestation period, and it is been subject to significant scrutiny here in the House and in the Welsh Assembly, as well as by civic society in Wales.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

A number of Members have asked about the timing in relation to the Justice in Wales working group. I would appreciate a response on whether we will get the report back from the working group before the Bill goes into Committee, because it will be relevant to our work there.

[Guto Bebb]

In my view, it is unlikely that the report will be produced before the Committee stage, but it is possible that it will be with us before Report and Third Reading. Obviously, decisions relating to Report and Third Reading will be made by the Leader of the House. I hope that that gives the hon. Lady some certainty.

As I was saying, this is an important Bill. It clarifies the devolution settlement and puts into place the St David’s day agreement. It makes devolution clearer by putting in place a reserved powers model of devolution for Wales, with a clearer line between what is devolved and what is reserved, and I think that most people in Wales—especially the politicians—will welcome that clarity. It strengthens devolution through a further historic transfer of powers, and those powers will make a real difference to the lives of people in Wales. It will make devolution fairer, and it removes the requirement for a referendum before the devolution of income tax in order to ensure that that accountability exists. It is fair to say that we have listened to the concerns raised during the pre-legislative scrutiny of the draft Bill and made significant changes to try to address those concerns. As a result, we have in front of us a much improved Bill that deserves to go before a Committee of this House. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.



WALES BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),

That the following provisions shall apply to the Wales Bill:

Committal

1. The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.

Proceedings in Committee

2. Proceedings in the Committee of the whole House shall be completed in two days.

3. The proceedings shall be taken on the days shown in the first column of the following Table and in the order so shown.

4. The proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the times specified in the second column of the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Wednesday 25th May 2016 Commons Chamber

[Alun Cairns]

We of course discuss a range of issues that affect the Welsh economy. A Brexit vote would of course affect the Welsh economy in a negative way, with a £2 billion cost to the Welsh economy, costing 24,000 jobs. As we speak, we are seeing some spectacular employment data, but they are based on strong economic foundations and access to 500 million customers across Europe.

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

11. Given that Wales is already underfunded by the Barnett formula and the UK Government, what detailed guarantees can the Secretary of State give that the £245 million actually reaches Wales?

[Alun Cairns]

I do not necessarily recognise the basis of the question. The hon. Lady forgets the historic funding floor, which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor introduced at 115%. That demonstrates the strength of the commitment that this Government are showing to Wales.

Macur Review of Historical Child Abuse

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd March 2016 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Macur Review into historic child abuse.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Sir Edward. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship today. I am sure we are all saddened by the news we are hearing from Brussels.

I will start by putting on record my thanks to the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) for his statement last week. I also congratulate him on his new role in government. I also congratulate the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister on their promotions. I look forward to working constructively with both of them in what I am sure will be an eventful year. I also pay tribute to many colleagues across the House for their work, especially the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd), who I am delighted to see with us this afternoon. She has campaigned tirelessly for the victims and survivors of child abuse in Wales and beyond.

The publication of the Macur review’s report was long overdue. For the survivors of these abhorrent events, it represented hope: that they would see justice; that their accounts of events would be vindicated; that the nagging doubts and conspiracy theories would be either verified or dispelled; and that the whole would be conducted disinterestedly without fear or favour. Unfortunately, the report, which includes more than 600 redactions, adds virtually nothing to our understanding of how the state failed so many children over so many years in north Wales.

[Mark Tami (Alyn and Deeside) (Lab)]

I am sure that, like me, the hon. Lady has already had survivors contact her to say how disappointed they were. The report was their hope that there would be recognition, but all it does is leave unanswered questions still unanswered.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree. It seems to have been very much a matter of process and documentation, with survivors and victims as a second consideration. I will return to that.

The report culminates in a bland list of eight conclusions, which mainly state that Waterhouse was necessary, agree with the instigation of this inquiry, say that neither is a substitute for criminal proceedings and that the experience of giving evidence is difficult for survivors. The six recommendations include the platitudes that inquiries should be “above reproach”; that evidence should not be lost; that there is no purpose in further inquiries; and about the hazards of hindsight. I will return to recommendation 5 later.

Macur was the third review of its kind after the Jillings panel and the Waterhouse tribunal. We will have to wait a further two and a half years before we learn of the findings of Goddard’s independent inquiry into child sexual abuse. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children in particular criticised the timescale, saying that despite the “drawn out process”, the report reveals “barely anything”. It expressed concern that that might deter victims from coming forward during the ongoing Operation Pallial.

I turn to redactions: the removal of names and details by which people might be identified. On my count—I may be wrong, although I counted twice—there are 633 redactions in the report. Although many will be duplications, the Secretary of State and the Minister must appreciate that that number is extremely high. The previous Secretary of State for Wales, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, said in his statement last week that redactions had been “kept to a minimum”. While I, and I am sure many people here, accept that some redactions must be made, particularly given the ongoing court proceedings and the potential for further actions, I put it to the House that to claim that redactions in the report have been kept to a minimum is frankly disingenuous.

I am particularly concerned about the extremely high number of redactions in chapters 7 and 8 on freemasonry and establishment figures respectively. Lady Justice Macur made recommendations in her report to the Secretaries of State on what should be redacted in the published report. She said:

“It is for the Secretaries of State to determine any further redaction of my Report weighing public interest with the caution”.

[Albert Owen (Ynys Môn) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. One of the few positives to come out of Waterhouse was the setting up of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales. Given the strong statement that the commissioner made, does she agree that the Government must be clear about the methodology that arrived at so many redactions?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree entirely. I will refer to what the Children’s Commissioner for Wales said anon and I hope that the Minister will be in a position to respond to her call as well as those we are making today.

The previous Secretary of State also said that the rationale behind making the redactions, as set out in the letters to the Secretaries of State by the Treasury Solicitor and the director general of propriety and ethics, “explain the reasons…fully”. However, I put it to the Minister that those justifications are weak and bland. I sympathise with the views expressed by victims and by the Children’s Commissioner for Wales, as just mentioned, who believe that the UK Government need to be more open about the process by which redactions were made. First, I ask the Minister to tell the House how many redactions were made in addition to those suggested by Lady Macur. Secondly, will he publish further information about why those additional redactions were made and what the process was in coming to a decision on them?

Especially alarming—possibly more so—are the numerous serious cases of missing or destroyed evidence at several different points during the various inquiries. Lady Justice Macur’s report refers to individuals who have implied in written evidence that they hold information about abusers who were not investigated by the police or the tribunal. She states that following an interview with—redacted name—she made a request for materials said by that person to be relevant to the review and stored by a solicitor. She goes on to say that that solicitor had since left the relevant practice and that the files in question were destroyed. She even says that the person at the firm dealing with her request recalled that, before the files were destroyed, the solicitor in question had visited the office and

“may have taken any documents he considered worthy of retention.”

The report states that the solicitor in question had failed to respond to correspondence from Lady Macur. Does the Minister consider that a satisfactory conclusion to that line of inquiry? Is simply ignoring correspondence until the problem goes away all one needs to do to get away with a crime? Even ignoring the allegation that the solicitor may have removed evidence, is the Minister satisfied that it would be standard practice to destroy recently archived data?

Unfortunately, that is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to missing or destroyed evidence. The greatest cause for concern in relation to the process and documentation is of course the fate of the Waterhouse tribunal’s evidence originally handed over to the Welsh Office in 1998. Those documents—it says this in the report—were supposed to be archived securely for 75 years. That did not happen. The evidence received scant respect at the Welsh Office and it was then shuffled over to the Welsh Government.

This is simply a catalogue of data mismanagement: dependency on technology that becomes dated and corrupted; destruction of hardware and tapes; boxes of evidence in disorder; and a reference index that lists 718 boxes while only 398 were initially made available. It remains unclear how many boxes of evidence were finally handed over to Lady Justice Macur, but documents were still coming to light on 1 December last year. It should be noted that the report was presented on 10 December. That methodology does not instil confidence.

The significance of the destroyed computer database cannot be overestimated. That was the record of all documentation. Against that database, if extant, it would have been possible to come to a view as to whether significant evidence was present or missing. Macur states:

“It is impossible to confidently report that I have seen all the documentation that was before the Tribunal.”

We cannot therefore come empirically to an opinion on whether material has been lost, removed or concealed.

[Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley) (Lab)]

I interviewed six young men some years ago in the Cynon Valley. Those boys were taken to north Wales, and that may be true of boys from other parts of south Wales as well. This is talked about as the north Wales abuse inquiry, but it is sometimes forgotten that the children came from all over Wales. Those boys’ reports were harrowing, as Members can imagine. It is an absolute disgrace that there are so many missing documents; I entirely agree with the hon. Lady. Where have they gone? Who is responsible? Lots of the evidence given to the Jillings report, which preceded the Waterhouse inquiry, has also gone missing. Where is it? Who did that, and what were they hiding?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I agree. There is a history, as the right hon. Lady mentioned, of a loss of evidence associated with child abuse. I refer also to the Geoffrey Dickens dossier. I ask the Minister to consider whether victims and survivors of abuse in Wales—not only north Wales, of course—can, in all honesty, be satisfied with the findings of this report.

Now that the Macur review has been published, we are left with the overall lasting impression that documentation and process have been more important than securing justice for the victims and survivors of the abuse that was perpetrated, which should have been the overarching responsibility and purpose of the review. Symptomatic of that concern for documentation and process rather than for the victims and survivors of abuse was the failure to speak to them individually. The review held a public session in Wrexham in June 2013. The review’s website states that, on that day, Lady Justice Macur

“met privately with anyone who asked to do so”

and that the review

“met with numerous individuals with relevant information.”

However, I have spoken with one of the survivors, Keith Gregory, who is a point of contact for other victims and survivors of abuse, and he has informed me that arrangements for interviews were forgotten by the review.

Adding to the undermining of the victims and survivors of abuse are the definitions of “unreliable witnesses” and “multiple hearsay”. Those unfortunate terms were used at the time by people working within the Wales Office to dismiss those who had approached them to demand that attention be focused on investigating abuse that later turned out to be true and to be widespread. The terms are still in use today and are very potent.

It is unfortunate that, due to misguided and wild accusations that emanated from multiple investigations into prominent public figures, sympathy for the survivors and victims of historical child abuse has swung away from them to incorrectly accused individuals. Obviously, the cases of figures such as Lord Edwin Bramall and Harvey Proctor—this, of course, is relevant to news we have heard in recent days—have demonstrated the need to proceed with care and caution when investigations are carried out. However, the danger is that the popular and media perception focuses on sympathy for wronged figures at the expense of genuine victims and survivors. The sensationalist and prurient nature of the subject matter makes a good tabloid story, but surely society should make every effort to respect the suffering of all innocents caught up in both perpetration and accusation.

Ultimately, after reading the Macur review, I am left with the impression that many points still need to be explained and explored under the public gaze. I am particularly concerned about recommendation 5, which I do not interpret in the same way as the Secretary of State for Wales did in his statement last week. He referred to one alleged incident of criminal charges, but Lady Justice Macur’s recommendation seems far more wide-reaching. It concerns me that the Secretary of State appears to have been at pains to restrict the scope of recommendation 5, and I seek a further explanation of what steps will be taken.

The role of the Children’s Commissioner for Wales should be strengthened, which she mentioned in an interview on “Sunday Politics Wales” at the weekend. The commissioner, Sally Holland, called for greater powers, noting that the commissioner’s powers in relation to complaints, advocacy and whistleblowing should be extended to include any area that involves the abuse of children. Might I suggest the Government examine that point and perhaps, if appropriate, include it when they inevitably strengthen and revise the initial draft of the Wales Bill? Will the UK Government work with the Welsh Government to ensure that the Children’s Commissioner has the full range of powers she believes she needs to ensure the full and adequate protection of children?

The Children’s Commissioner also called for the Government to publish or explain information regarding who identified what number of redactions and in which chapter; that is an important point. We are aware that an unredacted copy of the review has been forwarded to the Goddard inquiry, but that will not report until the end of 2018 and will therefore be another long process for the survivors, who have waited for many years already. Victims and survivors need to know what the methodology and process for deciding upon redactions were; the Government owe them that. I note that the only politicians to have had sight of the unredacted version so far all belong to the Government. That does not seem right. It is also clear that there needs to be a strengthened status for evidence from child abuse inquiries, including its preservation, which is a wider point for any Government inquiry.

There undoubtedly needs to be a commitment to ensure that children’s voices are heard in the criminal justice system, in health and social care and in any other sector that involves the care of children and contains the potential for abuse. Rather than simply a platitude that seeks to soothe and reassure in the face of public anger and is then forgotten as time rolls on, we need to change the way in which children’s voices are heard during such processes, in concrete and administrative terms.

[Mark Tami]

The hon. Lady makes an important point about children’s voices being heard. In many of these cases, because the children were in a home, they were not considered to have any value, and that is why they were treated in the way they were. That, in some ways, is the worst aspect of this whole miserable, dreadful business.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

One thing that has saddened me is perceiving how vulnerable these children were, which made them vulnerable to abuse in the first place, and how that abuse in turn has affected them for the rest of their lives and in part condemns them to being unreliable witnesses. We have not served them well; there is no denying that.

[Hywel Williams (Arfon) (PC)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on the speech she is making. In terms of process, is she surprised, as I am, at the paucity of reference to the linguistic context in which this happened in Wales—specifically in north Wales and north-west Wales, where a percentage of the children would be Welsh-speaking? I detect very few references to that in either the Macur report or, in fact, the Waterhouse report, which I read many years ago.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

Indeed. We are talking about children’s voices, and one aspect of that is whether people are able to use their first language, in which they are most confident and express their emotions most fluently.

Finally, one critical lesson to be learned—I again echo the Children’s Commissioner for Wales—is that reviews from now on must be centred on the victims and the survivors. They should have the opportunity to advise on both the remit and process of an inquiry and should be properly supported at all stages. They, of course, are the people who live with this experience for their whole lives, and it has been a terrible experience. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Macur Review

Liz Saville Roberts Excerpts

Thursday 17th March 2016 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Crabb]

We absolutely put on the record today our thanks for and appreciation of the hard work of those who work in the care sector, supporting vulnerable children wherever they are in the United Kingdom

The National Crime Agency has kept me regularly updated with the progress of Operation Pallial. Just yesterday, I had further discussions with the agency’s deputy director. I am absolutely confident that the NCA is vigorously pursuing all lines of investigation.

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

Abuse survivors will be dismayed at this morning’s litany of name-concealing and the destruction of evidence. They may rightly feel that their evidence is transient, disposable and not worth safeguarding. How will the Secretary of State work with the Children’s Commissioner for Wales and the Welsh Government to ensure that lessons are learned and that this never happens again?

[Stephen Crabb]

The hon. Lady is right that people will still be feeling like that. All I would say is that they should take the time to go through the report and look at how Lady Justice Macur has handled to the very best of her ability all the sensitive, difficult questions that have plagued survivors for years and years. A lot of lessons have already been learned from the events we are talking about. As I said in answer to a question a few moments ago, that is not to say we are complacent, as there is always more we can learn as a society. But in terms of where we are in Wales right now, we have the Children’s Commissioner and the work that the Welsh Government are doing. There is good collaboration between UK Departments and the Welsh Government on these issues to do with social services, childcare and vulnerable people. The work is positive and will carry on.