Wales Bill

Debate between Liz Saville Roberts and Jonathan Edwards

Monday 11th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[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.

Gwynfor Evans and Welsh Politics

Debate between Liz Saville Roberts and Jonathan Edwards

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

Debate between Liz Saville Roberts and Jonathan Edwards

Tuesday 5th July 2016 Commons Chamber

[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.

Policing and Crime Bill

Debate between Liz Saville Roberts and Jonathan Edwards

Monday 13th June 2016 Commons Chamber

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I understand that the very fact of having to work to, and be answerable to, two agendas is the reason our colleagues in the Assembly, and the four police and crime commissioners in Wales, are calling for the devolution of policing.

What I am describing contrasts starkly with the situation in Wales. Power over policing is due to be devolved to English city regions: Manchester and Liverpool, for example. The present approach to devolution has been criticised in a House of Lords Constitutional Committee report, published last month, which described it as piecemeal and lacking a coherent vision. I would strongly argue that the devolution of policing to Wales would benefit the people of Wales, and that they are ill served by the antiquated England and Wales arrangement, which, inevitably, is designed with the priorities of English cities in mind.

Our demographics are different in Wales. The need to maintain effective services in rural areas with scattered populations cries out for better consideration. The impact of tourism—populations rocket at bank holidays and in summer months—stretches resources to the limit. Abersoch, in my constituency, has 1,000 year-round residents, yet North Wales police have to deal with an influx of 20,000 visitors in the summer season. I went on patrol with officers last August, and saw that drunken behaviour meant that police officers had to focus attention on that one community, travelling for hours back and forth along country roads to the nearest custody cells 30 miles away. The current arrangement of policing in England and Wales is dominated by English metropolitan concerns, and fails to provide for Wales's needs.

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

My hon. Friend is making very strong points. Only recently, the UK Government introduced centralised helicopter services for the police in England and Wales. That did not affect Scotland and Northern Ireland, because their police forces were decentralised. They kept their helicopters, but we lost ours in Dyfed-Powys. Ministers should not smirk; this affects lives in my constituency. The police force in Dyfed-Powys called out the helicopter on more than 40 occasions, and it was sent out on only a handful of them.

[Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Lindsay Hoyle)]

Order. This is not like you, Mr Edwards. If you want to speak, you are allowed to speak, but you cannot make a speech and get carried away and start pointing at the Minister. Let us try to keep it calm. If you want to raise any points, there will certainly be time for you to do so. We will not miss you out.

Draft Wales Bill (Morning sitting)

Debate between Liz Saville Roberts and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 3rd February 2016 General Committees

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It was distressing to hear about the students in Cardiff who have no one to speak for them. We recognise, however, that not all parties share this view. That is why we agreed to sign up to the Silk Commission—a cross-party Commission with nominees from each of the four parties represented here and in the Assembly, along with academic experts. It carried out extensive engagement and consultation with the public across all parts of Wales. It was a truly representative Commission.

It was deeply disappointing, therefore, to find the Secretary of State then choosing to forgo genuine consensus in favour of a process that can only be described as a means of determining the lowest common denominator. Far from being an agreement, as the Secretary of State likes to call it, “Powers for a Purpose” and the resulting draft Wales Bill that we are discussing today fall well short of the consensus that Silk worked so hard to achieve.

The heavy criticism that the draft Bill has received from all sides, including the Secretary of State’s party, is striking when contrasted with the consensus previously evident in Wales. What happened to the consensus that Wales’s natural resources should be in the hands of the people of Wales? What happened to the consensus that Wales’s Welsh language television channel should be in the hands of the people who use it? We find ourselves with a cherry-picked menu that trusts people in Wales to set their own speed limits, but considers drink-drive limits far too complicated.

[Jonathan Edwards]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on her passionate speech. Does she agree that perhaps the most revealing aspect of these proceedings is the way the new shadow Secretary of State for Wales is distancing herself from her predecessor’s position?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

I cannot say because I was not here at that time, but that is what I understand.

It is interesting that the menu on offer considers water to be too valuable a resource to be left in the hands of the people of Wales, but—fair play—it gives us control over sewage.

I have many concerns regarding the current list of reserved policy fields and will return to this later in my contribution, but I will start by focusing on the foundations of the draft Bill. I should stress first that Plaid Cymru warmly welcomes the move to a reserved powers model as a matter of principle; that is, to move away from the current model whereby the devolution settlement lists areas where the Assembly can legislate, to a model in which the settlement lists areas where it cannot.

There was an unusual and welcome consensus across all six of Wales’s biggest parties on the need to move to a reserved powers model over a number of years. This consensus stems from the frequency with which Welsh legislation is challenged in the Supreme Court and the lack of clarity on where responsibility lies, especially when compared with the Scottish dispensation. Moving to a reserved powers model was also about shifting the mentality and attitudes towards devolution. It should put the onus on the UK Government to justify why something should be reserved, rather than justifying why something might be devolved—devolution based on subsidiarity rather than on retention.

However, those principles—the foundations of the argument in favour of a reserved powers model—have been lost, and the result is a Bill that is simply not fit for purpose. We have unfortunately gone from a position as recently as May last year where all four parties represented in this Chamber today, as well as UKIP and the Greens, agreed on a way forward, to a position where, I am sad to say, it appears the Secretary of State is the only person who thinks the Bill delivers a workable settlement.

Capel Celyn Reservoir (50th Anniversary)

Debate between Liz Saville Roberts and Jonathan Edwards

Wednesday 14th October 2015 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the 50th anniversary of Capel Celyn reservoir.

This October marks the 50th anniversary of the official opening of the reservoir that flooded Capel Celyn, a rural community in the Tryweryn valley in my constituency. The village, along with other parts of the valley, was razed and then flooded to supply Liverpool and the Wirral with water, primarily for industry.

A private Bill sponsored by Liverpool Corporation was brought before Parliament in 1956. By obtaining authority through an Act of Parliament, Liverpool City Council avoided any requirement to gain consent from the Welsh planning authorities. Despite 35 out of the 36 Welsh MPs voting against the Bill, in 1957 it was passed by Parliament.

The village of Capel Celyn was one of the few remaining Welsh-only speaking communities in existence. It had a school, a post office, a chapel, a cemetery—the usual things—along with a number of farms and homesteads. The culture and life of the people of Capel Celyn might not mean much to those who neither know nor love Wales. To members of the Liverpool Corporation, the farms that they were drowning were no more than convenient stretches of land along a remote valley floor, so the region as a whole—a convenient 800 acres—could thus be put to a more convenient and productive use. To Welsh men and women however, their very names ring like bells—Hafod Fadog, Y Garnedd Lwyd, Cae Fadog, Y Gelli, Pen y Bryn Mawr. But those bells now ring underwater and are heard by no one. It is an evocative image in Wales, which remembers the bells of Cantre’r Gwaelod, and the loss associated with inundation.

To understand the strength of feeling in Wales about the event, one must first know something, not of the agricultural potential or the landscape of the Tryweryn valley, but of the character of the community it supported and its place in Welsh life. The people of Capel Celyn were an integral part of the pattern of one of the richest folk cultures in Europe. Cynghanedd poetry was not an academic affectation, but the flower of a robust tradition with a sophisticated metrical discipline that was passed from generation to generation. It was a community with one of the oldest living languages in Europe. It is a language with an unbroken literary tradition, exceeded only by Latin and classical Greek, which was and remains under threat.

No civilised person would wish to see a community of such significance and such high artistic and intellectual attainment invaded and destroyed by an alien institution. Far greater schemes have been rejected by Government to protect wildlife or sites of antiquarian value. The Tryweryn valley was a living community of men and women, young and old, whose continued existence was of far greater moment to Wales, and indeed to Europe, than any ruins or wildfowl, important though those may be.

The value of what was at stake 50 years ago was described in a letter to the Liverpool Daily Post from Mrs Gertrude Armfield, an English woman resident in Wales:

“The way of life nurtured in these small villages which serve, with their chapel and school, as focal points for a widespread population—this way of life has a quality almost entirely lost in England and almost unique in the world.

It is one where a love of poetry and song, the spoken and written word, still exists, and where recreation has not to be sought after and paid for, but is organised locally in home, chapel and school.”

It was not a stretch of land that was flooded against the will of the people of Wales, but a community of people, a culture and a language. People saw the coffins of their parents and grandparents dug up and reburied at Llanycil and Trawsfynydd.

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

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate and on the incredibly passionate speech she is making this afternoon. Does she agree that Tryweryn had a traumatic impact on the Welsh psyche? It is immortalised in the words of Meic Stevens, that great Welsh folk singer, when he says:

“Dwr oer sy’n cysgu yn Nhreweryn”—

it is cold water that sleeps in Tryweryn. Does that not say it all about the impact of Tryweryn on the Welsh psyche?

[Liz Saville Roberts]

It does indeed. Another poet, Twm Morys, says of people who drive past the lake, which is of course strikingly beautiful:

“Be’ weli di heblaw dwr?”

There is more to the place than just the water that we now see and appreciate. The water was for industry in Liverpool, and, indeed, excess water for the Liverpool Corporation to sell at a profit.

But why Wales? Wales is a small country, whose language and way of life was, and is, threatened with extinction—inundation. England on the other hand was a country with 10 times Wales’s area, whose language and life were in no peril. It is safe to say that the English language was then, and remains, the most politically powerful and richly resourced language in the world. There were untapped resources in Cumberland and Westmoreland, where the water of many natural lakes was not being used by any authority. Why insist on flooding a Welsh community for its water? The answer has been given quite openly by those behind the project: they came to Wales, not because water was unavailable elsewhere, but because they could get it at a lower cost. It was purely a matter of business—profits. The issue was not whether Liverpool was to get more water, but how cheaply it could get it.

Another reflection of Liverpool’s attitude towards Wales was its lack of candour. Neither the people of Capel Celyn, nor the people of Wales as a whole, were informed by the council of its intentions. They were left to infer from reports of engineers that the work afoot in the Tryweryn valley would mean something significant to their lives. Those who lived in Capel Celyn facing eviction learned of their fate for the first time from the press. Their reaction was predictable. They put their names to a statement expressing uncompromising opposition. They established a defence fund, contributed liberally to it and, in the best Welsh tradition, set up a Tryweryn defence committee, to which representatives were elected by the public bodies directly concerned, such as the county councils, national park authorities and the Dee and Clwyd river board.

One of the committee’s first actions was to ask Liverpool City Council to accept a strong and representative deputation from Wales, which would put the Welsh case. The request was refused. The town clerk stated that though the water committee would be willing to meet the deputation, the council itself dealt only with important local matters. The rebuff captured clearly the mentality of those behind the scheme—that Welsh opinion was of small importance in comparison with local Liverpool needs.

Superfast Broadband

Debate between Liz Saville Roberts and Jonathan Edwards

Monday 12th October 2015 Commons Chamber

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

I, too, thank the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Matt Warman) for securing this debate. Access to high-speed internet has become something that most people who live in cities take for granted. It is so intrinsic to everyday life that it has almost become an assumed utility, but that is not the case for everyone. For those without access to it, it is a luxury enjoyed by others while they are progressively denied effective internet services and media.

The people of Wales have been promised that 96% of households will have access to superfast broadband by 2016, although the term superfast is interpreted differently by the Welsh Government and means speeds of 24 megabits a second rather than the European definition of 30 megabits a second. All but 1% of that target will be delivered through the Superfast Cymru scheme, which is jointly funded by the Welsh Government, the UK Government and the European Union. The issue of whether the target will be met by 2016 is one matter, but equally important, if not more so, is what will happen to the remaining 4%. Neither the Welsh Government nor the company contracted to deliver the programme—BT, of which we have heard a lot—is prepared to disclose which areas will fall within or outside the 96%, but clearly installing superfast broadband in a cabinet in the middle of Cardiff will reach far more people than doing so in a cabinet in rural Meirionnydd. Until we are informed otherwise, we must expect that the 4% who fall outside the Welsh Government’s targets will be in rural communities.

Access to high-speed internet, as we have heard, is crucial for the rural economy. Businesses in rural areas do not have the high-density footfall of big cities, nor can they rely on passing trade.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that the compressed work and leisure time people face in the modern economy means that there is an opportunity for rural areas to offer wide leisure portfolios and pastimes, such as those that are available in the areas we represent? However, for people to set up businesses in those areas they need infrastructure, and we should be pushing ahead with getting broadband into rural areas so that we can use our natural capital as an economic advantage.

[Liz Saville Roberts]

We have heard already that tourism and agriculture, our principal rural industries, are highly dependent on effective internet services for marketing and their statutory data returns. There is a real issue with isolation and loneliness, and poor internet speed is doubly damaging in rural areas given the equally poor, if not non-existent, mobile data signal. Just 17% of Gwynedd is covered by the 3G data signal compared with a UK average of 84%, and most of that area is in the university town rather than my constituency. We have no 4G whatsoever—it is easy to remember that statistic. Our businesses are crying out for high-speed internet access and the Welsh Government are failing them. Given the importance of growing the private sector to meet the task of growing the Welsh economy, given the rural nature of the Welsh economy compared with that of the rest of the UK and given in particular the importance of high-speed internet to the rural economy, what will the UK Government do to ensure that the remaining 4% are not left without superfast broadband?

Poor broadband provision is putting rural businesses at a disadvantage and might stop businesses investing in rural Wales, as we heard previously about Somerset. That is why Plaid Cymru considers digital infrastructure equally important to the Welsh economy as transport infrastructure. If we want all corners of these islands to be prosperous and to break the long-standing dependence on the south-east of England, we must create the conditions for economic growth in all parts of the UK. For years now, Plaid Cymru MPs have been campaigning for a rebalancing of power and wealth across the UK and although that has been traditionally associated with transport infrastructure investment and empowering national Governments with fiscal responsibility, it also means investment in digital infrastructure. For example, a Plaid Cymru Welsh Government in 2016 would deliver full superfast broadband at the EU definition of 30 megabits a second to 100% of Wales. If we are serious about growing the economy throughout the UK, we must do that.