Mick Antoniw: I can also tell Members, of course, that I remember very well meeting with one of those who was in prison, Dessie Warren, in the 1970s, in respect of campaigns around those very issues. So, I’m very familiar and very alert to the issues that they actually raise. Perhaps what I could do is ask the Member if she would perhaps write to me with her request for Welsh Government support and a...
Mick Antoniw: The Members will know that this answer is subject to the established law officers’ convention.
Mick Antoniw: Thank you for those comments. Perhaps if I just deal with the point that the Member made about the Sewel convention being incorporated into the Wales Bill—what will become, hopefully, the Wales Act—that issue was addressed, albeit in respect of Scotland, but this is what the Supreme Court said: ‘it is recognising the convention for what it is, namely a political convention, and is...
Mick Antoniw: Can I just say that the judgment, obviously, sets the foundations that enable us to move forward? As I’ve said, it now opens the door and establishes a clear framework, and hopefully there will be consensus and agreement in respect of all the interests of all parts of the United Kingdom, and achieving consensus and endorsement should be a fundamental part of that. In terms of the...
Mick Antoniw: Thank you for those comments, and I’ll try and deal with them as best I can. With regard to the last point, the issue of the continuity Bill and so on, we now have the judgment. We have to analyse that judgment very carefully. We will have to analyse very carefully what happens in respect of the trigger Bill, what processes are then set in place, what happens then with regard to potentially...
Mick Antoniw: Well, I think, as ever, the Member raises very, very important points. He’s clearly given these matters a lot of thought and I think the comments that he makes are incredibly valuable and ones that I think there is a lot of agreement with because the whole point about Sewel is all very well getting to this stage, but it has to then be implemented practically, not just in terms of...
Mick Antoniw: It seems to me that the important point is that this is a major step forward. It opens the door clearly and constitutionally in a way that we have always argued for the interests of Wales within the Brexit negotiations, within the treaties in which we, like other devolved administrations, have specific interests in terms of jobs and in terms of investments to ensure that the sort of...
Mick Antoniw: I thank the Member for those questions and the points that he raises, which are very similar to the points he’s raised consistently over the past couple of months. Let me say, first of all, it has been very clear in everything I’ve said, and what the First Minister has said, that we respect the outcome of the referendum; the question is how Brexit takes place—that it takes place within...
Mick Antoniw: The Member raises very important points and they’re points that have been considered and have been raised in discussions on these issues over the past month or two. I’d say there is every likelihood of a vote because a trigger Bill will impact on Welsh legislation. It is within the Standing Orders of this Assembly for a legislative consent motion. On the issue of a veto, I’ve already...
Mick Antoniw: I do apologise. The reason we were in the Supreme Court was that the UK Government decided to appeal a very credible decision by the High Court. That is why we were there, and this Assembly and the Welsh Government have been totally open and honest about the cost. We've answered numerous freedom of information requests, setting out the £80,000 to £85,000 that our intervention has cost. And,...
Mick Antoniw: I thank the Member for the questions. Can I first start by actually saying what were the two key points that were the subject of our detailed submission to the Supreme Court? Why did we actually intervene? One was the fundamental importance of this major constitutional change taking place in Parliament, guaranteeing parliamentary sovereignty not being taken by use of a royal prerogative. We...
Mick Antoniw: As Members will be aware, the Supreme Court has now handed down judgment in this case. As I made clear to the Assembly when announcing my decision to intervene, I consider that these proceedings raised issues of profound importance, not only in relation to the concept of parliamentary sovereignty, but also in relation to the wider constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom and the...
Mick Antoniw: Well, the answer to that is the Bill is unsatisfactory and inadequate for many reasons, most of which were explored and set out in detail yesterday by yourself, by the First Minister and by many others. What was obtained, again through hard negotiation, was a narrative that explains that that was not the intention of using the ‘relates to’, to actually undermine the devolution process and...
Mick Antoniw: Well, Members, and the Member in particular, will know that this answer is subject to the established law officers’ convention. The Wales Bill today will be receiving its third reading in the House of Lords.
Mick Antoniw: Well, the fundamental point that the Member just does not get, does not understand, no matter in how much detail it was explained in the Supreme Court, is that the argument is that there is no royal prerogative to replace laws and to undermine the role of Parliament. That was the whole point. There is no royal prerogative. If it ever existed, it was abolished by the bill of rights and by a...
Mick Antoniw: Well, could I firstly thank the Member for his comments? I perhaps differ from him to some extent because it is absolutely awful that we’ve had to spend £84,000 on the case. It was absolutely right that we were in court in the most important constitutional case for 300 years, but I think it was totally wrong that the UK Government, on an issue of establishing a royal prerogative to bypass...
Mick Antoniw: The case we put to the Supreme Court at the hearing on 8 December is that an Act of Parliament is required to authorise the UK Government to serve notice under article 50. Such a fundamental change to the devolution settlement can only be made by Parliament and must not be allowed to bypass the Sewel convention. As the Member is probably aware, judgment is expected imminently.
Mick Antoniw: Well, of course, there was a consultation, but the point you make is exactly right, and was exactly the same issue as in my own constituency of Pontypridd, when that court closed. Where detailed representations were made, as they were in respect of Cwmbran and Abergavenny, showing that the basis on which the decisions were being taken, in terms of access to courts, was actually substantially...
Mick Antoniw: My apologies—I wonder if you could ask me that again. [Laughter.]
Mick Antoniw: I’m well aware of the Member’s interests in this area. Neath magistrates’ court closed in May 2014, with work transferred to Swansea. The Neath and Port Talbot civil and family court closed in July 2016, with business transferred to the Port Talbot justice centre. In addition, in mid and west Wales, courts have recently closed in Carmarthen Guildhall, Brecon law courts and Bridgend law...
