The next item is the motion to amend Standing Orders in relation to sub judice. I call on a member of the Business Committee to formally move—Rebecca Evans.

Motion NDM7671 Elin Jones

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 33.2:

1. Considers the report of the Business Committee, ‘Amending Standing Orders: Sub Judice’, laid in the Table Office on 17 March 2021.

2. Approves the proposals to amend Standing Orders 13.15 and 17.28, as set out in Annex A of the Business Committee’s report.

Motion moved.

Formally moved.

These are also, I think, potentially quite important amendments and I'm not sure why they're being made, entirely. Some of them I think are sensible, like the references to the commissioners and ombudsman. Removing those and having a general provision rather trying to update for each specific commissioner or ombudsman seems sensible.

But at the moment, we have a rule that allows the Presiding Officer to decide that a matter that relates to active judicial proceedings can be raised. And our Standing Orders have stated that if the Presiding Officer is satisfied that the matter clearly related to a matter of public importance, or a ministerial decision in question, then the matter can be raised, and I think that that's sensible. Without that, we have a situation where anyone can lay a judicial review claim—you can file one of those and there's precedent that the cost through to permission stage should be no more than perhaps a couple of £1,000 and that can sometimes take several months—and after the laying of that claim, that's then active proceedings in the court, and, as a legislature, we can't discuss any issue that that relates to.

I think that that's far too wide, particularly in the field of judicial review that questions the decisions of public authorities. If a Minister decides something that's a matter of political controversy and some of us support it and others don't, and we want to continue discussing the merits, this change in the Standing Orders would seem to provide for that discussion of elected Members to be cut short just because, say, one private citizen decides to issue a claim of judicial review. That can't be right, in my view. There is a carve-out in the new Standing Order proposed, but it's much narrower. And yes, of course, legislation, or subordinate legislation, we should discuss, but why on earth can't we debate a decision that's been made by a Minister that's controversial just because someone else is so opposed to it that they launch a claim of judicial review? There's a reference,

'except to the extent permitted by the Presiding Officer', but it's a much narrower carve-out. Situations in which the Presiding Officer should consider allowing debate to continue even if there is a matter before the courts are now set out, and when they're not set out I think it will become much harder for a Presiding Officer to allow that sort of discussion to continue. 

Clearly, at the moment, it's right that we've got the restrictions on matters going before a jury or a family matter case, but for other cases where you have a judge or judges sitting, particularly in the field of judicial review, the idea that we as legislators can't debate or discuss any such matters I think is wrong. The chance of that judge or those judges being prejudiced on account of our debate is I think nugatory and it's something they could easily deal with. To rule out this whole field of discussion for us I just think is quite wrong. We've got perfectly sensible ways of dealing with this issue at the moment—we've an item later on it—and I think those methods should continue, rather than changing these Standing Orders in a wholly unnecessary way.   

I have no further speakers. The proposal is to amend Standing Orders in relation to sub judice. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. I will defer voting until voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.