All 2 Debates between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Guto Bebb

Tue 24th Jan 2017
Wales Bill
Commons Chamber

Ping Pong: House of Commons

Wales Bill

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Guto Bebb
Guto Bebb Portrait The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Guto Bebb)
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I beg to move, That this House agrees with Lords amendment 10.

Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)
- Hansard - -

With this it will be convenient to discuss Lords amendments 28 to 32, 46 and 137.

Guto Bebb Portrait Guto Bebb
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

The amendments deliver a comprehensive and lasting devolution settlement for Wales on water and sewerage. As right hon. and hon. Members know, water is of great symbolic importance as well as practical significance in Wales. Throughout the Bill’s passage, few issues have evoked more passion and debate. There is no question but that there cannot be a clear and lasting devolution settlement for Wales without resolving the issue of water devolution. The Government have therefore been determined to grasp the nettle and resolve the matter once and for all.

I was therefore delighted last autumn, when we were able to announce that we would replace the Secretary of State’s powers to intervene on water with a statutory agreement between the UK Government and the Welsh Government—in other words, a water protocol between the two Governments. Replacing the intervention powers with a formal protocol represents a clear break with the past, and is another landmark in the history of Welsh devolution.

The existing intervention powers were put in place in the Government of Wales Act 2006, when the Labour party was in government. Since then, they have taken on almost totemic status, despite having never been used. Their removal is another important change—alongside many others in the Bill—that marks the coming of age of devolved government in Wales. Amendments 30 to 32 give effect to this historic change.

Amendment 30 sets out the statutory requirements for the protocol that will be agreed between the two Governments, and we are absolutely clear that the protocol will have teeth. Both Governments will be subject to a duty to act in accordance with the new agreement, and once it is in place, both will need to agree any changes to it. The agreement will also need to include a process that both Governments sign up to for resolving any disagreements. The new arrangements will need to be negotiated, and that may take some time, but the Bill, as amended in the House of Lords, ensures that the Secretary of State’s water intervention powers can be repealed once an agreement is formally entered into.

Amendment 31 is also a crucial part of this package, as it imposes a duty on UK and Welsh Ministers to have regard to consumers on either side of the border when exercising functions relating to water resources, water supply or water quality.

The removal of these intervention powers ensured we were able to conclude our consideration of the wider devolution issues relating to water and sewerage, including the questions of whether powers over water and sewerage should be aligned with the England and Wales border and whether the sewerage intervention powers that were in clause 46 of the Bill when it left this House could be removed.

Amendment 30 removed the sewerage intervention powers from the Bill, and a great deal of work has gone into the question of whether the devolution boundary should be aligned with the geographical boundary of Wales.

Interest Rate Swap Derivatives

Debate between Baroness Laing of Elderslie and Guto Bebb
Thursday 24th October 2013

(11 years, 1 month ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Laing of Elderslie Portrait Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Laing)
- Hansard - -

If the Minister has finished his intervention, the hon. Gentleman may conclude his speech.

Guto Bebb Portrait Guto Bebb
- Hansard - - - Excerpts

I appreciate that offer very much, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House considers the lack of progress made by banks and the Financial Conduct Authority on the redress scheme adopted as a result of the mis-selling of complex interest rate derivatives to small and medium businesses to be unacceptable; and notes that this lack of progress is costly and has caused further undue distress to the businesses involved.