24/01/2017 House of Commons

Order! Order! The Ayes to the right, 127. The Noes to the left, 206.

The Ayes to the right. 127. The Noes to the left, 206. The Noes half

butt, the Noes habit. Unlock. We now come to the Wales Bill, money

resolution. It is to move formally. The question is, the money

resolution as on the order paper. As many as are of the opinion, say

"aye". To the contrary, "no". . The Ayes habit. We now come to the Wales

Bill, programme number three motion. The question is, as on the order

paper. As many as are of the opinion, say "aye". To the contrary,

"no". The Ayes habit. The Ayes have it. The clerk will now proceed to

lead the orders of the day. The consideration of the Lords

amendments. The National Assembly of Wales pass the legislation consent

motion on the 17th of January, copies are available online and in

the vote office. I must draw the attention that financial privilege

is engaged by amendment nine. If it is agreed to, the customary entry

waving Commons privilege to be entered into the Journal. We will

begin with amendment nine. We will consider Lords amendment 40 four. I

call the Minister to move to agree a Lords amendment nine. Alun Cairns.

Thank you Madam Deputy Speaker, I beg this House moves to agree with a

medal name as you stated. I am pleased to open this debate on the

amendments to the Wales Bill in the Other Place. Given the number of

members who wish to speak in a short time in the debate, I will aim to

keep my comment Spieth. -- believe. I wish to place my gratitude to the

peers who contributed to the scrutiny during the House of Lords

to the Bill. It is dangerous to name them all for fear of forgetting some

of them. There were a number who regularly attended briefing sessions

and give feedback during the process who helped get this important piece

of legislation through the Other Place without any Government

defeats. I want to thank in particular the Lord from Aberystwyth

for stealing the Bill through the upper House, sponsored by the

equipped for the Bill. I want to take this opportunity to place on

record my thanks to a number of honourable and right honourable

members of this House. The Honourable Member for Cheshire and

Amersham who started the process of when she established a silk

commission in 2011. The member for Crewe West who guided the Wales act

2014 which implemented the silks commission fiscal recommendation

through Parliament. I wish to pay tribute to my right honourable

friend, the Member for Pembrokeshire. As a dash as the

Secretary of State, the two part in the cross-party St David's Day

process that put in place the framework of the Bill. This was a

bold move. It sought to bring all parties together to come up with an

of constitutional nature that would take both houses together that would

understand the politics of both sides of this House and the Other

Place. He believed in the importance of this Bill and subjected himself

to immense scrutiny of that contacts. A great rebuke to him. --

I pay tribute to him. I pay tribute to members on the other side who

paid an important part in the scrutiny, the Shadow Welsh

secondary, the honorary member -- Honourable Member for... Madam

Deputy Speaker, coming to the substance of this group, I wanted

amendments nine and 44 to be debated separately this afternoon to give

members and this House the opportunity to consider the fiscal

framework agreed between the UK Government and the Welsh Government.

These amendments are directly linked to that agreement. The agreement

between the British and Bell's governments as historic and his the

four wheels and to the rest of the generated kingdom. -- Wales. They

will be a referendum before Welsh rates of income tax are implemented

using scrutiny of the Bill last summer. The fiscal framework paves

way for devolution of these historic income tax powers April 20 19. The

block grant adjustment mechanisms that will take account of the

devolution of stamp duty and land tax, are also part of this

agreement. Ensuring that the replacements for these taxes in

Wales which the Welsh Government has legislated for come on stream in

April 20 18. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way.

Like -- whilst he's talking about the fiscal frame, I welcome the

lifting on the cap for boring for capital expenditure for 1 billion.

It is not quite two billion. -- for boring. Does it give the opportunity

for continued investment in the infrastructure in the digital and

physical sense and also contribute to increased productivity as well. I

am grateful for the scrutiny at PV stages and also the comments at

integration he has made. -- previous stages. I hope he will recognise

this is a mature discussion between two institutions and he is right in

this paves the way for the Welsh Government to use its new borrowing

powers to legislate and finance things that really matter to the

Welsh people. The agreement ensures that when tax powers are devolved,

the Welsh Government will have a fair level of funding for the long

term, taking into account Welsh tax capacity and treating population

change consistently across tax and spending. In doing this, we are

delivering on the independent ambition of the long-term, fair

funding settlement and agreement for Wales. The professor is clear that

this is a fair settlement. There is now no case to say that Wales is

underfunded. The Government previously stated that Wales

receives a fair settlement. This cements that in place and this

enhances the settlement. The fiscal trademark is already out of date

because it was before Brexit and we now know that Wales is going to

suffer severely if we come out of the single market. Isn't it true

that this Bill is just another stepping stone on the way towards

forming a new Bill when we get the Thames of Brexit declared? The

Honourable Member is well aware that we have a positive dialogue with the

Welsh Government in terms of discussing the nature and framework

of the process and the ultimate outcomes of exiting the European

Union. I was happy to receive a paper from the Welsh Government

yesterday with -- about the proposals. I will give it close

consideration. It will be subject to a future joint ministerial Committee

for the European negotiations. The Secretary of State would disagree

his honourable friend who said yesterday in an interview that Wales

should get in line with the Brexit process and somehow kowtow to the

Prime Minister's agenda. I do not hear my honourable friend's

comments. Should there be any attempt to seek to frustrate the

process of exiting the European Union by the Welsh Government, that

is not something that the Welsh population would expect or want to

see. Wales did Vote Leave the European union and it is only right

and proper we act on that instruction and direction that came

from the public in Wales. I would hope that the Welsh Government would

continue to engage positively in terms of the way that they have. I

am very grateful for giving way. Does he not feel that given the

respect that he says that is between the institution of the National

Assembly and the Government in Westminster, he should be

disappointed that the supreme court has not ruled today that there

should be a formal consultation with wheels via the National Assembly. We

maintain that the views of the Welsh Government are important but the

views of other stakeholders in Wales are also relevant to the discussion.

The wealth discussion will rightly form is few and the UK Government

will come to a conclusion that is all part of the Kingdom, including

all stakeholders. The legal action at the Welsh Government too, it was

a matter for them, we have had the judgment and need to respect it and

act upon it. If I can return to the fiscal framework and the funding

settlement that comes. I have mentioned professional hops on a

moment ago. -- Professor Hoxton. Also to the Chief Secretary of the

Treasury for his part in the negotiations. And also for the way

in which the Welsh Government and the finance and local Government

minister in the National Assembly, and the Welsh Government, in terms

of how he went about the negotiations with my right

honourable friend as two mature institutions discussion serious

matters that will have long-term positive consequences for Wales.

Building on the existing funding floor. The Welsh Government will

continue to have a fair level of funding for the long-term, taking

into account Welsh tax capacity and treating population change

consistently. For the first time we have agreed to add a needs -based

factor of 115% into the Barnett Formula as was recommended.

Embedding the funding will be announced in December 2015 into the

mechanisms that decide how Wales is funded. The significance of this

should not be understated. This is something that the Labour Party

called forth from Cardiff Bay for many years whilst they were in power

in this place. It took a Conservative Government to introduce

that needs -based factor and deliver on the needs that Wales faced. I

hope the honourable lady opposite will recognise a significant step of

this needs -based factor that has been brought into the Barnett

Formula. Does he not share my concerns that

the needs-based factor will be ten years old by the time it comes in

and has actually called for a review by the time it starts? I'm grateful

to the honourable lady for intervention and the scrutiny and

interest she has shown through this bill but I would hope she'd

recognise the significance of the fiscal framework. The needs-based

factor is 115%. The level at the moment is well above that 115%. It

would fall, over time to 15% recognising the first settlement

Wales gets because of its needs, but a significant factor in that

needs-based factor is that that factor has been introduced into the

settlement of Wales for the first time, something that she and her

party have been calling for for some time, but it took the Conservative

Party to deliver it. I'm grateful to my Right Honourable Friend, who has

done a fantastic job steering this through the Commons stages.

Interesting point about the figures being out of date. The discussion I

had with Professor Horton to talk about Fair funding for Wales, he was

clear with me that there was no reason to think that, just because

of the passage of time the figures he had in mind are somehow

incorrect. The level that has been set by the Treasury is correct for

the needs of Wales at this time. My Right Honourable Friend has been a

key factor in ensuring that we get to the position of the needs-based

factor by framing in a way that we can come out with a successful

conclusion. And, ultimately, the Welsh government would

understandably have rejected the Wales Bill unless it had an

appropriate fair funding settlement. I will give way at the moment. I

hope that members opposite will absolutely recognise the

significance of this, because it really does matter to the long-term

funding public in Wales. I will give way. The Secretary of State is being

very generous. Does he accept that as the First Minister set out

yesterday that there was a difference between the Barnett

formula and the sort of arrangements we have under the CAP? As things are

moving rapidly, that Wales will not be left 1p worse off as a result of

leaving the European Union? The honourable member is tempting me to

go down a route for which no decisions have been taken and we are

keen to engage and discuss, we are keen to engage with the Welsh

government and with other devolved administrations on future funding

arrangements. I hope the honourable member will recognise the fair way

in which we have approached the Barnett settlement and the fiscal

framework, and that will give him confidence in terms of how we look

to get to a fresh settlement for Wales and for all parts of the

United Kingdom, as we exit the European Union. I would like to make

progress if I can but I will happily give way a little bit later on if

time permits. We had agreed a fair way for the block grant to be

adjusted to take account of tax devolution and the devolution of a

portion of income tax and the traditional multiplier, the 105%

within the Barnett formula that would give the Welsh government

additional money over and above current levels. Whenever we increase

spending in a devolved area. The 105% demonstrates even longer term

transitions to getting down to four of 115%. And we're doubling the

Welsh government's capital borrowing limit so that it is able to borrow

up to ?1 billion, as the honourable member pointed out a moment ago.

This will allow the Welsh government to invest in infrastructure across

Wales. Amendment mine pits the new cap of borrowing limit in place so

that it will be -- Amendment nine, so that it will be available as soon

as revenues raised from the taxes that we are devolving. We will put

in a new borrowing limit into place well in advance of the devolution of

tax powers. This, as the honourable member rightly highlighted, will

allow the Welsh government to get on with things that matter and to

legislate and use the new financial capacity that will be granted

through this bill. Taken together, with the Wales Bill, this agreement

paves the way to making the Welsh Assembly a more powerful,

accountable and mature institution with greater powers and

responsibility to grow and support the Welsh economy. Madam that the

Speaker, the fiscal framework agreement resolves once and for all

the perceived issues of underfunding that have overshadowed political

debate in Wales for so long. It provides the Welsh government with a

Golbourne new borrowing limit to deliver much-needed infrastructure

investment and ensures that the devolved government in Wales can

become truly accountable to the electorate by raising around one

quarter of the money that it spends. Gone are the days when poor levels

of public service in Wales could be blamed on perceived underfunding.

For too long, funding was used as an excuse for poor outcomes, not any

longer, Madam Peaty Speaker. If they want big government, the Welsh

government could raise taxes to pay for it or if they want to reduce

income tax levels they could look to drive out inefficiencies and allow

Wales to be seen in a new, entrepreneurial white. -- light. I

urge the House to accept these lords' amendments. The question is

that this House agrees with the Lords in their Amendment nine. Thank

you, Madam Deputy Speaker. And the spirit in which this bill has so far

developed we will see something of a rarity in my life in that I will

come on occasion, I agree with the government and agree with some of

the measures that they have taken but before the Secretary of State

gets too excited about that it must be put on record that this bill has

had a chequered history. It started out very badly, so badly, in fact,

the government have to take it away and start over again. The second

attempt was better. We reach a point today where it is still far from

ideal but there has been considerable movement by the

government as a result of pressure from these benches and from the

Other Place. I would like to place on record my thanks to my

predecessors, the members for Llanelli and Newport West and their

front bench teams for the work they have done during the passage of this

Bill. Particularly with my colleague Baroness Morgan and her team on the

Other Place with their stunning efforts to secure numerous

improvements to this bill through debates and discussions with the

government, utilising a constructive approach to concessions. Therefore,

we do support this bill in its current, improved form and we will

not attempt to frustrate its passage. I am not going to detain

the House for any longer than need be on matters where there are no

disagreement, but there are amendments tabled by the opposition

at the tail end of the group of amendments that I do wish to make

substantial points on and may wish to test the will of the House on,

but we are hopeful that we can make good progress and get it those

amendments. Given me importance of the consequences of amendments nine

and 44, should put something on the record about them. These amendments

will raise the Welsh government's capital borrowing ceiling to ?1

billion and from 2019 the annual capital borrowing limit will rise to

15% of the overall figure, 150 million. This, as Secretary of State

has pointed out, stems from the fiscal framework agreed by the

government in Westminster and the Welsh government. This is welcome

news and I congratulate the Welsh government, particularly the Cabinet

Secretary, as has the Secretary of State, Mark Draper, the Cabinet and

Local Government Secretary for sealing this important deal with the

UK Government. I pay tribute to the government for moving on this issue.

The increase in borrowing ability is so important because the austerity

that successive Conservative chancellors have imposed on Wales

has had severe consequences in terms of the ability of the Welsh

government to invest in infrastructure, in particular. And

that has been pointed out the loss of European funding that Wales will

experience once we lose -- leave the EU, the ability to invest in

infrastructure becomes even more critical. Therefore, moves to

enhance the Welsh government's ability to invest and develop

infrastructure for the future are of course welcome and this is all about

investing in Wales, boosting the economy and it is a measure that

will go a significant way to doing that. Since a wider structure

investment led by the Welsh government will help towards

improving productivity rates in Wales and will help increase the GVA

of Wales. But the government plans do not go far enough. In the Other

Place, my front bench colleague Baroness Morgan tabled an amendment

to raise the borrowing cap to ?2 billion based on the Holton

recommendations. We accept ?1 billion as a step forward but you

probably meet the demands of the Welsh economy it is clearly not

enough. Before the minister responsible is point, I caution that

the government should not view the cap as a target. The point is to

show the flexibility and dynamism from the higher limit rather than

just looking at how much is borrowed. Many successful businesses

do not utilise 100% of their borrowing facility but leveraged

borrowing to a sensible percentage of the facility based on the

economic context in which they are operating. We hire ?2 billion limit

would not necessarily have been utilised but would allow greater

flexibility and freedom for the Welsh government to invest in a

greater number and greater scale of critical schemes and infrastructure

projects. I make these points to the Minister, just put them on record,

and to push his conversations with the Treasury and head of the

forthcoming budget, but as I have said, we do welcome them as a step

forward that Lords Amendments nine and 44 provide, and we will not be

voting against them. Paul Flynn. Thank you very much. It is a matter

of some pleasure to see this bill going through. It started off, as My

Honourable Friend the member for Cardiff Central said, as a dreadful

bill, a very ugly Bill, not with the smack of firm government, this is

the timid cringe away week, uncertain government who do not know

what direction they were going in. But the result of it is generally

beneficial and it is a step forward, a statutory step forward, not one

that we can feel greatly proud of, and we know that we have to come

back to this because the world has changed post-Brexit. Whilst

accepting that there has been improvement with this ?1 billion in

this amendment that we talked about, it should have been ?2 billion, and

there is a very good record in a Welsh Assembly, in their investments

in infrastructure and other projects. But, we do need investment

in the future. The great success of purchasing Cardiff Airport, were

never greatly criticised... Can I thank the honourable member for

giving way? Much has been made of this ?1 billion cap. As the

honourable member will know the M4 relief road has been talked about

and access to borrowing has been available to the Welsh government to

crack on with that scheme, but they have done nothing. I think ?1

billion is a sensible number and I wonder where did the Jedward comment

on whether these powers are being used. The honourable gentleman well

knows why delays have taken place on that scheme, because of the

obstacles in the way, to go through the system of appeals and public

inquiry, but certainly, there is unlimited enthusiasm. It is nice to

see him sitting there amongst half an acre of empty green leather today

and I notice, on a previous reading of this Bill, where one party in

this House took great advantage with a video swiped during this part of

the House as empty, and their three members here, but the visual image

of that was that the person speaking was a Plaid Cymru member who

habitually empties these houses as people stampede to the tearoom

whenever he speaks! People should not like by using these misleading

pictures of the House. What we have before us is challenges to Wales

that are unprecedented. And we must understand what leaving the single

market will do for Wales, for Welsh industry, for Welsh farming, for the

health service. It will hate us much harder in the effect than in England

and we must make allowances for that and we're not doing anything of that

kind. On the question of roads, raised by the gentleman for Cardiff

North, we have a great problem in that the highway robbery which

lasted the 52 years of the Severn Bridge tolls, of double taxation to

local people, is set to continue, and I think that is an

infrastructure project that perhaps the Welsh SMB could look into,

because it is an outrage, that people are paying twice for the

tolls, we pay for the National road schemes throughout the United

Kingdom, we pay our share of that in Wales and the West of England and we

pay over again for the tolls. It was accepted by this House under the

Severn Bridge tolls Act to do that for a certain period. That period

will come to an end later this year or early next year when the Severn

Bridges have the same status as every other piece of motorway in the

rest of the United Kingdom and should be treated as such. And the

cost of maintenance should be borne by the national funding for road

services. That is an unquestionable argument in favour of the abolition

of the tolls. Those are set to begin similar argument on another bridge

but their genesis was rather different. We cannot allow this

psychological barrier to Wales to continue to exist. We want to give

the impression, complete accessibility, that will be

beneficial to those living on both sides of the river Severn, and I

hope the government can look at this again. I think, when we look at

these bills that come up year after year, we have seen a growing upset

this by the people of Wales or the idea of devolution. I'm glad to see

there is a total absence of that band of Conservative MPs who have

tried to vote against a clause very similar to this one, at the third

Reading debate that we had here. This will give the Welsh assembly

the position of dignity and status as a real parliament. And from that

point of view we welcome it. We would far prefer the grudged nature

of devolution. What the decision from the Supreme Court is saying is

that this parliament will rule on powers that have already been

devolved to Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. They have no right to

do that. They are reversing the judgment. This Bill will not take

account of Brexit or to the's decision by the Supreme Court. I

hadn't planned to say anything this afternoon but I felt I would take

the opportunity to do so. To put on record my thanks and congratulations

to the Secretary of State for the fantastic way he has steered this

Bill through the Commons stages and handled discussions with the Welsh

Government and the opposition parties to bring this Bill to

fruition. I would like to put on record my thanks to somebody who has

not been mentioned this afternoon, Baroness Anderson. When she was a

minister in the Welsh office. She was a rock of wisdom and support,

and advice on matters about devolution. The matters give effect

to the fiscal framework agreement. They do represent the culmination of

all those original aims that we set out for this next stage of

devolution. I remember 2.5 years ago sitting down with David Cameron in

the lead up to the Scottish referendum, a time that we all felt

we were in a moment of unique constitutional history and having a

discussion with about where does this leave Wales? Do they need to do

something further on Welsh devolution? That was on a shelf. My

feeling was it was not good enough for Wales to leave Welsh devolution

in limbo. There was pressure coming from the Welsh Government and some

of the opposition parties to give effect to silk two. We could have

resisted that. I felt it was the right thing to do, to pick up the

challenge and to do something in terms of the next stage of Welsh

devolution. I am grateful to my honourable friend, the current

Secretary of State, and others, that we talked about, to look at what we

should now do. Comments being made this afternoon about the way that

this Bill changed from its precise format as a draft Bill. It has

followed an entirely correct process as a draft Bill, consulting, taking

guidance, coming back with Edmonds. And listening. That has been the

tone through this process. -- amendments. What we wanted to do at

the start has not changed. We wanted a stronger devolution settlement for

Wales, a clearer settlement. The end some of the constant argument that

ended in the Welsh Government and UK Government trotting off to the

Supreme Court to argue which institution was responsible for

which policy. Ridiculous. We wanted a fair settlement as well. I will

gladly give way. I pay tribute to what he did and I know my colleague

enjoyed her experience working with him and how he has pushed this

agenda forward. I pay tribute to that. One of the tests that he

employed, it should stand the test of time and the chapter should be

close. Wheels will get used to its new constitutional settlement and we

do not need to turn to devolution in the future. Has that has been met? I

do not think this is the end of the book in terms of Welsh devolution. I

think we do need a prolonged period with the Welsh Government learns to

deploy its powers and uses it competencies in a way that it

benefits the people of Wales. Talking about the Severn Bridge

error. We needed to get the new money for the Welsh Government to do

something. The M4 upgrade. I remember taking a question on it.

William Hague was sat next to me, he lent across and said he was talking

about this 20 years ago when he was Secretary of State for Wales and

we're still waiting for action. That was the challenge that risks

corroding public support for devolution in Wales. The sense that

the Welsh Government, despite the additional powers that they keep

receiving to get, is unable to crack on and take the big and bold

decisions to improve the lives of people in Wales. Coming back to the

point I was making about the core objectives that we set out. I do

believe this Bill meets those objectors. It creates stronger

devolution, with additional powers for the assembly as an institution

and for Welsh Government. It creates a clearer settlement as a result of

the fiscal framework. The amendments that we are debating in this

particular section which gives effect to the funding with the new

borrowing powers that the Welsh Government will get. I remember 2.5

years ago, being told that those four things they wanted to achieve,

there was no chance of getting them. I was told the Treasury would not

agree, the Welsh Government would not agree to take on tax-raising

powers, income tax, I was told that the backbenchers would not agree to

it. The approach of all parties working together, trying to sketch

out and respecting the differences of each other, parties like Plaid

Cymru have the long-standing aspirations and ambitions for Welsh

devolution that none of the whales bills have met over the years.

Nevertheless, there was a constructive tone that led a good

foundation and provided the smooth passage for what I believe is a

reasonably good Bill. Not the end of the story but I hope the end of an

interesting chapter on Welsh devolution. I am sure the House will

join me in wishing the best to my honourable friend, the Member for

Carmarthen East. He is expecting the imminent arrival for the latest

member of his family and I sympathise with all MPs who have to

balance family life with their duty. I extend a welcome to the fact that

the fiscal framework is now in place. It gives the Welsh Government

a degree of financial accountability that is intrinsic for any fully

functioning democratic parliament. Judgement is still very much out on

whether it can really deliver the economic accountability and the

levers for growth that are required. I therefore want to start with

making a few brief comments from the lack of aggression -- ambition for

this. I will discuss how this trademark will work and then

discussing the capital expenditure. Despite having the fiscal framework

in place, we still are behind every devolved administration in terms of

the powers and responsibilities we have got. Earlier today, as it seems

on most days, we are embroiled with the Brexit conundrum and all the

unravelling economic complications. This Government on the patchwork

approach to devolution means that Wales will not have the real levers

it needs for growth in need at this most difficult of economic times. If

the Party opposite wants to talk about the opportunities that a

single market and Customs union exit brings for Wales, we should look at

the fiscal levers for growth, including the most important tax for

Wales, value added tax and how that could be devolved. I hope this

minister will indicate he plans to review this framework in light of

recent developments to make sure that Wales has got these fiscal

levers. I want to touch on this technical point which my colleague,

Alan Price, has raised with the finance Secretary. The 115% rule

that is being referred to as the Horton floor is based on a satellite

criteria that determine the relative need of Wales in 2009-10. There are

plans to conduct a review of this relative need to grind it is

implemented in the Mac years from now. It is perfectly reasonable to

interpret them as being ten years out of date. Although we had

something of a debate over this in the interventions, surely the 115%

rule cannot be set in stone for all time. I would ask the Minister to

bring forward a proposal to investigate that. I am happy to

clarify the point that the fiscal framework agreement supported by the

Welsh Government, it does include opportunities for periodic review. I

welcome his comment on periodic reviews. It is timely given we are

holding this discussion now. Rather than using ten-year-old statistics,

this is a resident point and I do welcome his comment. I would like to

raise some concerns about the dispute resolution framework

mechanism. This may not be the time to do it here and it could be

something that can be resolved in discussions in the future. I would

like to finish on a final point that emphasises the lack of ambition of

both governments. In the House of Lords, Plaid Cymru called for the 10

billion capital expenditure limit and it was supported by Labour.

Under pressure from the devolution sceptic Conservative Party, we're

left with an expenditure of half of that. I am pleased that a fiscal

framework is finally in place. I cannot avoid the observation that

Wales is once again being short-changed by a lack of vision

and the of ambition. Thank you very much, Deputy Speaker for calling me

to speak in a debate that is important to me as somebody who has

served as a member of the National Assembly of Wales for it back years,

come here, spending six years. Most of my political life has been

dogged, if I can use that word, on whales bills, of one sort or

another. I do not know if I will still be a member of this Party when

this -- this parliament when the next one comes. There may well be

the next round. It is a great honour to speak in a debate about the

whales Bill which is particularly important and does take devolution

foreword to a much more stable place than it has been since 1999 when it

was first established. There is a whole host of areas where I could

speak about. On some of them there will be disagreement across the

floor of this House. There are two Mac principles that are important to

me. The fiscal issues. I do think the reserved powers model, moving to

a reserved powers model is fundamental and hugely important.

There will be disagreements about what should be the reserved to the

Westminster Parliament and what should not. Moving to a reserved

powers model is a very big step forward. I have been part of Colin

Ford at since 1999. I do not think we should forget that in discussions

about finance. What we have been and discussion in this debate is to do

with financial issues. There is one related to borrowing powers and I

greatly support that. It does give new and important borrowing powers

to the Welsh Government. There have been some issues. Members have

raised it is not big enough or high and. I have heard that the

responsible Government minister in Cardiff, they will not borrow ?1

billion that is allowed in the first instance in any case. This does make

this borrowing power, it does make a significant difference to how the

Welsh Government can operate. Another issue that there has been

some debate about, it is the 115%. A number of speakers have referred to

this. Since I have been involved in the politics of Wales, we have had

the members of the opposition usually calling for exactly that.

Colin for your level of spending in Wales that was the equivalent of

what would happen in Britain. A is it. -- were hundreds and 15% is it.

It is below what is happening now. It is not sufficient... Not

sufficient appreciation has ever been for the skill of funding that

the current Government makes to Wales. Just complaining about

something all the time can give the wrong impression. What is being

called for since I have been a member of the assembly in 1999 and

here, has actually been delivered and we should recognise that. The

one other point I want to finish on, it has been particularly important

to me, is the devolution of income tax. I've long believed that this

was crucial. The devolution was going to move forward. Any future

Welsh Government would be accountable to the Welsh people, it

has to be financially accountable. It has to be a form of

accountability that the voting public recognise. Income tax is

that. It income tax is devolved, there will be a debate at every

election about the appropriate level of income tax. And people will be

voting looking at both sides of the ledger. What the Government intends

to spend and what it intends to raise. All we have had is a spending

plan. I would only refer to it as a

spending plan, not our budget. You have got to have both sides. That is

where we are moving too, with the devolution of income tax. This bill,

and I am hugely proud to have been a supporter of it, I think it is a

very good bill, it isn't the end of the story, of course it isn't. Who

knows what is going to be done in the next Parliament? But it is a

good bill. It takes is forward to a position that is much more stable.

It gives the Welsh government much more accountability. It delivers,

first of all, a position within a unified United Kingdom which I think

is clear. But it also does give a degree of influence and power to the

Welsh government to deliver the sort of devolution and power which the

people who live in Wales actually want the Welsh government to have.

Thank you. No more standing up. The question is, this House agrees with

the the Lords in their amendment nine, As many as are of that opinion

say Aye, contrary No. The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. Ministers will

move to agree to Lords Amendment 44, formerly. The question is that this

House agrees with the laws in their amendment, 44. As many as are of

that opinion say Aye, contrary No. The Ayes have it, the Ayes have it.

We come to Lords Amendment ten and will consider the other amendments

listed on the selection paper. I call the Minister to move to agree

to Lords' amendment ten. Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Madam Deputy

Speaker, this group of amendments delivers a comprehensive and lasting

devolution settlement for Wales on water and sewerage. Members will

know that water is an issue of great symbolic importance as well as

practical significance in Wales. Throughout the passage of this bill,

few issues of race more passion and debate than the issue of water.

There is no question that there cannot be a lasting devolution

settlement with Wales without water devolution. The government has

therefore been determined to grasp the nettle and resolve the matter

once and for all. Madam Deputy Speaker, I was delighted to be able

to announce last autumn that we would rip place the Secretary of

State's powers to intervene on both of statutory agreement between the

UK and Welsh governments, in other words, a water protocol between the

two governance Madam Deputy Speaker, replaced those intervention powers,

representing a clear break with the past and on another landmark in

history of Welsh devolution. The existing intervention powers put in

place in the government of Wales Act 2006 when the party opposite was in

government. Since then, they have taken on an almost totemic status

despite having never been used. Their removal is another important

change alongside many others in this bill that makes the coming-of-age of

devolved government in Wales. Amendments 30, 31 and 30 to give

effect to this historic change. -- 32. We are absolutely clear that

this will be a protocol that has teeth. Both governments will be

subject to a duty to Act in accordance with the new agreements

and, once in place, both will need to agree any changes to it. The

agreement will also need to have 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 intervention powers can be repealed once an agreement is

formally entered in to do. Amendment 31 is a crucial part of this package

as it enforces a duty on both UK and Welsh ministers to have regard to

putting this on either side of the border when exercising functions

relating to water resources, water supply or water quality. Madam

Deputy Speaker, 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 question of whether

powers over water and sewerage should be aligned with the England

and Wales order and whether the sewerage intervention policies, of

course 46 in the Delve when it with this House, could be removed.

Amendment 30 removed those intervention powers from the Bill

and a great deal of work has gone into the question of where the

devolution boundary should be aligned with the geographical

boundary of Wales. I will take a quick intervention from the

honourable member. I'm grateful to the menace of giving way. Thank you,

Madam Deputy Speaker. I thought might the giving of the intervention

power. Does the Minister remain concerned, as I am, that will be no

direct line of accountability between Ofwat and the Welsh

ministers? There will be an opportunity to consult and work

through with the Secretary of State on that issue and a protocol that

has been put in place should reveal more detail in due course but it is

a fact that we are moving in that direction on the basis protocol

between the two governments that the honourable should welcome. Yes, I

will give way to the honourable member. I am most grateful, he has

been very generous. Would you clarify the position as far as the

Competition and Markets Authority is concerned? They have a regulatory

role that is very relevant to water. Will they be accountable to the

Welsh government and to the Assembly? Is important to highlight

that this Bill is not devolving competition power. It is actually

being reserved. There will be an ability for the Welsh government and

for This Place, obviously, to ensure that the views of electors in Wales

on this important issue are taken into account, but clearly,

competition issues are being reserved, as part of this Bill.

Further work is needed to consider the practical implications of

implementing the commission recommendations. The government set

up the joint government 's programme board with Welsh government to at

these issues and report on the likely affect implementing the

recommendations would have won the efficient delivery of water and

sewerage services. After considering the conclusions of that work,

governments put forward amendment 28 of the government of Wales Act 2006

and says Tobias J Gill won into this Bill to be amended to devolve both

water and sewerage policy as it relates to Wales. While on paper

this signify -- simplifies the devolution arrangements it will

involve the unpicking of several parts of primary and secondary

legislation with the England and Wales border. Amendment 29 provides

an order making power limited to making changes to previously

transferred functions and functions directly conferred by planning

legislation relating to water and sewerage that we will be able to

make the various changes through secondary legislation, once the

spill has been enacted. Madam Deputy Speaker, the amendments of this

group provide a significant package of water devolution to Wales. They

deliver a stable, mature and affect the devolution settlement by

aligning powers over water and sewerage with the national border

and replacing the Secretary of State's intervention powers relating

to water with an intergovernmental protocol. These new arrangements are

in the best interests of water consumers on both sides of the

border and I urge the House to accept these laws' amendments. The

question is that this House agrees with Lords Amendment ten. Thank you,

Madam Deputy Speaker. I would like to speak about the amendments in

this section. The devolution of water and sewerage matters to the

Welsh government is welcome and somewhat overdue. The tragedy will

never be forgotten but the amendments in this section should be

another step forward in ensuring that nothing like it will ever

happen again. More broadly, whilst some cross-border aspects of water

regulation remains, we are pleased that the Secretary of State has

given up his ability to intervene on this issue and like the member for

Cardiff Central, I find myself in a somewhat strange place of thanking

the government for their movement on this issue, albeit after some

prodding year and on the Other Place. Unlike the member for Cardiff

Central I believe that these amendments do not go far enough.

Whilst these amendments correct some problems, there remains discrepancy

is, as the member for McAfee raised in an intervention. There is the

matter of Ofwat and this accountability to the Welsh

government. When it is discharging its function in Wales, it surely

ought to be accountable in some form to the National Assembly of Wales

and Welsh ministers. As it stands, Welsh ministers regulate water and

sewerage operators in Wales but with the Secretary of State being able to

exercises functions are giving general direction to Ofwat without

any legal, mandated consultation with Welsh ministers. To be clear,

our argument would be for Welsh ministers only to be able to provide

directions in connection with matters relating to water and

sewerage operators in Wales, or were licensed activities are carried out

using this is why system of water and sewerage operators in Wales.

Does that not seem a very reasonable and straightforward request? Surely

not a step beyond imagining for the Minister. That the regulator for the

sector should be mandated to consult with and speak to politicians

dealing with the implementation of that sector. As the member for

Wrexham may well expand on it, it is not sufficient to believe that

regulation from London will always work in the interests of communities

in Wales. I will let them expand upon this point and the

ramifications of these amendments with the campaign he's fighting in

this community, but I pay tribute to him and his work on raising this

issue and I would assure the House that we on this House, on the side

support him in it. The member for Cardiff Central, despite the gaps we

have in these amendments, we will not be voting against them today. I

would like the Minister to provide a substantial response to the points I

raised and give some assurance that the issue of Ofwat and the Welsh

government can be looked at through some mechanism outside of the bill,

and that he keeps the House informed of his progress with it. Yes, you

are on! In my advanced state of years I did not hear you, for which

I apologise but I am greatly honoured at being called by the

front bench speakers in this debate. I welcome this legislation. I'd go

as far as to say that its impact and its existence is actually having an

impact before it hits the statute book, because, as a firm believer in

the adage that there are no coincidences in politics, just as

this Bill and the amendment being put down in the Lords, my

constituency and that of my good friend from Clwyd South, our local

water company, the Valley water, was the subject of a takeover bid from

Severn Trent Water, and I suspect that that bid is not unconnected to

the existence of the clauses in this Bill, because, of course, the Bill

closes to give more powers and a greater role to Wales, the Assembly

for Wales and the Welsh government and, I suspect that the regulators

and the accountability that will now be transferred from the UK

Government to the Welsh government, it would be much more difficult to

advance the policy course which is taking place at the present time as

the Severn Trent bid was happening. I can't say too much specifically

about that bid because it is actually in the court tomorrow,

which is of course the most important court case that's taking

place this week! I am a great believer in local

accountability and services. In Wrexham we have got a good water

Company employing 300 people. The workforce to my knowledge are united

in the wish to have the Severn Trent bid rejected. And because water is a

monopoly, the role of regulators... There are two Mac regulators

involved in this process and there will be in future. It is crucially

important. My view is that the regulators have very much let me

down. As both a member of Parliament and as a local customer. Let the

workforce down and let the community down. The Government have also let

the community down because they have stepped aside host the very good,

efficient local business is being taken over by a much larger business

in what I would regard as a predatory way. The workforce are

very worried about their future. I do not want to be part of the

customer base that pays into a pot that pays the chief executive of

Severn Trent Water ?2.4 million per annum as a salary. I think that is

out of touch with the people that I represent. I do not think it is an

appropriate course. I do not agree with the situation where we are

having one less water company as a result of this proposed takeover.

That means we will have less competition and less benchmarks

against which to measure water companies in terms of price and

quality. I am disappointed that the competition and markets authority

have not got involved and have not revealed this enquiry to stage two

Mac enquiry to look into it in more detail. I think the Government has

let local people in Wrexham and Chester, where the valley water

supply watered-down, the regulator have let the people down. And the

RNA situation where the proposals in this Bill are very welcome indeed. I

do wish they happened one day to go. If they happened one year ago, the

people of the community that I represent would have been listened

to by a Government that had influence and authority and would

have exerted influence to prison -- to prevent the predatory taking over

of our local business which is serving our community well and has

been let down badly by this proposal. I rose to speak to the

second group of amendments led by amendment ten. My noble friend, a

Ridley, welcomed the proposals to have power over water. He outlined

how a historic wrong could be righted. He outlined in the great

depth how the drowning of Welsh valleys have motivated his politics

and so many people in Wales. How 50 years ago in Cabra Philae, the

expulsion of people from their homes on land led to the destruction of

communities. The high-handed way in which the people of Westminster

treated the people in Wales has repercussions. It is amendment 30

where this so-called water protocol is outlined which embodies the

entrenched Tory resistance to addressing this in Justin 's in any

meaningful terms. -- this injustice. What protocol this could take could

not be fleshed out. We could have a -- we do not have a draft protocol

in this Bill. We do not have an outline of a draft protocol. Or a

protocol by which to arrive at a protocol. Despite this lack of

clarity, the Government are willing to include Clauses watering down

this already thin provisioning. Amendment 31 explicitly charges

Welsh ministers with the interest of English consumers when it comes to

any changes to our water supply. It is important to note that it

references English consumers. We are not concerned with communities or

individuals. Communities are what matter. Consumers in this amendment

are what matters and the Welsh national resources are not ours to

dispose of two our best advantage. The Government is encouraging the

privacy of competition over the interests of Wales. The amendment

refers to the water industry act 1991. This act was based on the

issue of promoting competition. This -- does this means that we will have

a protocol, the well-being of the water consumer is tied up with the

tenants of free-market competition. Perhaps the Minister could explain

it further? I thank you for allowing me to intervene. In relation to the

contents of the protocol and whether it will be inclusive of the

Thatcherite dogma, surely that will be a matter for the Welsh Government

to agree with Westminster so they will be no Thatcherite dog but

unless the Welsh Government agrees to it. The Minister did explain that

competition was a reserved matter. It does beg the question what does

the dogma have to do with either of -- reserved powers in order for

Wales. My Party and many people in Wales feel cheated when the Minister

played the card of water devolution, we were led to believe this would be

a real game changer. It is no more than smoke and mirrors. We

considered putting 1132 vote but we will spill the chamber this exercise

because people only tweak with the wording something we have already

opposed. I want the record to reflect we will not be taken in by

empty words dressed up as substance by the Government. This remains a

cynical political sleight of hand, endeavouring to gain capital from a

historic event that is deep emotional significance in Wales. As

much as two Mac words can ever encapsulate a feeling or a sense, I

think those two Mac words remember... I do hope that we do not

look back on this year and think of another four words as in calculating

the spirit of our age. I do hope those words... Remembered the Valley

water. What my friend, the Honourable Member for Wrexham stated

powerfully, is a difficulty that is happening in our part of the North

East Wales which threaten the livelihoods of many people working

for a local water company. It is a David and Goliath battle in a sense.

There is real fear that on this occasion, David might not win. David

is in the courts tomorrow. We cannot speak of many of the intricacies of

this. What we can say is one of the smallest UK water companies, it

might be the smallest water company, the details on that I would have to

check, one has the fourth lowest water bills of any water Company in

the United Kingdom. It is in court against its Goliath. It is in court

to do with issues as to the votes of shareholders. One thing that this

does show, what we have seen in North East Wales over this issue, we

have seen what used to be called the unacceptable face of capitalism.

Where a monastic, large predator can come and try to take over a local

workforce, a local company, quite against the wills of the local

workforce and local consumers. I fear that the course of great

regret. When my honourable friend, the Member for Wrexham, speaks about

issues concerning us, issues to do with the role of competition and

markets authority. And the of linkage in terms of devolution to

the Welsh assembly. And also points he raised about of watch. They are

serious points indeed. There are serious points when we consider the

future of water in our area. There is symbolism that attaches itself

and rightly so. The chair of the action

Committee I would charge this House, as we approach the devolution of

water, forget capably about what is happening with Dee Valley water.

Aspects of company law, it should not be right if local people,

shareholders, employees of the company, if local ownership matters

to us then surely a predatory takeover is in nobody 's interests

other than the large predator itself.

I welcome those aspects which are devolving water to the Welsh

Government. I agree it is totemic and a symbolic. I want something

that works and something that works for people in North East Wales.

Thank you for calling me to say a few words specifically on Clause 46

of amendment 30 of the water protocol. Every time I travel south

in my constituency I go past a very famous bit of graffiti.

Intermittently, that acceptable bit of graffiti has been vandalised by

others. No sooner has it been vandalised. It does not take long

for it to be restored to its glory. And so it should. The Government

have a knowledge sensitive issues need to be dealt with sensitively.

History does not always them those sensitivities. In that spirit I

reflect on the very long gestation period of the water protocol. It was

recommended by Sir Paul silk in February 2015... I remember my Party

's representative as long as -- as well as the predecessor, employed in

the Wales Office, when we went through the silk recommendations and

came across the devolution of water responsibilities and sewage. It was

easier to dispense with sewage than it was with water. The officials

were charged with going back and looking at this issue. It was

complex. Not least assigning boundaries, national boundaries with

water companies responsibilities. I am pleased with the Government in

the St David's Day agreement having knowledge, my part in association

with the Conservative Party in Government too, that there should be

a water protocol. On paper at least, the protocol makes eminent sense. It

must be said that it will be easier for us to pass judgment on it where

we too have some draft. Indeed, any assessment of the criteria under

which it will work. That was a point made by the lordships in another

place. More detail would have been helpful as well as a timescale. The

protocol will swing into action and sometimes kill will be helpful. I

ask you to give some indication of that. There were some concerns

raised in another place, right up until the end of proceedings. If I

could summarise them. I look to the Minister to assure me these matters

will be dealt with. The lordships were looking for a clear statement

that the National Assembly has total control over the creation of

reservoirs in Wales. They were looking for the assembly to have

legislative control over all matters relating to water in all of Wales.

In terms of worth the Welsh border. Is he satisfied that those questions

will be adequately addressed by the protocol when it is enacted and

becomes a reality? The pedantic point on the first line about the

amendment, the new Clause 46, Welsh ministers and the Secretary of state

may make a protocol. Should that not read, shall make a protocol?

Anything less than this protocol that does not emerge on the list

difficulties in achieving this, it would not serve the people of Wales

well. I welcome the attempts. There are still unanswered questions and I

look forward to hearing from the Minister.

With Leader of the House will take Lords Amendments 28-32, 46...

Question then. -- with leave of the House. The question is does the

House agree with amendment ten from the Lords, As many as are of that

opinion say Aye, contrary No. The Ayes have it. With leave, we will

take Lords Amendments 28, 32, 46, and 137 together. I call the

Minister to move amendments 28-32, 46, and 130 seven. The question is

that this House agrees with the Lords Amendments 28-32, 46, 137, As

many as are of that opinion say Aye, contrary No. The Ayes have it, the

Ayes have it. We now come to Lords Amendment one with which it will be

convened to consider the remaining Lords Amendments A and B to

amendment 30 six. I call the Minister to agree with amendment

one. I beg to me that this House agrees with amendment one. As I

stated earlier, we have engaged with peers, the Welsh government, the

number of colleagues on all sides of this House and interested parties to

the issues raised. We have been opened and making changes to improve

the bill where there is a good case to do so and the bill before us

today is a better one as a result. Madam Deputy Speaker, there are

large number is of amendments in this grouping, testament to the fact

that the government has been open to improving the new devolution

settlement we can. Whilst I do not intend to discuss each amendment in

detail, there are a number of amendments to the bill I would like

to draw to the attention of the to draw to the attention of the

House. We've amended the bill to deal with particular concerns about

how universities are treated in the new reserve powers model. During the

passage of the bill through the Other Place, concerns were raised by

the higher education sector that defining universities as Wales

public authorities might suggest they should be classified more

widely as public authorities. This was not our intention. Amendments

three, four, and 115 resolve this by naming Wales public authorities as

devolved Welsh authorities. This response to the calls from

university specifically as well as universities in Wales. We have

ensured that the Open University will be defined as an authority

which carries out the mix of devolved and reserved functions

reflecting status as a UK wide institution this will allow the

Assembly to legislate to confer functions on the Open University

without requiring the consent of a UK minister. We have expanded the

list of devolved Welsh authorities in response to concerns raised by

the Welsh government and others. Turning to tribunal is, Madam Deputy

Speaker, the government also brought forward a number of amendments

relating to these. These amendments resulted from extensive discussions

with the Welsh government, the Ministry of Justice and the senior

judiciary. They are intended to improve their way it is managed and

to maximise flexibility in deploying judicial resources in Welsh tribunal

's. The amendments tabled in the Other Place would create a statutory

office of president of Welsh tribunal is to oversee the work of

the devolved Welsh tribunal 's. New schedule five of the bill provides

for a two stage process for the appointment of a person to this new

statutory role. These new clauses will also allow for the deployment

of judges between the tribunal 's and between reserve tribunal is in

England and Wales, to share expertise in a way that cannot

happen under current legislation. These are important amendments, a

product of constructive work with the Welsh government, the Ministry

of Justice and others. Madam Deputy Speaker, the government 's key aim

in introducing the new reserve powers model is to deliver clarity

in the boundary to been the Assembly's competence and the

competence of this Parliament, particularly in light of the Supreme

Court judgment relating to the agricultural wages board settlement.

Many amendments, therefore, either alter or remove altogether

reservations contained in the new schedule seven A. The government has

brought forward a number of amendments to deal with the planning

system and the war that governs the construction of buildings,

responding to concerns raised by the Welsh government. Amendment 71

divorce companies are planning information to railways making it

consistent with the position in Scotland. We brought forward

amendments to replace the full reservation of compulsory purchase

with one that covers only compensation. This, again, was in

the calls to respond to discussions between the UK Government and the

Welsh government. Turning to amendments to schedule one more

widely we have benefited willingness to devolve significant further

powers to the Assembly were a clear rationale can be made for doing so.

This removes the reservation relating to teachers' pay and

conditions. This was something that I was keen to devolve from the

outset, that recognise concerns issued with colleagues on all sides

of the House as well as teachers' unions. Following constructive

engagement with the First Minister and discussions between officials,

we are pleased that we came to the same conclusion, that education is a

devolved matter, it makes more sense for the Assembly and Welsh ministers

to sign -- set the pay and conditions of teachers in Wales, in

light of the greater divergences between the education model in

England and the one in Wales. It is sensible to devolve teachers' terms

and conditions. We are devolving the community infrastructure Levy in

Wales amendment 72, that was a priority for the Welsh government

and has been for a number of years. Would listen to the case that they

have made and we are delivering on demand that the Welsh government has

made. We're happy to respond and constructively in due course.

Finally, Madam Diede Speaker, amendments 36 and 52 devolve

legislative and exit the competence to the Assembly to regulate the

number of high stake gaming machines in new betting premises licences in

Wales. This is an issue that the honourable lady the member for

Swansea East showed particular interest and passion in during the

early stages of this scripting of the bill. The commission made no

recommendation on the depletion of betting, gaming and lotteries but we

agreed as part of the St David's Day process in that constructive

dialogue to consider... In a moment, to consider non-fiscal

recommendations made by the Smith Commission that would be appropriate

to take forward in Wales. I will give way. May I, too, place on

record my congratulations to the member for Swansea East for her

campaign on this issue? With the Secretary of State agree that when

we see statistics that an average of ?3000 a day is being staked on these

machines, it's important that these powers are devolved and that

regulation takes place. I come to the specific point because there's a

review being conducted by the Department for Culture, Media and

Sport which will be able to answer some of the specific issues raised,

but for the moment I will stick to explaining the rationale behind the

amendments relating to fixed odds betting terminals. One of the

proposals was that the powers should be devolved to stop the

proliferation of the so-called fixed odds betting terminals and we

concluded that these powers should be devolved in Wales as they are in

Scotland, that came out of the Smith Commission. Amendment 36 and 52

ensured that the bill mirrored the provisions of the Scotland Act 2016

in respect of high-stakes gaming machines. This applies to sub

category B two gaming machines and will address public concerns in

Wales regarding the proliferation of these machines. Of course these

machines were established as part, regulated by the gambling Act of

2005 that was introduced when the party opposite was in power. The

amendments tabled by the opposition propose going much further than what

is already devolved in the Scotland Act by extending this provision to

all existing gaming machines with a stake of more than ?2, and devolving

powers over existing licenses. We did not believe that was

appropriate, because, as I mentioned a moment ago, the government has

already announced a review of the issue, because you recognise the

flaws in the 2005 Act and, as a result we are carrying out a

thorough process that will look at all aspects of gaming machine

regulation. This will include examining the categorisation,

maximum stakes and prizes, location, number and the impact they have on

players and the communities in relation to problem gambling and

crime amongst other things. All these factors are potentially

relevant and interrelated. These powers, the powers we have agreed to

devolve, are intended to enable the Welsh government and the Assembly to

take action to prevent the proliferation of fixed odds betting

terminals. Madam Deputy Speaker, the review we have announced is the

appropriate mechanism to consider all these issues in a more holistic

way and I would encourage the members opposite to withdraw their

amendment. If they do not, I will seek to do my best to respond to

some of the issues of concern. I would urge members to support the

Lords Amendments within this. The question is that this House agrees

with the Lords in their amendment one, Susan Wyn Jones. I wish to

speak in favour of the Labour amendment, limiting the amount of

staked on the fixed odds betting terminals to ?2. I think this is

actually very important. I welcome the review that the DCMS is carrying

out in This Place and I welcome the move to devolve this measure to the

Welsh Assembly. But the reason I support that, very much in line with

all the work My Honourable Friend, the member for Swansea East has done

in this, is that we could be in the ridiculous position, we all know

apart from certain advocates for the betting industry that what is

happening with fixed odds betting terminals is deeply concerning.

Figures of round about ?1.7 billion are among those quoted now as

profits made on these horrible machines, that are causing so much

devastation in our communities. We all know something has to be done,

and fairly urgently, on this matter. What I actually fear is that we

could have a situation where this House, collectively, could vote for

a stake below 10% on these machines and, yet, if we pass this measure as

it stands, all that would happen in Wales would be that it would go down

to a maximum, a minimum stake of ?10. Now that, to me, does not seem

right. In fact, let's think of it in this way. We could have a situation

where, collectively, this House votes for it in England and Wales to

be ?2, but, once it is devolved in Wales, the Welsh government would be

limited to ?10, but then this House could not vote for a lower stake

here because the government would say it's English Votes for English

Laws, so we would be banned to bringing it. What we're asking for

is something very pragmatic, something that would give the right

to decide on that level of steak and something that would benefit

communities, because let's make no bones about it, those machines and

what is happening in the gambling industry is hitting our poorest

communities the most. We see it in our industrial villages and towns,

we see the impact of it. And let me say once and for all to the harder

elements of the gambling industry, some of which will be e-mailing us

later, the nonsense of what is happening with fixed odds betting

terminals has to come to an end. Do not think that you can intimidate us

and those in the communities who are fed up of the whole bat you have on

them. It is time to Act firmly and it is time that we give the Welsh

government full devolution on this government full devolution on this

and it is time that we lower the staked a possible until the Welsh

government has the power to do it, and hopefully, This Place will, too.

I beg to move the amendments made in my name and those of my Right

Honourable Friends. As Secretary of State has pointed out the ra a large

number of amendments on important areas but given the limited time I

want to focus on Lords Amendment 36 and are amendments to that. We

welcome the government's Lords Amendment 36 as we did in the Other

Place but we want to go further and we have the opportunity today to

achieve that. The main contention we have with the government amendment

is that it limits the powers being devolved to the Welsh Assembly to

regulate fixed odds betting terminals. That ability to regulate

will only apply to machines licensed after the bill becomes law and which

have a stake of ?10 and above. The campaign for fair gambling have been

campaigning on this issue for some time and have been an invaluable

source of help on this amendment and I would like to put on record my

thanks to them. I would also like to thank the All Party Parliamentary

Group on betting terminals so ably chaired by my Noble Friend, the

member for Swansea East. They have completed their inquiry into these

machines and they are due to publish their report very shortly.

Both groups are clear that the ?10 threshold set by the government

amendment is still too high. They are the only machines on the High

Street, fixed odds betting terminals are the only machines with stakes of

?2 and above, and all of the machines in pubs, arcades and bingo

halls are capped at ?2 and and air. The first part of the amendment

seeks to allow devolved regulations of machines with stakes of ?2 and

above, rather than ?10, and only fixed odd betting terminals will be

covered by this. Any fears that the Welsh Assembly would be overstepping

devolution or limits would be confounded. In a similar spirit,

part B would ensure the assembly has the power to regulate all current

and future licensed fixed odds betting terminals at the point it

becomes law. This is important because there are an estimated 1500

terminals in Wales. According to the latest figures, covering 2015, ?50

million was staked and lost on them during that period. The financial

and social problems, the harm that these machines cause in communities

across Wales is well known. Having the ability to regulate terminals

already in place ensures that the Welsh Assembly does not have its

hands tied in seeking to deal with the issue. The Secretary of State

mentioned in the first part of his remarks about how they devolved

teacher paid to the Welsh government, because education is

devolved. We are in a situation where fixed odds terminals are being

devolved. It simply means we will be coming back in a nerd Wil Wales Bill

to reintroduce those relations. If the government concedes on this

point, would my honourable friend simply agree that it would just mean

we have these proposals in place now? It means we could lead the way

in Wales. The Secretary of State is aware of the social and economic

problems these machines cause. Although the DC MS review is going

to be underway, there is an opportunity here for stuff we know

what the problem is and we know we could deal with it right now. I know

the Minister has said the government's attention is simply to

match the powers given to Scotland. Devolution arrangements across

Wales, England and Scotland are already different. They are not in

alignment. There is no reason why the Government could not accept this

amendment is today and agree to the lowering of the state and the

application of that state through all current and future machines.

Anything less than that would be both a bureaucratic nightmare for

the assembly, and only half a solution to an already accepted

problem. I believe it is unacceptable for the Government to

refuse to give the Wales assembly the full powers it needs to seek to

deal with this, simply because Scotland doesn't yet have those

powers. Madam Deputy Speaker, there has been a 50% increase in betting

shops in Welsh town centres since 2004, but this overall statistic

masks the true story. The Campaign For Gambling Fairly shared some

research with me that shows what many on the bench is already know,

that there are four times more betting shops in areas of high

unemployment. These machines are deliberately placed so people in

areas least able to cope with the drain on their finances that problem

gambling can cause are subjected to the highest exposure of machines

most likely to cause it. These terminals allow players to stake up

to ?100 every 20 seconds, which is why, despite only 3% to 4% of the

population using fixed odds betting terminals, these players account for

66% of all UK gaming machine losses. Already massively profitable

bookmaking companies benefit even more from those losses, to the tune,

as my honourable friend has already pointed out, of ?1.7 billion on

those terminals just in the last year across the UK. It is not just

those on the opposition benches that think this is a problem. Polling

done for the campaign showed that 82% shop customers perceive fixed

odds betting terminals as an addictive activity, with 32% of

these borrowing cash in order to feed their habit and 72% had

witnessed violent behaviour emanating from people playing on

these machines. Other research has backed this up and consistently

shown that fixed odds betting terminals are one of the most

addictive unproblematic forms of gambling. One study published in an

article from the Harvard Medical School found the terminals had a

fourfold correlation with problem gambling, higher than any other

gambling product available in the UK. The machines are already causing

real and lasting damage to some gamblers and exacerbating problem

gambling more than any other form of betting. If the UK Government will

not tackle this issue now, they need to give the Welsh Assembly the power

so that it can do it instead in Wales. The power to regulate

existing machines is crucial to tackling the harm they are causing

to communities across Wales and our amendments help to ensure that all

such machines can be regulated. I urge the Minister to follow his own

logic, to be innovative and accept our amendments. If he does not, I am

ready to test the will of the house, certainly on our first Amendment.

I welcome this amendment and the consideration that honourable

colleagues in the other place have given to this. I do declare an

interest as chair of the All-party Group On Fixed Odds Betting

Terminals Norma,. I have campaigned on this issue for over a year and

sometimes feel it has taken over my life. There are 35,000 fixed odds

betting terminals in betting shops across the UK. These casino style

games are in low supervision environments and are easily

accessible to those most vulnerable to gambling related harm. There is a

growing problem with them in local communities in Wales. According to

the latest statistics, over ?50 million was lost on the machines in

2015. While the amendment is welcome, in my opinion the bill does

not go far enough. The Welsh Assembly should have powers to

devolved to it and allow local authorities to deal with existing

clusters of betting shops in deprived areas. The most effective

way of doing this is to reduce the maximum stake to ?2. This power is

not included in the Wales Bill. The call for a reduction in the maximum

stake is growing, with over 93 local councils across the UK, led by new

council, having petitioned the Government to reduce the stake to

?2. We have included an inquiry into these machines and found that,

beyond reasonable doubt, the maximum stake should be reduced to ?2 on a

precautionary basis, in line with the objectives of the gambling

commission. The full findings of the report are due to be published

shortly. We have been encouraged by the DCMS ministers willing as to

work with them on this issue. I very much hope they will respond

positively and reduce the stake, and properly regulated FOBTs, and I

eagerly await the result of the current review. These machines are

directly linked to problem gambling in four out of five FOBT gamblers,

exhibiting problem gambling behaviour at stakes in excess of ?13

a spin. That is compared to one in five at stakes of ?2 and under.

FOBTs are causing significant economic and social problems. In

particular, they lead to increasing incidence of money laundering in

bookmakers, as the activity is largely unsupervised and is

therefore relatively easy for fraudsters to clean their money.

More problems with payday loans, as players take out loans to sustain

their FOBT usage. Increasing crime levels. Betting shops now account

for 97% of all police call-outs to gambling venues. After September

2014, there was also a 20% increase in police call-outs to betting

shops. The clustering of betting shops in Britain's high streets,

there is a 43% increase in betting shops located in towns and city

centres, which is destroying the health and vibrancy of our high

streets. The most effective way to limit the harm for the machines is

to reduce the stake, which can be gambled currently at ?100. A

substantially lower stake would bring FOBTs into line with machines

in the low supervision environments like adult gaming centres and bingo

halls. The gambling Commission themselves said that if they were

staking levels that were now being set, they would strongly advise

against the ?100 stake on a precautionary basis. A lower stake

of ?2 is the level that the previous government said would bring adequate

public protection. I would encourage the Government to support this

amendment to devolved powers to Wales and to allow local communities

to tackle the problems caused by FOBTs. It would be a proactive move

to recognise the danger of the machines. It would establish good

practice to protect communities from the dangers of these addictive

machines, and it would be a positive step to ensuring that, as a society,

we are taking our moral responsibility seriously.

It is a very wide-ranging group, of course, some, I regret to say,

resulted in my party watering the bill down in National Assembly. Time

is limited, but I will focus on key amendments salient to my colleague's

decision-making. The Government has conceded on certain issues and I

commend them for this. This includes areas where Plaid Cymru has put

pressure on the Government in both places. This should be noted.

Amendment 73 devolves compulsory purchase, as referred to earlier,

and we previously give input on that subject, meaning that projects will

go ahead. These are only small concessions, and a skirt around more

substantive policy areas that could make a difference. Amendment 48, the

clause creating a statutory office for the President of tribunal is,

already devolved, this is a welcome move on a practical level, but it

does little to satisfy those of us, including the Welsh government, I

might say, that have been calling for a separate legal jurisdiction.

Without a strong and definitive legal jurisdiction of our own,

overseeing the challenges that we all face when picking European law,

the appeal bill will make it even more difficult. I would go as far as

to say that the whole bill has rather been overtaken by Brexit,

leaving constitutional lawyers and academics, even people of the Welsh

Tories agree with this point, that the constitutional future of the

British states are in flux. There are many opportunities and

possibilities for both sides, for those championed evolution, such as

ourselves, and for those sceptical. Famously, devolution is a process,

not an event. We should be clear about the dangers of substantial

rollback. This brings me to the main focus of my speech in relation to a

series of government amendments, alterations on amendment three,

which will give Wales' public authorities a different name,

devolved Welsh authorities. This wording clarifies what constitutes a

devolved public authority. While the amendment in isolation is not a

concern, it does allude to a more worrying aspect of the bill, in

which there are substantial rollback. Throughout the scrutiny of

the bill we have tabled amendments about the potential effect on the

National Assembly's power to legislate powers pertaining to the

Welsh line which. The effect of schedule two of the bill is that

when the assembly wishes to legislate for the Welsh language, it

will require the consent of a UK minister. Another ministerial

consent is required only when imposing Welsh language functions on

ministers of the Crown. Ministers in both houses have confirmed that if a

future Welsh line which measure was to be proposed, it would no longer

be applicable to many more reserved authorities, such as HMRC, the Crown

Prosecution Service. Consent would be required for the list of devolved

public authorities, which are contained in the amendments today.

The Minister's words offered no reassurance of justification as to

why this bill should include such a regressive step. The National

Assembly research service has produced a briefing paper confirming

fears, outlining another bill, as it currently understands, and there

will be a loss of legislative power relating to the Welsh language. In

the other place, the noble Lord agreed this would be true. He

justified the government's position by stating that amendments we have

tabled to rollback, it would cut across one of the underlying core

principles of the bill and the assembly should not be able to

impose burdens on non-devolved bodies without agreement. To add a

specific exception to the consent process for the Welsh language would

undermine that principle. So, Madam Deputy Speaker, this bill does

indeed take powers away from the National Assembly. Any exception for

the Welsh language would undermine UK sovereignty. I referred earlier

in my speech to the dangers of reverse devolution agenda,

post-Brexit. It seems as though this is the reality we are facing today.

Unfortunately, this is not the only example of significant rollbacks in

this bill, some of the measures in it have been the subject of damning

criticism and scrutiny. As to any assembly act deemed ancillary for

any of the revelations, of which there are in excess of 200, the UK

Government would be entitled to overrule the assembly. The Plaid

Cymru group voted quite clearly against the legislative consent

motion for the simple reason that powers are being clawed back. The

legislative powers of the assembly were endorsed by a measure of 2-1 in

the referendum, in 2011 and the powers implicit in that boat are now

being retracted. We tabled amendments at several

stages in the bill to include the word normally so that there would be

no doubt as to whether the government would grant the Assembly

rapidly after this historic Supreme Court ruling today. To finish, I

quote no less a person than the leader of the Welsh Tories in a

radio interview on January 17, Mr Andrew Davies, who said this will be

the last Wales Bill. Brexit will require devolution changes to be

aligned with responsibilities. I can assure the House today that my party

will be doing everything in its power to reverse the rollbacks, to

ensure that both ministers are taken seriously over exit and to build a

truly lasting devolution settlement for Wales. -- over Brexit. I'm

grateful to all members that have contributed to the scrutiny of... I

shall respond to the points that have been made. Madam Deputy

Speaker, I would like to thank all members who have contributed in this

section for purposes of the bill as it is passed through this House and

the Other Place. I must say I'm disappointed that the opposition are

looking to divide on the amendments we brought forward from the Other

Place on fixed odds betting terminals. These amendments were

responding positively to calls made from colleagues on both sides of the

House and from the Welsh government. The Smith Commission made no

recommendations in this area of having considered the Smith

commission recommendations for Scotland, we believe it is right to

put the Assembly on the same footing as a Scottish Parliament and allow

them to legislate on the proliferation of fixed odds betting

terminals in Wales. There are conservative members of the Welsh

Assembly that actually oppose what the government is proposing and have

supported the member for Swansea East, including Barry Miller, from

North Wales. As he consulted with his Assembly Members on this point

as macro the honourable member makes a relevant point and we do take the

issue of Rob gambling seriously. As I have already mentioned, we are

committed to looking at all aspects of gaming machines -- problem

gambling. The regulation of fixed odds betting terminals is covered

under the gambling Act, 2005, and we recognise that flaws exist in the

current regulatory arrangements. They were introduced by the party

opposite and it is time that that was reviewed. And the Secretary of

State for Culture, Media and Sport State for Culture, Media and Sport

is doing that. We hope that honourable members will vote against

amendments tabled by the opposition and vote to support the government

amendments that we have brought forward. Madam Deputy Speaker, in

closing, it was suggested by the honourable member for Newport West

that this was a half-hearted approach towards devolution. In the

positive spirit that this bill has progressed through both houses in,

can I remind him that legislative competence orders were in place when

we came into power in 2010 when we started this process, that there was

a conferred model in place. This now introduces a reserved model. We have

a needs -based funding settlement in place, something that has been

called on for decades were evolving significant tax powers, we've

removed the water intervention powers and extended the powers of

the Welsh government in a significant range of areas such as

energy, fracking, elections and running their own affairs. There's a

host of positive steps that have taken place here. I would also say

that we all know that members in the Other Place rightly pay very close

scrutiny to matters of constitutional importance and bills

of this type. The government was not defeated despite it being in a

minority in the Other Place. The government was not defeated with

this bill. So I therefore hope that members on all sides of the House

and all members of the opposition would recognise the significance of

this bill and, once and for all, welcome it because of the positive

steps it makes in bringing about a settlement of devolution that will

last for a long time to come. The question is that this House agrees

with the Lord is an amendment one, As many as are of that opinion say

Aye, contrary No. I think the Ayes have it, the Ayes have it. With

lead, we will take Lords Amendments to - eight, 11-27, 30 3-35 together

and for the Minister to move formally to agree those amendments.

The question is that this House agrees with the laws and although

they are remaining amendments, As many as are of that opinion say Aye,

contrary No. I think the Ayes have it, The Ayes have it. I call Jill

Stevens to move amendment 36th formers -- formally. The question is

that the amendment be made, As many as are of that opinion say Aye,

contrary No. Division, clear the lobbies.

That the amendment be made, As many as are of that opinion say Aye,

contrary No. Tellers for the Ayes Vicky Foxcroft and Jeff Smith,

tellers for the Noes, Steve Bryant and Andrew Griffiths. Thank you very

much. Order. The ayes to the right, 170.

The noes to the left, 281. The noes have it, the noes habit.

Unlock. We will take all the remain... Not again! Sorry. Did you

give me that? Minister to move to agree to the amendment 36, formerly.

The question is that the house agrees with the amendment 36, as

many of that opinion say aye? I think the ayes have it. With leave,

we will take all of the remaining amendments together. I call the

Minister to formally agree to all of the remaining amendments. The

question is that the house agrees with the Lords on all remaining

Arminians. -- amendments. I think the ayes have it. We now come to

motion number five on the charter for budget responsibility. I called

the Chancellor to move the motion. I beg to move that the Charter For

Budget Responsibility be approved. This debate is not about the

technicalities of fiscal policy. It is about our commitment to fiscal

responsibility and delivering it in a way that is appropriate to our

current circumstances. It is about supporting our economy through the

uncertainty following the Brexit vote and preparing it is to take

full advantage of the new opportunities ahead. It is about

securing Britain's economic future, supporting working families and

ensuring that our children are not burdened with debt but our

generation chooses not to play. Butland Deputy Speaker, when my