Transport (Wales) Bill

Public Bill Committee, 28 June 2005.

Transport (Wales) Bill - Standing Committee F

Transport (Wales) Bill

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Before I call the Minister to move the programme motion, let me say that it is likely to get quite hot, so it will be acceptable for hon. Gentlemen to remove their jackets.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I beg to move,

That—

(1)during proceedings on the Transport (Wales) Bill the Standing Committee shall (in addition to its first meeting at 10.30 a.m. on Tuesday 28th June) meet at 4.30 p.m. on Tuesday 28th June;

(2)the proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, Clauses 1 to 3, the Schedule, Clauses 4 to 17, new Clauses, new Schedules, remaining proceedings on the Bill;

(3)the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at 10 p.m. on Tuesday 28th June.

On behalf of the Committee, I extend a warm welcome to you, Miss Begg, as you assume your responsibilities at the commencement of our proceedings. We welcome your expertise and we have no doubt that you will ensure that our deliberations are thorough and in order.

I also extend a warm welcome to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), who will lead for the Opposition, and to the members of his team. In addition, I welcome the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik), who represents the Liberal Democrats, and the hon. Member for Caernarfon (Hywel Williams), who represents Plaid Cymru. I extend a special welcome to new Members of Parliament serving on the Committee. I hope that they will enjoy the experience and learn from it.

There is a great deal of knowledge and experience on the Committee. That is certainly true of experienced Labour Members, and I look forward with interest to the many points that they will raise. In particular, I welcome the hon. Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones) who chaired the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs when it conducted the pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill.

The measures in the Bill have been developed over a number of years and have received widespread support from a broad range of stakeholders. The Bill has been subject to detailed pre-legislative scrutiny by the Welsh Affairs Committee and the Economic Development and Transport Committee of the National Assembly for Wales. Many people and organisations have responded to the public consultation, and significant changes have been made as a result of that scrutiny. The Second Reading debate confirmed the benefit of that work.

Many provisions in the Bill are of interest, and we may disagree on some of the points that we debate, but I am confident that debate will be constructive and that the Committee will co-operate to ensure that we cover all the necessary points in the time allowed.

Hon. Members may find it helpful to know that Andrew Davies, the Assembly Minister for Economic Development and Transport, has written to me outlining how the Assembly envisages utilising the powers in the Bill in relation to joint transport authorities. I have placed a copy of that letter in the Library and circulated copies to all members of the Committee. Copies are also available on the Table in the Room.

May I say again how pleased I am to serve under your chairmanship, Miss Begg? I look forward to your guiding our proceedings to a successful conclusion as early as possible.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I welcome you to the Chair, Miss Begg. For almost eight years, you and I have been bringing the BBC to account as members of the all-party group on the BBC, although the Government have obviously recognised your contribution more than mine. It will be a pleasure to serve under you on this Committee and, I hope, on others in future.

The Liberal Democrats are comfortable with the programme motion. The Bill raises matters for debate, but the issue of whether we agree with it as a whole is not fundamentally contentious. Two sittings in one day should be satisfactory. I am sure that no one in the Room has any desire to filibuster or to cause unnecessary delay and that we shall get through matters quickly.

I very much look forward to hearing the rationale behind the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Leominster, and I am sure that we shall have a healthy debate about them. Notwithstanding that, I hope, as does the Minister, that we will not use time unnecessarily, since time’s arrow cannot be stopped. The sooner we complete our work on the Bill, the sooner we will be able to deal with other matters.

I should mention one last thing. If matters arise in Committee that persuade the Government of the need for change, I am sure that the Minister will be noble enough to affirm that he will use Report to make the necessary changes. On that basis, I support the programme motion.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

I remind the Committee that there is a money resolution in connection with the Bill; copies are available in the Room. I also have the usual reminder about amendments, but as we will complete our proceedings today it is slightly academic.

Clause 1 - General transport duty

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, which is in clause 1, page 1, line 6, leave out ‘to, from and’.

I take this opportunity, Miss Begg, to welcome you to the Chair.

The amendment seeks to clarify the sphere of responsibility covered by the Bill. By limiting the remit of the policies to transport facilities and services within Wales, we can avoid a great many of the problems and questions that now remain unanswered. We must consider the impact of the Wales transport strategy on services that run within Wales but that originate elsewhere in the United Kingdom. Why is the Assembly compelled to provide policies on running services from Wales to elsewhere and from elsewhere to Wales?

As it stands, the Bill confers on the Assembly an order that it “must” develop policies on transport “to, from and within” Wales. Does the Assembly necessarily want to develop policies on those services that operate only briefly within Wales and largely outside? Amending the clause would also help to answer the question whether, under current arrangements, transport services from England that operate only partly in Wales should be subject to control and regulation by the Assembly. That would also tackle the question of representation for those who live in England but who are subject to transport provisions ruled on by the Assembly.

If the Assembly is to control policy for transport services to and from Wales which can be used by people from all over the UK, what representation will those people have in the Assembly? The people in Wales are represented by Assembly Members, but there are no English Assembly Members. If control over transport from or to areas outside Wales is to be devolved, we must be sure to give a voice to those who have no direct representation in the Assembly. Though many questions remain over what impact the development of the Wales transport strategy will have on services that regularly cross the border, the amendment would at least give us a more definite remit from which to work.

We need more reassurance over the cross-border implications of the Bill before its proposals can be fully supported.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I find the amendment useful as a probing amendment, although for slightly different reasons to those expressed by the hon. Member for Leominster. It is evident that the break-up of the UK rail network has caused untold misery and suffering for many, including myself. It is also true that the more integrated the rail network is, the more likely it is to be effective. To that extent, it seems necessary to the Liberal Democrats that we should ensure consideration of the operation of transport facilities and rail services to, from and within Wales.

My question for the Minister is about the interrelation between the Welsh Assembly and other bodies responsible for providing those services. Does he have in mind a specific and particular mechanism to ensure that the interrelation runs smoothly, or does he intend the Assembly to negotiate the interrelations for itself?

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

There seems to be a fundamental unfairness about the idea of the Welsh Assembly having influence over transport services that are largely not even in Wales. If that unfairness were to be corrected, it would surely be right to allow English local authorities—if it is they that draw up the equivalent of the local transport plan—to have the same influence over transport facilities that are largely in Wales. The whole thing would become confusing, with bodies from outside a region having a large say over transport facilities largely within that region. The amendment is important for clarity.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The question for me is how the hon. Member for Leominster distinguishes services for the people of Wales? That is my starting point. I am talking about services for the people of Wales that start in Wales and end either in Wales or elsewhere. I can see no logical difference between one sort of service and another. The basis of the distinction is rather suspect.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Bill says that the Assembly “must” develop policies for transport that is, effectively, outside Wales. That is the issue that the hon. Gentleman must understand. The clause says:

“The Assembly must ... develop policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Wales”.

There is obviously no problem with “within Wales”, and the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will be aware of the advantages. However, I have with difficulties with “to” and “from”. I hope that that is helpful to him.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am thankful, but the point remains. The starting point for the Assembly’s transport policies should be services for people in Wales and for people from Wales travelling elsewhere. That is entirely reasonable, so the obligation on the Assembly is also quite reasonable.

My other point concerns the north Wales-south Wales service, the major part of which runs through England. Were the amendment to be accepted, would that part be excluded? If so, the major rail routes from north to south in Wales would fall outside the influence of the Assembly.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

When the Bill was originally put together, the intention was for the Strategic Rail Authority to have proper representation from Wales. However, the Government published their White Paper and changed that emphasis. It therefore falls to the Government to say how the hon. Gentleman’s constituents who take the Welsh-only part of that journey can have proper influence over it, as well as those who do not necessarily stay on the train until it reaches north Wales.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I am pleased that we have a measure of agreement that it is for the Government to answer that point, rather than the hon. Gentleman, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire or me. Let us see what the Minister has to say. I am concerned that that the amendment would reduce the Assembly to having a minor, residual role.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Amendment No. 1 would prevent the Assembly from taking into account cross-border transport issues in its transport strategy. The transport network in Wales is part of the wider UK and European network, and cannot be considered in isolation. I am surprised by the amendment, as several hon. Members mentioned the need for the Assembly to treat the system in just that way on Second Reading. On that occasion it was said that it was vital that cross-border issues be taken into account fully when developing the strategy. The amendment runs counter to the need for a fully integrated transport system in Wales that the Bill is designed to facilitate and would have a significant impact across all modes of transport. For example, the Assembly could not consider the Swansea to London train service or the Holyhead to Euston service when deciding how to develop the valleys rail network.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister has to answer why the Assembly “must”, not why it “should”. His point is that the amendment would prevent the Assembly, but in fact the wording in the Bill is prescriptive. If he is unhappy with the idea that the Assembly should concern itself only with the Welsh part of a journey, he should be thinking about a wording that he might prefer to use in an amendment, removing the idea that the Assembly “must” take the action in question, and replacing it with the idea that it is able to do so. Perhaps that will help the Minister.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The main purpose of the Bill is to give powers to the Assembly for developing a strategy and related matters. Perhaps I may pose a question to the hon. Gentleman: if his problem is with the word “must”, why did not he table an amendment to change that, rather than focusing on the “to” and “from” issue? That would have dealt with the matter better.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I agree with my hon. Friend on the strange wording of the amendment. The general transport duty—and I agree that it should be a duty on the Assembly—is a matter of developing

“policies for the promotion and encouragement”

of the relevant transport facilities, not, as the hon. Member for Leominster said, providing them. It is critical that the Assembly should co-ordinate transport policies with cross-border issues. The Bill will fall flat if we deal only with intra-Wales issues.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I agree with my hon. Friend. For example, we have recently seen developments affecting rail links to Cardiff International airport. It would be difficult, if the wording were changed, to develop such services. We should not be able to encourage international air links from Cardiff International airport, or even rail links that started in England. The development of Welsh ports—another international factor—should be taken into account.

I assure the hon. Member for Leominster that nothing in the clause will give the Assembly any powers over English services. However, it will be required to consider cross-border issues in the development and implementation of transport policies.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Does not the problem that the hon. Member for Leominster is experiencing come from the fact that he does not consider the network as a network that serves the people of Wales as well as the people of England?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Yes. We must accept that the network—whether it is the rail, road or air network—does not start and stop at the Severn bridge or the border. It is an integrated network. It is necessary to be able to influence, consult and have discussions with the organisations responsible for those transport networks across the border and develop them accordingly.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

As the Minister will have gleaned from my earlier comments, I agree with his analysis of what the Assembly needs to do. Does he expect the Assembly to generate a relationship with other authorities that are responsible for providing transport on a cross-border basis, or do the Westminster Government intend to provide that kind of guidance for the Assembly? I am hoping that the former rather than the latter is true, but it will be useful for those in the Assembly who read reports of our debates to know where the Minister anticipates the relationship between the relevant authorities will come from.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The Assembly will work with other organisations that span the border; I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. Arriva trains, which have the Wales franchise, provide cross-border services. First Great Western is another good example; the Assembly would be in contact with those companies and with the rail regulator where necessary. It would be for the Assembly to make those approaches when it was developing the strategy. That is what these clauses are about—the development of the strategy.

Obviously, all parties with an interest in contributing to the network in Wales—including services that start and end outside Wales—will have a significant part to play. Therefore, the Assembly, through Andrew Davies and his Department, will, in developing the transport strategy for Wales, have a great deal of discussion with those organisations.

John Smith (Labour, Vale of Glamorgan)

Before my hon. Friend finishes, and before the Committee decides on the amendment, it is worth noting that organisations with a specialist interest in transport strategy in Wales, including the public transport consortium, have expressed deep reservations about the effects of the amendment and the damage that it would do to the Bill. There are concerns outside the House among interested people.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I am grateful for that contribution. All of us will be aware of an e-mail that has been sent by Mr. John Pockett, the director of the Confederation of Passenger Transport Wales, who has expressed concern. I may refer in greater detail to that later.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I do not want to question Mr. Pockett’s knowledge of transport in Wales, but is it not right that his organisation is in receipt of public money and therefore cannot necessarily be viewed as being as impartial and objective as one might hope?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I should be careful in following the hon. Gentleman’s line. The organisation represents three quarters of the bus industry in Wales. It was a major contributor to the pre-legislative scrutiny and gave evidence to the Welsh Affairs Committee and to the Economic Development and Transport Committee inquiry. Clearly, it is an objective representative of the bus industry in Wales.

I was not going to quote from the e-mail, but the hon. Gentleman has prompted me to do so:

“A number of amendments have been tabled by ... the Conservative Spokesperson on Wales. CPTWales feels that these will have no benefit for the bus user in Wales or indeed for the industry as a whole.”

That is Mr. Pockett’s view of the amendments.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Will the Minister give way?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I should give the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) some advice: when in a hole, stop digging.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I apologise, because I obviously made my point in a complicated way. I did not address myself simply enough for the Minister to get my meaning. I asked simply whether Mr. Pockett’s organisation was in receipt of any public money. I apologise if my question was so obtuse that he was unable to understand it and therefore unable to give a simple yes or no answer. I am sure that he would want to do so now.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

As the hon. Gentleman has some difficulty trusting outside organisations, would he trust the comments of his party’s Front-Bench spokesman on Second Reading? He said:

“We must be sure that the procedure for consultation with both English and Welsh local authorities is sufficient and accountable.”—[Official Report, 16 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 421.]

I could quote more. Will the hon. Gentleman trust his Front-Bench colleague and accept that the amendment is against the spirit of what was said on Second Reading?

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I am always interested in the views of outside organisations, but I always ask myself about what agenda they could have and how objective they are. That is why I have asked the Minister on two occasions whether Mr. Pockett’s organisation is in receipt of public funding. I am still waiting for an answer. I do not know what it is about the question that is so hard to understand; I can assume only that I am not asking it clearly enough. Perhaps I could put it again, for the fourth or fifth time: is the organisation in receipt of any public funding? I look forward to receiving a reply. I want to finish, but I would be happy to get a reply from anyone, including the Liberal Democrats, since the Labour spokesman does not seem to know the answer.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am new to such matters. Is the hon. Gentleman implying that if that organisation has access to public money, it might effectively be bribed by such money? Is he suggesting that the organisation’s point of view could be unreliable if it receives public money, and does he think that that applies to every organisation?

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I just want to get all the facts on the table. It is a shame that the Minister does not appear to have those facts; you seem unable to answer a simple question. It is a perfectly reasonable question to ask, is it not? You read out an e-mail and gave a lot of credence—

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he is making a speech, but it should be about the Transport (Wales) Bill, so he should be careful, even if he is tempted by others to follow a route that is wide of the Bill. Also, any use of “you” means me, as the Chair, and all comments should be made through the Chair.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I apologise for that, Miss Begg. I am obviously not used to all the terminology that is used in this place, although it is great pleasure to be here. We are not on first-name terms here, as we are in the Welsh Assembly. I am not making any implications. An e-mail was read out by the Minister, and I merely wish to get some facts on the table about the objectivity of those who were responsible for writing that e-mail. It is disappointing that I have not been able to get those facts from the Minister.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

May I take the Committee back to the amendment, which concerns the general transport duty? That is the opening line of the Bill and is quite clear. The Minister said that if we were not happy with the nature of the first clause, we should change the word “must”. The problem with that is that the Assembly must do all the things that hon. Members who have spoken want to achieve. We must not get confused about the nature of the amendment. What is clear is that the Assembly must develop policies for integrated transport, which we have discussed.

However, what is not so clear is how the Assembly will be able to deal with things that are a long way away from Wales geographically. It is a hell of a responsibility to give to the Welsh Assembly if the majority of any particular journey is not within the Assembly’s remit. The amendments seek to draw from the Government a possible different wording and a clarification of what the Assembly’s role really will be. That is the opening part of the Bill, and where we set down what we want the Assembly to do. I do not have a difficulty with the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth, who wants integrated rail and bus transport from Mr. Pocket. However, I suspect that that is not necessarily the best wording.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Is there not a further difficulty in that clause 1(1)(b) imposes an obligation on the Assembly to

“carry out its functions so as to implement those policies”?

Will it not be in some cases impossible for the Assembly to implement those policies if there were a duty in respect of services that might, as my hon. Friend rightly says, be a considerable distance outside Wales?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

My hon. Friend has read the Bill accurately, because the implication is that if an aeroplane were to fly from Cardiff to almost anywhere in the world, that would be the Assembly’s responsibility. That is clearly not something that it could handle.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

In a genuine attempt to clarify matters, clause 1 talks not about providing or controlling, but about the “promotion and encouragement” of transport. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that even within Wales, we are not asking the Assembly directly to use its levers of power to tell local authorities what to do, nor are we doing that in areas outside Wales’s borders? There are different ways in which the Assembly can ensure the aims of “promotion and encouragement” of safe, integrated transport and to carry out those functions without operating direct levers of control.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Gentleman should have read to the end of the sentence. Up to that point, I completely agree with him, until the clause reads

“economic transport facilities and services”.

It is about more than just the desire to deliver proper transport; it is the full deal. That is the problem. [Interruption.] If the Whip, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Kevin Brennan), wants to speak, I shall give way.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

We are getting a sense of the view held by the hon. Member for Leominster on this issue and, if he will forgive me for saying so, it sounds a bit paranoid. Surely all that the Bill says is that the Assembly must have due regard to the promotion and encouragement of safe transport, which affects people who want to travel in and out of Wales. How does he think that an organisation supplying transport can provide transport to and from Wales without regard to what happens when people go over the border? How does he think that the Assembly can have anything like a strategic approach if it does not think about what happens after people cross the border by land, sea or air?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Gentleman makes the same mistake. I accept that the Assembly’s role in integrated transport is fundamental, but the Bill gives it more than that. That is why I seek to draw the Bill back in. I am happy to accept that the amendments I table may sometimes not be the perfect way to deal with the issue, but this is an important opportunity for the Government to ensure that the Bill gives the Assembly realistic goals and realistic opportunities to deliver what we all want—I believe that someone quoted my Second Reading speech—which is an integrated transport policy. Obviously, the Assembly must be able to run the bits of any sort of journey that are within Wales, but once someone goes outside Wales, there is a difficulty in how the Assembly can deliver.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Will the hon. Gentleman answer a straight question? How would his amendment affect the north-south Wales vale routes.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

My understanding is that the Assembly will take full responsibility for that journey. Let us say that the points broke somewhere in England. The Bill states that the Assembly “must develop policies” and

“carry out its functions so as to implement those policies”,

so it could be asked to pick up the bill for a bit of track in England. Does the hon. Gentleman really think that the Bill is meant to do that?

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could answer a question about his amendment rather than the Bill; we are discussing the amendment, after all. What effect would it have on the north-south Wales rail link?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I have just explained that according to the Bill the Assembly would have to pick up the cost of repairing the points somewhere near Crewe. Under my amendment, however, the Assembly would not have responsibility outside Wales, which I am sure the hon. Gentleman would think was a constructive and positive step. [Interruption.] I can hear mumblings from Government Members; it is usually heckling from the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane), but not this time.

If we are to make constructive progress, which I want to do, I am happy for the Government to consider my concerns about what the Assembly will do in respect of bits of a journey outside Wales. I fear that it does not have the facilities, the funding, the ability to obtain extra funding or the representation necessary to cover parts of what might be a rail or bus journey outside the Principality. That is why I moved the amendment and why we would restrict responsibilities for Assembly policy to within Wales. If that is wrong, I hope that the Minister will go away and come back to tell us how the Assembly will be able to pay for track repairs outside Wales, just as an example, and various other things. I see the Minister shaking his head; I look forward to hearing what he says.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The final point that the hon. Gentleman attempted to make sums up the problem in his head. He appears to believe that the Bill will give the Assembly powers to control the rail system—the rail network—in Wales. He asked whether the Assembly would be able to pick up the bill for repairing points on the north Wales line. The Assembly does not and never will pick up the bill for repairing points anywhere in Wales; that will remain the responsibility of Network Rail.

I return to the Bill, which states:

“The Assembly must ... develop policies”—

that is the key word—

“for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Wales”.

It is about the development of policies and ultimately of a strategy to serve the interests of transport in Wales. It is not about the Assembly taking powers from Network Rail, Arriva Trains or First Great Western or running systems like that. It is about developing integrated policies with those organisations, getting advice, support and encouragement from them and encouraging them to develop different routes so that we end up with an integrated transport system which, as the hon. Member for Caernarfon said, serves the best interest of the people of Wales.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

Is it not more than the development of policies? Is it not also about the implementation of policies? Would the Minister not agree that there can be severe practical difficulties about implementing policies outside Wales?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

There may well be severe problems developing policies within Wales. The Assembly is not a service provider. It is trying to develop, together with all the players in the transport field, an integrated transport strategy that improves services and addresses congestion, environmental and economic issues. The Bill does not mean that the Assembly is taking over Network Rail, as some of the statements made by the hon. Member for Leominster imply.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

May we get away from the points in Crewe or wherever? Let us look at an Assembly policy that has been very useful for many people in Wales in facilitating transport by rail from north to south and within Wales. The freedom of Wales pass is promoted by the Assembly and operates within Wales and without Wales too. As some hon. Members will know, one can travel from Bangor to Cardiff on it. Indeed, the train is sometimes full of Assembly members when I travel on it. This is an Assembly policy. It is not about points, it is about enabling the people of Wales to use rail transport in a much more efficient and effective way. It is the freedom of Wales pass, not the non-freedom of Wales pass.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I am not sure whether that was an intervention in my speech or a further summation of the shortcomings of the contribution of the hon. Member for Leominster. We have had a good run around the amendment; I therefore ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw it.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister is being unusually cavalier. He should be quite careful. I tabled the amendment not for my own entertainment, but because I have genuine concerns about how the Welsh Assembly will deliver the integrated transport about which there is no argument outside Wales. He has failed, unfortunately, to put my mind at rest about the intention of the clause because he has not addressed the very serious fact that the Assembly must develop policies, and then carry out its functions so as to implement them. That sounds like trying to run integrated transport. That is an entirely laudable role for the Welsh Assembly. It is not a problem if it wants to run integrated transport services, but how will it do so outside Wales? The wording of the clause suggests that it will have responsibility for any journey that goes almost anywhere in the world, provided that it either starts or finishes in Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing, totally conversely to his usual point, for greater powers for the Assembly to control transport not only within its borders but outside? That seems to fly in the face of his position on devolution.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

It would fly in the face of my position if that was what I said, but it is not. The hon. Gentleman has completely misunderstood me. Let me put his mind at rest. The point, which I shall reiterate for his benefit and that of the Committee, is that the Bill as currently worded would give a great deal of responsibility to the Assembly for journeys that start or finish in Wales. The problem is that the budget, the remit and the whole responsibility of the Welsh Assembly position it perfectly to look after journeys within Wales, but the minute one leaves Wales, that ability is diminished. The clause obliges the Assembly not only to develop policies, but to implement them. That could be severely damaging, and the Minister has not put my mind at rest about how the Assembly will tackle the problem.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

May I make a final point? Again, I refer the hon. Gentleman to what the Bill actually says. Clause 1(1)(b) states that the Assembly must

“carry out its functions so as to implement those polices.”

Its functions do not include taking over Railtrack or doing anything outside the borders of Wales. The Bill places a duty on the Assembly to hold discussions with train and track operators whose systems link into and out of Wales. That is why we want the words “to, from and” to remain the Bill; if they do not, the Assembly will not be able to hold sensible discussions to develop an integrated transport system for Wales. The hon. Gentleman ought now to accept what I have said and withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for the Minister’s slightly more gentle approach in that answer, and I understand what he is trying to achieve. This is not a wrecking amendment; it is meant to clarify the Bill’s purpose, as well as how the Bill will be applied to Wales and, more worryingly, to the bits of any journey that goes outside Wales.

The Minister quoted clause 1, but subsection (2) covers pretty much anybody who travels in or through Wales or who requires freight to be transported in or through Wales. When I read the Bill, as the Minister suggested I did, I saw that the Assembly must develop policies and then work to implement them, and they apply to pretty much anybody who is travelling

“to, from and within Wales”.

The “within Wales” bit is fine; the problem lies with the bit dealing with areas without Wales. My amendment might not be perfect, but the Government must ensure that if, as the Minister said, the Assembly wants to hold discussions, it can do so in a slightly more flexible way—perhaps without the financial or representational burdens that may well come with those discussions.

Clause 2 - Wales Transport Strategy

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—

‘(c)bodies which represent the interests of persons carrying out business in Wales.’

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:

No. 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, at end add—

‘(d)a number of bodies prescribed by regulations, including the network operator, with an obligation to discuss the operational consequences of proposed policies.’.

No. 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end add—

‘(8)In the case of an English authority raising an objection to the consultation undertaken by the Assembly under subsection (5), the Secretary of State shall have the right to adjudicate whether the Assembly should approve the Strategy.’.

No. 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—

‘(8)Any priorities and future schemes set out in the Strategy must be developed with regard to the funding available.’.

No. 19, in clause 13, page 7, line 18, after ‘order’, insert ‘or regulations’.

No. 20, in clause 13, page 7, line 19, after ‘order’, insert ‘or regulations’.

No. 21, in clause 13, page 7, line 20, after ‘order’, insert ‘or regulations’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

In tabling amendment No. 2 we aimed to ensure that the Welsh business community would be sufficiently considered in the development of the Wales transport strategy. Business productivity can be considerably enhanced by improving transport links. We all know the struggle that Wales faces in increasing its economic activity levels and encouraging new businesses to start up. Wales has the lowest gross value added of all the UK regions, a quarter of its work force is economically inactive, VAT deregistrations of business outweigh registrations, and record numbers of people declare themselves bankrupt. Every possible chance must therefore be taken to encourage economic development in Wales. The transport strategy is no exception, and must be developed with regard to the needs of business in Wales.

The clause as it stands is too vague. Providing for the Assembly to consult with

“any other persons it considers appropriate”

is not prescriptive enough. The Bill should include provision for consultation with anyone who wishes to be heard, whether from the public, from professional bodies, or from those of the utmost importance to the economic and social development of Wales, such as the aforementioned business community.

In tabling amendment No. 17, we seek to ensure, as advised by Network Rail, that particular bodies for technical expertise in the transport sector cannot be ignored by the Assembly during consultation on the Wales transport strategy. At present, the Bill leaves absolute discretion to the Assembly as to whom, other than the local authorities, it should consult when making the strategy. That seems to leave open the possibility for no other consultation, despite the fact that companies likely to be affected by the policy should be consulted. There is room for improvement in the clause, at least by including a list of possible bodies for consultation. Transport companies, businesses on which the transport strategy will have an impact, and professional and community bodies likely to be affected should all be consulted, and a duty should be placed on the Assembly to do so.

In moving amendment No. 22, we seek assurances that there will be sufficient provision for resolving difficulties if English authorities and the Welsh Assembly do not agree over their transport plan. In transferring powers to the Assembly from Westminster, we must be sure that the procedure for consultations with both English and Welsh local authorities is sufficient and accountable. It may be sensible to devolve certain powers to the Assembly, but not to transfer all powers on everything, including those aspects involving English local authorities.

It would be inappropriate for the refusal of approval of a plan concerning English authorities to be decided purely on an Assembly vote. In the case of such an impasse, there must be an option for arbitration, and the arbiter ought to be the Secretary of State. Although I am comfortable with the Secretary of State for Wales acting as arbiter, another Secretary of State, such as the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, might be more appropriate. The amendment is therefore deliberately vague, so that the Government can amend it as necessary. However, the principle remains hugely important—it is necessary for there to be an overarching authority, responsible to the Government, to act as a judge in the case of an objection from an English authority that cannot be represented in the Assembly.

Amendment No. 3 follows a request from Network Rail that we must be sure that schemes featured in the Welsh transport strategy are developed with the certainty of sufficient resources. Such an amendment would ensure that the Assembly and local authorities are obliged to cost plans properly rather than developing them with other objectives primarily in mind. As the Assembly cannot levy its own taxes, we must be certain that the Wales transport strategy is developed with regard to the budget available. There must be provision for pre-planning of expenditure if we are to be reassured that the developments of the plan will be carried out efficiently and economically.

Amendments Nos. 19, 20 and 21 are designed to change the nature of the Bill. They are technical amendments and are consequential on amendment No. 17, which seeks to ensure that the number of bodies prescribed by regulations must be consulted in the development of the Wales transport strategy. As the Bill contains provisions to make orders but not regulations, these amendments are necessary in order to make amendment No. 17 clearer.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I want to put on record the fact that I have objected in the Welsh Assembly on many occasions—in Committees on transport and on the environment—to the Assembly’s habit of putting things out to consultation but each time consulting the same bodies, most of which are in receipt of public funds and will come out with a response that is favourable to the Government and supports what they are doing. It has been difficult to persuade the Assembly to consult bodies that are less likely to give a favourable response. For example, during a debate on the right to roam, it was unwilling to consult with countryside groups such as the Master of Foxhounds Association, which clearly has an interest.

Therefore, I support amendment No. 2. The Assembly should consult organisations such as the Institute of Directors and the chambers of commerce. Those bodies are not always favourable to it and are not in receipt of public money. They are likely to give the objective sort of response that we seek when we put out consultation papers.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I have a degree of sympathy with amendment No. 2, because it genuinely tries to give a voice to the business community. However, my worry is that we are becoming over prescriptive. It is totally against the spirit of devolution to prescribe to the Assembly which groups should be consulted. Let me illustrate that by mentioning some of the groups that I should like to consult, but about which I shall not tell the Assembly.

What about the community transport providers in mid-Wales and south Wales? What about the citizens advice bureaux? The CAB is being restructured in south Wales, and it is essential that the Assembly should consult it about transport in the valleys, so as to ensure that people are able to access its vital services. What about disability rights organisations? If we are going to prescribe anything in the Bill, they should certainly be prescribed. Should the Department of Work and Pensions not be a consultee? It is just as important to consider the work that is done by the action team for jobs and the new deal as to consult the business community about what should be in the Bill—it is crucial to get people not just into work but to interviews.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The point that the hon. Gentleman makes is right, but would he accept that some of the bodies that he has mentioned will already be part of the consultation because they are part of Government or, in the case of disability, will have proper representation through the local authority? Those people are not forgotten. We are seeking to include those who are not part of the establishment, particularly businesses.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The hon. Gentleman is right. Some people could fall within that scope, but others will not. I could give an extensive list of those who are not covered by the Bill but whom I consider it appropriate to consult. In subsection (5)(c), the Assembly is given the power to consult

“any other persons it considers appropriate”.

I have faith in the Assembly. I also have faith in Assembly Members who are sitting here. They will go back and make powerful representations within the Assembly to the effect that the business community should be consulted.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

The question is whether we have a very long list of consultees, or whether we trust the Assembly. Clearly, I trust the Assembly. A case in point would be an excellent transport scheme in my area, which carries people from home to hospital. That sort of thing is done excellently in Wales by voluntary effort, and the organisations involved are not necessarily represented on local authorities.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I shall probably regret this, but I give way to the hon. Member for Monmouth.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

The hon. Gentleman can have absolute faith that, as an Assembly Member, I shall certainly make that representation to the Assembly. However, I have little faith that my colleagues on the Welsh Assembly will take much notice, because in six years only rarely has the Welsh Assembly consulted organisations involved with business that may not necessarily be favourable to it. I particularly underline the case of the Institute of Directors.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

That is quite a helpful intervention. I put it on the record that I see it as logical to have discussions with the Institute of Directors, the Federation of Small Businesses and others to see what impact integrated and sustainable transport policies in Wales will have on those bodies. They have a genuine contribution to make. The question is whether that should be in the Bill or whether, in the spirit of devolution under the Government of Wales Act 1998, we should say, “No, we have confidence in the Welsh Assembly and the economic policies driven by the Minister for Economic Development and Transport, the Minister for Social Justice and Regeneration and others to ensure that those bodies are consulted.” I had faith in the hon. Gentleman to do so and in Labour and other colleagues to put the case strongly in the Assembly. The Bill should not be over-prescriptive, because it would tie the hands of the Assembly behind its back when it is considered there.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The amendment would restrict the scope of the Assembly’s duties to consult on its transport strategy. The only statutory consultees would be the Welsh local authorities together with local authorities in England that border Wales and the business sector in Wales. That would be unworkable; it would exclude virtually all the organisations referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies).

Perhaps the hon. Member for Leominster intended that the Welsh business sector should be listed in the Bill as a consultee, and I understand why he may think that is necessary. However, it is inconceivable that the Assembly would not consult the business sector on the strategy. Apart from the Assembly’s duty to consult organisations representing business as set out in section 115 of the Government of Wales Act 1998, it would go against the institution’s method of working, which is on the basis of partnership and consultation.

The business sector is a key user of transport infrastructure and services, and the Assembly showed its commitment to meeting the needs of business when Andrew Davies announced the outcome of his transport review last December. The announcement, including the new M4 around Newport and improved access to Cardiff international airport, was warmly welcomed by the business sector.

The hon. Member for Monmouth said that the Assembly seemed to have a track record of consulting only organisations that are in receipt of public funds and therefore likely to give only favourable comments. In relation to the draft Transport Bill, Cardiff chamber of commerce made a direct contribution—all chambers of commerce were open to be consulted—and the Confederation of British Industry made a significant contribution. Neither of those organisations is in receipt of public funds. The hon. Gentleman made a clear point in our debate on the previous amendment, the implication being that if any organisation or any member of any organisation is in receipt of public funds, they will not be objective and will give a patsy response to any consultation. But that is not true. For example, local government is completely dependent upon funding from the Assembly. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that local government and local authorities in Wales never criticise anything that the Assembly does? Is that what he is trying to tell the Committee?

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I would be delighted to have a debate with the hon. Gentleman about local authority funding in Wales. I am delighted that he has just put it on the record that they are dependent, because that is something that local government Ministers have tried to dispute. But that is not what we are debating. The hon. Gentleman raised the point about objectivity; the CBI is always consulted but the Institute of Directors is not. The latter, however, usually gives a rather more robust response to Government consultation papers—when they get them—than the CBI does. I am not implying anything about specific organisations, but we have a right as Members to consider how objective an organisation can be if it is in receipt of Government funding. We should at least ask ourselves that question, but I make no specific suggestions about specific organisations, and I have not done so.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The record will show what the hon. Gentleman said and the implications that can be drawn from it.

Amendment No. 17 would force the Assembly to make regulations stating who must be consulted on the draft strategy. That would result in unnecessary secondary legislation. Clause 2(5) imposes a requirement on the Assembly to consult on the preparation or revision of the strategy. The Assembly consults widely on its policies as a matter of course, but transport is a complex matter, with a wide range of stakeholders that includes service providers, network managers, local authorities, regulatory bodies and, not least, users. It would be inconceivable for the Assembly to prepare or amend a strategy without extensive public consultation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore accepts that consultation will be wide ranging and will certainly involve the users of public transport in Wales.

Clause 2(5)(c) uses a standard legal formulation similar to that used in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 in relation to the Wales spatial plan. It is also used in the Government of Wales Act 1998 in relation to the Assembly’s sustainable development scheme. I see merit in using a formulation that has been tried and tested.

The question of prescribing a list of consultees was fully discussed during pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill, in which business clearly played a part. The problem with a specific list is that it could not be changed without new subordinate legislation. That could be required even if an organisation simply changed its name. For example, it would have been necessary when Railtrack became Network Rail. I see the hon. Member for Leominster nodding.

Amendment No. 22 would allow the Secretary of State to intervene in the preparation of the Wales transport strategy in the event of an English local authority not being content with it. Clause 1 gives the Assembly an explicit statutory duty to develop transport policies for Wales. The strategy will set out how the Assembly plans to fulfil that duty. It would not be appropriate for the Secretary of State to intervene in a devolved Administration’s exercise of its duty.

Clause 2(5)(b) imposes a requirement on the Assembly to consult the relevant English local authorities on the preparation of the strategy. The Assembly will take account of their views in developing the strategy and will work with them and other stakeholders in developing the relevant cross-border transport schemes. The Assembly is working to promote and develop integrated transport, and the English local authorities that border Wales will undoubtedly share that aspiration. Hon. Members might wish to note that approval of the strategy will not be an Executive decision; rather, under clause 2, the strategy will have to be approved by an affirmative vote of the Assembly in plenary.

Amendment No. 3 would impose a requirement on the Assembly explicitly to take account of the funding available in its transport budget when developing the strategy. The Assembly has systems of financial control in place to ensure probity in its management of public funds. Consultation on the draft strategy will give the Assembly the opportunity to discuss the feasibility of its proposed priorities and plans with its key transport partners. Hon. Members should note that the strategy will set out the Assembly’s vision and priorities for the transport system in Wales. That will form the basis on which the programmes for delivery will be formulated, primarily through the local transport plans. The speed of implementation will reflect the resources available.

With those comments, I ask the hon. Member for Leominster to withdraw amendment No. 2 and not to press the others.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. With regard to amendments Nos. 2, 17, 3, 19, 20 and 21, I am content that he has addressed some of the issues. The idea that the business sector would not be consulted would be a huge mistake for Wales: that is one of the purposes of people in business having a vote. If they are ignored, they will obviously not vote for their Assembly Members. To some extent, I am content that they are consulted. It is not inconceivable that other bodies will not be consulted, but now that the Minister has said what should be, at least it is on the record that the intention of the Bill is to ensure that the Assembly does not act spitefully by excluding everyone as far as possible. I am grateful to him for making that point.

There is a real danger with amendment No. 22 concerning English border county councils or unitary authorities that will be consulted. If they are in dispute with the Assembly’s plans, they have no representation in the Assembly; their Member of Parliament—I speak with feeling on the matter—has no way of speaking to the Assembly, and the only recourse is through the Secretary of State for Wales, perhaps at Welsh questions, where cross-border issues are still in order. The difficulty is that there is no way that those border authorities are properly represented. There may be big financial implications for them, and there is the issue of taxation without representation. I accept that if all goes well, that would not be a problem. However, the purpose of the amendment is to address what happens if things do not go well. The Committee must consider that. My suggestion was that somebody within the Government at Westminster should act as arbiter, and my expectation would be that any member of the Government would almost certainly take the same view as the Welsh Assembly and would respect that fact that the Assembly is elected and is trying to deliver an integrated transport policy.

However, having that facility to appeal is essential, owing to genuine concerns about devolution. If we are going to allow Wales to make its own decisions, that should not be at the expense of people living next to Wales, who will then receive no representation whatever. If we are serious about the localisation of decision-making processes, there should be an appeal process. I hope that the Minister will accept that.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I understand the point, although I cannot envisage a situation in which an English local authority would face big financial implications as a result of the development of a strategy in Wales.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

One concern in Leominster is that there is no disabled access to Leominster station. At present, the cost is borne by the franchisee, Arriva, but in some areas it will be a cost borne by Network Rail, which owns the track. It depends on the local set-up. The point is that if the rules are changed by the Welsh Assembly, having an implication on the Wales and borders railway line, there is no way, if the county council disagrees with the financial implications, that it can get representation.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I think I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point, that if the rail franchise, for example, did not require Arriva trains to provide access for the disabled, the cost would have to be borne by a local authority. I cannot envisage the Welsh Assembly striking a deal with a rail provider that would not involve it providing access for the disabled. I know that that was an example, and it may not be a good example, but I cannot envisage how the strategy—not any particular rail franchise—would have big implications for a border authority. If there were a problem—I accept that there could be, because we do not have a crystal ball, and we do not know what will happen when the strategy has been developed—the hon. Gentleman is saying that there is no real mechanism, in the event of a problem, for a local authority to make representations and argue its case. However, I think that there is. It would work in this way: a local authority that thought that it faced serious implications from a strategy being developed by the Assembly could make representations to the Secretary of State for Transport, for example, who would then make representations on behalf of the local authority—if the issue proved a genuine one—to the Assembly and the Minister for Economic Development and Transport. That route already exists for representation.

Also, the idea of involving English authorities that are on the border is to develop a positive, integrated strategy, which works for people on both sides of the border. An integrated transport system will assist them.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

I understand fully what the Minister says, but is not the fundamental point the fact that English authorities do not have a voice in the plenary session of the Assembly? Certainly it is possible to go through the informal routes that the Minister suggests, via the Department for Transport, and so on. However, in the end, if an English local authority is aggrieved, should not there be a statutory route through which it can go, and insist on going, rather than relying on the largesse of the Transport Minister?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Welsh local authorities do not have direct representation in the Assembly. They would have to do exactly the same if they were not happy with something in the strategy; they would have to make representations. There is a route that an English authority affected by a serious problem could take. Let us not forget that the whole idea is to get local authorities, operators and the business sector working together to develop a positive plan and a positive strategy that would improve transport and transport infrastructure in the border area.

As to any English authority that had a major problem with the strategy, I imagine that it would be positive about developing matters with the Assembly. It would be in its interest to try to reach agreement, take things forward and develop a good, robust strategy that would be to its benefit, as well as to the benefit of the other local authorities and the rest of Wales. I understand the point that the hon. Member for Leominster is making, but in reality I do not expect serious implications—and certainly not serious financial implications—for local authorities.

If, however, any such implications emerged, the alternative route of making representations to the Secretary of State, which would be passed back, would be available. At the same time, the authorities could make direct representations, because they would be consultees. The Bill makes them part of the development of the strategy and their views would be clearly aired in that process.

David Jones (Conservative, Clwyd West)

If the Minister does not envisage any problems of that sort, does he agree that the amendment is innocuous, and that accepting it would not do any damage?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

No. We do not legislate in that way: we do not say, “Oh, this may happen, so we should insert a clause or accept an amendment.” In the very unlikely event of a significant problem arising for an English local authority, ways of dealing with it would be available through the strategy itself—because the Bill makes those authorities direct consultees—and by making representations to the Assembly Minister and the Secretary of State for Transport, who could take up the case on their behalf.

I urge the hon. Member for Leominster to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for the Minister’s reply and his conciliatory tone. He is making an important point; the amendment was tabled because of concerns not about fair-weather days, but about the possibility of there being an impasse. He made an important point about the positive side of including border authorities as consultees. That is a very positive part of the Bill, but some thought should be given to what would happen in the event of a stand-off.

The Minister has given the matter some thought, although I urge him to think about it further between now and Third Reading. At this stage, it is constructive to withdraw the amendment and to make progress because there are other important issues to discuss. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Schedule - Local transport plans

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 15, in schedule 1, page 9, line 9, after ‘Strategy’, insert

‘with regard to existing undertakings and agreements with transport providers’.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 16, in schedule 1, page 11, line 11, at end insert

‘and not solely on their website’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Amendment No. 15 is intended to ensure that the Wales transport strategy cannot threaten current arrangements with transport providers both in Wales and England.

We must be certain that the Assembly’s actions in directing authorities on how to conduct their functions in relation to transport plans cannot affect projects that are already being developed. Any funding or agreements already decided on must be given due consideration when creating new schemes. There must be no opportunity for waste or unnecessary disturbance in joint schemes that already exist between transport operators and infrastructure providers. The amendment would ensure a smooth transfer as the new strategies come into force.

Amendment No. 16 is designed to ensure that local transport authorities make their transport plans available elsewhere rather than exclusively on their websites. Many people who might want to view the transport plans might not have access to the internet. Although it is generally assumed that groups such as schoolchildren have access to web-based plans, not everyone has access to a computer. The elderly, who might be totally reliant on public transport and who therefore might be the most interested in these developments, will often not have computers.

It should be the duty of the authority to provide copies of its transport plan for inspection not only where it sees fit to do so, but where all members of the public equally can obtain a copy. The plans must be provided in all formats possible to help the public to obtain as much information as they want as easily as possible.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Amendment No. 15 would require local authorities to take their existing commitments into consideration when preparing their local transport plans, which is a perfectly reasonable suggestion. However, I cannot envisage a situation in which local authorities would develop policies without being aware of their existing commitments, although that should not be the main driver when developing local authority transport strategies.

The plans will evolve over time to take account of external factors and the changing needs of Welsh communities and businesses. They should not be restricted by current commitments, which will also develop and evolve in line with the strategy. There is no need for the statutory provision to include them, and it would send the wrong message to local authorities.

Amendment No. 16 is intended to ensure that local authorities cannot simply publish their local transport plans on the internet, but must make hard copies available for inspection. I totally agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman’s argument. In the past, hon. Members on both sides of the Committee have expressed reservations about the development in certain areas of the mentality that says, “Oh, it’s on the website,” rather than producing hard copies that are widely available.

Although I support the intention behind the amendment, the amendment is not needed. The clause has been drafted using standard legal phraseology similar to that used in the legislation for traffic orders and development plans. The requirement in the Bill makes copies available for inspection at certain places, and that precludes publication only on the internet. If that situation arose, the local authority would be in breach of its duty.

I hope that, in light of my comments, the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister is coming on in leaps and bounds: he is agreeing with me more and more, and I congratulate him on that. His answers satisfy my concerns to some extent, and I am grateful that he shares those concerns. He is right that it is inconceivable that a local authority should fail to understand what its existing plans are. However, later in Committee we will talk about subsidising transport. I do not want to be out of order, but one of my concerns is that subsidy cannot be given until a business has failed. The nature of the Bill does not necessarily take into account what is existing.

I have a genuine concern about that, but I am not sure that we could meet it with a properly worded amendment. If the Government were to consider my point and perhaps look at ensuring that local authorities and the Assembly take into consideration their existing commitments, I shall be satisfied and will have done my job in ensuring that the existing network is maintained as well as possible. I have no difficulty in accepting what the Minister said, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 24, in schedule 1, page 10, line 40, leave out from ‘authority’ to end and insert

‘will be subject to fines set out under (Local Transport authority: Wales - penalties).’.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 1—Local transport authority: Wales—Penalties—

‘(1)The Assembly shall require any local transport authority whose area is in Wales, to pay £100,000 to the Assembly when the following conditions have been met—

(a)the authority has failed to submit a replacement local transport plan; and

(b)the period for replacing the plan has expired.’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The amendment would provide for the new clause to ensure that time was not wasted in the development of local transport plans. It is designed to increase the accountability of local authorities by setting a definite time for the development of plans and a penalty if they do not provide them within that time.

The Bill currently makes no mention of the time by which it is reasonable for authorities to provide a plan if they have not done so within five years. We are told simply that they must do so “as soon as practicable”, and no mention is made of what action local authorities can expect if they fail to provide a plan in that undefined time. The situation is similarly woolly, as the Bill says that if local transport plans are altered, they should be published only “as soon as practicable”.

Although I am happy to accept that the penalty and wording of the amendment may be inappropriate, it is imperative that the Bill does more than simply tell local authorities that they must provide a plan as soon as practicable and publish it as soon as practicable after it has been altered. The Government must accept the importance of drafting legislation that delivers proper enforcement and provisions for failure.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

There is a delicate balance to be struck in the powers of, and relationship between, the Assembly and local authorities. It is entirely inappropriate for a sum of £100,000, as proposed in the amendment, to be offered to the Assembly as a club with which to beat local authorities. In that respect, I think that the proposal is inappropriate, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there is currently no limit to the time by which the exercise must take place. If he is unhappy with the suggested fine, how much does he think would be appropriate?

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I do not think that such fines are appropriate at all. There should be a spirit of co-operation between authorities and the Assembly, and the proposals would be an inappropriate intrusion into that. We will see what the Minister has to say about the amendment and new clause, but my party’s standpoint is that the delicate balance should not be disturbed. I end on a lighter note, by referring the Committee to proposed new section 109B(6) of the 2000 Act, which says

“If an authority fail to comply”,

but which should say—this is my bid for immortality by actually changing the Bill—“If an authority fails”. If I can force through that massive change, I will go home a satisfied man.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I will look at that later. Perhaps I can help the hon. Member for Leominster again. The provisions would impose a penalty of up to £100,000 on a local transport authority in the event of its failing to submit a replacement plan in the requisite period, which is not later than five years after the date on which the plan is approved.

The amendment would be completely inconsistent with the Assembly’s policy of working in partnership with local transport authorities. A good relationship has been built up between local transport authorities and the Assembly, but there might be a problem in future. If there were such a problem, it would not be necessary to impose financial penalties to ensure the timely production of replacement local transport plans. Proposed new section 113B of the 2000 Act would give the Assembly the power to issue a direction to a local transport authority in relation to the timetable for the preparation of plans. There is no appeal against a direction; a local authority must carry out what it says, so there is no need to impose a financial penalty.

With that explanation, I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that the powers will exist to direct a local authority if it is being dilatory in preparing and implementing its local transport plan.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister could have hit on the fact that I do not like imposing financial penalties ever. Under the circumstances, I felt that it was important that after 10 years a local authority could not still be pretending that it was going to produce a local transport plan, yet failing to do so. If the direction is mandatory, after that five-year period the Assembly will presumably say—I hope that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—“You will produce your transport plan within the next 12 months”. An authority will then have to do so, or it will face some other penalty, of which I am still unaware. If the Assembly has the right to issue a compulsory direction, anybody who fails to act on it will presumably face another penalty.

I am keeping talking, because I hope that the Minister will get divine intervention to answer. The question is what that penalty will be. What will happen to an authority that ignores—heaven forbid—a direction from the Assembly? That is the best that I can do.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Nice try. My understanding is that local authorities always abide by a direction. Our system of local government would start to collapse if they did not. I hope that those words reassure the hon. Gentleman.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for that response. I accept that, by and large, because local authorities receive their funding from the Assembly in Wales, there is a possibility of an obvious penalty. I also feel that a £100,000 fine might be either too little or too much. It is an arbitrary figure, which was chosen to probe the Government to find out how they would ensure that the integrated transport nirvana that we are seeking will be delivered.

I am grateful to the Minister for his response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 4 - Arrangements for discharge of transport functions

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 4, in Clause 4, page 2, line 36, at end add—

‘(7) The National Assembly for Wales shall provide for the costs of the arrangements for the discharge of joint functions.’.

Under the amendment, the Assembly would pay for the arrangements when it issued a direction on local transport functions. Under the Bill, the cost of new transport arrangements looks set to fall heavily on local authorities and consequently on the Welsh council tax payer. The Welsh Local Government Association has expressed a genuine concern that the Bill will result in costly administrative reform, with no benefit to the travelling public. Its regional director also expressed concern that

“Reorganisation with no substantial additional investment is not a recipe for service delivery success.”

The people of Wales have suffered enough as a result of their authorities having extra responsibilities thrust on them without being given extra money. The Bill must not be a way of allowing that to continue, especially when the costs are likely to be great—approximately £1 million per annum, in addition to the £100,000 to £200,000 in set-up costs. A large part of the £1 million running costs for the joint transport authority will be spent on its senior management and on accommodation. We need to be able to monitor that tier of administration so that the Assembly and the Minister can retain accountability for the delivery of Welsh transport. If the Assembly is to direct authorities in the joint discharge of transport functions, it should provide them with the extra money they need to discharge those functions. In that way, we can guard against local authorities having to bear unnecessary burdens when running the new JTAs.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Amendment No. 4 would place an explicit requirement on the Assembly to fund any costs arising from the issuing of a direction that local authorities should work together to carry out specified transport functions.

I am not convinced that the amendment is necessary. Welsh local authorities already collaborate on some transport projects through voluntary regional consortiums, and clause 4 will enable them to put that regional collaboration on a statutory basis. The Assembly already makes funding available to local authorities so that they can meet their transport responsibilities. Given that they are already working together, it is not entirely clear that extra funding would be required as the result of a direction under the clause.

The clause does not give the Assembly the power to impose new transport functions on local authorities; it merely allows local authorities to discharge their existing functions jointly. Indeed, under the policy set out in the framework of the Assembly’s partnership agreement with local authorities, the Assembly will not give authorities any new functions without providing funding for them.

In any event, the Assembly would issue a direction under the clause only after consulting the local authorities affected by the direction. That would give authorities an opportunity to discuss any of the proposed direction’s funding implications. Given that explanation, I again ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

From what the Minister says, it seems that authorities would have no extra responsibilities as a result of the joint transport agreements and that the Assembly would provide funding if it required further activity. If that is what the Minister is saying, he is right that there is no need for the amendment. Conversely, it would not do any harm either. However, I take his earlier point that we do not need to add superfluous amendments to legislation.

What concerns me, however, is whether the Minister is convinced that the Assembly cannot impose extra responsibilities without providing any money. I think that the Bill says that the Assembly should provide the money, but I am not certain that it must. The Minister will appreciate the difference, because transport cost creep is one of the things we are looking to avoid. That is why I tabled the amendment.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Does the hon. Gentleman agree, as was implicit from the Minister’s speech and from his as I understand it, that we should encourage local authorities to synchronise the work of the joint transport authorities and not to empire-build? I speak as a former local authority officer. Should we not encourage them to work more effectively together and to co-ordinate where there might even be some savings to be achieved?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

That is our purpose. The intention behind a joint transport authority is that the two or more individual parts are not as successful and there would be natural savings, efficiencies and so on. The amendment would deal with the question, “What if that does not happen?” I can envisage extra responsibilities easily being dumped on local authorities. In some instances they may find it easy to cope and there may not be a huge extra cost. However, in other areas of Wales the order may have a different implication. For example, if one was to insist on more bus transport in Cardiff the implication would be different from that for a much bigger area in rural Wales. That is my concern. If the Minister can convince me that it is superfluous, I shall not have any difficulties in withdrawing my amendment.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I will try to convince the hon. Gentleman that it is superfluous.

The idea of the direction is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore explained, to get local authorities to work together to produce savings rather than additional costs. We will not go on to clause 5 just yet, but the Assembly has clearly taken on board the issue of additional costs in relation to joint transport authorities. It was made perfectly clear in the letter and in the consultation that any additional costs would be borne by the Assembly.

I can only reiterate what I said before. The purpose is a direction—we can comment on that. If a local authority does not comply with a direction, that will be a breach of secondary legislation. As a last resort, if a local authority were to refuse to abide by the direction, that would lead to court proceedings. In the case that we were discussing, where an authority had been dilatory in implementing a local transport plan, I am sure that any sensible local authority would not want to go to the High Court to argue that it was justified in taking 10 years to do something that should have taken less than five years.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured about clause 4 and the amendment. Bearing in mind the track record of the Assembly and the partnership agreement, which has clearly worked so far and I have not heard any local authority object or claim that it has been breached, we intend that if—and only if, as this is not the function of the clause—any additional functions were placed on local authorities, the Assembly would recompense them under the partnership agreement. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am reassured. I am also grateful for the comments that the Minister made about taking a dilatory authority to court. Presumably the High Court can issue fines far in excess of £100,000. The validity of the amendment is justified, as is its withdrawal. I am grateful to the Minister for that.

Equally, if the Assembly was to heap extra costs on a local joint transport authority, it could do so by direction anyway. The purpose of the amendment is to prevent that from happening; it is a belt-and-braces safety measure. More progress can be made by the Government going away and thinking about the matter than by pressing the amendment to a vote. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 5 - Joint transport authorities

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 5, in clause 5, page 3, line 23, leave out subsection (5).

This amendment will not cause too much trouble, because it is a simple probing measure. I am sure that the Government meant to accomplish some sort of accountability in the clause, but the wording is so obtuse that, even after reading it carefully several times, I am still unclear about what it is designed to achieve. I would welcome clarification on the exact purpose of subsection (5), although I do not intend to press genuinely for its removal. Its drafting ought to be crystal clear, but it clearly is not. The Minister should tell us what on earth he is trying to achieve.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I have to agree that the wording is somewhat complex, but I am assured that that is required by parliamentary counsel, and who am I to criticise the wording of a Bill?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

You are the Minister; the Minister can do that—criticise.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

No. Amendment No. 5 would remove the requirement that local authority members form the majority on any joint transport authority. Having had a similar exchange on Second Reading, I accept that that is not the hon. Gentleman’s intention, although it is what the amendment would achieve. Clause 5(5) was added to the Bill following the pre-legislative scrutiny to recognise explicitly the clear need to retain democratic accountability if a JTA is set up. We discussed that point on Second Reading. Without subsection (5), the Assembly would be able to use the power in subsection (4)(a) to provide for the Assembly to appoint all the members of a JTA if it so wished. Subsection (5), however, requires that where there is provision for appointment of members by someone other than a local authority, there must be a majority of local authority members. The purpose is to ensure that at all times on a JTA there will be a majority of local authority members. Of course, representatives of business, voluntary organisations and pensioner groups may be represented on the JTA.

Subsection (5) would not be applicable only when the subsection (4)(a) power was used to provide for all the members of a JTA to be appointed by the local authority. There is a guarantee that either more than half or all the members of a JTA are local authority members. Bearing in mind the comments made by members of the Committee about ensuring that there is good involvement from the business sector, transport providers and the voluntary sector, I hope that JTAs will be set up with a majority of local authority members, but with representatives of other organisations that have a clear involvement in transport policy.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I would not normally intervene, but I have a concern that I hope the Minister will think about. If there is a shortage of local authority members, other people may not be eligible to attend as consultees on the joint transport authority. By withdrawing the number of councillors, the size of the committee can be shrunk by statute, which is not necessarily what the provision is designed to achieve.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I have listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He referred to consultees, but the people whom we are discussing are not consultees but members of the authority who will have been appointed to the authority. He is talking about what would happen under the standing orders of the authority if a majority of local authority members were not present during a meeting of the authority. I should think that the standing orders would ensure that it would not be quorate in such circumstances. I imagine that authorities set up their standing orders so that if JTAs have non-authority members, the local authority members remain in the majority at all times. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I think that I have fortunately stumbled on something helpful. The Minister’s point about JTAs being quorate is critical. He will forgive me if I used the word “consultee”—he properly understood what I meant. He will also be aware that I never intended to withdraw the section, because we recognise the vital importance of local accountability through local authorities. My problem is simply with the wording. I suggest that the Minister has done rather a better job than parliamentary counsel, and that this may be one of the little areas in which the Government would be wise to reconsider the wording, and to ensure that the Minister’s sensible suggestion that the definition of quorate as meaning “with a majority of local authority elected members” should stand part of the Bill.

Although this is the place to insist on such an amendment, as my amendment is not written in that way—and heaven forbid that I should challenge parliamentary counsel—I hope that the Minister will consider such an amendment to be a constructive and helpful way to improve the Bill, taking on board the important measures that he mentioned. With that, if the Minister nods, I shall withdraw my amendment. The Minister is nodding, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 5, page 3, line 39, at end insert—

‘(c)the Secretary of State for Wales, the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the Deputy Prime Minister.’.

The aim of the amendment is to create provision for further consultation with relevant Ministers in Westminster before the Assembly can establish JTAs. We must be certain that bodies set up to deliver transport functions are fair to all participants— especially when cross-border authorities are created—and that relevant Ministers who represent the UK, not just Wales, are consulted.

It is not clear whether the Assembly will have the power to direct JTAs to work together to provide services across each other’s boundaries. Clearly, that is a must for the delivery of integrated transport, especially in areas such as national parks where public transportation is often specialised and where no one body is responsible. The power is also especially important for cross-border transport services. If English and Welsh local authorities can form JTAs, there must at least be provision for the relevant Secretary of State to be consulted.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The amendment would mean that having established a JTA by making an order in plenary session, the Assembly would have to consult three Cabinet members if it wanted to change or revoke the order. The fundamental problem with the amendment is that JTAs will be created by the Assembly through secondary legislation, and it would be completely inconsistent with the devolution settlement to say that, having used its devolved powers to create a body, the Assembly must consult the Government about even minor changes.

The hon. Gentleman asked whether there will be cross-border consultation between JTAs. They will work within the overall Wales transport strategy, which will be their guiding light in developing policies, so there will be a huge amount of consultation and discussion between JTAs. As we discussed in our debates on clause 1, if JTAs are established they will not build borders and barriers, because that would defeat the purpose of the Bill and the development of the Wales transport strategy, and the idea is to integrate transport and make it coherent throughout Wales. I am informed that the Assembly can direct joint transport authorities and Welsh local authorities to work together using the powers in clause 4.

Let me give an example. Let us say that only one JTA has been set up in Wales, but other local authorities work together, perhaps with voluntary arrangements. If a problem develops, perhaps involving an area that includes a national park, the Assembly can use the powers in clause 4 to direct both the JTA and the local authorities, working in a voluntary consortium, to work together to address it. The amendment says that in circumstances in which a problem arises or consultation is required, up to three Cabinet Ministers might have to be involved in developing or changing a policy. Not only would that cut across the devolution settlement, but the powers under clause 4 mean that the strategy can be properly developed by local authorities working together either as voluntary consortia or as JTAs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is satisfied that he has probed me and has received reassurance.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am content with regard to the number of Ministers. One of the questions contained in the amendment was whether a JTA could cross the border. I think from what the Minister said that it cannot. Therefore, there is no need for the amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 7 - Provision of public passenger transport services

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out ‘and effectiveness’ and insert ‘, effectiveness and sustainability’.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in clause 7, page 4, line 27, at end insert—

‘(d)existing transport strategies outside Wales, the effect on other transport services and the impact on the efficient operation of the transport network across the UK.’.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The amendment has been tabled on behalf of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, which has grave concerns about the lack of reference in the Bill to sustainability, apart from a brief mention of it in clause 1. The Assembly has a statutory duty to promote sustainable development in transport, as in any area. Given that Wales has reached only 2.6 per cent. of the 10 per cent. 2010 renewable energy production target—a very slow increase from 2.4 per cent. in 2002— it is all the more important to create sustainability in other fields. The amendment asserts the importance of having regard to environmental sustainability in securing the provision of public passenger transport services in Wales. The relevance of that is that, as well as promoting economy, efficiency and effectiveness in the provision of public passenger transport, it clearly aids the necessary cause of sustainable development.

In tabling amendment No. 8, our intention is to ensure that the Assembly’s powers with regard to the provision of passenger services cannot be extended without due regard being paid to existing services. We must be certain that the Assembly’s power to secure the provision of extra services does not have a negative impact on the ability of the network to run efficiently. Transport services in Wales are part of a national network. If the aim of the Bill is partly to create genuinely integrated transport, existing transport strategies across the UK must be taken into account, as must the effect on other services, both within and without Wales, and the impact on efficient operation of the whole UK transport network. I suspect that the Minister will say that it is inconceivable that that would not be considered. However, it is important that, even if Welsh Assembly Members do no more than to read his comments, they take on board that important point.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Amendment No. 7 would include sustainability as one of the factors the Assembly would have to take into account in exercising its power to secure public passenger transport services under clause 7. The amendment is not required. Sustainability is already explicitly included in the general transport duty of clause 1 as a principle to be applied by the Assembly when delivering transport policies. This is one of the amendments made to the draft Bill following the pre-legislative scrutiny.

The duty on the Assembly, under section 121(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1988, to make a scheme setting out how it proposes to promote sustainable development in the exercise of its functions applies to clause 7, as it applies in relation to all the Assembly’s other functions. In addition, the Assembly would undertake a strategic environmental assessment as part of the process of drawing up the Wales transport strategy.

Amendment No. 8 would insert into the Bill a requirement on the Assembly to consider the cross-border issues and the wider transport network across the UK in the exercise of its power to secure public passenger transport services. That seems in direct conflict with amendment No. 1 to clause 1, tabled by the hon. Member, but we will let that pass. The transport network in Wales is part of the wider UK network and such issues cannot be ignored when considering the need for additional passenger services in Wales. However, clause 1 already requires the Assembly to consider cross-border issues in the exercise of its statutory general transport duty in the development and implementation of its transport policies. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. We debated the issue on amendment No.1. As it adds nothing to the provisions already contained in the Bill, I ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for that reply. When the progress Wales is making is so very slow sustainability is vital. The emphasis on creating sustainability in the first part of the Bill was not clear enough and I suspect that that is why the RSPB had these grave concerns. However, it is there and, provided that the Assembly members concerned are as diligent as one would hope and notice it, I am sure that they will take it on board and deliver the sustainability that we all want to see.

I do not agree with the Minister that my amendment to clause 1 in anyway contradicts amendment No. 8. Again, it is vital that any integrated transport strategy takes the existing structure into consideration. The point of the amendments is already in the Bill and, thanks to the comments of the Minister, particularly on sustainability, if it is not clear it will be on the record. That helps. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 9, in clause 7, page 4, line 30, leave out subsection (4).

We propose that the Assembly should be able to secure the provision for public passenger transport services even if the service could be provided without a subsidy. If the Assembly wishes to fund transport services that would otherwise still exist, why should it not be able to? That would not mean that those services in most need of funding would be ignored. There is no reason why that should be the case. It would simply open up the possibilities for those whose services are already funded but in need of extra help. This could help to boost existing transport providers who might otherwise find themselves in difficulty in the very near future.

However, we need further details about how transport providers will be able to put in their bids for funding here and how the Assembly intends to judge what is required to meet the needs of the public in Wales. How will it decide between bidders? Will this be purely on the basis of the number of people a transport service is likely to help or on the severity of the need in an area? What limits will there be on the funding? Will the Assembly be willing to provide subsidies for transport services for which there is a desperate need but no commercial viability, so they would be run at a loss? Would it not be better to encourage existing transport services surviving alone commercially to expand into providing services where transport requirements are not being met?

Securing the provision of public passenger transport services should not be restricted purely to those services that would not exist without aid. That serves only to secure unsustainable transport provision that will do little good for the people of Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

One problem in my constituency is the lack of cross-valley public transport, especially buses. We are told that it is not commercially viable to operate buses that go down one valley and get people to jobs in a neighbouring valley. How would the amendment help that situation?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

My understanding of the Bill as drafted is that the Assembly can fund only completely unviable services. At present, if the bus companies run up and down the valleys it may be better to give them more funding to get them to deliver the sort of transport that local people need rather than insisting on a completely new start-up service that would not be viable in the way that the hon. Gentleman suggested. The issue is in the definition of where the Assembly is allowed to provide the subsidy rather than in whether it should do so, which is not in dispute.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I am still not quite clear about it. In the situation that I described, is it the proposal that the subsidy would be given to a route that does not currently need subsidy in order that the commercial operator will then decide that it might use some of the additional profit that it has generated to do the cross-valley route, which needs the subsidy? I am not sure.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Let me try and help again. The clause states that the

“Assembly may not enter into an agreement under subsection (3) unless the service in question would not be provided without a subsidy.”

The clarity that the amendment seeks is whether, and to what degree, transport cannot exist without a subsidy. We want to know exactly what the Assembly will do in relation to the businesses—for example, whether it will need to add money to an existing business. It may be argued that that would not be in the spirit of the Bill.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

To add further clarity, the proposal would give the Assembly more power and more flexibility to decide to offer a subsidy to a service that may already exist and may already be making a profit but for reasons that the Welsh Assembly may determine it may want to offer it a subsidy, perhaps so that it can be expanded or enlarged. That is a decision not for us but for the Assembly. The amendment is about giving the Assembly more powers to do the job properly. Given the comments that they made earlier, I should have thought that Labour members of the Committee and those on my left, politically and physically, would wholeheartedly support it.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

That brings me back to the first part of what I said earlier: the proposal gives much more flexibility to the Assembly to do what it thinks best for the greatest number of passengers and more freedom than it would have under the clause as drafted.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

The previous intervention was helpful because it gave a little more clarification. However, I still cannot get my head around the proposal. Are we talking about a subsidy being given if it is to extend the existing service? Surely, a good commercial operator would be providing that service anyway, whereas what I am trying to get at is whether the money would be best directed at those groups for which the commercial operators say they cannot provide, but for which there is a social need. I am not sure what advantage the amendment would bring to the current situation.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I was tempted to say that we should hear what the Minister has to say and then try to answer that question, but the hon. Gentleman’s final sentence made things easier. The Bill is quite prescriptive, but the amendment would give the Assembly a great deal more freedom to spend its money on whatever it believed to be most beneficial. That answers the point made by the hon. Gentleman in his intervention. He should not be tempted to consider whether or not a company is making a profit. Our focus is on how the Assembly delivers the sort of transport I believe we all agree it should deliver and where it can use its subsidy.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I am somewhat puzzled, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore. Indeed, I believe that most Committee members are puzzled.

Amendment No. 9 would remove the restriction imposed by clause 7(4). It would allow the Assembly to enter into agreements that provide subsidies for public passenger transport services, even when the service in question could be provided without the subsidy. The amendment would therefore give extra money to services that already run at a profit or break even, rather than simply support them.

I am sure that Committee members, like me, find it hard to imagine a situation in which the Assembly would want to provide financial support for a service that an operator would provide commercially. That is fundamental. Here is a proposal from the Conservatives that we should spend taxpayers’ money on services that are commercially viable. I am staggered that—[Interruption.] That would be the effect of the amendment.

Opposition Members can argue all they like, but we are debating what the amendment says and what its effect would be. It would allow the Assembly to spend public money on services that do not need public money to support them.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

I do not understand the confusion. In the past two hours or so, Labour Members have refused amendments on the basis that they are too prescriptive, but this amendment would not order the Assembly to subsidise any public transport system; it would simply allow the Assembly to take that decision.

If one has the faith in Assembly Members that some hon. Members have expressed, it is quite obvious that they will not subsidise something that they would not need to subsidise. The Bill is about giving the Assembly the flexibility to do so in certain circumstances that might be hypothetical and that might never arise. I cannot give the Minister examples of those hypothetical circumstances, because they are for the Assembly to decide. If he has faith in the Assembly and the ability of its Members to take rational decisions, surely he should allow the amendment to proceed to give the Assembly the maximum amount of flexibility. After all, that is all that the Government have been arguing for for the past two hours.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

There we have it. The hon. Gentleman is arguing that the amendment would never be used if it were accepted. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West said from a sedentary position that it is otiose. Finance will always be finite, whichever Government are in power, and it would be ludicrous for any organisation to consider using public money to provide a service that can be provided commercially. I am staggered that the Opposition are advancing that proposal.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

This is what I have been struggling with. I cannot envisage any situation in my constituency in which, knowing the deficiencies that already exist, I would support giving taxpayers’ money to a commercial operator—or, rather, to a commercially viable route, not a commercial operator: good luck to them. Perhaps the Minister will respond to that point and to the intervention by the hon. Member for Monmouth about extending routes. I am all in favour of extending routes and providing public money for that, where the route is not currently commercially viable—but not where a profit is already being made.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Absolutely. The irony is that if that ludicrous position ever arose, it would undermine the availability of cash to support other routes that do need subsidy.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

We must be clear. The Bill provides that

“the Assembly may not enter into an agreement under subsection (3) unless the service in question would not be provided without a subsidy.”

Let us try—

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will return to that point later as it is a rather long one.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Let us return to what clause 7 is about. It is intended to allow the Assembly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore suggested, directly to assist routes that an individual local authority, or even a joint transport authority, might not consider a priority, but which the Assembly might consider a priority as part of the Wales transport strategy. I am thinking of heads of the valleys routes, for example. Clause 7 may enable the Assembly to act in such circumstances.

An example might be a long-distance bus route linking a series of communities, for which a case could be made on economic development grounds: although it would not be commercially sustainable, it would give people seeking work access to that work. I think that the Committee recognises that the amendment would enable the Assembly to subsidise anything, commercially viable or not. That would never happen, so why accept the amendment? I do not understand the arguments that are being made.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

Is the Minister saying that if the Bill were passed without clause 7, there would be a real chance of the Assembly entering into inappropriate financial decisions?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

No, I am not saying that at all. The important point is that the Assembly has the power directly to commission services, on the clear understanding that those services could not be provided on a commercial basis. That is the reason for the clause. It adds clarity, and I urge the hon. Gentleman to withdraw an amendment that I think may have an ideological basis but certainly no sensible financial basis.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Let me help the Minister. Perhaps I and my hon. Friends have accidentally fallen into using the Labour party’s favourite word, “profit”. Heaven forbid that that should be our intention; it was not. It is a trigger word. I remind the Committee that I had the difficulty of studying economics and religious studies at university. Spelling “profit” was always difficult.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

No, I want to make progress.

I can see that a bus service might be running at a profit, when something beyond the operator’s control might change. The operator of a commercial—and commercially successful—service might suddenly see that in six months it would no longer be possible to provide the service. We want that company to be able to tell the Assembly that it would not be able to operate the route in six months’ time, because it would no longer be profitable, but that if the Assembly wanted to keep it going it would have to subsidise it. As I understand the Bill, that bus service must fail and the Welsh Assembly can then recommission it. We want a much smoother transfer.

One other point was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth. It is up to the Assembly if it wants to give its money to wrong or inappropriate people. However, that is not the purpose of the amendment. We seek to ensure continuation, so that if the Assembly decides to change the way the buses cross the valleys it should find it easier to decide which routes to subsidise. At the moment, it could be argued that we should not give money to a bus company if it is making a profit because it could spend that money on delivering another route. We know that it will not do that, which is why we want to clarify matters.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

Clause 7(4) clearly states:

“the Assembly may not enter into an agreement under subsection (3) unless the service in question would not be provided without a subsidy.”

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting with his hypothetical question that we should identify six months down the line whether a route may no longer be profitable? Subsection (4) allows us to enter discussions with the Assembly about it. If the amendment were accepted and if the Conservatives were in control of the National Assembly, could he envisage the Conservative Administration giving taxpayers’ money to commercially viable routes—not to give money to profitable operators, but to put more money into profitable routes?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The first point made by the hon. Gentleman was important; the second was not.

In order for the Assembly to follow the letter of the law, it must be clear that the service in question could not or would not be provided without a subsidy. However, it is not clear, as shown in my hypothetical example. That is the reason for the amendment. The hon. Gentleman then asked whether a Conservative-run Administration would subsidise profitable routes. The Minister said, rightly, that there would be no reason for public money to go to a successful route or business. We are not looking for the Assembly to subsidise successful businesses—heaven forbid that it should want to—but it will not do so. It has to be accountable to its electorate. That fear is not genuine. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the Assembly has the freedom to make changes. It is not about giving money to private companies.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I am confused, but at a more fundamental level. If I understand the hon. Gentleman correctly, he is trying to widen the opportunity for the Assembly to spend money, potentially on profitable operations. If I am right, why did he say on Second Reading:

“It looks as though significant amounts of Welsh taxpayers’ money, which some might argue could be better spent elsewhere, will be spent on the additional costs of this Bill’s proposals.”?—[Official Report, 16 June 2005; Vol. 435, c. 424.]

Is he trying to widen the opportunity for the Assembly to provide subsidies, or is he trying to reduce it?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman should sally forth point scoring when we are trying to make a sensible amendment to the Bill. The amendment would give the Assembly the ability to deliver in a more flexible way. That would be a positive and sensible contribution. The Assembly may choose to spend the money inappropriately, but that is a function of devolution.

David Davies (Conservative, Monmouth)

If the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit öpik) wishes to sally forth on a point-scoring basis, can he tell us when he next makes an intervention why he and his colleagues have been calling for more power for the Welsh Assembly ever since it was set up but now oppose something that would give the Assembly more power? Does my hon. Friend agree that that is entirely inconsistent, and that the hon. Gentleman should explain it?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful, as always, to my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Our purpose in Committee is to try to improve the Bill, to take the Government down hypothetical routes and to give examples of those parts of the Bill that may not work. For example, if a large factory or business were to close, the closure would impact on public transport. The Assembly may need to subsidise a route that previously was successful, and I am concerned that such a route would have to prove itself to be unsustainable before public money were forthcoming. The amendment seeks to deal with that situation. If I were a Liberal Democrat, I would be keeping quiet if I had not tabled a single amendment. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a go, he is welcome to do so.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

The Committee is serving a useful purpose because, from the alleged point scoring, there is a blooming of consensus. I would suggest that we violently agree on one point, which I am pleased about. The Conservatives are agreeing with the Liberal Democrats, as well as with Labour and Plaid Cymru, that it is appropriate for the Bill to enable the Assembly to provide subsidies for transport in Wales. Until that point, I was not clear whether the Conservatives explicitly felt that that was a good element in the Bill, so I thank the hon. Member for Leominster for clarifying that point, as it will help us in our future deliberations.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am not sure why I give way, as I do not think the hon. Gentleman should be putting words into my mouth. He should be trying to improve the Bill. However, I think the Minister now understands that transfer is the key matter. It is a straightforward amendment, but I do not think we have been going down the constructive route that I hoped we would. I hope that I have clarified matters.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Now I understand where he is coming from, although I do not understand where the hon. Member for Monmouth is coming from. He cites as an example a commercially viable route that is not receiving subsidy but which, because of a change such as a large factory closure, would in future be affected. The route would no longer be commercially viable and would need subsidy. Given those circumstances, unless it was a major strategic route, a local authority or joint transport authority might feel that they could not support it. If it were a local service, the company would go to the local authority—that has happened in my own constituency—say that the route was no longer commercially viable, and ask the authority to consider supporting it, at least in part. That happens on a quite regular basis. That is the course that a bus operator, for example, would take.

The clause is about those routes that a local authority or joint transport authority would never consider. One might be, for example, a long-distance bus route, travelling from the constituency of the hon. Member for Caernarfon to Cardiff. It might be arguable that such a route should be supported and subsidised, even if no commercial provider would look at it because it did not believe it could break even or make a profit on it. That is what clause 7 is about. It is not about the circumstances that have been outlined by the hon. Member for Leominster. Given the example that he cited, it would be up to a local authority or a joint transport authority to support a route in those circumstances. The role that would be given to the Assembly by clause 7 would be the one that we discussed in relation to the heads of the valleys, where buses headed across the valleys rather than up and down them. Clause 7 would cover those sorts of routes.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I think the Minister is right in everything that he says. He will also be aware from constituency cases that bus services often stop but start again when the money comes through. They are much more flexible because buses can be sent off to do other routes, whereas obviously that is not the case with rail. There are genuine concerns about the potential for stop-go.

However, for once the Government want to give the Assembly fewer powers, so I suppose I should be chuffed to bits. On that basis, I shall not push the amendment to a vote, although it would have given the Assembly a great deal more flexibility. I do not envisage the Assembly ever wanting to give money to a successful private company unless something remarkably odd was going on. For once, I have dug deep into my devolved reserves and thought of something that might be helpful to the Assembly, but the Government have bitterly rejected it. I am secretly delighted and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 9 - Functions of the Committee

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

This is a funny old amendment, because it has not actually been tabled.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Order. No amendment has been selected. This is the stand part debate.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I know, but the amendment that I have in mind has a bearing on what I want to say about the clause. The reason the amendment I tabled was not selected was, I suspect, that it had implications for the stand part debate. Forgive me if I did not start the right way, Miss Begg, but this has been one of those mornings.

We sought to guarantee that the public transport users’ committee for Wales would be independent from the Assembly and that its autonomy would be preserved. We do not want the committee to be a puppet of the Assembly. Subsection (3) allows the Assembly to alter the functions in any way it desires, which seems open to the possibility of direct and absolute control by the Assembly. That is unnecessarily over-prescriptive. Although we must be certain to provide for the review and accountability of the committee, the Assembly must not have complete and absolute control, any more than it already does. Such a move must not be allowed. The provision for the Assembly to alter the committee’s functions as freely as it desires must be reconsidered.

We must also be certain that those who use Welsh transport regularly yet live on the other side of the border have a voice. Would the committee provide for such people? If not, there is potential for a minority of people to be left without the ability to air their views on Welsh transport. I am concerned about whether the committee would be as independent as I am sure we would all like it to be. Obviously, it would be totally reliant on the Assembly, but it must not be a puppet of the Assembly. Whether the clause stands part of the Bill depends on how the Minister feels about the committee’s independence.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The clause sets out the functions of the committee, which is described in clause 8, and permits the Assembly to amend those functions by order. That may include conferring further functions, but only if they relate to public passenger transport services or facilities to, from or within Wales.

The London Transport Users Committee represents the users of all transport modes in London, including bus, trains and tubes. In broad terms, we are using that model as a basis to establish a public transport users’ committee for Wales. The London Transport Users Committee has proved effective in representing transport users in London, providing a voice for passengers, contributing to consultations and pursuing complaints when things go wrong. It is anticipated that the public transport users’ committee for Wales will be equally effective.

The hon. Gentleman asked about those with an issue who live outside Wales. If the issue relates to transport within Wales, I would have thought the committee would take up any representation that they made.

Transport (Wales) Bill - Standing Committee F

Clause 9 - Functions of the Committee

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

As I was saying before our break, the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) was concerned about the independence of the public transport users committee for Wales. I was giving the example of the London transport users committee, which is funded by the London assembly, but which does not appear to have had the problems with its independence that the hon. Gentleman envisages for the Welsh transport users committee.

All that I can say is that the Welsh Assembly has no intention of usurping the committee’s independence. Why would it, anyway? The committee is a forum for users to express their concerns about, or support for, issues such as the strategy or parts of the new rail franchising arrangements. It would be in the Assembly’s interests to have a clear voice openly setting out transport users’ concerns. Experience shows that the London committee is effective and represents the views of public transport passengers, and I see no reason why that should not happen in Wales.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of passengers who are resident in England but who use services in Wales. If they have a concern, or they refer a concern to a representative body in England, they or that body could make direct representations to the transport users committee for Wales, to the Assembly or to the relevant Committee of the Assembly. There are therefore channels by which a resident in England can make representations about their concerns. They can do that directly to the users committee, to the Minister with responsibility for the issue or to the Committee that scrutinises that Minister’s Department.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by my comments and that we can now move on to clause 10.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being helpful. His answer was deeply constructive and helpful, but I am dying to ask him one question: if someone took a bus from London to Cardiff, which transport users group would they complain to if they were unhappy?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

If the problem occurred at Reading, they would clearly complain to the English body that represented passengers; if it happened in Newport, they would complain to the Welsh body. It might, however, be an ongoing problem relating purely to the train. Yet again, there might be no chef on the First Great Western train to provide hot food for the first-class passengers. Those who get on the train at Port Talbot or Swansea will suffer throughout the length of the journey to London, so perhaps they should complain to both bodies at the same time.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful to the Minister, who is beginning to see not only the humorous side, but the difficulties that arise when people are unhappy. I am also grateful to him for making it clear that where someone’s complaint arises matters more than where they live. That has a bearing on the issue, because one of my questions, which he touched on, was which user group an English person travelling through Wales would complain to.

However, perhaps the prescriptive nature of line 3 of subsection 1 is unnecessary. I suspected that the Assembly had the ability to confer or remove functions, and I was not sure why that was repeated. However, it is clear that, to that extent, the body will be in hock to the Assembly, so there is no point in pursuing the matter further.

Clause 10 - Guidance and directions to the Committee

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 11, in page 6, line 38, leave out subsection (4).

The amendment would simply delete what seems to be a superfluous subsection. The Assembly does not need the provision of subsection (4) for it to vary or revoke directions under the clause. Subsection (1) already grants the Assembly the power to give the committee directions as to how it should discharge its functions. From that, it should be obvious that it can change them as it wishes. Again, we must be careful that the committee does not become a puppet of the Assembly and that the Assembly does not have too much control. Such provisions must be carefully monitored and reviewed.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Clause 10(1) permits the Assembly to give directions to the Committee about the discharge of its functions. Amendment No. 11 would prevent the Assembly from changing or revoking any such direction once given. Situations evolve, and it would be inconsistent for us to give the Assembly the power to issue guidance or give directions without also giving it the power to alter or revoke them in the light of changing circumstances. I therefore suggest to the hon. Gentleman that, if the Assembly should have the power to give directions and guidance, it should also have the power to remove them. I therefore urge him to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

This is not one of the great “die in the ditch” moments of the Bill. I simply suggest that when the Assembly does not want something to be done, it should give guidance that it should cease. It seems to be unduly heavy-handed to give it a power to revoke. I genuinely did not think that my amendment would make a huge amount of difference, but I wanted to tease out of the Minister why the particular provision was included. When one has the privilege to seek to amend a Bill, it is useful to try to find out why certain parts that seem to be superfluous have been included, and I was doing no more than that. I agree with the Minister that if one issues an instruction, one should have the option to withdraw it. However, the drafting technique strikes me as unusual, and I am not sure that the provision is completely necessary. I do not wish to take up a great deal of the Committee’s time, and there is no further mileage to be had out of the amendment, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 11 - Financial assistance: air transport services

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 7, line 7, leave out subsection (2).

Through the amendment we once again query why the Assembly should be able to provide financial assistance only to services or facilities that would not exist without help. This is similar to our debate this morning. Especially in the case of air services, it would be more productive to subsidise commercially viable enterprises than to give financial assistance to schemes that will have to be run at a loss. There are clearly huge financial implications: granting the Assembly power of financial assistance for air transport with no transferral of funds means that support will have to be found within the Assembly budget. It looks as though significant amounts of Welsh taxpayers’ money, which might be better spent elsewhere, will be spent on the additional costs arising from the provisions of the Bill. Of course, the development of Wales’ transport and economy is of the utmost importance.

It is also important to remember that the commercial viability of flights within Wales is questionable. As Bus Users UK has stated:

“required financial support is likely to be vastly out of proportion to the benefits that may accrue.”

The need for subsidies to start air transport services in the first place—pump-priming—raised the issue of whether services would be workable in the long term. Although there is no definite evidence that proves an unmet demand for flights within Wales, there is a strong argument that must be considered that air transport should be developed on a commercial basis only, and should not involve public funds. We must also consider any effect on rail services if passengers were to move from rail to air transport. We would see weakened economic viability and threats to the economic growth of Welsh rail companies.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Leominster said that he kept an open mind about the viability and attractiveness of a regional air network in Wales. It seems that he has made up his mind and that he is so in favour of a regional air network that he is willing to allow the Assembly to give financial assistance to services and facilities related to such a network, even if those services and facilities would exist without financial assistance. I may have misunderstood what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to do by proposing to delete the subsection, and I would value it if he could clarify that. As far as I can see, cutting subsection (2) would make it easier for the Assembly to provide financial assistance to profit-making services.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The hon. Gentleman has an unusual style; he is particularly obtuse about this matter. We had a discussion about whether financial assistance should or could be given within certain parameters. He will recall that the Government have particular hang-ups about giving financially successful companies subsidies. I share that view, incidentally, but I do not agree that the wording in the Bill is the best way to proceed. He will know that there are not huge numbers of viable airlines flying between north Wales and anywhere else. The majority of people, particularly in the north, leave Wales to catch aeroplanes. Viability is the question. The amendment would give the Assembly more leeway to encourage those air services, if it deems it a wise move to do so.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I find the hon. Gentleman’s intervention helpful. It clarifies things and I am encouraged by the line of debate.

Hon. Members will note that I am supportive of a small-scale regional air network to connect the various parts of Wales for the small number of people who need to get from one end of Wales to another quickly. I also recognise that we are not talking about A380 Airbuses going from Anglesey to Cardiff but about small aircraft, probably in many cases twin-engine propeller aircraft, which may accommodate as few as eight people. The debate on Second Reading gave me the impression that the hon. Member for Leominster was sceptical about that.

I recognise that the hon. Gentleman has fought his case on his scepticism about the idea, but I am encouraged by the fact—I am not trying to score points—that it would seem that he has made up his mind, to some extent. Had he come to the view that it was a bad idea to provide the option of financial support for a regional air network and associated services, he would have proposed the deletion of clause 11. As it is, he has decided that he wants to delete a subsection of the clause.

The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we had an extensive debate on a similar amendment earlier. I found that amendment curious. Will the Minister clarify his interpretation of the implications of the amendment were it to be passed? I have laid out what I think it would do, and will be interested to know what the Government think it would do.

The hon. Member for Leominster suggested that we are moving towards achieving a degree of common interest in having the good sense to allow the Welsh Assembly to make judgments about the viability and desirability of air networks. We covered the environmental considerations in some depth on Second Reading, so it is not appropriate to reopen that debate.

There are two important considerations in relation to the implementation of the clause that I shall address. It might surprise hon. Members to hear that there is already a thriving aviation network in Wales, albeit a small-scale one, which generally operates on a charter basis. The one that I know best derives from Mid Wales airport, in Welshpool, and uses aircraft such as the eight-seater Piper Navajo to transport people in and out of Wales on a charter basis. That growing business depends on there being reasonable facilities at Welshpool, and would benefit from further investment in the infrastructure of the airport. Some of that will happen because of the industry and the investment of the existing operator, Bob Jones, and some of it will come from the constructive partnership approach to investment that has been taken by Powys county council and the Welsh Development Agency.

Clause 11 would entitle Bob Jones to seek further funding for investment that he cannot afford and probably could not obtain purely from private funding, but which would necessarily increase the attractiveness of Welshpool as a business airport from which to base charter operations, and as an airport to charter flights to and from. That would clearly be in the interests of the population and businesses in the area.

The clause is useful because it does not exonerate airport operators from having to prove the business benefit of investments, and because it provides the Welsh Assembly with the opportunity to make such investments if it thinks that they are in the strategic interests of the locality or region.

The hon. Gentleman might be aware that there is already a low level of charter activity transporting people in and out of Wales and between north and south Wales. Indeed, various politicians have availed themselves of that facility, particularly during the general election. Although passenger numbers are not high, there is an ongoing demand for such a facility. I hope that in reading this Committee’s proceedings, the Welsh Assembly will recognise that all parties keep open minds about the viability of such investment.

The second consideration is not directly connected to investment in air transport in Wales, but, without getting too technical, there are other threats that could directly affect services in Wales. I refer to Eurocontrol—the European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation—and navigation charges for general and light aviation.

I do not expect the Minister to respond today, but will he get his team to investigate the potential consequences of passing navigation charges, which are primarily paid by large airlines operating large aircraft, on to small operators? The cut-off point is aircraft with a gross weight of more than 2,000 kg, as those with a lower gross weight are exempt from certain navigation charges, but there is a threat that those charges will be imposed, and the drivers for doing that seem to be the large airlines. Such a move will make it difficult for the services that clause 11 is designed to support, because a number of charter operations will use aircraft weighing less than 2 tonnes.

I stress again that I do not expect the Minister to be an expert on the regulations and the proposed changes, but given their potential impact on what the Bill is designed to do and on what we might be able to achieve in the Welsh aviation charter field, I hope that he will ask the right questions and perhaps be willing to indulge in a dialogue outside Committee.

I shall be interested to hear the closing comments of the hon. Member for Leominster on this issue. I take heart from the fact that we have made some progress. Notwithstanding his scepticism about air transport in Wales, it seems that the Conservatives are willing at least to give the Welsh Assembly an opportunity to make a reasoned judgment on the future of air transport in Wales. That is to be welcomed.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Clause 11 empowers the Assembly to provide financial assistance for air transport services and airport facilities. It does not have that power currently and feels that it would be in its interests to have it. However, amendment No. 13 would remove the restriction imposed by clause 11(2) and allow the Assembly to provide financial support even if the service or facility would be provided without that subsidy. We have had this debate before, as the hon. Members for Leominster and for Montgomeryshire said. As the need for the Assembly to make a case for any expenditure on air transport serving Wales was rightly raised by several hon. Members on Second Reading, I am surprised at the amendment. I am sure that the Committee will agree with those comments and, like me, finds it hard to imagine the Assembly wanting to provide financial support for services and facilities that would otherwise be provided on a commercial basis.

The Assembly is of the firm opinion that airports and air services have a vital role to play for Wales in improving accessibility, opening up new markets and encouraging inward investment. However, it would want to provide funding for such services and facilities only if that were necessary to secure their provision. It may help the Committee if I refer to the public service obligation, because some of these issues relate to European state aid.

A PSO may be introduced by a member state under EC law to ensure that there is adequate provision of air services on a particular route. However, those services must fulfil certain requirements in order for a PSO to be introduced. First, the service must be to a “peripheral region”, a “development region” or on a

“thin route to any regional airport”.

I am not quite sure what a thin route is, but I imagine that it is one that is not well served.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

It is one that is not thick.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

That is right.

Secondly, the service must be

“vital to the economic development of a region”.

Thirdly, the imposition of a PSO must be necessary to ensure the “adequate” provision of scheduled services. Currently in the UK, PSO routes are provided only in the Scottish highlands and islands.

So there is a process that must be gone through. The Assembly cannot decide willy-nilly to start supporting a particular air route or it will be contravening the PSO rules and the state aid provisions to which I have referred. I assure the Committee that the Assembly will not be able suddenly to start funding routes that are commercially viable. We have been through that debate before. Why on earth would the Assembly support a commercially viable route? Requirements under European state aid rules would prevent the Assembly from subsidising unnecessarily a route that existed or was to be established. With those comments, I urge the hon. Member for Leominster to withdraw the amendment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister has very helpfully read out various pieces of existing legislation. The amendment seeks to give the Assembly more powers, which it should have, so my immediate reaction might not be as hostile as one might assume.

The hon. Member for Montgomeryshire asked whether I had changed my mind. I should point out that I would have voted against the Bill on Second Reading if I had felt that the Assembly should not have been able to engage in such a discussion. We have always kept an open mind. It is up to the Assembly to decide how it spends its money. If that is what the Assembly wants to do, the amendment would have given it more freedom to do so. If it is not allowed to do that anyway, it does not matter whether or not it is in the Bill.

There is therefore no great harm in the amendment. Leaving out the subsection would make no difference whatever, because the Assembly would not be able to subsidise services in any case. So I am not going to get hot under the collar about this amendment either, but it is always interesting to hear why the Assembly should not have further powers. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Clause 15 - Money

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I have a straightforward question for the Government. The amendment is designed to probe the necessity of the clause, which relates to money. Although I realise that a money section may or may not be necessary in the Bill, I must ask what money the Government have in mind.

As I understand the Bill, no changes will be made to the Welsh block grant. All the money for the proposals involved must be found from the Assembly’s current budget, so to what money does the clause refer? I notice that the Minister is receiving all sorts of assistance, so I am sure that he will be so kind as to provide us with all further details relating to the money to which the clause refers, and that I shall be able to withdraw the amendment.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is right that no additional money will be given to the Assembly through the block grant for the measures contained in the Bill if and when it is enacted. Nevertheless, the Bill could give rise to increases in expenditure, which is the reason for the clause and the inclusion of a money resolution.

I assure the hon. Gentleman, however, that there will be no extra money in the foreseeable future.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Is the Minister saying that although the Government do not intend to increase the block grant on the basis of the Bill, they are giving themselves the opportunity in the future to make additional payments—for example, through the block grant—for expenditure that is incurred as a result of the Assembly, say, lobbying Ministers in its attempt to influence new initiatives on the basis of what it is allowed to do under the Bill?

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

If circumstances arose in which the Bill incurred additional expenditure and we did not have the clause, we would have to return to the House and introduce primary legislation to take the necessary powers, which would be illogical. As I said, we do not believe there will be any need for Parliament to grant additional funds to enact any of the functions in the Bill, but who can predict what might happen in the distant future? The clause is a safety measure. I hope that that explains its purpose.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am deeply unhappy with that explanation. The explanation that the Minister did not give us is why the Government do not simply increase the block grant. There is no need to use the Bill as an excuse to give the Assembly more money; the Government can simply do that. There is no restriction on extra funding to Wales at any stage; it will be “Barnetted” and go into the block grant. The Government have already proposed to increase the block grant for Wales on a year-on-year basis until 2012. I am curious about why, suddenly, we need the belt and braces of the clause.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is an experienced parliamentarian and he will know that there is always a money clause in Bills, not just those that relate to Wales. I shall try to help him further: the Bill carries the potential for increased expenditure by the Assembly and local authorities; that needs to be authorised, regardless of anything that the Government might have to say.

I am trying to reassure the hon. Gentleman, first, that there is no intention to increase the block grant because of anything in the Bill. I cannot make predictions, but I cannot think of an example in which the Assembly would require the block grant to be increased rather than deciding to fund a particular function in the Bill from its own block grant and expenditure. However, it would be ludicrous not to provide for such an eventuality in the future and rather than going through the process of primary legislation, the clause has been included to cover the possibility of Parliament having to vote more money to the Assembly for the functions in the Bill. That is why the clause is there.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I understand why it is there; the Minister explained it perfectly. Today we have agreed to the Assembly having all sorts of extra spending facilities, should it choose to use them—the ability to spend money on air transport, for example. The Government are clear that that is within the Assembly budget and we are all comfortable with that.

What is worrying is what decisions the Treasury may have taken—a Treasury Minister moved the proposal on Second Reading—that allowed the Government to have the wording in the Bill. The Government must estimate their expenditure at UK as well as Welsh level, so the Treasury must have thought about how much money the Bill could cost or it would not have allowed the clause to stay in the Bill. From my short experience in the House, I know that the Treasury would not issue a blank cheque of any kind.

The Bill has the potential to incur huge bills, should the Assembly so decide. We have pretty much agreed that providing air transport is not financially viable, but the Assembly can sponsor it. That could involve massive amounts, because there is virtually no limit on what could be spent flying A380s in and out of Cardiff. I know that that was never the Government’s intention, but they must have discussed the matter with the Treasury; otherwise, the clause could not have been tacked on to the bottom of the Bill.

The clause changes the Bill dramatically, because the Government’s list of intentions never included allowing the Assembly to spend more than there is in the block grant. I totally accept the Minister’s reasoning for the belt-and-braces approach, but I do not think that he has told us the whole story, so I shall give him the opportunity to do so now.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

I shall respond again. I am assured that every Bill includes such a clause.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Apart from private Member’s Bills.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

That may be so, but every Government Bill certainly includes such a clause.

Let me try to help the hon. Member for Leominster. A UK-wide piece of legislation on transport or another issue may require the Assembly, a joint transport authority or a local authority to carry out functions in addition to those currently funded directly by the Assembly, and the clause would enable them to do so by allowing for additional funds to be made available for that purpose.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Does not that fly in the face of devolution? The idea behind devolution is that the Welsh Assembly knows what its budget is, makes its decisions and gets on with things. It is not on suddenly to say, “It’s all right if they get into a pickle. We’ll bung ‘em.” That is absolutely against the spirit of everything that we have discussed today.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

The hon. Gentleman is deliberately or inadvertently not understanding what I am saying. A new Act might be passed in Westminster requiring the Assembly to carry out additional functions that are not in the devolution settlement. There are grey areas in terms of transport, and air transport, as we discussed, will remain the responsibility of the Department for Transport, not the Assembly. However, a new requirement in future might mean that the Assembly, a joint transport authority or a local authority has to take additional sums from those that are being spent at the time. In those circumstances, that money could be spent.

Let me reiterate that most of the debate is theoretical. All the funding that we have discussed will be from within the block grant. Whether a decision was taken to subsidise an air transport route from north to south Wales or to have a new heads of the valleys long-distance bus route, the funding would come from within the Assembly budget. All that I am saying is that, as with all other legislation that we pass in the House, the Bill contains a money clause, and this one is no different.

We have gone round the houses sufficiently, and the hon. Gentleman has received his explanation. I hope that we can now move on to consider clause 16.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

The Minister has done a grand job. He has done everything that he can to explain the position to me and he has been charming and charitable, so he must not take my next point personally. Glancing around the Room, I do not think that he will have trouble outvoting me on this clause, but it is important that he does so because I do not see how the clause can be part of the Bill if he is serious about devolution. The idea that every Bill must have a money clause is fine, if they all apply to England and Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies (Labour, Ogmore)

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I may be able to assist him.

If, at some time in future, the great Bill that is fermenting in the Treasury at the moment concerning the high-speed electrified line from London Paddington to Llangynwyd in my constituency is passed, I would not expect the Assembly to pick up the costs. If the Treasury is going to pump-prime that, I would expect money to be passed down. That is an example of the sort of unforeseeable circumstance that may happen in two or three years’ time in my constituency, and I would expect monies to follow accordingly.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I totally understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but there is no need for that to be done through the Bill. That is the point.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

I do not really want to pursue this point because we have probably done it to death, but does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that if he succeeds in winning a vote to take the money resolution out of the Bill, there will—[Interruption.] I am not holding my breath. If somehow that happens, there would be various elements of transport policy under the jurisdiction of the Assembly, which could not be supported financially by a Government sympathetic to that transport policy in Westminster.

Even if a Conservative Government were absolutely determined to electrify the line that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) spoke of a moment ago, the Secretary of State for Wales would be obliged to tell the Chancellor, “I’m sorry, but we can’t pay for the bit that starts under the Severn and goes west towards Wales.” Is the hon. Gentleman really saying that in 10 years’ time he would want to be restricted as Secretary of State for Wales in his support for Wales concerning what would appear to be a random collection of areas of transport policy?

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I totally understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, and I understand why he says it, but he is wrong. He is wrong because even if I were to electrify the hon. Member for Ogmore, I would still have to—

Kevin Brennan (Labour, Cardiff West)

That was a shocking comment.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

Shocking indeed.

If I were to do so, I would have to pass a Bill that has a proper money resolution because that money would need to be spent. This Bill does not have a money implication. It is Budget neutral according to the Treasury and the Minister. All the spending will be done by the Assembly from within the block grant. Therefore, the idea that more money will be needed, hypothetically—I think that is the Minister’s argument—at some distant date when something changes can be legislated for at the time when that hypothetical future becomes reality. Therefore, there is no need for the Treasury to have the opportunity to spend.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

On a point of order, Miss Begg. I have received further information on the matter. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the clause is in italics. The money resolution was passed on Second Reading and the clause cannot now be deleted. Can you confirm, Miss Begg, that a money resolution was passed on Second Reading and that the clause cannot, therefore, be deleted?

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

Yes, a money order was passed on Second Reading, but it is for the Committee to go through the Bill clause by clause so it can express its view. It still has the opportunity to express its view by voting against the clause.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I am grateful for that ruling. It is an excellent example of why we should probe the Government at every opportunity to find out what they are up to. I think that they appreciate knowing what they are up to as well. However, I do not agree with the reasoning that underlies including the clause. I understand that it may be impossible for me to take it out of the Bill but I am not going to give up without having a go, so I shall press the matter to a Division.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

It is worth pointing out that if the vote on clause 15 were to be lost, it would still have no effect on the Bill.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

On a point of order, Miss Begg: does that even qualify as a moral victory?

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

That is not a point of order for the Chair. I will leave it to individual Members to decide.

Anne Begg (Labour, Aberdeen South)

I thank hon. Members for their presence. I hope that the new Members have found this a learning experience—I certainly have in the Chair.

Nick Ainger (Labour, Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire)

Thank you for the way in which you have chaired the Committee, Miss Begg. It has been a pleasure to serve under you, even though it has been a brief experience—perhaps some would say the briefer, the better, but there we are. Through you, I thank the officials, the police and all the others associated with the conduct of the Committee. I thank my officials, who do not technically exist here, and I thank everyone for all the contributions that have been made. The Committee has been held in a good spirit and it shows the benefit of pre-legislative scrutiny. The flow has been relatively easy today because a lot of the hard work has been done in the Welsh Affairs Committee and the National Assembly’s Economic Development and Transport Committee.

Although we were unable to accept amendments from the Opposition, those amendments were perfectly proper and gave us the opportunity to debate some important issues. They allowed the Government to place on the record our intention in respect of the Bill and the Opposition to express any concerns that they had. As a result of our deliberations, we will produce a good piece of legislation.

Bill Wiggin (Conservative, Leominster)

I share in the thanks of the Minister and the whole Committee for the way in which you have handled the sittings, Miss Begg. The Committee has been exciting, and, particularly in the case of the last Division, groundbreaking in the way in which it has enabled us to discover certain parts of the legislative process. I agree with much of what the Minister just said, particularly about the hard work involved in the pre-legislative scrutiny.

One of the reasons why pre-legislative scrutiny is so effective is that the Government’s mind is very open at that stage. Any Member who can get his or her views through the Select Committee to the Government is likely to get a favourable response. Traditionally, that used to take place in the Standing Committee on the Bill. I would like the Government to be more open-minded, but this is not necessarily the Bill with which to emphasise that point. I can see the Chairman of the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs chuckling from a sedentary position, because he knows, as I do, that that just does not happen anymore. However, we have—throughout—sought to test the Government and their resolve about the way in which they have worded the Bill. We have drawn attention to the various anomalies. While I am not always happy to have to withdraw my amendments, I am grateful to the Minister for his constructive and helpful comments and guidance. Last but not least, I thank those hon. Members of the Opposition parties who did not table amendments—they must try harder next time.

Lembit Öpik (Liberal Democrat, Montgomeryshire)

Further to whatever that was from the Englishman abroad, I thank you, Miss Begg, for a superlatively well chaired couple of sittings today, right up to the nail-biting climax on clause 15 on a vote that could not make a difference and was, anyway, lost. You may be interested to know that as soon as tomorrow afternoon I shall be flying Andrew Davies—one of the key players—from Cardiff international airport to Welshpool international airport. No doubt that will give me an opportunity to update him on our proceedings, on your exceptional chairing of the Committee and on the fact that it seems that, despite occasional contretemps today, there is a significant degree of agreement among all parties that the Welsh Assembly deserves the powers that the Bill gives it.

I look forward to a more integrated approach to road, rail and air transport in Wales in the future.

Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru, Caernarfon)

I add my thanks to you, Miss Begg. I congratulate everyone on a well tempered and interesting debate. I look forward to many more such debates in the Welsh Grand Committee and Welsh Standing Committees. I do not know how things are done in Scotland, but I think that this is a model for how things are done in Wales. I wish the Bill good speed.