Transport (Wales) Bill |
|
Bill Wiggin: 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
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: 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? 11 amBill Wiggin: 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
Hywel Williams: Will the hon. Gentleman answer a straight question? How would his amendment affect the north-south Wales vale routes. Bill Wiggin: 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
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: 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: 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: 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
I return to the Bill, which states:
that is the key word—
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. Mr. David Jones: 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: 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: 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: 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: The Minister is being unusually cavalier. He should be quite careful. I tabled the amendment not for my own entertainment, but
Huw Irranca-Davies: 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: 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: 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
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: 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
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. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 3, Noes 12. [Division No. 1] AYES Davies, David T.C.(Monmouth) Jones, Mr. David Wiggin, Bill
NOES Ainger, NickBrennan, Kevin Griffith, Nia Irranca-Davies, Huw James, Mrs. Siân C. Jones, Mr. Martyn Öpik, Lembit Ruane, Chris Smith, John Williams, Mrs. Betty Williams, Hywel Williams, Mark Question accordingly negatived. Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 11.15 amClause 2 Wales Transport Strategy Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 17, in clause 2, page 2, line 9, at end add—
No. 22, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end add—
No. 3, in clause 2, page 2, line 12, at end insert—
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’. Column Number: 16 Bill Wiggin: 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
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
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 T.C. Davies: 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: 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
Bill Wiggin: 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: 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
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: 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: I shall probably regret this, but I give way to the hon. Member for Monmouth. David T.C. Davies: 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: 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,
Nick Ainger: 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? Column Number: 20 David T.C. Davies: 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. 11.30 am |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 30 June 2005 |