Transport (Wales) Bill |
|
Bill Wiggin: 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: 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: 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
Nick Ainger: 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: 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. Column Number: 31 On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 4 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 5 Joint transport authorities Bill Wiggin: 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: 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: You are the Minister; the Minister can do that—criticise. Nick Ainger: 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
Bill Wiggin: 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. 12.15 pmNick Ainger: 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: 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. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in clause 5, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
Column Number: 33 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: 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. Column Number: 34 Bill Wiggin: 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. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 7 Provision of public passenger transport services Bill Wiggin: I beg to move amendment No. 7, in clause 7, page 4, line 24, leave out ‘and effectiveness’ and insert ‘, effectiveness and sustainability’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 8, in clause 7, page 4, line 27, at end insert—
Bill Wiggin: 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. Column Number: 35 Nick Ainger: 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: 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. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Bill Wiggin: 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
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. 12.30 pmHuw Irranca-Davies: 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: 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: 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: Let me try and help again. The clause states that the
Column Number: 37 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 T.C. Davies: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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. Column Number: 38 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 T.C. Davies: 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. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 30 June 2005 |