Transport (Wales) Bill |
|
Nick Ainger: 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: 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. Column Number: 39 Nick Ainger: 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: We must be clear. The Bill provides that
Let us try— The Chairman: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will return to that point later as it is a rather long one. Nick Ainger: 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 T.C. Davies: 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: 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: 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: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Bill Wiggin: 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
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. 12.45 pmHuw Irranca-Davies: Clause 7(4) clearly states:
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: 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: 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: Column Number: 41
Is he trying to widen the opportunity for the Assembly to provide subsidies, or is he trying to reduce it? Bill Wiggin: 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 T.C. Davies: 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: 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: 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: 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. Column Number: 42 Nick Ainger: 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: 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. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Column Number: 43 Clause 9 Functions of the Committee Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Bill Wiggin: This is a funny old amendment, because it has not actually been tabled. The Chairman: Order. No amendment has been selected. This is the stand part debate. Bill Wiggin: 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
Nick Ainger: 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. It being One o’clock, The Chairman adjourned the Committee without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order. Adjourned till this day at half-past Four o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 30 June 2005 |