Transport (Wales) Bill |
|
Nick Ainger: I shall respond again. I am assured that every Bill includes such a clause. Lembit Öpik: Apart from private Member’s Bills. Nick Ainger: That may be so, but every Government Bill certainly includes such a clause. Column Number: 56 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: 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: 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: 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 (Ogmore) (Lab): 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
Bill Wiggin: 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: 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: 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 (Cardiff, West) (Lab): That was a shocking comment. Bill Wiggin: 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: 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? Column Number: 58 The Chairman: 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: 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. The Chairman: 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. Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:— The Committee divided: Ayes 11, Noes 2. [Division No. 2] AYES Ainger, NickBrennan, Kevin Griffith, Nia Irranca-Davies, Huw James, Mrs. Siân C. Jones, Mr. Martyn Öpik, Lembit Ruane, Chris Williams, Mrs. Betty Williams, Hywel Williams, Mark
NOES Davies, David T.C.(Monmouth) Wiggin, Bill Question accordingly agreed to. Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 5.15 pmLembit Öpik: On a point of order, Miss Begg: does that even qualify as a moral victory? The Chairman: That is not a point of order for the Chair. I will leave it to individual Members to decide. Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill to the House. The Chairman: 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: 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
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: 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
Lembit Öpik: 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 (Caernarfon) (PC): 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. Question put and agreed to. Bill to be reported without amendment. Committee rose at twenty-two minutes past Five o’clock. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 30 June 2005 |