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.’

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’.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.