Question proposed, [this day], That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Question again proposed.

As I was saying before our break, the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) was concerned about the independence of the public transport users committee for Wales. I was giving the example of the London transport users committee, which is funded by the London assembly, but which does not appear to have had the problems with its independence that the hon. Gentleman envisages for the Welsh transport users committee.

All that I can say is that the Welsh Assembly has no intention of usurping the committee’s independence. Why would it, anyway? The committee is a forum for users to express their concerns about, or support for, issues such as the strategy or parts of the new rail franchising arrangements. It would be in the Assembly’s interests to have a clear voice openly setting out transport users’ concerns. Experience shows that the London committee is effective and represents the views of public transport passengers, and I see no reason why that should not happen in Wales.

The hon. Gentleman also raised the issue of passengers who are resident in England but who use services in Wales. If they have a concern, or they refer a concern to a representative body in England, they or that body could make direct representations to the transport users committee for Wales, to the Assembly or to the relevant Committee of the Assembly. There are therefore channels by which a resident in England can make representations about their concerns. They can do that directly to the users committee, to the Minister with responsibility for the issue or to the Committee that scrutinises that Minister’s Department.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured by my comments and that we can now move on to clause 10.

I am grateful to the Minister, who is being helpful. His answer was deeply constructive and helpful, but I am dying to ask him one   question: if someone took a bus from London to Cardiff, which transport users group would they complain to if they were unhappy?

If the problem occurred at Reading, they would clearly complain to the English body that represented passengers; if it happened in Newport, they would complain to the Welsh body. It might, however, be an ongoing problem relating purely to the train. Yet again, there might be no chef on the First Great Western train to provide hot food for the first-class passengers. Those who get on the train at Port Talbot or Swansea will suffer throughout the length of the journey to London, so perhaps they should complain to both bodies at the same time.

I am grateful to the Minister, who is beginning to see not only the humorous side, but the difficulties that arise when people are unhappy. I am also grateful to him for making it clear that where someone’s complaint arises matters more than where they live. That has a bearing on the issue, because one of my questions, which he touched on, was which user group an English person travelling through Wales would complain to.

However, perhaps the prescriptive nature of line 3 of subsection 1 is unnecessary. I suspected that the Assembly had the ability to confer or remove functions, and I was not sure why that was repeated. However, it is clear that, to that extent, the body will be in hock to the Assembly, so there is no point in pursuing the matter further.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.