COMMISSION ON THE POWERS AND ELECTORAL ARRANGEMENTS OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES

MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS

of the

EVIDENCE OF:

CHAIR OF THE ENVIRONMENT, PLANNING & TRANSPORT COMMITTEE OF THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES,

RICHARD EDWARDS

held at

National Museum & Gallery, Cardiff

on

5^th December 2002

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much for coming. We are much obliged. I wonder if you could introduce yourself and your colleagues for the record.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you very much for the opportunity to give evidence to you today.

I am Richard Edwards, Assembly Member, and I chair the Assembly’s Environment, Planning and Transport Committee. I am accompanied by Siwan Davies, who is the Clerk to the Committee, and by Mr Keith Bush, who has acted as legal adviser to the Committee, particularly in the course of the Nantygwyddon investigation by the Committee.

LORD RICHARD: What we have asked people to do is in effect speak for five to ten minutes and open the subject up and then answer questions.

RICHARD EDWARDS: That is fine. Thank you for the opportunity to give evidence. The Commission will have seen already my written submission and really the first point that I would like to emphasise is that although the subject committees in the Assembly have the same formal structure - we all have a policy development role and a scrutiny role, we all have members of the executive sitting as fully fledged members of the Committee but, of course, we do not have executive powers as such - all the subject committees are different and I think what defines their mode of operation and the influence that they are able to bring to bear on the executive is the relationship and the internal dynamic between the chair of the Committee, the Minister in the Committee and the members of the Committee.

Our Committee has developed a method of working constructively with the Minister rather than adopting an adversarial approach. Actually that approach has persisted despite quite a turnover in Committee membership. Only three of the current members of the Committee, that includes the Minister and myself, were actually members of the Committee when it was set up in April 2000. At some stage or another I think over a third of the Assembly have sat on the Environment, Planning and Transport Committee. I think this constructive engagement with the Minister has enabled the Committee to influence the Welsh Assembly Government= s agenda.

I draw attention to perhaps the two most important areas of work for the Committee which have been the policy review of public transport and the Nantygwyddon investigation.

The transport policy review considered steps needed to facilitate improved and integrated public transport services in Wales and whether the depth and breadth of the Assembly= s powers over public transport were a barrier to doing so. It concluded that whilst some improvements could be delivered within the existing settlement, longer term statutory and organisational changes were required. It highlighted a gap in the Assembly= s powers over transport, both in relation to Whitehall and local government.

Perhaps if I can refer you to paragraph seven of the written submission and quote from it. The review identified a A ... lack of specific power to require local authorities to plan and deliver joined-up (regional) public transport services...@

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: For once that piece of current jargon could mean something. You have enlightened us on that. The Government uses it as A love all@ . I am sorry I interrupted.

RICHARD EDWARDS: That is fine.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: I am delighted.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Okay. Thank you very much. A ... lack of regulatory powers affecting bus and rail services; lack of statutory control over the Traffic Commissioner; and no specific provisions in respect of rail services.@

As for the independent investigation into the Nantygwyddon landfill site, that followed concerns expressed by local residents about the effect of the site on their health and the environment. It set a precedent for the work of the subject committees. It adopted the novel procedure of using an independent investigator to undertake detailed investigation and make recommendations to the Committee. The Committee invited interested parties to appear before it and comment directly on the investigator= s recommendations. The Committee then reported in turn to the Assembly and its recommendations were endorsed in full by the Assembly in plenary session.

It highlighted issues associated with the power of committees and also the roles of the Minister and members of the committee. Again, if I can perhaps refer you to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the written submission and quote again from it. Paragraph 12, first: A Public inquiries can summon witnesses and require the production of documents. Committees themselves can only do so ... in relation to the staff of certain public bodies.@ As far as Nantygwyddon is concerned, that is related to the Environment Agency and the health authority and obviously the officials of the Assembly itself. The Committee was to some extent hampered by its inability to obtain information about the affairs of the waste disposal company which had at one time operated the tip. I feel that Consideration should be given to whether the Assembly= s power to require the attendance before committees of witnesses and the production of documents should extend to all individuals or bodies who have information relevant to the Assembly= s functions.

In terms of the role of the Minister, I think there was a potential anomaly here arising out of the legal character of the Assembly as a single corporate body. It emerged that the results of the Committee= s investigation were being cited as evidence in support of complaints being investigated by the European Commission against the UK for alleged failure to implement effectively the Waste Framework Directive. The Assembly (Welsh Assembly Government) is the channel through which the UK Government gathers information to defend itself against such complaints. The Minister found herself in the position of being required to assist the UK Government in relation to a matter where the Committee, of which she is a member, has itself carried out an investigation.

On the question of the roles of members themselves, in my own personal view, and this is a personal view, I think it is anomalous that a member of the Committee, and in this case a member of the investigation, was a member of the local authority also which was one of the bodies under investigation. I know that members of other legislatures in the UK can be members of local authorities also. What I would say - again in my own personal view - about Wales is that it is a very small country. I think relationships are quite close and relationships between committees of government are quite close. I think there is scope for possible conflict of interest and a public perception of impropriety. Now I hasten to add that the member in question behaved perfectly in accord with legal requirements and standing orders and in practice I do not think really there was a problem but in theory in my own view there is a problem and certainly it made me feel uncomfortable.

I think I should mention, also, perhaps to end with, the Planning Decision Committee which is a curious hybrid between the executive and legislative parts of the Assembly. Decisions relating to called-in planning applications and recovered appeals under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and applications for orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992 are taken by full committee members and not by an individual minister, which is what happens in England and Scotland, of course. The aim is to be transparent and to have transparent evidence based decisions. I would say the approach has been successful in that there has been no successful legal challenge to any decision of a Planning Decision Committee. They are cross-party bodies but the experience has been that consensus has almost always been achieved and on the few occasions when there have been differences of opinion then these have cut across party boundaries usually.

Again, my written submission highlights issues relating to joint decision making with Whitehall. Can I just refer you to paragraphs 18 and 19. A ... there is in the pipeline one called-in application which will involve a joint decision with the Department of Trade and Industry@ . Now of course there may not be a difference of view between Whitehall and the Assembly, the planning decision committee, but should there be a difference of view it is unclear what would happen in that event.

Paragraph 19 A Where a Transport and Works Act Order affects both England and Wales, the decision whether to make it is that of the Secretary of State, but the consent of the Assembly is required.@ The situation did arise recently with the Wye Navigation Order 2002. Actually the Assembly voted unanimously to give the necessary consent having been provided with the reasons of the Secretary of State for wanting to make the order. Clearly again the potential for a different view being taken by the Assembly to that of the Secretary of State is there and again it is open to question what would happen in that event. As I say this has not happened often at all but I am just signposting a potential problem.

I think perhaps I should stop there. I have given you some overview of some of the main areas of interest in the Committee= s remit. Thank you.

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much indeed. Do you think the Assembly is big enough?

RICHARD EDWARDS: My own view, again this is a personal view, I am not speaking on behalf of the Committee but I think I am speaking perhaps from my experience as Chair of the Committee in part anyway, is I think the Assembly is too small. I think there should be more members. I think there is a problem. I know that in the written submission from the Panel of Chairs the point was made that the pressure on time and the difficulty of timetabling does, you could argue, encourage more focus on the part of subject committees to prioritise. To some extent that is true but I think on the other hand it is very difficult for members to achieve their maximum potential in terms of knowledge and expertise of subject matter when they are members of several committees and the pressure of time means they cannot research as thoroughly as they might be able to do otherwise. I think this is reflected perhaps in the scrutiny function of the committee. I think there is plenty of breadth in terms of scrutiny but perhaps depth when it comes to subject matter is questionable. I do feel that if there were more Assembly Members then it would be easier for members of subject committees to acquire greater in-depth knowledge of the subject matter.

The other point I would make, perhaps, in relation to this question is there has been quite a high turnover of committee members - I think the point is made in the submission - which militates against a collective memory. Again, I think that does undermine the effectiveness of the Committee both in terms of policy development and in terms of scrutiny in terms of in-depth knowledge of the subject matter.

TOM JONES: On that point, none of the committee members apart from yourself and the Minister have been there ---

RICHARD EDWARDS: And one other.

TOM JONES: --- longer than two years, yet out of that Committee is formed the final arbiter to planning inquiries, etc. In terms of the depth of experience the Committee members may have less experience than the Minister would have perhaps. Is this a good or bad thing? Is that a final decision or does the Minister receive your recommendations as a Committee?

RICHARD EDWARDS: No.

TOM JONES: The accountability is to the Committee in that sense.

RICHARD EDWARDS: The final decision is that of the Planning Decision Committee which tends to be chaired either by myself or by the Minister. Of course it will depend on what part of the country the appeal relates to. Clearly if it happened in my constituency or a neighbouring constituency then obviously I would have an interest, or potential interest, and would not be part of the Decision Committee. The same would apply to the Minister. I do not know what the breakdown is but I would chair most of the Planning Decision Committees and if I do not generally it is the Minister who does so.

I think every member of the Planning Decision Committee is required to take some basic training. I think it is a fair point that you make. In this case the Minister is a professional planner so she would anyway have perhaps more detailed knowledge of the subject than your ordinary run of the mill politician.

TOM JONES: The point I want to make is that here is an example of where the Committee has power, we have talked about scrutiny powers of the Committee and we have talked with other Chairs about the ability of the Committee to influence policy decision making, here is a decision making role of the Committee which is far reaching.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes, indeed, but again I think the point is made in the submission that the Committee is advised by officials.

TOM JONES: By the Assembly Government= s officials?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes, by the Assembly Government officials, yes.

TOM JONES: In the case of Mr Bush here, he is your Committee= s adviser?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Mr Bush did advise the Committee on the Nantygwyddon investigation. I do not know, Mr Bush, if you want to clarify your position, perhaps you had better.

KEITH BUSH: I think the formal position is that the Office of the Counsel General provides advice not only to the Assembly Government but also, where needed, to the legislative and scrutiny side of the Assembly. Obviously great care is needed to avoid situations where a conflict of interest can arise. In relation to Planning Decision Committees no conflict of interest arises because that executive function has been totally delegated to those Committees.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Is the Planning Decision Committee formed from your own Committee?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: How do you avoid conflict of interest there where as part of a ten member Committee a member might have participated in a strategic discussion about environmental considerations in Wales which are at the heart of an individual planning appeal when that comes before them? They may have expressed an opinion already in Committee about the general policy of such matters.

RICHARD EDWARDS: I am not aware such a situation has arisen. Keith?

KEITH BUSH: The guidance which is given to members is that first of all if there is any specific conflict of interest they are disqualified from being a member. When it comes to the kind of issue you are referring to, where it is a politically controversial topic where a member, perfectly naturally, may have expressed a view in policy terms, then the guidance adopts a rather lighter touch and suggests that really it is a matter for the conscience of individual members. If they feel so wedded to a particular attitude to a particular kind of development, for example, that they feel they would not be able to look at the matter objectively then they are advised they should not participate in the decision.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Yes. I am going to risk Lord Richard= s wrath here - and pain of death not to mention wind farms - if the Committee had produced a report on sustainable energy, how could the public then believe that as a member of a Planning Decision Committee somebody would be unencumbered to hear the individual appeal case?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I think that is a very good question. I do not think I can answer that. All I can say, on the basis of experience so far, is obviously such a situation has not arisen.

LORD RICHARD: It has not been challenged?

RICHARD EDWARDS: It has not been challenged.

LORD RICHARD: It has not been challenged in the courts?

RICHARD EDWARDS: No. There has not been any legal challenge. There was one attempt to challenge but the applicant withdrew before it came to court. Sorry, I think there was one attempted challenge but the applicant in question dropped the challenge before it went to court.

Can I say again perhaps about the membership of the Planning Decision Committee. It does draw its members from the Planning Committee although of course, as I pointed out earlier, about a third of the members of the Assembly have undergone the basic training. I do feel myself that it is quite a burden, frankly, on the Planning Committee that only members of the Planning Committee can sit on Planning Decision Committees. There is a rota and four members from cross-party will sit on it. I would say especially there is a pressure on the smaller parties who find themselves often in the position where they would need to sit on practically every Planning Decision Committee. I do feel - this is my personal view again - that the membership needs to be drawn from a wider network in the Assembly.

PAUL VALERIO: Can you explain why it is there is such a high turnover of Committee members? The preceding witnesses have been supported in their committees by two or three original members. Is this common throughout the whole of the Assembly? What is the underlying reason why there is such a high turnover?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I think it is a common feature of all. Far be it for me to speak for all the other subject committees but I think it is a common feature. It has been a particular feature of this Committee. I can only say really it is a matter for the party political groups. For instance, was it in March, April, May of this year that the Plaid Cymru group on the Committee, of where there were three members, were all substituted en bloc by three others. As I say, that is a matter for the party political group, it is a choice for them but it has an unfortunate effect on the Committee because obviously three people who had sat on the Committee for about a year and acquired a certain level of expertise and knowledge were removed and new people had to build up that base of knowledge and did not share the collective memory of the Committee stemming back to its inauguration. It undermines continuity and, I would suggest, effectiveness certainly.

PETER PRICE: What is the role of the Deputy Minister in the Committee and generally, taking your field but also compared with other Deputy Ministers?

RICHARD EDWARDS: The Deputy Minister has no real role in the Committee and the Deputy Minister is not a member of the Committee and does not attend Committee meetings. So, quite frankly, I think that is all I can say on the matter. It is a matter for the Minister and the Government.

PETER PRICE: Whether he was a member of the Committee would depend on a particular circumstance? There is no policy running through all the committees?

RICHARD EDWARDS: No.

PETER PRICE: On the Health Committees he is the Deputy Minister, on your Committee, is he not?

RICHARD EDWARDS: No. It is for the party political groups and the Government. Obviously Deputy Ministers do sit on some committees which cover the portfolio that they are responsible for, if that is the right word, because I have to say - and again I am speaking personally and not towing any sort of party line - I am quite confused, really, about what the Deputy Minister does or does not do. I have to say, frankly, in practice it is very much open to the Minister what the Deputy Minister does and does not do. The Minister will choose in practice. Deputy Ministers do not have any locus in the Act.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Do they get paid additionally?

RICHARD EDWARDS: No, they do not.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Do they have infrastructure and private secretaries and so on?

RICHARD EDWARDS: No, they do not. No, they do not get any sort of financial support.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: A bit like a PPS?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I suppose, yes. I do not know if that is an exact parallel but probably that is the best I would be able to think of, yes.

LAURA McALLISTER: Can you elaborate a little bit about your scrutiny role in relation to the ASPBs particularly? You mentioned the Environment Agency in your paper and obviously that is a difficult one in respect that it is an England and Wales body.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes.

LAURA McALLISTER: We heard from one of the other subject chairs that her Committee did not place the scrutiny of the ASPBs necessarily as a priority.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Did not necessarily?

TOM JONES: Before you answer, can I declare an interest as a member of CCW.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Right, okay. I will be very careful about what I say about the CCW.

TOM JONES: On the contrary.

LAURA McALLISTER: Can you say to what extent it has been a priority for the Committee and, secondly, how you have gone about scrutinising and how effective you think that scrutiny has been?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I think scrutiny of the ASPBs has been a top priority for the Committee. I would say there is a sharp contrast between the method of scrutiny of, say, the Minister and the method of scrutiny adopted for ASPBs which has tended to be more in a sort of select committee style of scrutiny perhaps, more adversarial.

The Committee holds an annual session with the CCW, the Environment Agency and the National Parks where they are scrutinised on all aspects of their functions. Again, I think I would make the point that in terms of the result of the scrutiny we have been quite good at identifying the need for review of functions of the various agencies, for instance to what extent they seem to overlap the need for a more streamlined and more coherent approach but perhaps not so good at the subject based scrutiny of bodies. This relates in part to turnover and the pressure on members of the Committee. Most of them are members of other subject committees as well as standing committees and there are all the other commitments which Assembly Members have.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Talking about the difficulty you have around obtaining evidence and the power to summon witnesses which you referred to in the document. Obviously it was a matter of concern that someone was claiming something was commercially confidential which was why the information could not be supplied. How big an issue is this generally?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I raised that particular question in the context of an adequate ongoing investigation. Quite frankly it is only in the context of that investigation that it has been a problem.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: It is mentioned in the evidence we have from the Panel of Chairs as a general principle.

RICHARD EDWARDS: I believe that in the Local Government and Housing Committee in particular there was a problem about the leader of a local authority refusing to attend and give evidence. I am aware of that but I do not think I am aware - off the top of my head anyway - of any other instances.

TED ROWLANDS: May I pursue Laura= s point. It is interesting. You do consider it as a priority to scrutinise these bodies. Ministers have come to us and said A No, we have these bodies much more accountable to us because we issue much more detailed remit letters specifying what we expect of them than ever before pre-devolution@ . As a Committee do you see in either draft form or at any stage the ministerial remit letters to each of these three bodies you mentioned?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I am not aware.

TED ROWLANDS: The remit letters - which I have to say I think I am right in saying the Ministers have laid quite heavy store by them saying to us A this is the way we have made quangos more accountable@ - they are not shared with you?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I am not aware of these remit letters, certainly not in so far as they apply to the ASPBs which come within our remit. I have to say that is news to me.

PETER PRICE: The bodies which come within your remit generally - I suppose some of them are funded by the Assembly and some are not such as the Environment Agency - maybe the remit letter might not apply to a body such as the Environment Agency whereas it would apply to a body that was funded by the Assembly?

RICHARD EDWARDS: There is an issue I suppose about the Environment Agency in the sense that it is an England body and a Wales body and it is jointly funded by Whitehall and by Cardiff. I think there is some concern within the Committee about the accountability of the Environment Agency. I have to say in practice there have not been any problems in terms of the attendance of representatives from the Environment Agency in the Committee. Usually what tends to happen is the Director in Wales is seen to be responsible or accountable to the Committee and the Minister for the Environment Agency in Wales, although the Chief Executive did attend the meeting when we discussed the FMPR - which is Financial Management and Policy Review - of the Environment Agency. It is important and I think I am expressing the general view of the Committee that the Environment Agency is not seen as an England and Wales body but an England body and a Wales body which is jointly accountable and the Chief Executive of which is jointly accountable to the Secretary of State in Whitehall and to the Assembly Minister in Cardiff.

LORD RICHARD: Could I come back to scrutiny administered by your Committee. The Minister is a member of the Committee?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes.

LORD RICHARD: To anybody looking at it from outside it looks a bit too cosy to be effective as a body scrutinising its own membership.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes.

LORD RICHARD: It may help in policy formation but does it inhibit as far as scrutiny is concerned?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I suppose it depends on your definition of scrutiny, I guess. If by scrutiny you mean the adversarial select committee style of scrutiny?

LORD RICHARD: It does not have to be aggressive, it has to probe.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Sure. Yes, you could say that it is cosy but I have to say that the scrutiny is ongoing. The Minister attends every meeting of the Committee. She has to give regular reports at least once a month. It has been once a fortnight in past years.

LORD RICHARD: Once a month is a session of the Committee?

RICHARD EDWARDS: No, the Committee meets once a fortnight.

LORD RICHARD: What happens once a month?

RICHARD EDWARDS: The Minister gives a report to the Committee.

LORD RICHARD: Once a month?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Once a month, yes. There is usually an hour= s scrutiny of that report.

LORD RICHARD: She goes through the report?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes. It is a written report. Usually she introduces it very briefly and there is an hour of questions related to the report and sometimes issues outside of the report.

LORD RICHARD: Can you call for background papers?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes. Any information which we have requested from the Minister has always been supplied.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: The fact that this goes on continuously presumably leads to greater input from the Committee than if you just occasionally produce a report.

RICHARD EDWARDS: This is the point I am trying to make, yes. It might from the outside seem like a bit of a cosy relationship but the reality is that the Minister has no place to hide. She is there, she is a member of the Committee, she is a fixture and she is subject to questioning all the time. She gives updates on policy development, issues that the Committee itself has inputted into all the time or periodically. There is no real place for her to hide so I would suggest that this ongoing scrutiny is reasonably effective.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: We have been told in some committees the relationships between the Committee, the Committee Chairman and the Minister have been more effective and produced better results than in other committees. Presumably the real responsibility for that would lie with the Committee if they want to be over cosy and just say A anything you say, Minister@ . That is their prerogative. If you want to make it work you can make it work.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Put it like this, there are no institutional barriers to scrutiny, it is very much a case of what you make of it.

TED ROWLANDS: There are institutional barriers. We went through it with the Minister. I ran into some difficulty on it. In your paragraph seven you have listed these cross border organisations: the Strategic Rail Authority, Railtrack, the Traffic Commissioner and the regulatory powers over buses. This is paragraph seven where you identify them.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes.

TED ROWLANDS: Could we explore how much of a problem these have been to you to creating an integrated view about transport. For example, the lack of something called the Traffic Commissioner, what has that meant in practical policy making terms?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Can I say, that was a recommendation that the Committee made in its review of public transport.

TED ROWLANDS: I understand.

RICHARD EDWARDS: On the basis of evidence which was put before it by any number of bodies acting as witnesses. The Minister has accepted the recommendation and is pursuing the matter.

TED ROWLANDS: I understand. I am just trying to find out what would you like to do, if you had some statutory control, what is it that has stopped you at the moment because you have not got a statutory control over the Traffic Commissioner, what aspect of the policy that you were involved in was impeded by the lack of such control?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I do not think it is a question of being involved in any policy, as I say this was a review and this was a recommendation which emerged from the review.

TED ROWLANDS: It is conceptual?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes, it is conceptual.

LORD RICHARD: It is the Assembly, not the Committee.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Can I say, the Committee itself does not discharge any executive function so it would be a matter for the Minister.

TED ROWLANDS: You say A The Committee identified significant barriers to the Assembly= s ability to develop integrated public transport policy...@ and among those barriers was a A ... lack of statutory control over the Traffic Commissioner@ . All I was trying to discover was what of the policy aspect was the lack of regulatory control impeding?

VIVIENNE SUGAR: On the same point, in paragraph 32 of the evidence on the committees generally it says A A further issue highlighted in both the Committee= s public transport review and the Nantygwyddon investigation was the relationship between the Assembly and local government. With regard to the nature of the Assembly= s relationship with local government, it is not clear what mechanisms are available to committees to ensure implementation of recommendations relating to local authorities. Again, I would be happy to develop this point at the oral session@ . I think what we are trying to get at is what is the precise mechanism you would want to have?

LORD RICHARD: Ted is trying to get at the lack of regulatory control.

TED ROWLANDS: What is the regulatory policy that is being impeded by the lack of statutory control?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Basically what respondents to the review wanted to see was an office in Cardiff, I suppose an office of the Traffic Commissioner in Cardiff so I suppose the Commissioner would be closer to the concerns and needs of Wales.

I think it is fair to say, as you have suggested, that it is a conceptual concern that the review had about the fact that the Traffic Commissioner does not have a presence in Wales and if he or she did have a presence in Wales then clearly there ought to be some accountability directly to the Assembly which would in effect mean the Minister for Transport in the Assembly.

TED ROWLANDS: What about the regulatory controls on rail and bus services? Was there a practical policy implication that was being impeded by the lack of such powers or are those conceptual?

RICHARD EDWARDS: The Assembly has no powers over the rail service. Clearly if the Assembly had some power of direction then the Minister would be able to influence funding and standards of rail services in Wales. At the moment on the board of the SRA there is a representative for Wales, who is appointed by the Secretary of State. The Minister and the Committee too, I should say, have developed relations with the SRA. In fact we had representatives from the SRA in attendance in the meeting we held yesterday morning in the Assembly but this is grace and favour.

The Assembly is looking for a power of direction similar to the power of direction that the Scottish Parliament has over the rail industry.

TED ROWLANDS: For example, the Committee, in conjunction with the Minister, would like to be able to take the view about the franchise and what should be in that franchise, etc.?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Just to elaborate. What happened yesterday was that the Strategic Rail Authority were there to give an update on the franchise process.

TED ROWLANDS: Right.

RICHARD EDWARDS: And give some indication of the way that they are evaluating the different bids. Basically I suppose the Committee was seeking to influence the criteria on which they would make the bid but obviously not discuss the nature of those individual bids in any comparative sense. The Committee would want to see the Assembly have a direct say in this matter.

As I say, the SRA were there yesterday by grace and favour. I do not complain about that and, as I say, we have developed a reasonable working relationship with them.

TED ROWLANDS: As far as you know, they would take into account the priorities you were enunciating to them?

RICHARD EDWARDS: They are not bound to, they can listen to us and they did so in a very reasonable way and I suppose it was useful. How meaningful it was at the end of the day in terms of what will happen when the franchise is awarded is another matter because, as I say, neither the Minister nor the Committee has any direct say in the matter, only indirect.

TED ROWLANDS: If the Minister had the power of direction, do you feel there would have been a sharper set of exchanges?

RICHARD EDWARDS: One would have expected so, yes.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Rather than formal powers is it not money? Joint accountability is a very difficult thing to make work and in my experience generally the person who pays the majority of the piper - if one can call it such a thing - calls the tune.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: That is what worries me about joint accountability. It is a prescription for the lack of real responsibility because people can say A Oh, well, the other side said such and such@ . It is a very difficult thing to make it work. Between the two Houses of Parliament there are lots of things with joint responsibility and very often the Commons may be running them. Some things the Lords think are sufficiently important that they pay more than their whack so effectively they can make the police, or whatever it is, security really responsible. If you do not do that it is very difficult to make it work, at least that is my hunch.

RICHARD EDWARDS: We are coming from the point of wanting to see some democratic accountability that we have control or power or whatever over service delivery with regard to rail in Wales. At the moment we have no control whatsoever in effect but we are perceived by the general electorate to have that responsibility. Certainly that is my experience as an Assembly Member from my postbag, e-mails, surgeries or what have you. I represent a part of Pembrokeshire which is not very well served by public transport at all, as you might expect. Clearly as far as ordinary people are concerned the buck stops with the Assembly.

TOM JONES: Can I ask a question about this member who is appointed by the Secretary of State on to the Strategic Rail Authority, for example. Do you have an input into it? Does the Minister have an input into the appointment of that person by the Secretary of State? Is it independent?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I think the Minister was consulted. I think the Minister was consulted by the Secretary of State.

TOM JONES: Then, in terms of accountability, you mentioned the words A grace and favour@ , the Chair and the Chief Executive of that Authority would have some wish to be not answerable, that would not be the right definition, but what about the member from Wales, does that person have linkage with you?

RICHARD EDWARDS: What I would say is the Minister was consulted but as you know consultation covers a multitude of sins and you make of it what you will. I would say that person - whose name I forget - she has attended one meeting of the Committee but there is no direct accountability to the Minister let alone the Committee.

TED ROWLANDS: You were seeking joint responsibility?

TOM JONES: Would you wish that person to have some accountability to you?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes. I think the Minister should be responsible for nominating that person on behalf of Wales.

TED ROWLANDS: Is it saying the Secretary of State for Transport and the Assembly Minister are jointly responsible for the SRA and therefore the Minister and then the Committee can make him or her accountable for the actions of the SRA in the context of the Welsh rail services, is that what you are recommending?

SIWAN DAVIES: It is a recommendation for direction over the SRA for services which are Welsh and to be able to be consulted on those which are cross border. It is the same power as in Scotland.

TED ROWLANDS: You are seeking identical power to that in Scotland?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: Could I ask you to clarify paragraph 32?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes, okay, certainly. This is really, again, I suppose in relation to the transport review and the fact that the Assembly cannot require local authorities to act in a regional capacity. They do so on a voluntary basis, as you would know, but the Assembly does not have the power to require them to do so. Also I suppose - and again I need to be careful that I am expressing a personal view here - from my perspective as Chairman, I am a bit unclear about the line of accountability between the Assembly and local authorities. Obviously the Assembly awards local government revenue settlements. It has strategic responsibility for the services that local government delivers. It looks clearly to local government to further its objectives, to enact its objectives and obviously local authorities do have a certain autonomy, they are elected bodies. I think there is potentially - how can I say - a problem for the Assembly of having any sort of guarantee that local authorities can deliver on its objectives given the fact that the Assembly does not have any primary legislative powers.

In theory, of course, the Assembly could hypothecate funding. The Welsh Assembly Government chooses not to do that, that is not the policy. There is huge resistance from the Welsh Local Government Association to hypothecation.

In the context of transport there is a concern - I speak certainly for the majority of the Committee here - that we want to see these improvements in public transport, we are urging the Minister to give more money but where is the guarantee at the end of the day that the money will be spent on the improvements that we want to make. I am not saying it will not happen but I think there is no cast iron mechanism for ensuring it will. This raises quite a lot of constitutional issues and the whole relationship between the Assembly and local government is one of declared partnership. Partnership implies equal parties and clearly if one is seen to be too prescriptive then you could argue it ceases to be a partnership.

As I say these are my personal views largely, although certainly there is a concern in the Committee about hypothecation I think. I think the feeling would be that unless the money is ring fenced then transport will be squeezed by other budget lines which might be seen to be more pressing.

VIVIENNE SUGAR: I understand the Committee= s sense of frustration. You have done all this work, you have come out with the ideas now you need to make sure it happens. I guess we need to ask Sue Essex to come back to say A What are you doing about this@ . I guess we need to gauge how much of an issue this is in terms of our report as a Commission and how significant is it that you feel the Assembly should have powers to direct local authorities.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Again I have to say I am speaking on behalf of myself, I need to make that quite clear. I think it is quite interesting really in the whole debate about the powers of the Assembly that the focus has been very much on the relationship between Whitehall and Westminster and the Assembly. That has very much overshadowed the relationship between the Assembly and local government. I think - and again this is my own personal perception - certainly there was widespread hostility to the creation of the Assembly in local government. I think in the Assembly itself there is a feeling that we have - and I do not dispute that this should be the case - to be conscious of that hostility and we must do our best to accommodate it.

Clearly the main reason for the hostility was local authorities felt their own powers, their own scope for autonomy would be compromised and undermined by the Assembly. I feel that the Assembly in its initial stages - it is just finding its feet now - was extremely accommodating to local government. This is my personal view, I do not pretend it is in any way representative of my own party. I have my own views on these matters. I think it is a problem. I think it is a problem which I perceive from the point of view of the Committee on some of the subject matter that we deal with.

Also, just speaking as an individual Assembly Member representing the area I do, in the local authority that my constituency is located in, it is a problem that I think if people perceive there is something wrong in local government they think the Assembly can sort it out and the reality is either the Assembly cannot or will not.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Is not one underlying problem the lack of tax raising or tax varying powers by the Assembly? The parish council can raise two pence on rates, you cannot, you can reallocate the money you have been given but you cannot raise more money and be responsible and be seen to be responsible. If you want a better railway service, right, the people in Pembrokeshire will have to pay an extra two pence.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Even though we cannot raise any taxation, any revenue, we just allocate it, there is a problem which I have mentioned already, there is no guarantee the money we allocate for various services will be spent. There is no guarantee, I am not saying it will necessarily be the case that would happen. Yes, of course it goes without saying that if we had tax raising powers then clearly it would be much easier but then that raises other issues about whether people would want the Assembly to have tax raising powers.

LORD RICHARD: You contemplate using tax raising powers?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Certainly I believe personally that the Assembly should have primary legislative powers and I think then frankly, being realistic, it befalls that the Assembly should have tax raising powers. I think being frank it would be very difficult to sell that to the electorate, especially when Wales is generally perceived to be - with some variations - a poor country.

PETER PRICE: Can I pursue the primary legislation point you have just come back to. In the Cabinet= s proposals for primary legislation in this legislative year there are two which seem to fall under your Committee= s remit: the Commonland of Wales Bill and the Planning Bill.

TOM JONES: Commonland would be the Agriculture Committee.

PETER PRICE: The Agriculture Committee or your Committee. In any event for the one or two that fall within your remit, what would be the significance of it and where has it got to? If this is not something you are not up to speed on please say.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Apparently there is a third one. Mr Bush has just said there is a third one.

MR BUSH: There is a Landfill and Emissions Trading Bill which is within the remit of the Committee also.

PETER PRICE: What is the current state?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Can I mention the Planning Bill because I know the Planning Bill was published yesterday I believe, although I have not had an opportunity yet to have a look at it in any detail anyway. Actually the Planning Bill will be the first scrutiny of primary legislation by the Committee but I have to say the scrutiny will be extremely limited in the sense that the Bill has not been published in draft form so if there is any strong opposition to clauses in the Bill then it is a question of lobbying MPs to make amendments in the House of Commons Standing Committee.

Can I say that the Committee itself has consulted quite extensively on the proposals for reforming the planning system in Wales and obviously we hope to see the recommendations that we made reflected in the published Bill, that is basically the state of play. We did have quite a role really in the pre-legislative stage.

PETER PRICE: The pre-legislative stage?

RICHARD EDWARDS: From the Wales point of view in the sense that there was an input clearly from the Minister and Assembly officials into the drafting of the Bill because obviously it applies to Wales.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Also, presumably, from your Committee?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes. We discussed the proposals on several occasions.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Did you produce a report?

RICHARD EDWARDS: No, the Committee itself did not produce a report, no.

PETER PRICE: Is this a piggyback Bill where you are aiming now to have a whole slab of clauses relating to the planning system in Wales? How is the impact here? Is this original proposal for a Land Use Planning Bill a reference to something which is coming along for England and Wales or something where the Assembly itself wanted such a Bill in any event?

RICHARD EDWARDS: The Committee is not responsible in any way for initiating this. It does not have any executive functions, it is a matter for the Minister and it is a matter for the Minister I suppose really on the shape of the Assembly' s input into the drafting of the Bill.

PETER PRICE: Is this an example in any way of where ambitions have been frustrated by lack of primary powers? That is the bottom line of where I am going on this.

RICHARD EDWARDS: As I say, I have not seen the Bill yet so I am not in a position to comment on whether I am happy with the end result. Clearly the fact the Bill has not been published in draft does severely constrain the Committee in any sort of scrutiny role in terms of going through the clauses.

LORD RICHARD: Do you ever lobby London direct?

RICHARD EDWARDS: The Committee itself has not lobbied London directly other than through the Minister, of course, as a member of the Committee and we take the view, obviously, that is the most effective way of exerting influence in London, through the Minister.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: Would it not possibly be a good idea to say A Please another time have a draft Bill and maybe we can do it more directly@ ?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Absolutely.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: How would you say that or would you just say it through the Minister? After all, the Minister is the nature of a channel between the Committee, the Assembly and Whitehall.

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes.

SIR MICHAEL WHEELER BOOTH: In a sense, not being personal, I have no idea in your particular case, a channel has a power, it is like the usual channels in Westminster, they have considerable power because they are the intermediaries between the sides. Would there not be an advantage in the Committee itself saying rather loud and clear that they want draft legislation published in future?

RICHARD EDWARDS: Yes. I would agree with that but I would say, also, that in the circumstances we find ourselves in the most effective way of lobbying London is clearly through the Minister. I think, being realistic, if it was just a question of the Committee or members of the Committee lobbying we would be quite low down the pecking order in terms of exerting influence. That is only my own personal view.

TOM JONES: Does the same apply to the European Commission and Parliament? Would you not wish to have an input at an early stage into information and legislation on the environment?

RICHARD EDWARDS: I think it is one of the reasons why we try to emphasise really in terms of policy development on the pre-legislative phase because when it comes to subordinate legislation often, certainly, most of the statutory instruments relating to the Environment, Planning and Transport portfolio emanate from Europe, they are European Directives and we can do absolutely nothing about them frankly. In terms of prioritising time and in terms of making a judgement as to how you are likely to exert most influence, I think the consensus within the Committee, cross-party really, is that we focus more on discussing the principles of legislation and hoping we can influence it in that regard rather than spending time going through lines of subordinate legislation when the reality is we can do absolutely nothing to change it.

LORD RICHARD: Thank you very much indeed. It was very good of you to come. It has been very interesting. We have learnt a lot.

RICHARD EDWARDS: I hope so yes. Thank you very much indeed.