02/05/2014 The Week in Parliament

complete. That hasn't happened yet. People here are cautious. They do

not want to be taken for a ride. James Landale, BBC News. Now on BBC

News time for The Week in Parliament.

Hello and welcome to the Week in Parliament. HS2. The guard has blown

his whistle, but not everyone's on board. Is this the best way to spend

350 billion pounds worth of taxpayers money? MPs will examine

the minute details of the project, but is that really the best use of

an MP's time? This is a Victorian type procedure. I do not think

backbench MPs will be able to do the job properly because of their other

responsibilities. Also on the programme: We hear from the man

who's been deciding what new powers should go to the Welsh Government.

No need to book in advance quite yet. The first HS2 trains won't be

departing much before 2026. If it does happen, it'll only be after

plenty of arguments, disputes and protests. And MPs will be playing

their part in how the High Speed Rail Project develops, with a

special committee examining minutely every detail of the 350 billion

pound scheme. It's tough work, and two MPs will shortly give us the

benefit of their experience. But first, let's backtrack to Monday

when the Commons voted massively in favour of the London to West

Midlands phase of the project. The Transport Secretary took MPs back to

the time of the building of the original West Coast Main Line. It is

worth recalling that in 1832 Parliament rejected the initial Bill

because some people objected. They argued that the canals were all

you'd ever need for long`distance travel. Today we ask far too much of

this line. I stand at the dispatch box today to support HS2. A new

North`South railway line. I do so with much humility and not a little

trepidation, but also confidence, because while I understand the

concerns of those whose constituents are affected by the route, I also

know that this is a decision we cannot avoid. We have waited long

enough. Is it not the case that all major infrastructure projects are

rejected at the time they are created, but 50 years on people are

fully supportive of what took place? This proposal is deeply flawed, has

never been scrutinised properly, or planned properly. That is what we

worry about because so many of the independent inquiries find on the

negative, not the positive, about HS2. Managed properly HS2 has the

power to transform the economic geography of our country. It will

build our great cities and bring them closer together. It will

connect people. It will help rebalance the economy, creating new

skilled jobs and apprenticeships in every nation and region. Is this

really the top priority and the best way to spend 350 billion pounds of

taxpayers money? I have come to look at this project and I do not believe

this is the answer to the UK's transport issues. It sounds like we

are being short`sighted. It sounds like we are trying to compete with

the rest of Europe. Actually, there is not an awful lot wrong with our

rail network if we had invested properly. Next day came discussion

about the committee that'll carry out the job of studying all the

details of HS2. I am afraid the committee will be rather like a

referee in a football match or any other sport. Whatever the decision

they make, some people will be upset by it. We should give them as full

support as we can. Some expert advice from specialists. We were

there to give an independent judgement on the facts, and the

whole proceeding was conducted with barristers there arguing for and

against the case. Members of these committees were there to analyse and

listen to the arguments and then reach a decision on the facts of the

evidence that they had been given, on the grounds that they were taking

what they believed were the right interests and best interests of the

project. The job of the chair will be equally onerous for all members.

That was Simon Burns predicting tough times ahead for the committee.

You were on the committee that looked at the crossrail project.

What was life like inside that committee? It was a cross`party

committee. At the beginning we decided that we would all get on

well together and we drew up a roter to make sure we always have a

quorum. There was a high level of cooperation. But it was a marathon.

The fact that most of the MPs were independently minded meant that the

petitioners got a good hearing. We made recommendations to the

Government, to build stations where they have not been proposed, and the

governments delivered on those. It was a huge task. You had a slightly

shorter time on this committee. Does this process work well? It worked

well. Residents felt they had their hearing. Fundamental small changes

were made. My problem with this is that this is a Victorian type

procedure and we are now living in the 21st`century. Most MPs do not

see the role as having this level of scrutiny. They see themselves as

local champions on a range of constituency related issues. Because

HS2 is close to my constituency I would not be on that sort of

committee. The danger is that you have MPs who have no real interest

and you have to go through the motions. Give us a flavour of what

you actually do. What is the format? It is a quasi`legal process. We have

barristers there. We listen to what they have to say. We evaluate what

is being said and how the Government should respond. Someone might be

concerned because it will damage their property. They might be

concerned because they think there should be a railway station and a

certain place. `` in a certain place. We will hear the detailed

evidence and then make recommendations. It sounds effective

in the way you have described it. The danger is that articulate

middle`class people have more to say. The worry is that they have

their voice in a way that less well off people do not. Would you change

the process? I would. I do not think MPs should be the people listening

to the concerns because I do not think backbench MPs will be able to

do the job properly because of their other responsibilities. To do it

properly it is almost a full`time job. I was on three other select

committees at the time. I had a range of other matters that I was

working on. It was almost impossible to do the job properly. We should

keep the strengths of the system, but I am not convinced it is a good

idea. Someone has to do it, but the trouble is that MPs will not be able

to do it to the best of their ability because they have other

demands on their time. It would be better if we had a shorter full`time

process. Parliament could perhaps vote on that. Maybe MPs would see at

that point. The cumbersome way it is dealt with at the web is not

defensible in the 21st`century. Would it be a panel of legal people?

It could be. Or it could be politicians. We could have a debate.

It would have to be people that were willing to listen to the

petitioners. What do you think about that idea? I share some of those

concerns. We have a culture in our country which is that you have the

chance to have your say. I would not like to see a situation like in

China or even in France where a Government can go roughshod. The

worry is that with these infrastructure issues that there is

a lot of delay and at the end of the day you may not get the sort of

improvements that will keep everybody happy. The builders who

want the infrastructure projects think the process is too cumbersome.

Yes, but they do not want scrutiny. What we are saying is that we want

to scrutiny. We want to make sure that people get their objections

heard. I am not convinced this is the best way to do it. We need to

build on the strengths, not throw the baby out with the bath water,

but when you have MPs who already have responsibilities it is not the

right way to proceed. In 50 years' time will we look back and think

this is how infrastructure projects were dealt with? There will have to

be more people with expertise having their say. But ultimately we are

representatives of the public. It is important that MPs had their say.

What advice would you give to those who will be serving on the HS2

committee? I would advise them to get a rotor together. That is what

we did. It worked well. Forget about party politics. This is about

putting the people first. And make sure you have a big bottle of

whiskey. So there we are. We're not at the end of the High Speed debate,

not even the beginning of the end, but it is, perhaps, the end of the

beginning, to coin a phrase. Now, what else has been going on in

Parliament in the last week? Theresa May announced a new code of practice

for police using stop`and`search powers. MPs voiced their concerns

about who gets and stopped and why. Police officers are required to have

a reasonable level of suspicion before they use those powers but the

figures suggest in a large number of cases, it is nothing but the colour

of the skin of the person being stopped. In a large number of cases,

the reasonable grounds were not there and so one can only assume a

given that black people are six times more likely to be stopped and

searched than a white person, it is likely it is the fact they are a

black person that has led to that taking place. It is disgraceful.

Delivering for the taxpayer or failing to deliver? The

privatisation of the Royal Mail produces skirmishes at Prime

Minister's Questions amid claims of favourable treatment for certain

investors. Parliament's spending watchdog asked questions about the

investor's motives. How do you explain you thought they

were believers in the Royal Mail story and it was sold next day? As

the share price increased sharply, more sharply than I think they would

have anticipated it to increase, some of them held, some of them

bought and some of them sold. And those actions were based on their

own view in terms of where they saw value on a medium to longer`term

basis. Sounds to me as though they didn't

support the story but just filled their boots.

What could be more agreeable on a summer afternoon than a game of

bowls? The future of the gentle sport is under threat, said one MP.

The reassuring click, kissing wood, is gradually being replaced by the

unsettling clank of mechanical diggers that are ripping up greens

in every corner of Britain. Our greens continue to be trapped in

a vicious pincer movement. Council`owned greens are falling

victim to spending cuts. There is an ability to say this is an asset we

want to preserve in its current use and we want to have a bit of time in

order to raise money through a local appeal or whatever it is to be able

to acquire this asset. And time to reflect on a long

Westminster career ` the splendidly bearded Sir Robert Rogers announces

he is retiring as Clerk of the House of Commons after 42 years of serving

Parliament. The Speaker reads his resignation letter.

This House is the precious centre of our parliamentary democracy. With

all my heart, I wish it well. Yours sincerely, Robert Rogers. Not a dry

eye in the house. Hardly a day goes by without mention

of that Scottish independence referendum. What are the Welsh

getting up to? No serious independence moves there so far

anyway but the Wales Bill going through the Commons gives the first

tax raising powers to the Welsh government, one of many

recommendations of the Silk Commission into every aspect of

Welsh devolution. The man himself faced questions on Tuesday.

It is interesting to know how you would respond to people who have

expressed their weariness, really, with the time that people spent at

the time on process and structures and powers. You referred to it a bit

in the introduction. We were asked to do a job which was

essentially about process, not outcomes. We hope we have done that

job and we hope it will lead to a consensual approach and to a system

of governance in Wales, which will lead to the outcomes we all want for

the people of Wales. How long do you think, if your

recommendations are implemented, how long will the settlement be good

for? Is it permanently? A couple of years? Six months or a couple of

weeks, like it seemed to me happened last time around? How long before we

have you back for Silk Three, pleasure though it is?

You will never have me back for Silk Three! We do hope that what we

recommend, if it is implemented, will lead to stability for a

generation. A generation. 25 years. That has answered the question.

Paul Silk talking to the Commons Welsh Affairs Committee on Tuesday.

Joining us in The Week In Parliament is Paul Silk. Welcome to the

programme. Turnout in referenda on Welsh devolution, I think it was 50%

in 1997 and 35% three years ago. It doesn't suggest there is a huge

amount of interest in Welsh devolution. Is that fair? Anybody

who's interested in devolution would like to see more people taking part.

I think some of the questions that have been asked in referendums in

the past have been questions that people find difficult to understand,

so whether the Assembly should have lawmaking powers is a question some

people might think they don't really understand and don't feel qualified

to answer. There may be reasons why the turnout has been low.

A key part of Silk One, a key part is tax`raising powers. How important

is it for the National Assembly of Wales to have some tax`raising

powers? What we thought in our report and

what we recommended was if there is going to be accountability for the

National Assembly, and it is important they should have this

possibility for raising their own revenue. We decided the best way

would be to combine some block grant from the UK government with some

devolution of tax`raising powers. That is what is going through

Parliament at the moment. If we look at Silk Two, and I'm just looking at

one or two of the things you've recommended to be devolved ` speed

limits, sewage, rail franchising ` it seems a bit of a miscellaneous

bunch and limited in scope. We were really directed by the

evidence for what we received to look at the areas we looked out and

one of the things we found was an absence of clarity and lack of

coherence about the way the devolution settlement had been set

up for Wales and therefore we thought some of these areas which

might look pretty minor were anomalies that need to be rectified.

It is not really bold compared with the Scottish parliament in

Edinburgh. Well... It is very important for us not... Of course,

Scotland is another example of devolution within the United

Kingdom, as is Northern Ireland. We looked at what was going on in

Scotland and Northern Ireland and we used that as an example, a template,

for what we would recommend but what we wanted to recommend were things

that were appropriate for Wales and there are historical differences

between Scotland and Wales. Scotland has had a separate legal system and

has never not had a separate legal system. Far more people live within

a few miles of the border in the case of England and Wales than

England and Scotland, so there are differences we have to recognise in

part one and part two reports. Various things going on all around

the UK. There is a huge referendum in Scotland and recently more

recognition of Cornwall. What's your opinion of where all this is

leading? What do you think the UK will look like in 20 years' time?

A difficult bit of speculation to make. Obviously, what is going to

happen in September in Scotland is going to affect the nature of this

country and if Wales and England and Northern Ireland become a country

and Scotland is a separate country, then that has quite major

implications for Wales. One of the difficulties, I think, for us was

one of my colleagues on the commission talked about the

difficulty of England. Of course, there are institutions for Scotland

and institutions for Wales, there are institutions for Northern

Ireland but there are no institutions for England alone and

that is a question that I think will need to be addressed and resolved

about the constitutional convention, which the First Minister in Wales

has proposed, and it is something we will need to have and hopefully our

work will play into that if it is set up.

And on a lighter note, I gather when you are looking into the devolution

of taxing black taxi cabs, you came across an obstacle. It transpires

the Law Commission believed that the taxi cab regulation was devolved to

Wales but there are others who think that isn't the case so I think that

says something about the clarity of the settlement if the Law

Commission, with distinguished judges and professors of law as

their members, don't know if something is devolved or not. One of

those great mysteries. Thanks for joining us, Paul Silk.

You are watching The Week In Parliament after a week when High

Speed Two started its long, slow parliamentary journey. The forecast

for the week ahead has been keeping us on our toes over the last few

days. It's a bank holiday long weekend after all. Chilly with frost

in some places. On Saturday, dry with bright spells in many areas,