Priorities for the future of Welsh Rail Infrastructure

would not be competing with the rest of the UK where there is
often greater demands, due to passenger numbers.” 56
A number of concerns about the potential impact of devolution
emerged in evidence. However, we were impressed by the extent to
which the Minister and the Deputy Permanent Secretary were aware of
the need to address these when they gave evidence.
Funding Concerns
There was considerable concern whether, as part of the
devolution of responsibility for rail infrastructure, sufficient funding
would be transferred to Wales alongside the relevant powers. FSB
Wales stated that the devolution of any powers should also come with
attached funding, whilst both the WLGA and ATW believed that the key
risk is whether sufficient funding will be devolved to allow for the
sustainability, and growth, of the rail system in Wales.
The Minister told us:
“Of course, as a Government we’ve had other things transferred
to us, and it has always been a battle to get the appropriate
transfer in terms of resources across the piece. I think,
historically, if you look at some transfers, the appropriate
amount of money didn’t come across. So, I think there is a risk
in that, and that’s a risk that we’re going to have to work
through to make sure that we know exactly where we want to
be in terms of cash, and argue the case well.” 57
Cross-border concerns
Some stakeholders believed that the devolution of funding for rail
infrastructure could pose a challenge for cross-border planning and
services. These issues are covered in more depth in the following
chapter. A number of witnesses and consultation respondents also
pointed to the fact that in Scotland, where Scottish Ministers have the
powers Wales might aspire to, the rail network is more discrete, with
just two border crossings. In contrast, in Wales key routes are cross
border and key infrastructure is often in England.
56
Written evidence, MWTP.
57
Enterprise and Business Committee, Transcript, 24 February, Para 175.
44