May I ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans her Department has made to tackle an influenza pandemic?

The Government take the risk of a flu pandemic very seriously indeed. Since 1997, we have had a plan for a flu pandemic, which because of the increasing global risk and awareness, we have substantially revised. An updated version was issued in March this year outlining the actions that Government and other authorities are taking. We are working across all Government Departments and sectors and are revising the plan to take into account comments received. An updated version will be published on Thursday this week.

As the chief medical officer has stated:

"Most experts believe that it is not a question of whether there will be another severe influenza pandemic, but when."

We take that threat very seriously. The Government have been taking increasing action, particularly over the past 12 months, to prepare for such a pandemic.

We are fortunate in having some of the best scientific and medical experts in the world leading our work on pandemic preparations. The World Health Organisation believes the United Kingdom to be one of the best prepared countries in the world. None the less, we will continue to step up our planning and take proportionate actions based on the best available evidence to reduce the impact of a pandemic in our country.

It is not possible, of course, to predict with confidence when the next influenza pandemic may happen. The H5N1 virus that is circulating in poultry in south-east Asia and in other regions, including Turkey, is presenting a huge challenge for animal health. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is taking appropriate steps to reduce the risks of avian flu spreading to birds here.

H5N1 has caused about 60 deaths in humans to date. The virus has so far affected only people directly working with infected birds. It is not readily transmitted from person to person, which is, of course, the key characteristic of a pandemic virus. None the less, in May this year, the WHO stated that the virus

"poses a continuing and potentially growing pandemic threat."

A human influenza pandemic could have serious implications for the UK. As the chief medical officer explained publicly yesterday, a flu pandemic could affect around 25 per cent. of the UK population. We estimate that there could be at least 50,000 deaths as a result of the pandemic, compared with around 12,000 flu-related deaths every year, and it could be significantly more.

The NHS is well used to planning for and responding to emergencies, but every country will face enormous pressures in the event of a flu pandemic. In order to help the NHS, we have published operational guidance on contingency planning and we are funding exercises that will test NHS plans locally and those of other stakeholders.

We are backing up the contingency plans with practical action. Antivirals will provide the first form of defence against pandemic flu. We have ordered over 14.5 million treatment courses of Tamiflu to treat people who may fall ill. This month, we will have 2.5 million treatment courses. By the end of March, we will have nearly 7.5 million and the full stockpile will be complete by September 2006. We have, of course, issued guidance to inform local NHS planning for the distribution and storage of those medicines.

The other medical intervention that we are pursuing is vaccination, which will offer the best form of protection against pandemic flu, but a vaccine cannot be manufactured until the exact flu strain is known, so it will take around four to six months until the first stocks of an appropriate vaccine become available. We are working closely with the manufacturers, other countries, the European Commission and the World Health Organisation to ensure that a vaccine can be developed as quickly as possible once a pandemic flu strain emerges. That will allow us to put arrangements in place to ensure production of vaccine for the UK population. As a further precautionary measure, however, we have also ordered between 2 million and 3 million doses of an H5N1 vaccine, delivery of which will commence early next year.

One of the cornerstones of preparedness for pandemic flu is research. The Medical Research Council is actively involved and its chief executive will be going to south-east Asia in the next few days to see how the MRC can most usefully contribute. The Department is working closely with the Health Protection Agency to have in place a research strategy on vaccines and surveillance. We are developing clinical management guidelines with the Health Protection Agency and the British Thoracic Society to help inform management of patients who are suffering from pandemic flu. We are working with the HPA to finalise infection control guidelines that will provide valuable advice on how to reduce the risk of spread of the virus.

Good communication with the public and with health professionals will be absolutely crucial both before and, of course, during any pandemic. We have seen recently that some of the messages in the media about avian flu, pandemic flu and seasonal flu can be confusing. We want to try to ensure that the public are provided with clear and accurate information about pandemic flu and its possible consequences. We have already carried out extensive testing with the public of communication materials that would be used in the event of a pandemic.

During the summer, the chief medical officer alerted all doctors to the guidance and advice that is available on the Department of Health and the HPA websites. This month we will send packs of information, including that already available on the websites, to GPs and other primary care professionals. We are taking a leading role internationally in discussions on avian and pandemic influenza and, in the UK's role as EU presidency, I have made this a major item for our discussion at the EU Health Ministers' informal meeting later this week.

There is widespread public concern about the risk of pandemic flu. We need accurate information and the media have an important role to play. There is no direct threat to members of the public in the UK from the current outbreaks of avian flu elsewhere in the world. This is a bird disease. There is no reason for people to stop eating poultry. Nevertheless, it is very important for protection against seasonal flu that people aged over 65 and other at-risk groups who are recommended to have vaccination should make sure that they receive their vaccinations as normal.

We will of course continue to review and step up our preparations so that as far as any country can be fully prepared against the risks of pandemic flu, we in the UK will be prepared.

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that helpful reply. Will she confirm that the chief medical officer's estimate of 50,000 fatalities is based on the central assumption that 14 million men, women and children will contract flu and show symptoms of it? If so, what range of possibilities is she looking at, because presumably her Department is also preparing for worst-case scenarios? Will she give us a range of the outcomes that she is considering?

The Secretary of State has just told us that 2.5 million doses of antiviral have been stockpiled. Will she say something about prioritisation? In the event of a pandemic affecting 14 million people— the Government's number—before a stockpile for 14 million has been built up, who will get the antivirals first? Will some people get antivirals on a prophylactic basis—in advance—and which people will miss out? Given the problems we have in the country when there is a shortage of fuel, is the Secretary of State confident that she has robust plans in place for a situation where 14 million people have the symptoms of an illness that is proving fatal to tens of thousands and there is a substantial shortage of antivirals? What measures are in place to deal with that scenario?

What plans does she have to stockpile other antivirals such as Relenza in the event that new strains develop resistance to Tamiflu? Will she confirm that she is estimating about 1,500 admissions to hospital for every 1 million of population? What plans does she have to make sure that the NHS has sufficient capacity to deal with that level of impact?

The Secretary of State's 2005 operational framework says that every primary care trust should have in place a contingency plan for tackling a pandemic. How many PCTs have such a plan in place now? Does she believe that her plan to reorganise PCTs and health authorities will help or hinder their preparedness to tackle a pandemic, and will she postpone that reorganisation if it gets in the way?

Finally, I turn to the Health Protection Agency's estimate, given in its own documentation, that it will take six to eight months to develop a vaccine following first identification of a human strain of the virus. Why has the Secretary of State now given a shorter estimate, and what is she doing to bring down the lead time on the production of a vaccine?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those questions. We, the chief medical officer and our advisers have been looking at various scenarios, and they of course include a range of factors concerning the number of people who might be infected, and the consequences thereof. We will update them in the updated contingency plan to which I referred in my statement.

On ordering and stockpiling antivirals, we are one of the best prepared countries in the world. Of course, they will not prevent somebody from getting pandemic flu, but they will undoubtedly help to moderate its severity and therefore to save lives. We already have enough antivirals in stock to treat health care workers who might be affected. Depending on the time at which a pandemic takes place and on its severity, we may need to take further steps to prioritise their availability, but it would be premature to try to take such decisions at this point. Our advisers are looking at this issue, but until we know the nature of the pandemic and who is most at risk from it, it would be foolish to try to make hard and fast decisions about priorities.

We are of course planning for the real risk of a very significant increase in the number of hospital admissions, and we are looking at how best we can deal with that in terms of bed and staff availability. My understanding is that all health authorities and PCTs have plans in place, and we are monitoring and checking those plans. In addition, through the exercises to which I referred—exercises that have been so important in ensuring that the NHS was ready to deal with other eventualities, including 7 July—we will be able to test in a simulation the real readiness of different parts of the service.

On the availability of a new vaccine tailored to the specific strain of any pandemic flu, our estimate is indeed four to six months. We have been working very closely with the industry in particular to see whether it is possible further to reduce the time scale for identifying the flu strain and then creating and manufacturing the seed stock for the vaccine. Longer-term research is going on, in which the United Kingdom is playing a leading role, to try to find completely different ways of manufacturing vaccine, but I doubt whether they will come to fruition in the very near future. However, they will be enormously important in longer-term protection.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Northavon (Steve Webb) for asking this question. As he, you and the House know, Mr. Speaker, we hope to have a more substantive opportunity to debate these matters this Wednesday, during Opposition Supply time. Pending that, I will, if I may, ask the Secretary of State a few questions.

The right hon. Lady says that we are well advanced in the preparation of a stockpile of antiviral drugs. Given that I asked precisely such a question about contingency planning and the stockpiling of drugs on 21 June 2004, and given that the French Government published their preparedness plan on 13 October 2004 and then purchased their stockpile of antiviral drugs, why was it not until I asked further such questions in February of this year that the Government published a plan—on 1 March—and ordered their stockpile, which, as the Secretary of State told us, will not be fully in place until September 2006? As the Secretary of State knows, we do not know when a pandemic flu outbreak may occur.

The Secretary of State did not answer a question about the use of antiviral drugs. The pandemic contingency plan contemplates very limited use of Tamiflu or other antiviral drugs for post-exposure prophylaxis. Health care workers or the immediate family of someone who contracts pandemic flu should be given the drugs within 24 hours in order to offset their likelihood of developing the infection, having severe symptoms or passing it on to others. Major use of post- exposure prophylaxis could have a significant benefit in containing outbreaks and preventing spread among the population. At the moment, however, the Government are proposing to purchase essentially for treatment rather than prevention. Will the Secretary of State say whether the Government will consider post-exposure prophylaxis more widely and comment on the implications for additional stockpiles of antiviral drugs?

What does the Secretary of State intend the supply of generic H5N1 vaccine to be used for next spring? Is it to be used for immunisation, which would be perfectly logical for the limited number of workers potentially exposed to birds that could be acquiring avian flu as a result of migration? Although work is in hand on vaccine preparation, have the Government contemplated the option of contracting and tendering for an advance purchase agreement? As the Secretary of State knows, the French Government have sought to acquire 40 million doses of vaccine—predominantly of a targeted pandemic flu vaccine when it can be identified—as part of the process supported by the World Health Organisation of increasing the availability of vaccine manufacture.

Will the Secretary of State tell us what plans she has for the acquisition of face masks, gloves and other surgical equipment? A UK company recently won a contract to supply a large range of disposable medical products to Australia. The Australian stockpile of gloves, face masks and the like will be in place by December, following a tender in May and June. To the best of my knowledge, our Government have not tendered for any such stockpile, or indeed any supplies beyond their normal acquisition for NHS purposes.

On the wider question of NHS preparedness, much more needs to be said, and I hope that we will have a chance to say it on Wednesday. However, I shall put my final question for today. Professor David Menon, professor of anaesthesia at Addenbrookes hospital in my constituency, recently published an article in Anaesthesia. The summary states:

"The UK Influenza Pandemic Contingency Plan does not consider the impact of a pandemic on critical care services . . . Current critical care bed capacity would be unable to cope with the increased demand provided by an influenza pandemic. Proper contingency planning is essential."

Will the Secretary of State confirm whether Thursday's updated contingency plan will include that sort of essential planning?

First, let me stress that we are indeed well advanced in our planning. Not only have we had an outline plan in place since 1997, we have stepped up planning and preparation over the last 12 months. As the hon. Gentleman would find out if he checked with the World Health Organisation, we are one of the top three countries in the world—the other two being Australia and France—in respect of our general preparations and our stockpiling of Tamiflu. Different countries are taking different approaches to their preparations and I am told by the chief medical officer—[Interruption.]

Order. I must ask the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) to be quiet.

I am grateful, Mr. Speaker.

As I was saying, different countries take different approaches to the problem. I have been advised by the chief medical officer that the stockpile of Tamiflu in France is in powder form, whereas we prefer to stockpile ours in the form of capsules, which we believe to be much easier to distribute and to use. Different countries have their approaches, but I am satisfied, on the basis of what the chief medical officer and the head of our vaccination service have told me, that we are making exactly the preparations that we need.

We have not ruled out using antivirals for post-exposure prophylaxis, but only in the early stages of pandemic in the UK. The advice that our experts have given me is that sustained use of antivirals for prophylaxis would not represent the best use of resources and would reduce the number of people whom we could treat with antivirals after they had caught the flu. We should bear in mind the possibility that extensive use of antivirals for prophylaxis could encourage development of a pandemic virus with antiviral resistance. Given what we know about antiviral bugs, I do not think that that is a risk that we would want to run.

We decided to acquire the supplies of H5N1 as a precautionary measure to use for research or offer to priority groups, particularly health service workers, while the vaccine against the exact strain of pandemic flu was manufactured. It will also be valuable for our experts to be able to carry out further clinical studies of the H5N1 vaccine to learn more about how it works against the virus and how effective it could be.

We will of course be placing advance-purchase and sleeping contracts for the pandemic vaccine. Equally, we are taking steps to ensure not only that we have necessary supplies of masks, gloves and other surgical equipment, but that we have proper means of disposing of gloves and masks. There is no point in having them and of the people wearing them being exposed to pandemic flu unless they can be safely disposed of. That is all part of our preparations. Finally, I can confirm that we will be looking at the impact of a possible pandemic on critical care and other aspects of the NHS.

Does my right hon. Friend accept that we hear the criticisms and inquiries from the Opposition as being in the best motivated sense of the public interest—

indicated dissent.

We do.

Does she also accept that we understand that there are several different approaches to how best to handle the matter? However, it would be of great reassurance to the House if she could tell us that no budgetary or financial constraint will be imposed to restrict what she believes and what the expert advice, which we recognise to be unsurpassed in international terms, suggests should be done right now.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those points. I agree with him. We have already committed some £200 million to preparing for a flu pandemic. We are continuing to review what preparations will be needed. As we assess what preparations are appropriate, we will make that money available.

The Secretary of State seems to be presiding over a certain amount of chaos. Her Department has been considering the issue for a period of time and we can argue about whether it has made enough provision at the health end, but I am concerned about the publicity.

More than 300,000 people keep poultry and chickens and do not have the sophisticated communications that she is talking about. Many will have been listening to and watching the BBC and other news outlets and discovering that a real crisis is heading in their direction. That is how it has been presented for two weeks. People who have poultry outside do not know whether to bring them in or to start getting rid of them, and all of a sudden they are being told that it is not quite so urgent and that the problem may not come until next year. Could the Secretary of State use the proper outlets, magazines and newspapers, for the Department to state clearly what the situation is for those people, rather than blaming the media for running away with it when the Department is partly to blame?

I somewhat regret the tone that the right hon. Gentleman has chosen to adopt. The extent of our preparation is reflected by the fact that the earlier version of the contingency plan is a substantial, detailed and weighty document.

I understand, as does the right hon. Gentleman, the enormous concerns of people who operate or work in poultry farms about the outbreak of avian flu in Turkey and other countries. I am assured by my right hon. and hon. Friends at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who have responsibility for animal health, that they are working extremely closely with poultry farmers and workers to ensure that they have proper information. As the right hon. Gentleman may not have heard the "Today" programme this morning, I refer him to the comments of the president of the National Farmers Union, who said that he was satisfied with both the preparations and the communication with poultry farmers and workers.

Is there any evidence of humans being infected from eating infected poultry meat? Given that the outbreak was identified as originating in southern Asia, will there be any restrictions on imports from that area? If not, would not it be advisable to introduce labelling that allows customers to identify where the poultry they are purchasing is from? Will my right hon. Friend discuss the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs?

My hon. Friend raises two extremely important points. I understand that imports of poultry from countries where there has been an incidence of avian flu are already banned. I am also advised by the Food Standards Agency that there is no evidence of infection from eating thoroughly cooked poultry meat. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is content, from discussions with the industry, that the risk of avian flu spreading to domestic poultry remains low. At this stage, therefore, there is no need for the industry to bring free-range birds indoors. That issue is being dealt with extremely thoroughly, as I have just shown, by DEFRA.

What steps are the Government taking to ensure that people in the vulnerable sections of our community, who are most likely to be at risk, such as the elderly and the very young, are protected? Some people in those communities traditionally have not taken advantage of the benefits available to them and may not be in a position to get the information that she is disseminating in the community. What steps are being taken to assist such people?

The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. For seasonal flu, the advice is that people aged over 65 or in other at-risk groups, such as children with asthma, bronchitis or other specified diseases, should be immunised every year. We have already run the annual information programme on that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to encourage his constituents who fall into those vulnerable groups to get the flu vaccination this year. It is sometimes forgotten that in some of the earlier flu pandemics in the last century, contrary to the expectation that the very old and the very young would be most at risk, it was among people of working age that the infection and the death rate was highest. That is why we should not be too hard and fast, at this point, about where the greatest risk would be should pandemic flu occur. We give that clear advice regarding seasonal flu, and I hope that this year we will surpass even last year's very high rate of more than 75 per cent. of over-65s getting the seasonal flu vaccination.

We should purchase the gloves, masks and gowns, and should not worry about disposal, because we have incinerators around the country that were used effectively during the foot and mouth problem and at other times. Let us not mess about. Let us get the order in.

I am pleased to hear that the Secretary of State is working closely with DEFRA. Does the Department of Health have expertise that she can supply to DEFRA if there is overstretch regarding veterinary surgeons?

Let me reassure my hon. Friend: as I said before, those orders are being placed. Our co-operation with DEFRA is extremely close, although obviously we look to that Department on veterinary matters just as it looks to us on human health matters.

There seems to be a problem in the media in separating the human disease from the bird disease. As a poultry keeper, my concern is that people who keep poultry are likely to be most at risk from the disease jumping from birds to people. Should people dispose of their poultry and will those who keep poultry or other birds be in the high-risk group?

At this point, that is predominantly a matter for DEFRA, but I understand that there is no immediate risk of avian flu in the United Kingdom. Should avian flu occur in the UK, with the risk increasing, the preparations would be stepped up as well. However, as I said earlier, DEFRA's advice to the hon. Gentleman and other poultry farmers at this point is that there is no need to bring free-range birds indoors or to take other precautions, apart from the obviously sensible hygiene precautions that would, I am sure, be routine in any well-kept poultry farm.

It is impossible to identify the strain at this stage, so it will inevitably be some months before it is possible to manufacture a vaccine. Indeed, it is conceivable that the virus will mutate as it spreads around the world—if that happens—thereby delaying the manufacturing process. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that Europe has sufficient manufacturing capacity to meet the needs? On seasonal flu, will she state clearly and unambiguously that people in the at-risk groups should go and get their jab soon, as their GP will invite them to do?

On the latter point, as I have already said, it is sensible for people in those at-risk groups to get their jab against seasonal flu every year, and I hope that this year we will have even higher take-up of that immunisation than usual.

Vaccine manufacturing is a global industry. We are fortunate in Europe in having a significant vaccine manufacturing capacity in the European Union, but there is a shortage of the raw materials that are essential for producing the vaccine. The industry depends on a high level of scientific knowledge and manufacturing capability. It is not easy simply to enter the sector and decide to set up a vaccine manufacturing capacity; if it were easy, it would have been done. That is why we are working so closely with the industry to see whether, globally, it is possible both to speed up and scale up the production of vaccines.

Will the Secretary of State publish the evidence that she has to support her statement that eating contaminated chicken, providing it is well cooked, presents no threat to health?

I refer the hon. Gentleman to the website of the Food Standards Agency, the independent body that reached that conclusion on the basis of expert evidence. If it will help, I will also place that information in the Library.

My right hon. Friend has urged people several times to go and get their seasonal flu jab. When I, a member of an at-risk group, phoned the surgery this morning, as I normally do at this time of year, I was told that it had no vaccine and will have none until towards the end of November, so there was no point in my contacting it before then. Is the natural public concern about bird flu causing excessive demand for the seasonal flu vaccine? Is that causing a difficulty? Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that there will be enough supplies?

I asked that very question of our chief medical officer and I am assured by our experts that there are adequate supplies available to GPs to ensure that anyone who is at risk and who therefore should have the vaccination can have it. However, if my hon. Friend lets me have further details of the difficulty that he encountered, I shall pursue the matter further.

Has the Secretary of State spoken to the Chancellor of the Exchequer about additional moneys to deal with the pandemic and, if so, what was the response? Does she agree that, in the light of a possible pandemic, the closure of beds in community hospitals such as the one at Hornsea in my constituency is inappropriate and should be reversed?

I have already dealt with finance. The matter will be kept under review if the risk increases and preparations step up. On community hospitals, it is for the national health service locally to examine the configuration of services and ensure that they continue to be improved so that we deliver the best possible health care with the best possible value for taxpayers' money.

I am glad to hear the Secretary of State stress several times the need for vulnerable groups such as older people to have their flu jab, but is there not a need for a Government information campaign that makes it absolutely clear that we are talking about three different threats to health: seasonal flu every year; avian flu, which is not yet established in this country; and a pandemic that may or may not happen in this country? Do we not need to make sure that it is clear in the public mind that there are three separate issues? I fear that some of the media coverage is confusing the public and making the right hon. Lady's job more difficult.

We ran this year's information campaign on seasonal flu earlier this month. We are using Department of Health and other agency websites to disseminate a great deal of accurate information about the three different issues—seasonal flu, avian flu and potential pandemic flu. We shall continue to broadcast that information as much as we can, especially through the briefings that the chief medical officer and other experts give to the media and, through the media, to the public. On Thursday, when we publish the updated pandemic contingency plan, we shall also make available to GPs communication materials to go directly into their surgeries.

The right hon. Lady has made it clear that the threat has been known about for a long time. Would she therefore be kind enough to explain why funding for the Health Protection Agency was cut earlier this year?

The simple answer is that I do not know. However, it was probably the result of our continuing determination to reduce administrative costs throughout the public sector. If it was something else, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman and let him know.

With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a personal statement concerning the evidence I gave to the Transport Select Committee at its hearing on 14 November 2001.

As the House will be aware, the High Court has recently heard the case of Weir and others v. Secretary of State for Transport and the Department for Transport. The action was brought on behalf of the Railtrack Private Shareholders Action Group. Their claim was for misfeasance in public office and concerned decisions I had taken in relation to Railtrack when I was Secretary of State for Transport. The central allegation made was that, by refusing to grant further taxpayers' money to Railtrack and by petitioning the court for its administration, I had shown targeted malice toward those holding shares in Railtrack. It was claimed that, as a result, I had committed a deliberate and dishonest abuse of my powers as Secretary of State by impairing the value of their shares in Railtrack without paying compensation and without the approval of Parliament.

Last Friday, the High Court delivered its judgments in the case and found in favour of the Secretary of State for Transport and the Department for Transport. In the process of giving my testimony to the High Court, I was cross-examined on the evidence that I gave to the Transport Select Committee at its hearing on 14 November 2001. In particular, my attention was drawn to the reply that I gave to a question from the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling). That was question 857 of the Select Committee evidence. The hon. Gentleman asked whether there

"was there any discussion, theoretical or otherwise, in your department before 25 July about the possibility of a future change in status for Railtrack, whether nationalisation, the move into a company limited by guarantee or whatever?"

In reply, I said:

"not that I am aware of."

It was pointed out to me in court that that answer was inconsistent with the documents that had been disclosed to the court. I must inform the House that my reply was factually inaccurate. However, I must also tell the House that I did not intend deliberately to mislead the Select Committee. I would like to explain to the House what happened.

On coming into office after the 2001 general election, I received a wide range of briefing papers covering all aspects of my Department's responsibilities. A number of these papers related to the railways. As a consequence, I asked for an options paper on the future of Railtrack to be drawn up. Initially, this was to be done solely by my Department but subsequently I asked that it be carried out jointly with the No. 10 policy directorate and the Treasury. At the time, I regarded the commissioning of this work as simply sensible contingency planning. However, it is my request for this work to be carried out that I now recognise could be interpreted as a discussion, and that would make my reply to the Select Committee factually inaccurate.

A critical meeting took place on 25 July when the chairman of Railtrack outlined to me the financial difficulties that the company faced. It was only after that meeting that substantive discussions began about the possibility of changing the status of the company.

Since the court hearing, I have thought long and hard about why I gave the answer that I did to the Select Committee. Having reviewed the documents that were put before the court, it would have been because I considered the meeting of 25 July to be the moment at which discussions began and that the commissioning of work to be carried out on the future options for Railtrack did not represent discussions in the true meaning of that word.

I want the House to know that I did not lie to the Select Committee and that I did not deliberately mislead the Select Committee but that due to an inadvertent error I gave factually inaccurate evidence to the Committee. I deeply regret that this has happened. I wish to offer my sincere apologies to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the whole House.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you will have heard from the statement of the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers), I was the person who asked the question that is the subject of discussion today. I listened extremely carefully to what he has just said. I have also studied again the transcripts of what was said at the time as well as documents that are now available to us. I do not accept and I am not satisfied with his explanation and I seek your guidance on how to press the matter further.

The hon. Gentleman has heard the statement by the right hon. Member for North Tyneside (Mr. Byers). The best thing that he can do is reflect on it. If he is unsatisfied, he should come to the Speaker's Office and speak to the Speaker's secretary.

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

With this provision, we seek to ensure that cross-border issues are dealt with definitely and effectively. We have argued the point several times throughout the Bill's progress in relation to a number of issues. Although some aspects have been suitably discussed and assurances given—I am certain that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales believes that his Government can protect the interest of English border travellers—we still have no definite proof that the Bill will work as the Government anticipate. We are trusting them on the Bill. The responsibility to ensure that it works for the benefit of the people of Wales, and not just according to Rhodri Morgan's unreasonable agenda, is firmly in the hands of the Government, although I have considerable reservations. On the BBC's morning programme, "Dragon's Eye", Rhodri Morgan gave his opinion of the Welsh Development Agency argument, saying:

"Mr. Hain can express personal views, but in the end who has the responsibility? Who has the responsibility in Wales? It's us, it's the Assembly."

Can we really trust Mr. Morgan to deal with cross-border issues reasonably and to listen to the views of the Secretaries of State for Transport and for Wales? Even if the Minister assures us that there will be collaboration and discussion, what real powers will the Government have to argue with Rhodri Morgan if he insists that the Assembly has total control over those transport issues in Wales?

The splits between Westminster and Cardiff have never been more obvious or more serious not only for policy development, but for the best interests of the people of Wales. I agree with the Secretary of State that the WDA is a worldwide brand and that the advice to take a long hard look was both sensible and responsible. However, although he said that the WDA is the most successful economic development agency in the world Rhodri Morgan told ITV Wales:

"Yes, but it's not a matter for him. This is a devolved matter."

ITV Wales asked:

"It doesn't bother you that the Cabinet Minister representing Wales is unhappy with your reform?"

Rhodri Morgan replied:

"Well, if it's a devolved matter it's a devolved matter, I don't know how often I have to repeat this. If it's a devolved matter it's a devolved matter, it's not a matter for the Secretary of State for Wales. I can say that 64 times, 64,000 times, 64 million times, I don't mind. The answer will always be the same."

I find that attitude extraordinary.

The hon. Gentleman is trying to make mischief. Does he truly believe that it would be better to have complete indecision in the process with two sets of people trying to make decisions on the same issue? Does he realise that the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council is the only forum in this country for reconciling differences when the law is not clear where the responsibility lies? That can hardly be where he wants such issues to be resolved.

The hon. Gentleman is usually a sensible chap and I am always happy to accept interventions from him. However, this problem is particularly worrying, because the Bill allows the Assembly to take responsibility for cross-border travel. It allows discussions between councils in England and the Welsh Assembly, but it is not clear who would finally adjudicate. He represents the interests of his constituents at Westminster, but no one in the Welsh Assembly represents my constituents. I am sure that the Minister will assure me that I need not worry about that difficulty, but the First Minister's attitude makes me worried about the Bill and about to whom people travelling to and from Wales across the border would have recourse.

The hon. Gentleman said that he particularly enjoyed giving way to me, so I am glad he has given way a second time. I know how consistent a man he is. He still seems to be arguing that there should be two people in charge of the same policy. If their views happened to be different, the only means of reconciling them would be by reference to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Surely he is not suggesting that rail services on the borders of England and Wales should be decided by that body.

No. The hon. Gentleman should read the new clause. It seeks to ensure that any dispute would be referred to the Secretary of State for Transport. I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He is right.

How can we be certain that the Minister's promises in Committee or in the House today will be as helpful as we all want to believe they will be? We still have no explicit assurances in the Bill that English local authorities will have useful recourse to a Secretary of State in Westminster in the event of problems in the creation of local transport plans or in the implementation of policies on transport crossing the border. We are still unsure what form discussions between English and Welsh authorities will take, particularly the Welsh joint transport authorities.

We have no guarantees that people in England who use Welsh transport will be able to make effective representations to the public transport users committee for Wales. I still have deep concerns that people who live in authorities just outside Wales will have to suffer a long and drawn-out route of representation to the Assembly, if they are represented at all. It is bad enough that English local authorities must make representations to a Secretary of State who then makes representations to the Assembly, but it is unforgivable that there is no certainty of that occurring effectively.

Given the obvious trend in the opinions of the leadership of the Assembly, I wonder whether we should have taken a far less trusting approach to the Bill. I tabled the new clause to ensure successful cross-border and Westminster-Cardiff relations as regards transport in Wales.

Until I heard the comments of the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), the Conservative spokesperson on Welsh affairs, I had assumed that his new clause intended consultation with the Secretary of State for Wales, but it seems that he means the Secretary of State for Transport. Will he clarify that?

The hon. Gentleman is right, depending which was the more appropriate Secretary of State. Constituents who live outside Wales must have an opportunity to be represented, as they are in the House but not in the Assembly.

From the way in which the new clause is framed, it is not clear to me that that is the intention. The vagueness in the drafting could cause problems, but I am grateful for the clarification.

I hope that the Minister will give us assurances to allay my fears, but I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's comments on the drafting.

I thought of little else during the weekend. If I had been able to call the hon. Gentleman on Friday, I might have enjoyed my Saturday and Sunday more, but now I am relieved and Wales will breathe a sigh of relief after his remarks.

I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, which we discussed during the Bill's earlier stages, but I am worried about the consequences of accepting new clause 1 as it stands. We all agree that there have been terrible problems with public transport in Wales, as in the United Kingdom. I agree that the Labour Administration in Wales have not done much to resolve the legion problems created previously by the Conservative Government. We have a serious transport problem caused by two Governments of different colours.

The new clause is really about cross-border provision and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say about that. I do not share the concerns of the hon. Member for Leominster, because it would be inconceivable for significant investment decisions to be made without pretty much automatic recourse to cross-border discussion. Any significant investment will necessarily involve a degree of negotiation between the Welsh Assembly and the Administration in Westminster, because a clear understanding of the financial jurisdiction of those two Administrations would have to be ironed out. That could not take place unless one had a fairly sophisticated and high-level strategic discussion beforehand.

Another reason I am not as worried as the hon. Gentleman is that there are plenty of precedents for this in other aspects of cross-border relations. All the work that we have done to deal with flooding in mid-Wales and with the considerable problems that we have with health has required a high level of cross-border discussion.

I have previously highlighted the risks involved in framing legislation on the basis of the current political environment. The hon. Gentleman gave his views about the individuals who are currently in charge in Wales. I ask him to look forward to another occasion where the strains might be even greater. Let us say that from 2009 to 2050 there is a benign Administration led by the Liberal Democrats in the Assembly and also in Westminster.

Get real.

Make it 80 years, then. Let us say that, after that time, there is a sharp divide between an Administration of one colour in the Assembly and one of another colour in Westminster, who would nevertheless have to negotiate about the matters that I mentioned. Subsection (2) of the new clause would be a green light to a significant division whereby the process of consultation could be used to hold up recommendations and decisions made by the Welsh Assembly. I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns, but I am worried that his new clause could increase the likelihood of mischief where two Administrations from two parties seek to obstruct the progress of the other.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) for trusting the Government on this. I hope to persuade him to withdraw his new clause, for reasons that I argued in Committee when we debated his amendment No. 1. I shall bear it in mind that everybody wants to conclude our proceedings as early as possible—especially Conservative Members.

The new clause would require the Assembly to consult the Secretary of State for Transport if any passenger transport service that it secures using the powers in section 7 ran through England. I appreciate the concern of the hon. Member for Leominster regarding the cross-border implications of the Bill, which we have debated at length. As I said in Committee, the transport network in Wales is part of the wider UK network, and such issues cannot be ignored when considering the need for additional passenger services in Wales. The power in clause 7 will allow the Assembly to secure public transport services to meet transport requirements within Wales that would not otherwise be met. As such, the Assembly envisages that the power will be used sparingly to fill significant gaps in service provision. If such services were to run through England—which, if anything, is likely to benefit passengers from England because we are considering additional services—it is inconceivable that the Assembly would fail to consult the Secretary of State for Transport as a matter of course.

The Minister is doing a grand job of dealing with my concerns. He has talked about additional services. In view of the obvious breakdown of relations between the Secretary of State and the First Minister, may I ask who would adjudicate if, for example, the Secretary of State for Transport was asked for a lot of money during consultation on a new service that was to cross the border into England? Who would determine such matters?

The hon. Gentleman has now raised a different matter. The Bill is clear that, in the case of any additional service that passed through England as a result of a policy that the Welsh Assembly developed, the Assembly would fund the part of the service that was in Wales. However, the fact that the route continued into England and possibly returned to Wales—a possibility on the border—would not place a requirement on the Department for Transport or a local authority to fund that part of the service. Clearly, such a service depends on the support of the Assembly. Clause 7 deals with that. We are considering services that do not currently exist and that local authorities are not willing to support, for whatever reason, but for which there may be a strategic need, identified by the Assembly. The Assembly would therefore fund them. It would not expect any other authority in Wales or in England or the Department for Transport to contribute to that service. I hope that that has reassured the hon. Gentleman and I therefore ask him to withdraw the new clause.

I am grateful to the Minister for dealing with the new clause and for taking my intervention. I am satisfied that the Bill covers the problem, especially since he was sensible and kind enough to emphasise the additional services, about which I was concerned.

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

The Bill, which received its Second Reading on 16 June and was considered in Standing Committee on 28 June, will enable the Assembly to take forward its integrated transport strategy by providing it with a comprehensive and coherent set of transport powers. It is an example of the sort of measure that could, in principle, be taken forward by the Assembly if the legislative proposals laid out in the "Better Governance for Wales" White Paper were already in force.

The Bill's objectives have been widely welcomed by all who have been involved in its scrutiny. It was first published in draft on 27 May 2004. Local authorities, regional transport consortiums, Assembly-sponsored public bodies, transport authorities, police and fire authorities, representative bodies and interest groups, utilities and transport operators were among those consulted on the draft Bill.

The Assembly received 48 responses following the publication of the draft Bill, including comments from a wide range of public and professional groups including the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, the Confederation of Passenger Transport and the Welsh Local Government Association. Of the 135 recommendations and comments received on the text, 60 were comments of general support, while six recommended amendments to clauses relating to rail that were subsequently removed. In total, 14 recommendations made as part of the public consultation were accepted, and subsequent changes were made to the draft Bill.

The Bill has also been scrutinised jointly by the Welsh Affairs Committee of this House and the Assembly's Economic Development and Transport Committee. Those meetings, which were the first time that a House of Commons Committee had formally met a Committee of a devolved Administration, demonstrated an innovative and progressive approach to pre-legislative scrutiny. The Bill was further debated in the Welsh Grand Committee in July 2004 and received widespread support. Indeed, the Bill has consistently received cross-party support, which was reflected in its smooth passage on Second Reading and in Committee. The thorough, detailed debate in Committee covered a wide range of issues and generated a high level of consensus.

I am grateful for the co-operation of the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and other hon. Members on the overall aims of the Bill. However, that did not prevent detailed and vigorous discussion and a thorough examination of all its provisions. The Government did not table any amendments, and 18 of the 20 Opposition amendments discussed in Committee were withdrawn following an in-depth debate. Two Opposition amendments were lost on a vote.

In Committee, the hon. Member for Leominster asked me to reflect on a number of questions before Third Reading. The first was whether a local authority in England that objected to the draft transport strategy during the consultation process would be able to make appropriate representations to the Assembly. I would like to reiterate the point that I made in Committee that if such a situation arose, an English authority could make representations to the Secretary of State for Transport, who in turn could make representations to the Welsh Assembly and the Assembly's Economic Development and Transport Minister. However, one of the main purposes underlying the Bill is that local authorities in England whose areas abut Wales should be involved in the development of the Wales transport strategy, and that the strategy should work for people on both sides of the border.

The hon. Gentleman's second question was whether local authorities should have regard to their current commitments when drafting their local transport plans. As I mentioned in Committee, I cannot envisage a situation arising in which local authorities would develop policies to be included in such plans that did not take account of their existing commitments. However, those commitments should not be the main factor in developing local transport plans, which should evolve over time to take account of external factors and the changing needs of Welsh communities and businesses. Local authorities should not be restricted by current commitments, which will, in turn, also develop and evolve in line with the strategy.

The third question that the hon. Gentleman asked me to consider was whether a direction given by the Assembly to two or more local authorities to enter into joint working arrangements could result in increased costs for those authorities. The Assembly works in partnership with local authorities when developing its policies, and it will therefore consider how additional costs arising from any extra responsibilities imposed on local authorities will be met. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that, under the partnership agreement, the Assembly would recompense local authorities for any additional functions they may take on, and that it is therefore unnecessary to include any provisions in the Bill in relation to that.

I was also asked to consider the wording of clause 5(5), which provides that local authority members must form the majority of any joint transport authority in relation to defining the quorum of a joint transport authority in the Bill. I have given careful thought to this suggestion. The Bill already states that at least half the members of a joint transport authority will be members of local authorities. It is not for us to specify here what the quorum would be, as any order of the National Assembly for Wales setting up a joint transport authority will specify that as well as detailing the composition, financing and functions of the authority.

While we are discussing joint transport authorities, it may be helpful if I make clear that it will not be possible to create a joint transport authority whose area extends outside Wales. I am sure the hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that. I hope that I have been able to deal with his concerns, and that he is content with the explanations that I have given.

The public transport users committee for Wales was discussed in some detail in Committee. I repeat that it will be independent of the Assembly, and will have autonomy to make a real difference for users of all modes of public transport in Wales. The London Transport users committee continues to be an effective representative of the views of public transport passengers in Greater London, and I see no reason why the Welsh committee should not function in the same way.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, South (Mr. Jones), who chaired the Welsh Affairs Committee, to parliamentary colleagues, and to the Assembly for the scrutiny that it conducted when the Bill was published in draft. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) for her chairmanship of the Standing Committee. She supervised the proceedings in a thoroughly professional and very expeditious way.

The Bill will enable the Assembly to start delivering its vision for an integrated transport system for the whole of Wales, particularly as it will place a duty on the Assembly to develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facilities and services. I commend it to the House.

I echo the Minister's kind comments about the Chairman of the Select Committee, and indeed the Chairman of the Standing Committee. Their help and hard work were greatly appreciated.

I think we are all familiar with the problems and issues that have been present throughout the scrutiny of our proposals. As the Minister said in Committee, the Bill is not about more powers for the Assembly, but about responsibilities for developing policies and strategies for the benefit of transport in Wales. However, the Assembly's responsibility to implement the policies as well is just one of the aspects that have created problems that are still present. We should all like to see positive changes in the delivery of transport services in Wales, and I am sure that everyone here hopes that the Bill will achieve them. Yet since the outset we have had a number of concerns, which remain unsolved to an extent. They were addressed in Committee, but we must be sure that the Government are genuinely committed to living up to the assurances they have given.

In Committee, the Minister admitted:

"There may well be severe problems developing policies within Wales."

If that is what the representative of the Government feels about the Bill's prospects, it is not really surprising that we too have our doubts.

In Committee we debated, at some length, the finer details of developing the Wales transport strategy. I suggested that perhaps the Bill should require the Assembly to consult certain bodies as a matter of course. We were reassured about our desire to see all groups with an interest in transport developments, from local businesses to disabled people's charities, being offered a genuine say in changes.

The Welsh Assembly's previous tendency to consult similar bodies on issues each time, and the criticism voiced about failings in the Assembly's Committee system to deal properly with scrutiny, mean that we shall watch the development of that aspect carefully. We shall have to ensure that, as we were promised in Committee, the Assembly really does consult as many relevant organisations as possible, including those more likely to give unfavourable responses when new policies and developments are considered.

The Minister also assured us that when the Wales transport strategy was being developed, cross-border issues would be taken fully into account. I think that he did that in his closing statements. I am grateful to him for taking on board the points that I asked him to consider, and for the way in which he responded.

We have considered the cross-border issue consistently. In Committee, we were assured that the Government would accept responsibility for negotiating on behalf of English counties, and that any English local authority facing problems as a result of the strategy developed by the Assembly could make representations to a Minister such as the Secretary of State for Transport. We will be watching closely to ensure that the reasonable procedure that the Minister outlined for consultation and adjudication in the event of an impasse is followed.

We were also assured that the Assembly would work with organisations that span the border, such as the many train companies that operate throughout England and Wales. In Committee we were promised

"a great deal of discussion"

with organisations contributing to the network in Wales that are based outside Wales. I look forward to seeing the results of that, too.

In Committee, I stressed the need for local transport plans to be monitored to ensure that they were produced in reasonable time and stressed that, "as soon as practicable", the wording in the Bill, provides a closely monitored and sensible time limit. We were assured that no penalties were necessary to ensure the timely production of local transport plans and that local authorities must do as the Assembly says if it issues a direction regarding those plans. I was glad to hear the Minister confirm that and I hope that that will always prove to be the case.

We will also watch with interest to ensure that joint transport authorities are genuinely appropriately funded, neither forcing more responsibilities on to local authorities without suitable funds, nor becoming another example of waste and inept usage of Welsh taxpayers' hard-earned money. Despite assurances that the results of local authorities working together will be to produce savings rather than more costs, we must watch closely the impact of running a joint transport authority, which, sadly, is assumed will cost approximately £1 million per annum, in addition to £100,000 to £200,000 in set-up costs. The potential for the creation of costly administration and support teams, new quangos and more bureaucracy must be held in check. Financial controls operating in the Assembly must work to ensure probity when committing public funds and to ensure that those funds are appropriate and well placed. Indeed, I was grateful for the Minister's comments on that.

In Committee, we were informed that joint transport authorities cannot cross the border, but local authorities can be instructed to consult on matters with JTAs. The Minister mentioned that I would be pleased about that. I remain absolutely impartial. Of course, I want what is best for Wales but, if the JTAs are working particularly well we would like to see them in operation across the border, too. We must be certain to check that they are as good as we hope they will be when cross-border issues come into play.

We must also watch the practices of the public transport users committee for Wales, particularly on cross-border issues. In Committee, the Minister said that if those who live outside Wales have an issue relating to transport he

"would have thought that the committee would take up any representation that they made". [Official Report, Standing Committee F, 28 June 2005, c. 13, 8, 44.]

That does not seem to be a particularly definite or optimistic view on the ability of those who use Welsh transport to have a voice. However, I look forward to seeing a truly effective and representative committee of users of Welsh transport. I am sure that we will all keep a watchful eye on anything untoward should it occur.

We have debated in great detail the fact that the Bill gives the Assembly the ability to provide financial assistance only to services or facilities that would not exist without its help. We believe that the Assembly should be afforded the opportunity to help those services that can exist unaided even further. In certain cases, the Assembly should be given greater freedom to spend its money on whatever it believes to be the most beneficial recipient.

Perhaps that opportunity is most pertinent to aviation in Wales. I am sure that the Minister will remember that I said that I remain open-minded on the issue. Of course, it is advantageous to the Assembly to have the ability to fund air transport if it so desires, and those developments could have economic advantages for Wales, although that is far from proven. Obviously, the benefits to the Welsh economy must be considered.

No doubt all Members will be pleased that my hon. Friend is so open-minded. Is he aware that the Liberal Democrat Welsh Assembly Member for South Wales West is less liberal on the issue? He said:

"I would far rather continue to improve pinch points on the A470 and A483 and use this money to subsidise a good rail service"

than put it into air services. Is not it about time that the Liberal Democrats got a coherent transport policy on this matter?

My hon. Friend is right but I think he is over-optimistic if he thinks that the Liberal Democrats will ever have a coherent policy. I admire him for his optimism, just as I admire the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) for his endless enthusiasm for Liberal Democrat policies, despite their lack of coherence.

rose—

Order. I wonder if I could remind all hon. Members that we are debating the Third Reading of the Bill, rather than a particular party's transport policy.

It was exactly for that reason that I wanted to ensure that the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) would never accuse me of being anything other than utterly consistent in my support for aviation transport.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely adamant about his admiration for air transport. We are all worried about whether the Assembly is spending its money in the most effective way for the people of Wales. We would like the Assembly to have the flexibility to help services that could exist but might need aid, which might be a better use of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman has been consistent in his desire to see flying in Wales, and he goes gliding at the weekend as well. No one could be more committed to gravity than he is.

The benefits to the Welsh economy must be considered, and we need definite answers as to how many people would use and benefit from Welsh air transport and on the comparative benefits of developing better road and rail services. The Assembly consultation document on intra-Wales scheduled air services suggested that a maximum of 80 direct jobs and 120 indirect jobs would result from such provision. I am not yet convinced that the estimated £800,000 required to subsidise air transport in year one and the £400,000 to upgrade facilities at Valley airport could not be better spent elsewhere. The need for subsidies to begin air transport services in the first place raises the issue of whether these services would be workable in the long term.

In the first quarter of this year, the number of passengers using Cardiff international airport slumped by 19 per cent. and it is possible that only 400 passengers a week might use flights within Wales. We must be sure to keep an extremely watchful eye on these developments and make sure that if subsidised services demonstrably fail, they do not turn into an expensive failure for Wales.

Several more important issues must be considered and monitored if and when the expansion of air travel occurs. We know that short-haul flights are particularly damaging to the environment. By 2050, aircraft will be one of the biggest single sources of greenhouse gases. Indeed, greenhouse gases from aircraft rose by almost 90 per cent. between 1990 and 2003. In Wales, carbon dioxide emissions have risen from their 1990 levels, making a great contribution as the Government, sadly, head toward missing their carbon dioxide emission targets. With the Government meant to be tackling climate change so seriously, there seems to be something of a contradiction in condoning a further increase in air transport in the UK, especially when the need for it or the number of those who favour it is far from proven.

The use of money on such a clearly unsustainable form of transport must continue to be monitored and scrutinised very carefully, especially when the Government are putting so little funding and effort into research towards development for cleaner fuels for air transport.

During the progress of the Bill, we have sought to test the Government's intentions and have received many valuable assurances. I am sure that we all look forward to seeing those put into practice. We have drawn attention to the various anomalies and problems present in the Bill and I still have some doubts about several aspects. But I hope that the Act truly creates safe, integrated, sustainable, efficient and economic transport facilities and services throughout Wales and look forward to seeing its positive effects making a real difference for the people of Wales.

I rise to speak briefly in support of the Third Reading of the Bill, which I warmly welcome. I congratulate all those involved in guiding it through the House.

Unlike the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), I am a big supporter of Cardiff international airport. I should like to place it on record that despite the reduction in services experienced earlier this year, Cardiff remains the fastest growing regional airport in the UK and is on target to reach the aviation White Paper's target of a quadrupling of throughput of passengers by 2020.

What led the hon. Gentleman to come up with the extraordinary accusation that I am not a supporter of Cardiff airport?

I am sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Gentleman, but I thought that in placing on the record the decline in passenger services this year, he was attacking the growth in short-haul flights and the increase in air travel.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Welsh Assembly Member for South Wales West, Alun Cairns, has done a huge amount in the fight to get a bypass to Cardiff airport from the M4?

I have campaigned on the issue of surface access to Cardiff international airport for the past 20 years, and I am completely unaware of any proposal for a bypass.

Importantly, the Bill will enable joined-up thinking on how we can tackle what is probably one of the most important transport issues affecting Wales. Its powers and provisions—the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) will support me on this issue, given his long background in campaigning for the Welsh aviation industry—will enable suitable surface access to Cardiff airport. However, the numbers will not grow in the way that I mentioned earlier if this issue is not addressed seriously and quickly. I hope that the Bill will help in that regard by bringing together all the players involved in the provision of vital access to the airport, in order to help find the quickest possible solution to this problem.

I welcome the opening earlier this year of the Vale of Glamorgan railway line, which was a huge step forward not just for my constituency but for transport policy in Wales as a whole. It provides an excellent commuter run all the way from Bridgend—my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mrs. Moon) is not present—to Cardiff via Barry; and, vitally, it provides a direct link to Cardiff international airport via Rhoose Point. So people will be able to travel by train nearly all the way to what is the fastest growing regional airport in the UK, and will need to take only a short bus journey from Rhoose Point station. But with the best will and according even to the most positive predictions, that line is unlikely to carry more than 10 per cent. of all the passengers using the airport. That presents a huge problem in terms of congestion on the roads surrounding the airport and people's ability to get to it. If that problem is not solved first, we will not be able to achieve the tasks set out in the White Paper.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we need all possible links to Cardiff Wales airport to ensure that the numbers using it are boosted. But does he not agree that the Welsh Assembly Government should have pulled their finger out a long time ago by working with everybody to ensure the creation of that link road? Will he also carry on campaigning with Conservative Members to ensure that British Airways comes back to Cardiff Wales airport?

It certainly is absolutely outrageous that British Airways took its regional services away from the airport. That said, I am absolutely delighted that bmibaby not only replaced those services but added to them substantially. It is British Airways that lost out by pulling out of the airport. This is a vital matter, and I agree that we must develop and enhance all routes to the airport in the interests not just of my constituency and the south Wales economy, but of all Wales.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no long-term alternative to having a public transport link from the centre of Cardiff to the centre of the airport without the bus connection? Does he further agree that, although there are significant associated logistical and investment problems, in the long term the provision of such a link is the single most important thing that we can do to ensure sustainable connections to the airport?

I want to think carefully before I answer that question. I believe that a direct link into the airport—a spur off the Porthkerry viaduct—that is integrated into the UK inter-city network would provide a huge advantage. In the longer term, that is clearly something that we should press for. Similarly, we should press for a direct link—not a bypass—from the airport through the A4232 at Five Mile lane and right through to the M4 at the Llantrisant junction. However, that is a long way off.

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the only thing preventing that from happening at the moment is the Welsh Assembly Administration, which is run by his colleagues in the Labour party?

I do not want to get involved in a childish tit-for-tat on Third Reading, Madam Deputy Speaker, when we have an important Bill before us. I am not getting into the business of knocking anyone; rather, I am in the business of providing Wales with a transport network that is the envy of the world. A network that integrates our air services would provide exactly that, because there is no example in the world of a successful economy generating and regenerating itself without a first-class international airport providing scheduled business flights throughout the world. That is exactly what we all should be striving for in respect of Cardiff international airport.

On both sides of the House, we should be campaigning for a direct rail link, just as we should be striving for a direct dual carriageway link to the M4 corridor, which would get us into the UK road networks. However, that is going to take years, if not decades, and the problem is that we cannot stand still on the issue.

I hate to use the example again—there is always a danger of highlighting the problems at Cardiff international airport, when it is the fastest-growing regional airport in the UK—but it was Digby Jones as director-general of the CBI who described the existing road from the M4 corridor to the Cardiff international airport as the only such airport road in the world on which one could get stuck behind a milk float for nine miles.

How can Cardiff airport be the fastest growing in Europe if passenger numbers are falling?

I did not say in Europe, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is obviously not listening and not interested in the debate. I said that it was the fastest growing airport in the UK, as defined by growth over the last five years—not on the basis of one quartile assessment, the findings of which have been abused to bash the airport this afternoon. We must act immediately and I believe that the Bill may well help us to do so. That is why I am speaking in favour of it this evening.

Proposals have been put forward by the Welsh Assembly Government and are under consideration right now. However, it must be stressed that this is a short-term measure to try to tackle the problem that Digby Jones referred to. We are talking about a tiny road, one of the most congested junctions in the whole of south Wales, at Culverhouse Cross, and then mini-roundabouts that currently have to be negotiated all the way to the airport. We will not be able to develop our airport as long as that type of access continues.

You will be delighted to hear, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I have it on good authority that Catherine Zeta Jones is going to be delighted. When flying into Cardiff to visit her home in Swansea, she has often complained that she cannot easily get from the airport on to the motorway. She has, in fact, been using the "Zeta Jones shortcuts"—down the Five Mile lane, cutting across through the country lanes to Pendoylan. The Welsh Assembly Government have proposed trunking the A4232, Five Mile lane, and the trunking of a short section of the A48 as an interim measure to try to tackle the problem of the congested existing road that feeds the airport.

I am devastated by the news that the hon. Gentleman has brought us about Catherine Zeta Jones. Perhaps she could ask her husband to fund the project.

Order. Once again I remind hon. Members that we are discussing Third Reading of the Transport (Wales) Bill.

I am extremely grateful for that ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I would not want to answer that question.

Proposals have been put forward. As I understand it, they are still out to consultation. They are temporary, immediate proposals to try to ease the problem of access to the airport. They are not satisfactory. The upgrading of Five Mile lane is a blessing and is welcome, because it is one of the most dangerous stretches of road in the country. The maintaining of the A48, if properly done, may improve the situation. Sadly, however, the local authority, the Vale of Glamorgan county council, has completely shelved the proposals to—

Who runs that?

I have no wish to go into that. My concern is to meet the challenge and improve access to the airport, which is what everybody from all parties wants.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. All parties want that, but it is not covered by the Bill. Responsibility for roads is already devolved. The second problem is that existing successful businesses will not be eligible for the sponsorship that the Bill allows. Those businesses will not get more money. Only businesses that do not exist, or cannot exist without the necessary funding, will be eligible for the funding that the Bill makes possible.

My understanding is that the Bill strengthens the powers of the Welsh Assembly Government to direct local authorities and other providers of transport strategies and transport provision. That is exactly the point. We have a ridiculous situation in which the Welsh Assembly Government have put forward an interim measure to help alleviate the problem of getting to Cardiff international airport and the local authority has dumped plans to upgrade the existing road, the A4050, the north-east access to Barry. That is vital not only to the future development of the airport but to the future development of Barry town. Barry has been left out of the transport loop by the proposals.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is clearly a problem in funding those local authorities?

My understanding is that the increase in funding to Welsh local authorities has been substantial over a number of years. How local authorities decide to spend the money has until now been entirely a matter for them. My hope is that under the Bill more pressure will be exerted on irresponsible local authorities such as the one that has shelved one of the most important road building proposals in my constituency.

I hope that the Bill will put that right. It is the hope of everybody in the House that the Bill will put that right and that the local authority will put a vital road back into its roads strategy so that we can improve the links to our airport, which will benefit everybody in Wales. That is why I support the Bill tonight.

I left my office in Montgomeryshire at 10.20 this morning and, thanks to the years of under-investment by the hon. Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin) and his colleagues and the failure to turn things round in the past eight years, I arrived in Westminster at 3 pm. It took a little short of five hours, with four extra station stops, three trains, two delays and one cancellation. In fact, the only thing that prevented me from losing my temper was the nice man at the information desk at Birmingham International, who said he thought that I should be the next leader of my party and then spoilt it by adding, "Good luck in tomorrow's ballot." [Interruption.] I say that not to seek sympathy—or the nomination of the hon. Member for Leominster—but to give a small and pertinent example of how badly our transport system needs to be sorted out.

Rail services in Wales and across the UK have been allowed to decline in earnest since the 1970s. British transport policy for the last three decades has been confused and ineffective, and the result is that we all have to put up with overpriced and unreliable services. By comparison, to make the same journey by car as I made by train today would have taken a little less than four hours, door to door. While it is a hassle to drive, at least people know that they will get where they want to go. That is the biggest single reason why so many people choose to drive instead of taking public transport.

Transport problems have plagued Wales for a long time now. A lack of good-quality local public transport is a great opportunity for the Assembly to show that it is better than Westminster at solving some basic problems. The Bill does not provide the answers, but it will enable the Assembly to do just that. The problems need to be solved because they have a direct impact on business. Transport problems in Wales have undoubtedly caused serious harm to the national economy. They have accentuated the two-paced nature of the Welsh economy by inhibiting growth across much of the country—the areas that are difficult to access. Of course, rural—mostly western—areas have suffered most.

Transport problems also affect the quality of people's lives. They have hit rural areas such as mid-Wales particularly hard, and the most vulnerable people hardest of all. Pensioners in Powys are caught between a rock and a hard place: either they roll the roulette wheel of local public transport and hope they do not get stuck, or they take their cars, bear the brunt of sky-high petrol prices and add to congestion.

The Bill is to be welcomed as a new chapter for Welsh transport, and I hope that it will mean brighter times ahead. However, it also provides a great opportunity in the third dimension. We could finally establish a modest but important inter-Wales air network. The signs are good. The long talked-about expansion of Welshpool airport is to go ahead, which is a good example of what can happen when the case is argued with the Welsh Development Agency, the local authority and the Assembly. The facts showed that the expansion would be a good economic investment, with no terrible environmental consequences.

While the expansion seems a small step, it hints that we may be reaching a point at which we can begin to capitalise on the potentially great advantages that a developed Welsh air network could bring. The nature of the Welsh landscape is such that on many routes, air is the swiftest, and most convenient, means of travel. We should not ignore the possibilities.

I always listen with interest to what Conservative Members say about air transport. Much is made of the environmental and economic costs of short-haul flights, but that debate usually involves Boeing 737s, which are large 100-plus seater aircraft, which would not be used for trips from north to south Wales.

The hon. Gentleman listens to what we say about air transport, but has he listened to what his colleagues say about it? The Welsh Assembly Member for Cardiff Central has said:

"North-South Air-links are a good idea in principle, but the number of people who want to travel to the North West of Wales is limited."

That does not contradict what I am saying; in fact, it fits in with my point exactly. No one will ever run a Boeing 737 from Anglesey to Cardiff because there are not enough people to justify it. However, as my Assembly colleague said, there is a limited demand for that service. Obviously, it is preferable to make journeys by rail, for example, where that is feasible and effective, but unless it is Conservative policy to build a direct rail link from Anglesey to Cardiff, the only sensible way to provide a fast connection between north and south Wales is by air.

We are looking at small numbers of passengers in some cases, and it is small aircraft that could provide us with the backbone of an effective, quick means of getting from A to B. A Piper Chieftain can easily take eight passengers—perhaps nine at a push—from north Wales to Cardiff in as little as 50 minutes. As for environmental consequences, such a flight would take about three gallons of fuel per person—less than that used by eight or nine people each driving themselves from north Wales to south Wales and back again. We know that oftentimes people drive because they have to get from north to south and the railways would take far longer.

Has the hon. Gentleman made any assessment of the demand for such a service? I recall that in 2003 Air Wales started a service between Cardiff and Liverpool, which is far closer to the large population centres in north Wales, and it closed within six weeks because of a lack of demand.

I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we have made some limited assessment of demand, although it is notoriously difficult to do so because, with air services, demand often follows supply rather than the other way round. The hon. Gentleman is now asking me about an area about which I perhaps know too much, but as he has asked, I will answer.

In 1997–98, when the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), now the Secretary of State for Wales, and I were considering these matters, it seemed that there was potential underlying demand, but in my judgment it will justify not 100-seater aircraft but something that will take one or two dozen people. There is a well established precedent: in the south of Ireland a strategic decision was taken to connect the country with a regional air network. That has been fabulously successful in driving the economies in those areas, many of which have a relatively small population, because they can now be quickly accessed by business people.

When I was working for Procter and Gamble in Newcastle upon Tyne—

Order. I know that the hon. Gentleman has extensive knowledge of this subject, but perhaps he could return to the Third Reading of the Transport (Wales) Bill.

My very next words were to have been, "and that is why the Third Reading of this Bill is so important to air transport in Wales." I apologise for digressing, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I get very excited about aircraft. The brief opportunity to sit down has calmed my spirit.

Returning to the specifics of Wales, I say to the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) that, in implementing the Bill, we have to make an informed assessment of what is feasible for air transport in the medium term. That ties into something that I need to clarify about my view of how the opportunity to support and fund regional aviation in Wales should be approached. I would be very resistant about taking the opportunity provided in the Bill to have an indefinite subsidy for aviation services. Although I can understand, at a push, that people even more fanatical than I might argue for that, it is my judgment that the best investment that this Bill provides is pump-priming. At Welshpool airport, the infrastructure is being built; nevertheless it would not be prudent for the Welsh Assembly to end up in an open-ended commitment to subsidise air transport that would necessarily be the domain primarily of business customers and perhaps a few wealthy private travellers. I agree with those who think that we must not place an enormous strain on Welsh expenditure by entering into something that we do not understand. The good news is that the Bill does not require that to happen, but does require some sensible investment.

I agree with the hon. Member for Vale of Glamorgan (John Smith): we have a hub airport in the form of Cardiff. Although we have to think about the macro-environmental effects of aviation overall, that is no reason to hold Cardiff back. All of air transport must start living up to its environmental responsibilities. In that context, we should all agree that if Wales is to prosper and be an attractive centre of investment and tourism, we have to ensure that Cardiff international airport is well connected internationally, as well as internally in terms of land transport. I associate myself with the hon. Gentleman's comments in that respect.

Those who question the benefit of aviation should remember that all the parties have proved its advantage. All the party leaders have been seen flying about the country. The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) was seen in his small helicopter, cruelly referred to by some of my colleagues as the batmobile. That shows that everyone who wants to travel quickly and can afford it tends to use aviation.

Although the Bill provides a good opportunity to discuss the infrastructure developments needed for Wales to establish its own regional air network, other matters, not directly related to the Bill, need to be considered. There are questions, which I shall not go into in great detail, about the use of American-registered aircraft in Wales and the UK as a whole, and the instrument rating and other qualifications that are required in the UK compared with the United States. I am glad to be able to inform the House that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), has agreed to meet me and MPs from other parties to discuss those issues. I am optimistic that that will smooth the way to using the opportunities created by the Bill to the full.

I hope that the scepticism that I have heard from the hon. Member for Leominster and others does not suggest that they oppose the Airbus developments in Hawarden. The A380 is the single most significant civil airliner being constructed in the world today and I am proud of the fact that that development is taking place in north Wales. I strongly support the environmental benefits that it will bring in terms of reducing emissions while carrying the same number of passengers as other aircraft.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made that point, because there was a great deal of concern when Mr. Isherwood, the Assembly Member for North Wales, questioned the legality of repayable launch investment, in a clear attempt to undermine the project.

It is a shame that people do that. We have enough trouble with Boeing without having enemies in our own ranks. I hope that, to use a phrase from another time, it was merely a moment of madness. [Laughter.] That, Madam Deputy Speaker, was also a rhetorical point.

Overall, we should aim to create a regional air network but, coming back to earth, we should recognise that the single most environmentally friendly way to make long-distance journeys is by rail. Rail is also a vital tool of regeneration for deprived areas, so it must be the centrepiece of transport reforms. Many people have written to me on the subject, and I am sure that other hon. Members have had the same experience. To mention only one, the Very Reverend Archimandrite Father Deiniol has discussed rail infrastructure extensively. I hope that the Assembly will take a strategic decision to support the long-term investment required in rail infrastructure. That will be expensive. The Bill does not provide the funds; it merely provides the opportunity and gives the Assembly the freedom to discuss the issue meaningfully.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that improving rail services across the border in England would benefit his constituents and that he will help me to secure a direct rail link from Shrewsbury to London.

In normal circumstances I would criticise hon. Members who come late into a debate. However, as I happen to agree with the point that the hon. Gentleman has made, I thank him for making the effort to come from his office to highlight the fact that cross-border rail links are important. For example, it is a shame that one cannot take a direct service from Aberystwyth to Euston, going through the constituency of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Daniel Kawczynski). I look forward to working with him to try to persuade politicians, rail providers and service providers that these links should be made available and that they should be bolder in running such services for rather longer to enable demand to increase. For example, I think that Virgin was premature in abandoning a service that had made it as far as Shrewsbury, only for it to be closed down.

Will the hon. Gentleman applaud the initiative linked to the powers in the Bill that allows the Welsh Assembly, with Arriva Trains and Network Rail, to reintroduce from the humble Llynfi line a train that from November will run all the way from Maesteg to Gloucester? That is the joined-up, cross-border thinking that we look forward to under the Bill.

The hon. Gentleman probably knows a little more about that service than I do. However, once the flow lines are in place, demand tends to follow. For so long, there has been under-investment in the British rail network and its services have been slashed. As a result, people have become accustomed to making journeys in a different way. I am encouraged that the Bill gives the Welsh Assembly the opportunity to make courageous decisions of the sort that the hon. Member for Ogmore (Huw Irranca-Davies) has described.

On a local level, the more integrated approach that the Bill encourages and advocates is both welcome and necessary. Our vision should be of a co-ordinated network where bus and rail services complement rather than compete with one another, and where local authorities work together to increase efficiency and ease the burden of bureaucracy.

An important omission in the Bill is that of accessibility. A report entitled "Mind the Gap", produced by Disability—Leonard Cheshire—highlighted the fact that many disabled people still experienced enormous problems accessing public transport. For example, nearly half of all the disabled people surveyed had found their choice of jobs restricted as a result of lack of accessibility to the transport that they needed to get to that employment. Nearly a quarter of those people had had to turn down a job offered because of a lack of accessible transport.

Improving the accessibility of transport for disabled people means more than free bus passes. They must be able to get on and off the transport that is available to them. If there are only a few trains a day, they need to be able to board those trains. More progress is needed in that area. One omission—I criticise myself in this instance—is that we did not think sufficiently through disability discrimination legislation and its implications for Welsh transport. I hope that the Welsh Assembly will make good what we omitted.

The Bill provides the framework to take Welsh transport forward. The hope is that the Government in Cardiff succeed where successive Westminster Governments have failed. Westminster Governments have shown themselves incapable of delivering a reliable and affordable public transport service. It is not integrated and it is not working well. The Assembly has the capacity to be more responsive to Welsh needs and to make the rail, bus and air system in Wales work. That system is not working so well in Britain. The Liberal Democrats have been grateful for the opportunity to discuss these matters. I hope that we shall be successful in convincing the doubting Conservatives of the benefits of a limited air network in Wales, and that there can be optimism that the Assembly will run with the powers that the Bill confers.

I welcome the opportunity to support the Bill's Third Reading. We know that transport to, from and within Wales is extremely important. We must ensure that we are never at the end of the line in any way, shape or form. We must be at the forefront of all forms of transport and ensure that they are of the highest quality for the citizens of Wales.

The coherent set of powers that the Bill will provide for us will ensure a positive future. It will be a future where all forms of transport can become integrated. That will enable us to achieve many of the things that we all want from our rail passenger, bus transport and air services. We want sustainability; we want to achieve modal shift; and we want to get people back into using public transport. We want to make sure that more freight uses various forms of freight transport. We must make sure that we compete not only in Wales but in the UK and Europe. We therefore need consistent services, and we must achieve the best transport services possible.

Those opportunities are much needed in Wales. The Bill makes provision for joint transport authorities and adopts a regional approach. People can therefore identify what is required locally to meet their daily needs. The National Assembly for Wales will provide a flexible public transport service that will plug the gaps, and that will depend on joint working on local transport plans.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill could lead to much more joined-up bus networks, which are sorely needed in the valleys and her constituency of Swansea, East? Getting local authorities and bus providers to work together across valley tops is vital for job creation if nothing else.

I agree. We are already working together in Swansea, East and west Wales on projects such as SWWITCH—the South West Wales integrated transport consortium—to achieve that modal service.

On air transport, please forgive me, Madam Deputy Speaker, for mentioning Catherine Zeta Jones again, but she is a great supporter of local airports. When she visits Swansea she always uses Fairwood airport, and is a great ambassador on our behalf all over the world. The consultation and worries about it across the border are important. The Bill, however, will improve transport provision and ensure that dialogue is always open. We need to talk Wales up and discuss what is achievable. We need to be at the forefront by establishing a public transport system that is the envy of the world. We can achieve that identity for Wales if we are able to talk up our services, and the Bill is the first step in that journey.

Like my hon. Friend the Member for Leominster (Bill Wiggin), I broadly welcome the Bill, but I have concerns about its implementation in the hands of the Welsh Assembly, which, in the years since its inception, has shown itself to be an increasingly acquisitive and centralising body.

I have two primary concerns about the Bill. First, clause 5 provides for the establishment of joint transport authorities. The power to establish such authorities is permissive, not mandatory. The Minister was at pains on Second Reading to stress that the Assembly will not be obliged to implement the power conferred by the clause. However, once it is conferred, the Assembly may be tempted to exercise it as a matter of course, which would clearly be wrong. Local authorities throughout Wales are already working in collaboration through consortiums such as Taith in north Wales and SWWITCH in the south-west. The consortiums are mostly working effectively, so it would be regrettable if the Assembly usurped their functions without very good reason indeed.

Far be it from me to defend the Minister or anyone else but, if memory serves, I seem to recall that those powers are to be used when local voluntary arrangements have broken down or are not working satisfactorily rather than being something that the Welsh Assembly would use as a matter of course.