On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today in the Daily Post, a newspaper covering parts of north Wales, Liverpool and north-west England, a full-page campaigning advertisement for a Member of Parliament for the Welsh nationalists appeared, covering an array—

Order. May I interrupt the hon. Lady? Has she made it known to the Member concerned that she is raising this matter today?

It is a general point; I was not intending to name the Member, Mr. Speaker.

If the hon. Lady intends to name a Member from another party—

I am not.

The hon. Lady has already mentioned the Welsh National party. She clearly stated that she was raising a matter about something that was done by another party, so it would better if she wrote to me, and I will look into the matter.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the reclassification of cannabis; to make provision for the roadside testing of illegal drugs; and for connected purposes.

The Bill is supported by parents, teachers, chief police officers, the Magistrates Association, road safety campaigners, academics, health professionals, newspapers, journalists and the Conservative party. All it needs is for the Government and the Liberal Democrats to come into line.

The first aim of the Bill is to reclassify cannabis as a class B drug, as it always was before the Government’s decision to downgrade the classification in 2001. Who can be in any doubt that cannabis wrecks lives? After 10 years of Labour Government, more lives than ever, particularly those of children and young people, are being wrecked by cannabis. As The Independent on Sunday said on 18 March:

“Teenage schizophrenia is the issue.”

We already know that 10 per cent. of all those with schizophrenia in the United Kingdom would not have developed the illness if they had not smoked cannabis—that is 25,000 individuals whose lives have been ruined by cannabis, not to mention their families, friends and loved ones, as well as the victims of the crime that so often follows cannabis abuse.

The Government have been pandering to the misconception that cannabis is a harmless, soft, recreational substance. Even the Secretary of State for Health, when admitting this week that she had used cannabis, showed no remorse and seemed to deny that cannabis caused health problems among the general population. In that case, why does the Information Centre for Health and Social Care report that 38,364 admissions to NHS hospitals last year were related to drug taking? Under the Government, there has been a threefold increase in that number over the past 10 years.

The Government should also learn from a research study published last month by the Society for the Study of Addiction, which shows that it will not be long before 25 per cent. of new cases of schizophrenia are cannabis induced. Most of all, they should listen to Professor Neil McKeganey of the Centre for Drug Misuse Research at Glasgow university, who this week said:

“It is clear that cannabis can both cause health problems and exacerbate them. It is a drug we have seriously underestimated. Its reclassification may have been the single most unwise decision made by this Government”—

and in 10 years, this Government have made a lot of unwise decisions. For a person with the qualifications of Professor Neil McKeganey to make that allegation shows how serious this matter is. It should cause people to stand up and think.

The UK Drug Policy Commission reported this month that

“estimated lifetime prevalence of cannabis use is higher in England and Wales than in any other European country”.

The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime world drug report 2006 shows that abuse of cannabis in the UK is five times greater than in Sweden. In Sweden, there is zero tolerance of possession of all drugs and six months’ imprisonment is usually the penalty that will follow drugs possession, so is there not a message there? As a result, what do they have in Sweden? They have one fifth of the drug abuse that this country has. That is why a senior police officer in Scotland is encouraging the Scottish Parliament to go down the Swedish route.

The reason why reclassification has been such a disastrous policy is that it has sent out the wrong message to young people, undermining the ability of parents, teachers and the police to intervene to prevent cannabis use. About 79 per cent. of school children believe that cannabis is both harmless and legal—even after the Government’s claim that they have invested a lot of money in education programmes. What a pitiful state of affairs!

Last month, a cannabis addict was convicted of murdering, in a drug-induced state, two friends in Twickenham. He was 18 when he committed that murder. He first tried cannabis at the age of 14 and by 15 he was smoking it every day with impunity. Young people in possession of cannabis are now not being arrested or even cautioned. No wonder that this week the NHS information centre reports that more than half of all 15-year-olds have been offered cannabis and that more than one in three 15 and 16-year-olds have used it. We have got a really serious problem here, which has got much worse because of the Government’s lax relaxed attitude towards it. My Bill would change the classification back to what it was before, and send out a clear message to young people and others that cannabis is illegal and dangerous.

I shall now deal briefly with the second part of my Bill, which is about roadside drug testing. The Pompidou group in its report on “Road Traffic and Psychoactive Substances” has shown that

“British drivers are the worst drug driving offenders in Europe”.

The latest statistics are that 18 per cent. of driver and rider fatalities on our roads have some form of illegal drug in their system. That is higher than the figure for excess alcohol. The link between cannabis use and dangerous driving is well established, and anyone who has any doubt about that need go no further than to look at the population-based control study of cannabis intoxication carried out in France. That shows that in fatal road crashes in France, 8.8 per cent. of drivers responsible for them proved positive for cannabis. Let nobody think that when we discuss cannabis we are talking about some harmless substance. We are talking about a substance that wrecks lives—not just those of the people who use it, but those of other innocent people as well.

One good way of deterring drug use and ensuring increased safety on our roads would be to introduce “drugalyser” roadside testing. It would work because, fortunately, surveys have been done showing that one in three people who currently drive after taking drugs say that they would be deterred from driving if the police did more checks. So we would immediately have fewer drivers on our roads with drugs in their systems if we had roadside “drugalyser” tests. The system is already in place in many countries in Europe and in Australia. The equipment necessary to carry out the tests is also available and has been used in other European countries and in Australia. That equipment is manufactured and produced in this country, but the Government are stalling on its introduction, thereby demonstrating once again that they are soft on cannabis. The link between cannabis use and bad driving is clear, as is the link between cannabis and mental illness. Why will the Government not do something about it?

This modest Bill should appeal to everyone who is ashamed of the way in which a generation of young people have been betrayed by a soft, ambiguous public policy on drugs. The Independent on Sunday has had the guts to admit that it was totally wrong in its assessment of this subject. It is now time for the Government to admit that they were totally wrong. I hope that we will be able to have a Division, because that will demonstrate which Members of the House believe that this is a serious subject that needs to be addressed, and which people in the House feel that this is a matter for complacency, and that we can continue with the present, failed policies.

I want to speak against this attempt to bring in serious measures via a ten-minute Bill. There are issues to be debated—about the connection of cannabis to mental disease and also the effect of cannabis on people’s driving ability—but if we are going to change the law, we need a much wider discussion than we can have in the context of a ten-minute Bill. That is the main reason why I am opposing the measure today.

I would like to point out to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) that the matters that he has put before the House are not quite as straightforward as he has led the House to believe. The reclassification of cannabis was done by the Government on the advice of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, chaired by Sir Michael Rawlins. It is a distinguished committee that is quite broad in its outlook. It contains many professional people, who have given the Government advice via the ACMD. There has been an outcry recently from people who want to reclassify cannabis, back from C to B. That reclassification would add to the confusion that already concerns the hon. Gentleman.

The facts are quite clear. Since the reclassification was established, there has been no increase in the misuse of cannabis. If anything, the misuse of cannabis is dipping; it is going down. The reason for that is that the Moroccans have put a lot of effort into stopping their people growing cannabis and we have managed to put a stop to the routes used to smuggle cannabis into Britain. By the way, the cannabis from Morocco contained about 5 per cent. tetrahydrocannabinol. That would not have the effects that the hon. Gentleman has described to the House today. I simply ask him: which cannabis is he talking about? Is he talking about Moroccan cannabis, or the fact that stopping the importation of Moroccan cannabis has led to Vietnamese criminals growing cannabis in this country? Those criminals are growing skunk and super-skunk, which contains 15 per cent. tetrahydrocannabinol. I repeat: which cannabis is he talking about? It amazes me that in the cannabis debate, we do not distinguish between the different species of cannabis. We talk about cannabis as though it were a single substance, but it clearly is not.

The Science and Technology Committee, of which I am a member, has just carried out a detailed inquiry into the ABC classification of drugs, which is what the hon. Gentleman has been referring to. After taking a lot of evidence—I stress the word “evidence”, because our recommendations were evidence-based—we concluded that whether a drug is classed A, B or C has little impact on what people out on the street are doing or thinking, so I do not think that it matters whether cannabis is in class C or class B, when it comes to whether the general public use—or rather, misuse—it. The majority of the general public do not know anything about the classification of drugs.

What is important is the harm that different species of cannabis cause. I think that the usage of cannabis will go down, because young people are learning that if it has high levels of tetrahydrocannabinol in it—the level could be as high as 15 per cent.—it causes mental health problems, but it does that to a small number of people, not to the public in general. There is a lot more research to be done on the subject, and it is far too early to bring such a Bill before the House.

There is another problem with roadside testing. I visited a scientific laboratory run by the Home Office near St. Albans about 18 months ago, and it is doing a considerable amount of work on the impact of drugs on the ability to drive. I point out to the hon. Gentleman that the problem is not just cannabis, but a wide selection of drugs, and it is not just illegal drugs that affect the ability to drive; over-the-counter drugs and prescription drugs do, too, so the matter is complex. It is not easy to test for drugs with what he calls “drugalysers” at the roadside. If he had carried out some research, had talked to the chief scientific adviser at the Home Office, or had visited the laboratory at St. Albans, he would have found that the issue is not as simple as he presents it.

It is too early to introduce drug testing at the roadside. The people to whom we talked at the laboratory run by the Home Office near St. Albans told us that cognitive tests can measure the ability to drive better than any of the instruments currently available, such as the breathalyser, which is used for alcohol testing. Simply testing a person’s ability to walk in a straight line or to stand on one leg is far better than some of the instruments currently available. I also point out to the hon. Gentleman that cannabis stays in the blood for up to 30 days, because it is a lipophilic substance absorbed by the fatty tissues of our body. Smoking a spliff will affect the mind for just a few hours, not for 30 days. I put it to him that it would be unfair to criminalise someone, having detected cannabis in them, because they were driving a car 20 days after they had smoked one spliff. Would he criminalise such a person for driving?

I oppose the Bill, largely on the grounds that the subject should not be dealt with in a ten-minute Bill, because the whole House should be part of this discussion. I also oppose it on the grounds that the measures that the hon. Gentleman has put to the House are impractical, at least at this stage of the development of the subject.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Christopher Chope, Mr. James Clappison, David T.C. Davies, Philip Davies, Mr. Nigel Evans, Mr. Mark Hoban, Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. Humfrey Malins, Mike Penning, Miss Ann Widdecombe, Mr. David Wilshire and Ann Winterton.

Drugs (Reclassification and Roadside Testing)

Mr. Christopher Chope accordingly presented a Bill to provide for the reclassification of cannabis; to make provision for the roadside testing of illegal drugs; and for connected purposes.: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 18 May, and to be printed [Bill 93].

I beg to move,

That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed–

(1) that it have power to consider–

(a) the provision of a station at Woolwich, in the London Borough of Greenwich;

(b) realignment of the running tunnels at or in the vicinity of the proposed Woolwich Station;

(c) works associated with the realignment mentioned in paragraph (b) above:

and, if it thinks fit, to make amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes;

(2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed is empowered by paragraph (1) above to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if–

(a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period ends on a day on which the House does not sit, not later than the fifth day on which the House next sits, and

(b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

(3) that, in their application to Amendments of which the first newspaper notice is published after the date of this Instruction, paragraph 2(a) of Instruction (No. 2) [12th January 2006] and paragraph 2(a) of Instruction (No. 4) [31st October 2006] shall have effect as if for the words from “that period” to the end there were substituted “ends on a day on which the House does not sit, not later than the fifth day on which the House next sits”.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

The House will recall a debate on Crossrail on 31 October last year about a set of additional provisions. During that debate, several Members raised concerns about the lack of a station at Woolwich. Despite the strongly expressed view of the Select Committee that such a provision should be added to the Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained then that the cost of a station to the public purse at £186 million was too high to justify. Given that strength of feeling, however, my right hon. Friend agreed to let Cross London Rail Links Ltd undertake further work to see whether there was a way significantly to reduce the cost.

Much has happened since then, and today’s motion will facilitate a Crossrail station at Woolwich. It will enable the Crossrail Bill Select Committee to consider an additional provision for such a station. I have placed copies of the instruction on the additional provision and an explanatory memorandum in the Vote Office. I will briefly remind the House of the position that we have now reached, which was set out in a statement by my right hon. Friend on 22 March.

There have been calls for the Government to include a station at Woolwich since the Bill was introduced in February 2005. Ministers resisted them for one simple reason—affordability. Although Crossrail will deliver huge benefits, the scale of the investment is substantial and presents a huge funding challenge. The addition of a station was simply not justifiable. Following the debate in October, however, a period of intense activity has resulted in important changes, which have been key in unlocking the issue of Woolwich. The Department for Transport and Cross London Rail Links Ltd have been working closely with the London borough of Greenwich and with Berkeley Homes Ltd, which has extensive development proposals for land that it owns in and around the area where the station would be built. The involvement of Berkeley Homes in particular has made a huge difference.

As a result of that engagement between the parties, proposals have emerged for constructing a station that could address the key issue of affordability. As my right hon. Friend made clear in his statement in March, an important development has been Greenwich council’s recent proposal to revise its policies and plans so as to allow for higher density development in the light of the opportunity to have a station at Woolwich. That in turn prompted Berkeley Homes to offer a means of enabling a station to be built without adding to the cost of Crossrail.

Those new circumstances allowed us to take a fresh look at the issue. As my right hon. Friend announced in March, the Department has reached an agreement in principle with Berkeley Homes, under which Berkeley Homes will build the basic box structure of a station underneath its own development at its own risk. The Government will make a contribution of £28 million, which is equivalent to the cost of the works that the project was already expecting to incur in that area—principally the cost of a ventilation shaft and a short section of tunnel. My officials are working with Berkeley Homes to turn that outline agreement into a binding contract.

Clearly, we would all wish to see the completion of a station, and we will be discussing the best way to achieve that with Berkeley Homes and the London borough of Greenwich, given the important role that they will play in making a deal on the terms of an agreement for fitting out the station work. I want to make it clear, however, that a key requirement of any deal is that sufficient funding contributions are received from developers and businesses that stand to benefit from a Crossrail station at Woolwich, such that the station can be fitted out at no extra cost to the public purse. All parties fully understand that. It means that we are now in a fundamentally different position in terms of a Crossrail station at Woolwich compared with where we were in October last year.

The initial agreement is excellent news, and on that basis the Government are content to bring forward an additional provision to obtain the powers for building a station. The hybrid Bill process has worked well to ensure that the issue of a station at Woolwich was properly considered. The Select Committee felt deeply about the merits of a station at Woolwich, and this achievement meets the Committee’s—and the Government’s—objective of not adding to the cost of the project. I believe that the deal we have struck would not have been possible if the Government and the supporters of Woolwich had not engaged in vigorous debate. It is important to recognise the part played by those who have argued for a station in changing the landscape.

I would like to express my sincere thanks, and those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, to the Select Committee. The Committee is at last coming to the end of its work, but we must remember that Committee members have been sitting since January 2006. During that time, they have been presented with more than 450 petitions and have considered a huge range of issues, under the successful chairmanship of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). They are carrying out an exceptionally difficult job, and pursuing it with rigour. Their tremendous efforts in carefully scrutinising the Crossrail Bill are helping to ensure that the Bill continues to make good progress. The Committee has now considered all the petitions received to date. I am extremely grateful for its dedication to this task and I look forward to receiving its final report.

May I, as the chair of the all-party group on Crossrail, add my congratulations to the Select Committee? I also congratulate the Minister and his colleagues, because a lot of work has clearly been done not only by Doug Oakervee and the team at Cross London Rail Links Ltd, but by the Department. This is a win-win solution, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and everyone else involved should also be congratulated.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. I would also like to add my thanks to the officials in the Department for Transport and at Cross London Rail Links Ltd for their tremendous efforts.

Today, we are debating a motion to allow the Committee to consider petitions against the additional provision to the Crossrail Bill that the Government intend to bring forward. Notwithstanding the Committee’s support for the principle of a station at Woolwich, its role will be to consider petitions against the additional provision, which I have no doubt it will do with its usual dedication and commitment—especially now that it can see the light at the end of the tunnel.

I want to emphasise that the decision to bring forward an additional provision is not a commitment to build a station at Woolwich—it is a commitment to work towards a financial deal that would enable us to have a station at no additional cost to the Crossrail project. However, if Parliament approves the additional provision, and the deal can be finalised successfully, Woolwich station will be just as much part of the Crossrail project as the other new sub-level stations contained in the Bill.

There is widespread agreement that Crossrail is a project of immense importance to the United Kingdom, and one whose momentum continues to build. The Government recognise that there are transport capacity challenges in London and the south-east, and we are working hard to address them. Connecting the economic centres in the capital with areas outside London will support local and national economic development and regeneration, benefiting the whole country. Both sides of the House have given strong support to Crossrail throughout the passage of the Bill, and I am grateful for that. The project would be enhanced by a station at Woolwich, provided that that can be achieved without adding to the public funding requirement. I commend the motion to the House.

May I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Interests, notably my chairmanship of the Construction Industry Council?

I welcome today’s debate and the new instruction to the Select Committee in respect of Woolwich. Before I talk about Woolwich, however, I would like to say how crucial the Crossrail scheme is to London. Without it, there would be a serious risk of London’s transport and traffic systems grinding to a halt within 20 years, resulting in huge economic disbenefits to our capital and to the UK economy. It is in all our interests to secure this hugely important new transport scheme, as it is vital to the ongoing economic success of our capital city.

Woolwich was originally part of the Crossrail scheme and there is an overwhelmingly strong case for having a station there. Woolwich is a major transport interchange, served not only by South East Trains but by about 190 buses every hour. It is shortly to be linked to the docklands light railway network, and it will also benefit from the introduction of the waterfront transit. It has a hugely important role as a link to the Thames Gateway, as well as giving many people in south-east London the opportunity to access the rapidly expanding labour market at Canary Wharf.

There are, therefore, obvious and substantial transport benefits to be gained from having a station at Woolwich. There will also be huge regeneration benefits. Woolwich as a town has a proud history, but over the past 30 or 40 years it has suffered a difficult period of economic decline following the closure of the traditional heavy industries that used to be the bedrock of the local economy. At the end of the first world war, the Royal Arsenal in Woolwich provided employment for some 80,000 people. By the 1980s, however, not a single person was working on the site; it had closed. A lot of the heavy industry along the waterfront had suffered a similar decline, and Woolwich faced serious problems of unemployment, poverty and disadvantage.

After that difficult period we are beginning to see some signs of hope for the future. There is new investment in the Royal Arsenal, as a result of which people are coming to live in that attractive and historic location. There is new commercial investment in Woolwich town centre and new retail developments, but there is still a very long way to go. A Crossrail station giving rapid connections to Canary Wharf, the City of London, the west end and Heathrow would make a substantial difference and would ensure that the regeneration takes root and the long-term prosperity of Woolwich is secured.

There is an overwhelmingly strong case for a Crossrail station at Woolwich, and it was a bitter disappointment to all of us who are concerned about the future of Woolwich when the Government decided about two years ago, as a cost-cutting measure, to drop the Woolwich station from the Crossrail scheme. If ever there was a case of a false economy—of penny wise, pound foolish thinking—this was it. All the figures show that Woolwich station will be a substantial positive contributor to the Crossrail scheme, with an exceptionally favourable cost-benefit ratio—incidentally, a much better cost-benefit ratio than the scheme overall.

Not surprisingly, given the setback, a forceful campaign rapidly gathered momentum in Woolwich to reverse the decision. We have form in south-east London on such campaigns. Fifteen years ago, it required a vigorous campaign to ensure that the Jubilee line had a station at North Greenwich. Twelve years ago, we were again in campaigning mode when an equally short-sighted penny-pinching economy was proposed by the Government of the day, and the station at Cutty Sark on the docklands light railway was dropped for cost-cutting purposes. Our campaigns in both cases succeeded. As a consequence, stations were built at North Greenwich and Cutty Sark, and no one now would dream of envisaging either of those lines, the Jubilee line or the docklands light railway, without those stations, which are hugely successful, attract large numbers of passengers and generate substantial revenue.

Given that background, we were pretty confident that we could demonstrate similar benefits at Woolwich and, as I said, our campaign rapidly gained strength. I pay tribute to the many people who contributed to the campaign, including the London borough of Greenwich, the Bexley and Greenwich chamber of commerce, South London Business, and thousands of individuals and organisations who came together in what was a truly popular movement to ensure justice for Woolwich and a station that would bring transport and economic benefits.

The evidence, which was substantial, was presented to the Select Committee considering the Crossrail Bill. The Committee came to Woolwich to examine the issue at close hand and it was clearly convinced of the huge potential benefits of a station at Woolwich. I put on the record my sincere appreciation of the hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) and all his colleagues on the Select Committee. They were unanimous across party on the issue. They saw the benefits of the Woolwich station and they clearly recommended last summer that the station should be reincorporated in the scheme. They had looked hard at the evidence and they had no doubt that Woolwich was necessary and represented very good value for money. All of us living and working in and around Woolwich are grateful to members of the Select Committee for their unswerving commitment to the outcome that we are ratifying today.

I do not intend to linger on the process, which was rather protracted, that has filled the eight months or so since the Select Committee recommendation on Woolwich. Suffice it to say that we have now reached the point where common sense has prevailed and the Woolwich station is to be incorporated in the scheme. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for confirming the Government’s agreement to that.

Through those discussions in the intervening period, which at times were difficult, the key element was the creativity that went into securing a cost-effective solution. Because of the obvious transport and regeneration benefits of the Woolwich station, there was always an opportunity to capture a significant amount of the development gain that would accrue from the construction of a station at Woolwich to offset the construction costs. I well remember making the point to the Secretary of State and his officials in the aftermath of the Select Committee’s recommendation last summer.

At the time, transport officials were somewhat dismissive on this count, but I am pleased that they have now recognised the real benefits that can be achieved through partnership and intelligent planning. As a result of the creative work that has gone in over the past six months, particularly from the London borough of Greenwich, Berkeley Homes and their advisers, together with the Crossrail team, to whom I also pay tribute, we have been able to reduce dramatically the construction costs of the station and develop a truly win-win solution. The station will be built by Berkeley Homes as part of their new development at the Royal Arsenal. The additional fare box revenues that will accrue from the station, together with the development gain from increased land values, means that the likely outcome, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, is a station imposing no additional net costs on the Government.

We should all be able to welcome today’s instruction to the Select Committee and the additional provision adding Woolwich to the Crossrail Bill, which is already out for consultation. Of course, there is still a lot more work to be done before the project is brought to a successful conclusion. The Select Committee will have to complete its consideration of petitions. Hopefully, few difficulties will be raised by the realignment of the route and the incorporation of the Woolwich station. Although I know that this has added yet more time to that which the Committee members have already had to give to the Bill, I hope that they will take comfort from the knowledge that their determined advocacy of Woolwich has brought this important improvement to the Bill. Not all Committees can look back on their labours and see such tangible results.

After it completes its Select Committee passage, the Bill still has to go through its remaining stages in this House and then the other place. I hope that will prove a swifter process than the process to date. That was partly inevitable because the Select Committee had to deal with an enormous amount of complex and, in some cases, extremely controversial material, and the fruits of its labour will make it easier for others to proceed more quickly.

When it completes its passage, the Bill cannot come into effect until the Government have finalised a funding package for the whole Crossrail scheme. No one should minimise the task involved in that, given the scale of investment needed, but we can begin to see the main architecture of the funding package. The outstanding work carried out over the past year or two by Doug Oakervee and Keith Berryman and their team at Crossrail in driving down costs and ensuring that the scheme is a demonstrably cost-effective and fundable project, has helped to make what once seemed a hugely problematic funding task look much more achievable.

As I said at the outset, Crossrail is essential to London’s future transport network and economic success, and it is vital that the remaining legislative and financial hurdles that it faces are successfully overcome. With the Woolwich station once again properly incorporated in the scheme, bringing huge benefits to south-east London and the Thames gateway, the scheme has my unqualified support. I look forward to us moving on over the coming months from its long gestation period into the construction and implementation phase, which I, for one, anticipate with great enthusiasm.

As the Minister pointed out earlier, the House is considering a motion to issue to the Select Committee an instruction to hear petitions against the construction of the station at Woolwich. This is the third such motion in the past 18 months, as the mammoth Crossrail Bill proceeds through lengthy, arduous and no doubt at times extraordinarily demanding Select Committee proceedings.

The Second Reading of the Bill took place on 14 July 2005. At that stage the House agreed the principle of the Bill, which is to construct a railway connecting the termini at Maidenhead and Heathrow in the west to Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the east. Among the intermediate stops agreed to at that stage were Paddington, Bond Street, Tottenham Court Road, Farringdon and Liverpool Street. Today we add Woolwich to that list. The Minister expressed one or two reservations, but the proposal represents a welcome U-turn by the Government and recognition of the benefits of a station at Woolwich.

The previous Under-Secretary of State for Transport with responsibility for rail, now the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Halton (Derek Twigg), stated the Government’s view at one stage that there would be Crossrail without Woolwich or no Crossrail at all. In May 2006 the same Minister placed in the Library a letter to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) containing the Government’s view that the high cost of the station made it unaffordable. In the debate last year the Secretary of State rightly said that the Government

“must retain the right to judge what is affordable”.

Despite the drop in costs to £186 million, the Secretary of State went on to say:

“After much consideration, my judgment is that we cannot simply add such a large cost to the project, which already represents a huge funding challenge.”—[Official Report, 31 October 2006; Vol. 451, c. 229.]

The benefits of the station at Woolwich have often been rehearsed, as in that debate and by the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich today. It was always part of the initial consultation that the station should be there, and it was somewhat surprising when that was deleted. Woolwich lies at the western end of the Thames Gateway, where there is scope for the development on derelict land. The transportation benefits are proven. It is already a major transport hub in the south-east, and a Crossrail station would service that further. On a cost-benefit basis, it is well in line with the cost of the overall scheme. If I wanted to prolong the debate, I could continue to laud its benefits in a similar vein.

There was always a case for Woolwich, in that it would improve the scheme and provide better value. In the debate in October, my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) and I welcomed the prospect. We also welcomed the Secretary of State’s decision to allow the Committee to reconsider the benefits of Woolwich. At the time, the Chairman of the Committee said that it remained of the view that the station should be built and said that it would be pleased to undertake more work and further investigations. As the official Opposition, we wish to place on record our thanks to this long-running hybrid Bill Committee and its Chairman for their excellent and extremely valuable work.

Today’s motion is largely technical. Across the House, we have moved from a contentious and controversial discussion to one that is non-controversial and consensual. There has always been cross-party support building up for the Committee’s view, and it is pleasing that the Government have recognised the benefits of the station.

I want to say a few words in defence of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), who pointed out in the debate in October that, in terms of affordability, £186 million was neither a huge proportion of the total estimated cost nor a sum likely to push the whole project over the edge. Unfortunately, the Secretary of State was somewhat curt and dismissive in his response to my hon. Friend. I am sure that the Minister would wish to place on record an apology to him, perhaps combined with good wishes for his upcoming nuptials this Saturday.

The Minister clarified the significant developments that have allowed Woolwich to happen—the welcome movement from Berkeley Homes, the all-party group on Crossrail, and I am sure many others, which has allowed for the provision of the box underneath the development, and the Government’s finding £28 million to facilitate affordability. In the debate in October, the Government said that affordability was the main issue. Today, the Minister said that the strict affordability of the project has changed, but he failed to say, as would have been useful, that the affordability criterion should have recognised the regenerative benefits and value for money of the Woolwich station. He concentrated on the deal with Berkeley Homes, which is none the less welcome.

Several questions remain in the air, however, in relation to the station at Woolwich. For example, when will the Government bring forward the estimate of expense that relates to the instruction, which is key to its being enacted? The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich talked about the benefits for London. Those have been well rehearsed in previous debates and I do not intend to go through them again, but it is worth clarifying one or two important points as regards enabling this exceptional project to go forward.

The Select Committee will finish its deliberations on the Bill at some stage later this year. Do the Government intend to push it straight into a Public Bill Committee in October? When do they anticipate that the first spade will cut the soil, assuming a relatively smooth passage through that Committee? We already know about the likely fare box tax revenue and business contributions. I look forward to the Government giving us some hint of their further funding proposals. Will the comprehensive spending review, high-level output specification, or 30-year rail White Paper have details of their funding proposals and what they intend their contribution to be? Those are matters of fundamental importance, because if the Secretary of State is right in proposing the principle that only the Government can determine affordability, then ultimately only they can finalise the funding. The Lyons fig leaf has been torn away and the Government are lying naked.

Let me finish by restating the official Opposition’s continuing position, which is that we have backed the Crossrail Bill in Parliament and will continue to do so, when it finally returns from the Select Committee’s deliberations, throughout its remaining parliamentary processes and on to the statute book—with, I hope, the Woolwich station. We recognise the economic benefits that will flow from the increase in transport capacity that Crossrail will bring to the people and businesses of London, and the motion will have our support.

I congratulate the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), who has played a central role in ensuring that the Woolwich station has remained on the agenda and has finally been delivered. I echo the comments of the Minister and the spokesman for the official Opposition about the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill and its Chairman. When I was my party’s transport spokesman, I appointed my hon. Friend the Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) to that Committee; astoundingly, he is still talking to me several months later. The Committee has done excellent work. I underline what the Minister said about this being an all-party matter. As an initiative, Crossrail has received all-party support in the House. Such a project will run for many years, and by its very nature requires such support, whether in this place or in the London assembly.

Not only does Crossrail have all-party support, but the proposal to bring Woolwich station on to the line is hugely supported not only in Woolwich but in south-east London generally. It will give many of us our closest access to Crossrail, and will be well used not only by people in Greenwich but by those in all the boroughs of south-east London.

I thank my hon. Friend for underlining the fact that not only Woolwich and Greenwich residents will benefit from the station, but people from further afield.

Today’s debate focuses on Woolwich and Woolwich station. However, I hope that with your leave, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be able to make a few short general comments about Crossrail itself, which is a vital project for London, for Londoners and for UK plc. Research published yesterday in a report by Buchanan and Volterra suggests that the range of benefits to London’s economy derived from the Crossrail project as a whole will be in the order of £37 billion to £68 billion. That will clearly have a hugely positive impact on London. Once Crossrail is completed, there is the potential for creating additional national tax revenues of £12 billion, as well as the reduction in costs to business that will arise with the reduced congestion and the significant benefits in the Woolwich area that the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich set out.

The project is viewed as vital not only by business, the Mayor and my party but by Sir Rod Eddington, who was appointed by the Government to conduct a review of the UK’s transport infrastructure and priorities. On 16 April, he told the Transport Committee that Crossrail was vital and that London would face enormous congestion challenges if the project did not go ahead.

That is not to say that we do not have concerns about the project. It is huge and it would be bizarre if issues did not remain on which we believe we should focus. They include the environmental impact, tunnel alignment, the use of specialised rolling stock, which we believe will do away with the possibility of operating trains from the west of England and East Anglia—

Order. Given an inch, the hon. Member must not take a mile. The motion is specifically about Woolwich.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing me back to the subject on which I was about to focus.

I want to ask one question about the overall cost of the project. There was an announcement in yesterday’s papers that it had decreased from £7.8 billion to £6.2 billion. I hope that the Under-Secretary will comment on that and how the figure was reached.

Perhaps hon. Members have a certain sense of déjà vu. That is especially the case for the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich. He quoted from the debate on 19 July 2005, when he said that the Government’s position was

“an illustration of the penny wise, pound foolish mentality”.—[Official Report, 19 July 2005; Vol. 436, c. 1151.]

That phrase is worth repeating. However, the Government have shifted their position, which is welcome. It is also welcome that Berkeley Homes intends making such a contribution towards the station to enable the project to be realised.

The right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich set out why Woolwich needs the station and the investment. The borough is 41st out of 354 for deprivation, which means that it is in the top 10 per cent. of deprived boroughs in the country. Average income in the Woolwich area is only £12,500 a year compared with £23,500 a year in the London borough of Greenwich generally. It is therefore poor even in the borough. Its unemployment rate is nudging 15 per cent., compared with a borough average of 6.3 per cent. Clearly, the station will play a significant role in providing regeneration for Woolwich. It will also provide access to residents in Woolwich to enable them to get to jobs in London. The model for the station predicts that 11,500 passengers will board in the morning at peak times and that nearly 3,000 will get off at the station. Clearly, there will be demand from people who travel outside Woolwich to find jobs elsewhere.

However, a few questions remain about Woolwich station. Hon. Members will be familiar with the appraisal that was carried out. The final report was published on 18 November 2005, again by Buchanan. It highlighted a couple of potential negative effects, especially on the environment, the water table and contaminated land in the area. Perhaps the Under-Secretary can address that, perhaps not now but in writing, and confirm for hon. Members that that potential problem has been resolved and that we no longer need to worry about it. It appears on page 15 in table 5.2 of the report.

We cannot avoid the question of how the project will be funded. That is true of Crossrail generally but also of Woolwich station. I shall not dwell on the funding for Crossrail as a whole. The Government suggested that Sir Michael Lyons might pick up on it in his report, although he was not asked to do that and therefore did not. He made it clear in his press conference on the morning of the Budget that he expected an announcement in the Budget. I asked him a question and his reply was, “Wait for the Budget in a few hours.” We waited for the announcement about the special business rate but it did not happen. Clearly, the Under-Secretary now has an opportunity to tell us how the project will be funded.

The funding arrangement specifically for Woolwich station is clear—Berkeley Homes will pay for it—but a couple of questions remain. Will the Under-Secretary set out a time frame in which he expects the contractual negotiations to finish? When will the binding contract be signed off? Will he put on record the guarantee, which I believe he has already given, that the public purse will not fund the station?

Will the Under-Secretary also provide some reassurance about the greatest weakness in the proposal—the Thameslink box scenario, whereby the box is provided but the station is not? Does he have any time scales in mind between which the box will be completed and the station will be fitted out so that it can be used? The paper that the Government published on 22 March stated that Berkeley Homes and Greenwich council

“recognise that the completion of the station would be conditional on receiving sufficient funding contributions from those developers and businesses that stand to benefit from a Crossrail station at Woolwich.”

I hope that the Under-Secretary can specify the method that he believes will be used to establish which businesses will benefit and what contribution he might expect them to make to ensure that the box is fitted out and we are not left with something behind hoardings that is nice, in place, ready to go, but for which no one has paid to install escalators and other fittings that are required to make it an operating station.

No one now questions the need for Crossrail. With private funds available to build Woolwich station, no one questions the desirability of proceeding with it. The only question that remains has dogged the project from the outset: how will it be funded? Could today be the occasion on which the Under-Secretary lifts the veil on Crossrail’s financing or will he instead give us a tantalising glimpse, only to pull down the veil sharply and leave the announcement of the funding package to the comprehensive spending review or something beyond it? We will know at the end of the debate.

I want to put on record my thanks for all the kind remarks that hon. Members have made about the Crossrail Committee. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for introducing the instruction to allow my Committee to examine and report more fully on the need for the Crossrail Bill to include a new station at Woolwich. He and his boss, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, are clearly men of vision and listening politicians. They have heard the voices of members of the cross-party Committee and their views on the economics, purpose, ultimate objectives and design of the proposed new railway for London. It is an interesting and exciting project, not only for London and the south-east but the nation.

What is more, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary have understood the need to examine the best methods of introducing the project’s benefits to the travelling public, especially those in areas such as Woolwich, which is strategically and economically most in need of such a measure. When we consider London, we perceive its fortunes as being built out of the Thames. However, today, the Thames acts as a barrier to parts of London, including Woolwich.

The new instruction will enable the Committee to hear evidence in favour of the proposals and any subsequent objections and/or petitions against the new provision. My Committee has worked hard on the Bill, as have the civil servants who have been appointed to it. They have suffered just as much as all the hon. Members who have served on it. We have received and examined hundreds of petitions, heard mountains of evidence and visited the less sunny climes of our glorious capital in search of truth. So far, we have sat through 81 days of evidence. Sometimes, we sat eight times a week simply to get through the work.

Given all that endeavour, I must put on record a warning to the Minister that the Committee intends to embark on this latest Crossrail journey in the same way that it conducted its earlier examinations. We will not prejudge, but instead give all sides the opportunity to make their case. I hope that we will bring the report back to the Chamber soon, and get it approved and enacted.

This afternoon is a time for congratulations, and I add my appreciation of the work done by the Select Committee, not least its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). From day one when he received the evidence, it has been clear to me that he appreciated the need for a station in Woolwich, its regeneration, the economic aspects, and its impact on the wider area in the borough of Greenwich, where my constituency is situated.

It is a shame that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is not here to bask in the glory of having had the vision, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield said, to see through the arguments against the station at Woolwich and appreciate its value in enhancing the Crossrail scheme overall. I think that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport has always been a secret fan, too, of a Crossrail station at Woolwich.

The achievement of a new instruction to the Select Committee is a credit to all sections of the community in Greenwich, including not just the elected Members of Parliament and councillors but businesses. The chairman of the chamber of commerce, Steve Nelson, a constituent of mine, urged members of the business community in Greenwich to recognise the importance of the issue and to put their weight behind the case for a station at Woolwich. We also cannot ignore the input of Berkeley Homes, and the vision that it showed in incorporating the scheme into its regeneration of the Royal Arsenal. Without that open-minded and creative thinking, we might not have achieved the new instruction to the Committee. All sections of the community have made tremendous effort, not least the public, who always expressed their support for the scheme and appreciated the contribution that it would make to transport links in the area.

As was pointed out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) —who also deserves congratulations on his efforts to argue for the station in his constituency—the score is 3-0 to us in terms of major infrastructure projects, although we do not want to rub it in. Initially, we were denied the opportunity of a station on the Jubilee line, but the then council, of which I was a member, argued forcefully to the Government of the day that it would be ridiculous to bypass that regeneration area—as it was then—next to what was to become the millennium dome, and not build a station. Similarly, the community came together and argued overwhelmingly that building the docklands light railway and bypassing Cutty Sark gardens next to the Cutty Sark clipper, one of the most popular destinations outside central London, was a serious error, and that a station should be included. On Crossrail, the community has again come together, made a forceful argument, and achieved the new instruction to the Select Committee.

In Woolwich, which is not in my constituency, although it is in the borough in which my constituency lies, transport is a key issue, as it is for many communities across the capital. Woolwich, however, is a strategic hub for people in that part of London. I cannot think of any other part of London where a major infrastructure project would be proposed—including a length of tunnel from Custom House to Plumstead, where it emerges before arriving at Abbey Wood—and a strategic and important town centre be bypassed and have no station. Common sense has prevailed today, and Woolwich is now to be included.

Will my hon. Friend confirm to the House the importance of such a stop, given that about 100 buses go into Woolwich every hour, and by 2030, I am told, more than 100,000 people will live within a 20-minute journey of it?

Those are absolutely key points. In addition, in 2009, the docklands light railway will arrive, so Woolwich will become a major strategic hub, even for people living beyond the immediate area, for all the transport networks being developed in the eastern corridor and around the Thames Gateway area.

With regard to major infrastructure developments such as the DLR, Crossrail and the Jubilee line, I hope that the Department for Transport will take on board that, while providing transport links for the regeneration area along the Thames corridor is important, that does not mean that the areas just outside, such as my constituency, do not have transport needs. As a Member of Parliament whose constituency is not entirely within the Thames Gateway area, I have had problems trying to get transport providers to recognise that the plans for such new developments must also consider secondary transport links to ensure that the wider community also benefits from the investment.

If the wider community is to benefit fully from investment in the station at Woolwich, it will be essential, although significant links already exist, to improve bus links to Woolwich. It has been difficult, for example, to get Transport for London to recognise the need to improve the bus links from the south of Greenwich to North Greenwich underground station. That has been one of the flaws in the transport development in that part of south-east London—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying from the motion before the House. It sounds to me as if he may have a case to apply for an Adjournment debate on the subject on which he is now speaking.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for bringing me back on to the route in question. When we have such developments, however, we need to ensure that the benefits reach as wide a community as possible. For my community to benefit most, those bus links need to be considered.

I very much welcome the instruction to the Select Committee and congratulate its members on the work that they have done so far. I commiserate with them on the fact that we will add to their work slightly with today’s instruction, but that is testimony to their recognition of the overwhelming argument in favour of introducing this important transport link in Woolwich. I look forward to that being included in the final Bill and being developed in the future for the benefit of the wider community in south-east London.

I hope that London Members will forgive me if I begin with an admission. When I was elected two years ago, I had not given a great deal of thought to Crossrail. I have to say that it is not a subject that comes up often on the doorsteps in Leicester, South, nor does it often feature in the columns of the Leicester Mercury.

During those two years I have learnt quite a lot about Crossrail, but when I first went into the Lobby to vote for the Bill’s Second Reading, I was unaware of what a major part it would play in my life and the lives of many other Members who were voting on that occasion—and who subsequently found what appeared at the time to be a rather innocuous card in their post just before Christmas 2005, informing them that they had been appointed members of the Select Committee on the Crossrail Bill.

As I have said in the past, we might have liked rather more explanation of what membership of the Committee would mean before signing up for it, but under the wise guidance of my hon. Friend the. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), we have learnt a good deal about Crossrail since then. As the Minister reminded us, we have received some 450 petitions on the subject, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield reminded us, in some weeks the Committee has met more than eight times. As some of my colleagues have remarked, it has sometimes felt almost like a life sentence. One of them observed that it felt like cruel and unusual punishment, and it has been suggested that Committee Room 5 is the parliamentary equivalent of a gulag.

I was delighted to hear from the Minister today—and I suppose it was inevitable that someone would use the analogy—that there was, at last, light at the end of the tunnel. Given all our discussion about Reading, another analogy occurred to me, from the “The Ballad of Reading Gaol”. Perhaps what we are seeing is not light at the end of the tunnel, but

“that little tent of blue

Which prisoners call the sky”.

None the less, it is good news that we are approaching the end of our period of incarceration. We shall be producing our report before too long, and we are beginning to see some results from our labour.

With that in mind, I welcome the further instruction to the Committee. Members, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), have spoken of the case for a station at Woolwich. I join others in paying tribute to the campaign that my right hon. Friend and neighbouring Members have waged to ensure that there is a station there. It became clear to Committee members from all parties that the case for a Woolwich station was overwhelming. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the cost-benefits analysis shows that it is far stronger than not just the case for the scheme as a whole, but the case for many elements of it. It is very pleasing that the Government have accepted the logic of the arguments with which he and others persuaded the Committee.

I am sure that all Committee members are pleased that the Government have agreed to instruct us to consider a measure that will facilitate construction of a station at Woolwich. I note that continued work to develop a financial package that will make that possible, and I hope the Minister will reassure us again that the Government will continue to engage in a process of ensuring that such a package is developed. It is a question not just of making a station possible, but of ensuring that one is constructed.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield has pointed out, if the motion for the instruction is passed we shall be required to consider further petitions against a station at Woolwich. Notwithstanding anything that my hon. Friend or I may say today, we will keep an open mind in considering such petitions, and will of course give due weight to any arguments against the station. That said, however, I am sure that—as my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield has indicated—Committee members will welcome the instruction and look forward to considering the proposal. As other Members have said, we look forward not just to this particular instruction, but to a favourable passage for the Bill.

Over the past two years, we have learnt much about the benefits of Crossrail. It will give enormous advantages not just to London, but to the infrastructure of the nation as a whole. I am convinced that the building of this important link in the transport infrastructure of the capital, and its development in a way that will benefit the whole nation, is as relevant to those of us in Leicester and other provincial cities as it is to those with London constituencies.

While I am sure that my colleagues, like me, look forward to receiving the instruction, we must look beyond that to the development of a financial package that will make possible the development of Crossrail in its entirety.

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

This has been a well-informed and good-natured debate, and I am grateful to Members for what they have said. Support for Crossrail clearly remains strong and spans the House.

Given that my right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford) can justifiably claim to have run a very successful and effective campaign for a station at Woolwich, he managed very efficiently to contain his joy at his success. Understandably and correctly, he referred again to what he had said on other occasions about levels of deprivation in Woolwich. I do not intend to rehearse yet again the constitutional arguments about what a Select Committee can and cannot recommend to the Government during the passage of a hybrid Bill and what the Government can and cannot say in response. I shall confine myself to paraphrasing Lady Thatcher and saying “Just rejoice.”

The hon. Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond) made some supportive comments, for which I was grateful. I was also grateful to him for telling us that the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is to be married on Saturday. I hope that he will convey my congratulations to the hon. Gentleman, although I do not suppose that what he said constituted an invitation.

The Government have always recognised that a station at Woolwich would have regenerative benefits for the Woolwich economy. The argument against it that was advanced in October did not deny that; it was simply about affordability. While a Woolwich station would of course be beneficial to the Woolwich economy, it was not seen as essential to the Crossrail project as a whole.

The hon. Member for Wimbledon asked about the timetable for the Standing Committee. The Government hope that, provided that the Select Committee concludes its business before the summer recess, the Bill will be committed in October, with Third Reading and remaining stages in the House in November. The hon. Gentleman also asked about the start of construction. That will depend on an announcement on funding, about which I shall say more later. He asked about the elements of the funding; it is in the public domain that the balance from central Government will be included, as well as a possible levy on business rates in London for businesses that will benefit from the Crossrail project. I hope to say more about that later as well. He asked for an estimate of the expense. An estimate of the expense involved in this element of the scheme, along with information about additional provision, will be deposited at the start of the consultation period in mid-May.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) asked about the cost of the project. He may have been referring to newspaper reports that appeared earlier in the week. I can tell him that a value management exercise has reduced the cost—at 2002 prices, the standard for all Crossrail costings—from £7.8 billion to £6.2 billion, including a contingency element of about 35 per cent. At today’s prices, that is between £15 billion and £16 billion.

Can the Minister confirm whether that reduction in cost has come simply from reducing the contingency, or are other factors involved?

The contingency at 35 per cent. remains a static figure as a percentage of the core costs. The savings have been made in a number of ways, such as by a review of the tunnelling strategy, and by a review of selective door opening so that existing surface-level stations might not have to be extended. There are other elements, and if the hon. Gentleman wants me to give him more details, I am happy to do so.

The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Lyons inquiry into local government funding, and I am happy to repeat what I said in the debate of 31 October. I did not expect Lyons to say anything in detail about how Crossrail will be funded. The point I made in the House on 31 October was that it would be foolish to try to construct a framework for the funding of Crossrail when we did not know at that time what the Lyons report would say about the future structure of local government funding, which would be an essential element of working out the exact structure of the Crossrail funding package. I have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman by telling him that in respect of that I will not lift the veil today. I hope that the announcement on Crossrail funding will be made in the context of the comprehensive spending review, and if he asks me for a date for that, I shall have to disappoint him again, but it will certainly be later this year.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the Thameslink box scenario. That is an important part of the debate, and I want to make it clear that I hope that, provided that the proper financial package is put in place and the necessary level of private funding is secured, there will be no gap between the building of the box and the fitting out of the box to make a station. In the ideal scenario, I hope that that is what will happen, and that it will do so at the same time as the construction of the rest of the south-east arm of Crossrail. However, let me make it clear that if Berkeley Homes and other partners pay for the construction of the box and Crossrail is then built but private finances are not forthcoming, from whatever source, that box will not become a station and it will be used instead as a ventilation and access area for that Crossrail arm. Although I am confident—as are Berkeley Homes and the London borough of Greenwich—that a deal can be reached and that the finances can be delivered, if that does not happen, money will not be forthcoming from the public purse; there will be no net increase in the amount of money that the Government are putting up to build Crossrail.

The Minister might be about to come on to this point, but does he have any clear view yet as to how the benefits to business from having a station at Woolwich will be quantified in terms of trying to get private finance providers to make the contribution that we all want them to make?

That is a valid question, but I am not able at this early stage of the negotiation to give any details in respect of what mechanism might be used to identify those particular benefits. I say again, however, that I have confidence that the various partners will be able to come up with an appropriate mechanism that will have widespread support among the business community in the Woolwich area where the station will be built.

I have received some inspiration that causes me to clarify what I said earlier about the Crossrail costings. I suggested that the sums of £15 billion and £16 billion were calculated at today’s prices, but they are in fact costs of the day rather than costs of today; in other words, they are costs that will be incurred at the time that Crossrail is built, rather than based on today’s prices. I hope that that clarification does not confuse matters any further.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) for his courtesy and devotion to the task that has been before him for the past year and a half. He described me and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State as men of vision—I wonder if he would care to put that in writing. We are grateful to him and every member of his Committee for the dedication that they have shown in undertaking their task. He has chaired the Committee with a distinction and level of professionalism that we would expect from him. He says that the Committee will not prejudge the Woolwich issue, which goes without saying. I know that the final stages of the Bill will be carried out in the professional manner that we have come to expect from my hon. Friend.

My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) referred to the Secretary of State’s role. He has never argued against the point that a Woolwich Crossrail station would be of benefit to the local Woolwich economy, and I hope that my hon. Friend will recognise the personal efforts that my right hon. Friend has made to try to secure this deal. My hon. Friend talked about the importance of bus links to Woolwich. The Labour Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, is committed to public transport, and I am sure that he can alleviate that concern by working with Transport for London.

My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Sir Peter Soulsby) talked entertainingly about the role of the Committee. Now that Committee members are close to emerging once again into the daylight, blinking at the strength of the sun, I want again to pay tribute to him and the other Committee members for their outstanding work. I suspect that from now on when the Whips hand him a white card asking him to serve on any Committee, he might treat it with more suspicion than he previously would have done.

Crossrail will benefit London, and it will also benefit the south-east and the United Kingdom as a whole. It will significantly increase the capacity of the rail network into and across London and it will relieve congestion and overcrowding on the existing national rail and underground networks. It will meet the substantial growth in demand for travel in the capital that is expected over coming decades. It will also improve accessibility.

Crossrail will provide improved east-west rail access into and across London from the east and south-east regions. It will support local and national Government policy for economic development and regeneration, particularly in the Lea valley and Thames Gateway. It will also significantly enhance public transport access to Heathrow airport and allow Liverpool Street station to handle many more passengers to and from Stansted airport. It will facilitate the—

Order. I hate to spoil the Minister’s peroration, but I did reprove the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) about going wider than the motion before us. I hope that the Minister will bear that in mind.

I am very grateful for that stricture, Mr. Deputy Speaker—considering that I was nowhere near my peroration. However, I will now cut to the chase.

The Crossrail project will be enhanced by a station at Woolwich, provided that this can be achieved without adding to the public funding required. Developments since October, particularly the agreement in principle that has now been reached with Berkeley Homes, represent a very positive way forward on this difficult issue. Both the Government’s and the Select Committee’s objectives have been met. The motion before the House today is a further important step toward making a Crossrail station at Woolwich a reality, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That it be a further Instruction to the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is

committed–

(1) that it have power to consider–

(a) the provision of a station at Woolwich, in the London Borough of Greenwich;

(b) realignment of the running tunnels at or in the vicinity of the proposed Woolwich Station;

(c) works associated with the realignment mentioned in paragraph (b) above:

and, if it thinks fit, to make amendments to the Bill with respect to any of the matters mentioned above, and for connected purposes;

(2) that any Petition against Amendments to the Bill which the Select Committee to which the Crossrail Bill is committed is empowered by paragraph (1) above to make shall be referred to that Select Committee if–

(a) it is presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office not later than the end of the period of four weeks beginning with the day on which the first newspaper notice of the Amendments was published or, if that period ends on a day on which the House does not sit, not later than the fifth day on which the House next sits, and

(b) it is one in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents.

(3) that, in their application to Amendments of which the first newspaper notice is published after the date of this Instruction, paragraph 2(a) of Instruction (No. 2) [12th January 2006] and paragraph 2(a) of Instruction (No. 4) [31st October 2006] shall have effect as if for the words from “that period” to the end there were substituted “ends on a day on which the House does not sit, not later than the fifth day on which the House next sits”.

That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.

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

I am delighted to have this opportunity to introduce the Second Reading of the Bill and I welcome all the other right hon. and hon. Members to the Chamber this afternoon. It may feel like Sleepy Hollow, but this is an important issue for many people, not only in Norfolk and Suffolk, but across the country and internationally. The Bill has been gestating for some time and will probably go on for some time to come, until we get it right, because that is how determined we are to take it forward.

I wish to thank my colleagues from Norfolk and Suffolk who are in their places to represent their constituents with a personal interest in the Bill. I am sorry that the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) is not here, but he has suffered a family bereavement. I hope that the Bill will progress, to give him the opportunity to make some of the points about which he feels passionately. I wish the hon. Gentleman and his family well in their current situation.

The broads, which stretch across Norfolk and Suffolk, are the UK’s most important wetland. They are a unique and internationally important landscape, with a designation equivalent to that of a national park. I shall say more about why they are not a national park in name, although they share many other functions with national parks. In the 1950s the origin of the shallow reed-fringed lakes—or lochs, for the Scottish—was discovered, and they can be seen as the most extensive archaeological sites in Britain, including mediaeval peat diggings from a time when Norfolk was the economic powerhouse of the country. They were subsequently flooded, which gave later generations the network of rivers and broads in which so many people delight today.

The broads are known for their big open skies, the drainage mills dotted across the landscape and the reed beds with bittern and swallowtail butterflies. They are where Nelson learned to sail, and where the concept of a boating holiday was invented. The railways are still there. Arthur Ransome made holidays on the broads popular, and hon. Members will recall the distinctive railway posters of young people disporting themselves on sailing boats. The value of tourism in the area now is estimated at £140 million a year.

A famous local naturalist, Ted Ellis, called the broads

“a breathing space for the cure of souls”.

That is a majestic phrase, and the area is indeed one of those very special places that help us to recharge our batteries and cope with our modern busy lives—and the odd MP does visit. In the 1947 Hobhouse report, the broads were listed as one of the areas proposed as a national park. Ten of the 12 proposed areas have been established as national parks under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and the other area, the south downs, is under serious consideration. However, the national park for the broads did not proceed, because of the multiplicity of authorities with responsibilities for the planning and management of the area, strong commercial pressures and the anticipated high costs of management. It was recognised that it needed a special solution.

In the intervening years the broads came under huge pressure, water quality declined and there was a real concern that many of the special qualities of the area would be lost. We now know that a combination of factors were in operation, including phosphates from sewage treatment works, bank erosion by boats, drainage of the precious grazing marshes for arable crops, and nitrates from agricultural run-off.

In 1977, the Countryside Commission brought matters to a head by announcing that the area met the criteria for designation as a national park and seeking views on the best way forward. The opinion that a standard national park was not the best solution remained widely held, and negotiation with local interests led to the establishment of a joint local authority committee in 1978, involving county and district councils, the water authority, the Great Yarmouth port and haven commissioners and other interest groups.

A decade or so later, the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 was passed, and the Broads Authority came into permanent existence the following year to provide governance of the whole system. Much has been achieved in the past 20 years, and the decline has not only been arrested but reversed. Plants that have not been seen for 50 years have flowered, and the pioneering Halvergate grazing marshes scheme led to the environmentally sensitive areas programme and modern support for environmentally sensitive farming. A bursary scheme supported by the Heritage Lottery Fund is training a new generation of reed and sedge cutters and millwrights. Tourism in the broads, which faces increasing competition from cheaper overseas holidays, is moving forward by improving the quality of the product while recognising and supporting the special qualities of the broads. To conclude my introduction, at a meeting that I attended, the chairman of the East of England Development Agency expressed an ambition to make the broads like the Florida keys. Having visited the keys I shied away from that, and I said that the broads had a magic that, thank goodness, the Florida keys could neither get their hands on nor improve on.

There will be debate, I hope, in Committee and in another place about the Broads Authority, which is a special statutory authority established under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act, with a general duty to manage the broads for three major purposes: conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the broads, as I have described; promoting opportunities for the understanding and enjoyment of the special qualities of the broads by the public; and protecting the interests of navigation. The first purposes are identical to those given to the national parks, and it is the third additional purpose that makes the Broads Authority’s responsibilities special. It is, as it were, a national park plus. The authority is the third largest navigation authority after British Waterways and the Environment Agency. I must apologise to the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who has been dealing with water problems all day, last night, the day before and so on. Water is suddenly at the top of the agenda, and inland water problems have risen high in the country’s political life.

British Waterways and the Environment Agency work with the authority through the Association of Inland Navigation Authorities—AINA—and the national park authorities. The authority is a harbour authority, too, and its navigation responsibilities, which are unique, include public safety provisions for navigation and for boats, and maintenance of the navigation system, including moorings, dredgings and markings. The authority is a local planning authority for the broads, with responsibility for planning, conservation, development control and enforcement. There are some problems, and we will take them on board, as people have quite rightly complained about the provisions of the Act, the number of members, who they are and so on.

In 1988 the authority comprised 35 members, but after four years of discussion and consultation, agreement was reached to reduce that to a more appropriate number. In June 2005 the authority comprised 21 members, who are charged with taking account of national and local interests while reflecting the authority’s particular duties and responsibilities. Ten members are appointed by the Secretary of State, nine by the eight local authorities in the area, and two by the authority from its statutory navigation committee. I shall talk later about the other organisations that should have an input.

The locally appointed members are councillors who have been elected locally and are an important link with the community, and the Bill does not include any proposals to change the overall membership. The authority is keen to engage with a wider group of stakeholders and local people, and it established a broads forum, which has been emulated by other members of the national park family. It is keen to continue to develop its role, and has recently included parish council representation. It has met the Norfolk County Association of Parish and Town Councils—I expect that many of my colleagues in the Chamber have done so, too—and it has undertaken to work more closely with them to strengthen the relationship with parish councils in the broads area.

Many people—the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) is one—feel that there is a powerful case for town and parish councils being represented on the Broads Authority, and that those bodies should do more than work closely with the authority. Is there a reason why that cannot happen? Can the Bill be amended to facilitate that?

A priori, there is no reason why the Bill could not be so amended, but the argument has to do with the role of the parish councils in the area covered by the Broads Authority. The authority performs some of the work of the parish councils, whose involvement in initiatives is therefore limited. However, that arrangement does not have to last for ever, and we can discuss the arguments for and against parish councils’ representation on the Broads Authority. At present the parish councils have a consultative input into the broads forum, but I am sure that we will examine later in Committee how many and which organisations should be represented on the authority.

I know, for example, that some people think that other bodies need to be included. In my opinion, however, the Broads Authority has been open to debate about these matters and I am not aware of any internecine warfare—indeed, it has been prepared to open its doors in order to strengthen the work that it does. Obviously, parish councils have a role in determining planning applications, and that might provide a model for wider consultation. Moreover, we must also bear it in mind as we make progress with the Bill that parish councils may have a part to play in organisations other than the Broads Authority.

The Broads Authority’s executive area is tightly drawn around the flood plains and lower reaches of three main rivers—the Bure, the Yare and the Waveney. Only 5,000 people live in the area covered by the authority, but it abuts the urban areas of Great Yarmouth and Lowestoft, and it includes the River Wensum, which takes it right into the middle of Norwich. Most of the land in the broads is privately owned, and large tracts belong to wildlife trusts, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and the National Trust. The responsibility for, and involvement in, the area is therefore widely spread.

The navigation area under the authority’s responsibility is defined in the 1988 Act. It includes all the stretches of the Rivers Bure, Yare and Waveney, and their tributaries, that were in use for navigation by virtue of any public right of navigation at the time of the passing of that Act. It excludes the River Haven, which remains under the jurisdiction of the Great Yarmouth port authority. Breydon Water and the passage under the bridges over the lower Bure is the most dangerous part of the broads navigation, and visiting craft regularly have to be helped off the mud there and warned about the bridges. The Broads Authority patrols the area, and by agreement with the Great Yarmouth port authority, the Bill provides for responsibility for navigation in those waters to be transferred to the Broads Authority. That is one of the proposals that have emerged from the negotiations in respect of the Bill.

There are also problems with how the Broads Authority is financed. It has two principal sources of income. There is the national park grant, which accounts for two-thirds of its resources and income from toll payers, amounting to roughly £2 million in the current year. The previous Minister with responsibility for these matters recognised that the formula for allocating national park grant did not reflect the additional costs of managing a water-based protected area, and he therefore allocated an additional £500,000 a year over three years. That money has made a huge difference to improving biodiversity, implementing practical safety improvements and increasing the amount of dredging.

I appreciate the financing problems facing the present Minister in respect of British Waterways and other bodies, but I hope that he will be able to build that funding into the authority’s core grant in some way. I believe that there is some room for negotiation, however, and I stress that the additional money is very important for the future of the broads. The Broads Authority has achieved a lot in the past 20 years. Ironically, it came through the national parks performance assessment with flying colours. The people on the authority and their supporters are committed to improving the services that it offers.

People ask why we need a private Bill. I shall not give all the reasons why the broads region is not a national park. The area was missed out when those decisions were made because it was concluded that its allocation of responsibilities did not conform to the Sandford principle.

Following advice from various sources, it became clear that a private Bill would be the only way forward to tackle the important safety matters that must be addressed. The authority is following the path of many proposals made by British Waterways and the Environment Agency, which have given it a lot of help. The current and previous Ministers responsible in the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have also been extremely helpful by ensuring that they and their officials gave good advice and assistance.

The main purpose of the Bill is to obtain new powers for the authority to improve the safety of those boating on the broads. The need for additional powers has been highlighted by the requirements of the port marine safety code and incidents such as the Breakaway V accident. We are grateful for the fact that there is not a history of a great many accidents on the broads—although we have no idea of how many near misses there have been. However, most people would agree that it is important that public safety be improved. There have been one or two incidents in which someone has drowned, such as that involving Breakaway V, which means that the authority has to take on several general provisions to improve safety on the broads waterways.

The Bill will give the authority the power to give general directions to all vessels, or particular classes of vessels, and to give directions to designate safe navigation routes. It will give the authority the power to give directions to regulate mooring in its navigational jurisdiction and the towing of vessels. It will allow the authority to give special directions to vessels in one-off cases and to designate the construction and equipment standards for vessels.

The authority’s intention, which is embodied in a formal legal agreement with national and local boating interests, is to implement the national boat safety scheme, which applies to waterways under the jurisdictions of British Waterways and the Environment Agency. Importantly, the Bill gives the authority the power to introduce compulsory third-party insurance for vessels. It allows the authority to require the licensing of pleasure boats and to regulate water skiing and wakeboarding on the broads better. It also gives the authority the power to deal with overhanging vegetation that causes a hazard.

I know that people think that regulations can sometimes be stuffy, and that there can be over-regulation. However, the same arguments were made about seat belts in cars—and I do not hear many people arguing against seat belts now, although there was a lot of argument when the seat belts measure was proposed. Who knows how many lives that has saved? A simple little Act made a big difference to public safety. The intention behind the Bill is to improve public safety.

It seems that there is a public right of navigation and that the public have the right to go where they like, so I understand people’s resentment of such a top-heavy management style. Even though I am not sure that that is how things will turn out, that is always what people fear. I realise that when a balance must be struck, we must strike it on the side of public safety, as long as we can make the argument that public safety is being improved. There are statutory and other legal restrictions on the way in which the public right of navigation can be exercised. Harbour authorities, of which the Broads Authority is one, have the benefit of statutory powers to enable them to control the way in which their areas are navigated.

It is important that the Bill’s provisions are reasonable and proportionate, and that they take proper account of individual rights. As legislators, we all know how hard that balance is to strike. I am a member of the Committee considering the Mental Health Bill, so I know that it is difficult to come up with a balanced black-and-white position on some issues—the line is often very wavy. However, it is right that the Bill makes changes, given some of the events that have happened. Although those events have not been major tragic incidents, they are sufficient to make one worried that such an incident could occur. It is our job to protect individuals who use the broads.

The Bill has come about through consultation exercises and agreements with boating interests. The authority consulted local MPs, Government Departments, the Environment Agency, the National Farmers Union and the Great Yarmouth Port Authority. The groups that have been spoken to include the Royal Yachting Association, the British Marine Federation, the Inland Waterways Association, the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association and the Broads Hire Boat Federation.

In all cases there is a written agreement about how the measure should operate and the consultation has allowed changes to be made to the original Bill. In a sense, that is a form of contract, so who cares whether it is legally binding? However, it is important to have that piece of paper in case anything goes wrong.

The hon. Gentleman asks who cares whether the agreements are legally binding. Many people care, because those pieces of paper ensure that the Bill’s powers, which seem at face value quite draconian, cannot be used or changed without the agreement of the parties involved. If those agreements are not legally binding, it will be a serious matter for the people who have raised concerns with me.

I meant that none of us wants those signed agreements to go to court. Legal advice would be taken before they were signed so that both parties went into the agreement having decided that it was the best way forward, subject to modification if necessary. I hope that we would not then have to go to court, because that would make things hard and fast. As such agreements are not on the face of the Bill, they could be modified by mutual agreement, which is important. We can make things absolutely legally binding, but that could mean that everything done on the broads ended up in the High Court, which is the last thing we want when reaching agreement with yachting associations and so on.

We want people to feel that they have the right to explore the broads without a boat following them everywhere. We want them to have a sense of adventure, but with the knowledge that people who know what has happened and what could happen have drawn up agreements. I do not want there to be arguments about whether the agreements are legally binding; I do not know whether they are, but I do not want them to go before the courts. At present, things look good and there is agreement on both sides.

The authority believes that the provisions are reasonable and proportionate, and take proper account of individual rights. The Bill was built on a thorough consultation exercise and the agreement with boating interests has produced consensus and balance. The Bill’s objective of public safety is a legitimate ground for qualifying what might otherwise be an unhindered public right. I have already mentioned other restrictions on what people are allowed to do, such as seat belts and speed limits.

The other main object of the Bill is to modernise the authority by updating some provisions in the 1988 Act; they were relevant and important then, but the time is ripe to review and update them. The Bill would provide for the removal of the requirement for a separate navigation account dealing with navigation income and expenditure. The authority feels that the provision has proved administratively bureaucratic, and cuts across its aim for an integrated approach to the management of the broads. There will be a requirement that navigation expenditure be similar to navigation income—the toll that people pay for all the changes in navigation. There are arguments to be had about where the money goes, because the intentions of the Government and the authority are not necessarily the same. However, the authority can hardly be blamed for wanting more money from the Government for a separate account. Of course it may have to dream on, but we should support it so that it can ensure that navigation is safe for the public. The tolls will be minor—about £20 or £30 a year.

I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. I am an East Anglian MP; obviously I do not have the same close knowledge of Norfolk as the hon. Gentleman and other Norfolk MPs, but I take a close interest in the area. The question of where the money goes is important. Can the hon. Gentleman give the House more explanation about how the authority envisages operating in the future without a separate navigation account? How will it ensure that the money paid by boat users is used not just for managing navigation but in ways that benefit them? As the hon. Gentleman knows, there is concern that some of the waterways are beginning to silt up and that not enough money is being spent on ensuring that navigation remains possible, so in the absence of a separate identifiable account, how will it be possible for people to monitor whether their money is going where they think it should?

We do not know the final details at this stage, of course, so I can only propose what might happen. I believe that there will be a navigation officer and it may be possible to have an account associated with that individual, who could ensure that the money coming in from the tolls was used for navigation. What about money that is used for the environment? I know that some people believe that the dredging could be carried out in a completely different way for environmental purposes, which would save a lot of money. The apportioning of money for one cause or the other relating to all the different functions of the broads needs to be very seriously looked into—nationally, as well. The broads will benefit from that.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but my point centred on the issue of transparency. The question is whether, in the absence of a separate account, people who have paid the tolls or the taxes will be able to see where their money is going.

Of course. That is absolutely the intention, and it has been the spirit in which the Broads Authority has done its work. It must have the support of the navigational interests on the broads, and that is the best way of doing it. Four major objectors have petitioned against the Bill, as the hon. Gentleman will know, but others may also be worried about where the money goes. Openness is the only assured way of proceeding. We need a separate account so that people can see annually where the toll money comes from, where it goes and so forth.

I have been through this matter with constituents and with the Broads Authority in my office. We were given assurances—and it is stipulated in the Bill—that expenditure on navigation must be at least equal to or greater than the income from navigation. That provides a lot of comfort to those navigation interests, ensuring that the whole accounting procedure across the authority is much more transparent under these proposals than it has been in the past.

I thank my hon. Friend and agree that it is much better. Again, I am fully aware that it has to be seen in practice. When the Bill reaches its final manifestations and sees the light, I hope that it will be very apparent that this is a major factor in selling the Bill to the people who use the broads—and to the few objectors. As I say, only four people have petitioned, but I am sure that others may not have got around to doing so yet. Obviously, there will be differences of opinion about where the money goes, how much is spent on dredging and on this and that. It all has to be seen in the open, and I see no reason why that should not happen. The Broads Authority has a tradition of openness and transparency. One or two people may disagree, but in general that is true of the Broads Authority, and I am sure that it intends to carry on in that way.

I mentioned that only four individuals have petitioned against the Bill, and it could be argued that that is four out of 10,000. However, I do not take the numbers per se as particularly important. Many other people want to use the broads, and will do so if they see this kind of transparency. Agreements have been reached with the national boating organisations, and the number of petitioners is a testament to the thoroughness of the consultation carried out by the Broads Authority. Nothing is ever perfect—but gosh, it tried really hard to get everybody’s views and attempted to meet them. This is not over yet—there is more to do—but the generality of the Bill is what is being presented here today. I believe that the consultation will continue.

To conclude, let me explain why I believe the Bill should receive its Second Reading and move on. Public safety is an amazing issue to highlight in the context of the beauty of the broads. It must be safe out there, to encourage young people to use the facilities. There have been precedents for some of the issues that we have debated and thorough consultation has taken place. This is not a major Bill in the sense of trying to turn the broads into a national park, or change the laws of the land to any dramatic extent.

Meeting the safety positions is a matter of urgency. The Department of Trade and Industry has been urging that. Sadly, accidents occur, but we hope that they will not be serious, like those that have occurred in the past. I would welcome the support of Members in making sure that the Bill progresses through its Second Reading and that we can examine some of the issues in more detail.

Madam Deputy Speaker, may I thank you, as the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means, for allowing us to have this short debate this afternoon? My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon)—who sends his apologies for not being here because of a family bereavement—and I objected to the passage of the Bill, not because we wished to block or destroy the Bill, but because we received representations from constituents and other interests that involved having the Bill debated on the Floor of the House. As the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who introduced the Bill, said, it is important to have complete transparency and to raise some of these issues, not only because they are important to those of us who live in Norfolk and Suffolk, but because the broads have a national and, indeed, international reputation.

The nature of the Bill has changed from its original draft—something that the hon. Gentleman did not mention. The original Bill was intended to establish the Norfolk and Suffolk broads as a national park. It has evolved into a much more narrowly prescribed Bill to improve safety for people who are boating and to modernise the operations of the Broads Authority, as he mentioned. He quite rightly flagged up, in a very open way, that there has been some public concern and some opposition—certainly to the original draft Bill, which has quite rightly been modified as a result of consultation. Nevertheless, four individuals have petitioned against the Bill, one representative body is lobbying for an amendment, and other local concerns have been expressed.

It is therefore right and proper to have a debate to enable colleagues on both sides of the House to raise issues and to go for total transparency. Hopefully, some of the issues raised may result in the Bill being modified in Committee or in the other place. The Bill will go into Committee and then go to the other place, where Bishop Graham, the Bishop of Norwich, will introduce it. That will provide further opportunities for debate and amendments.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North emphasised the importance of the broads both locally and nationally. My interest is direct in that the broads cover part of my constituency, which includes the southern border of the Norfolk broads, the Rivers Yare, Bure and Waveney, and the magnificent Halvergate marshes. As a consequence of the great parliamentary reaper—I refer, of course, to the Boundary Commission—my current constituency of Mid-Norfolk will be divided and Norfolk will get an extra seat. The majority part of my Mid-Norfolk seat will become the constituency of Broadland, to which I hope my constituents might see fit to return me at a general election in the future. The name is directly associated with the broads.

The hon. Gentleman quite rightly emphasised that we face the issue of how to achieve a balance between all the competing interests that are involved with the Norfolk and Suffolk broads. The issues include the environment, wildlife, the people who work and live on the broads and in the surrounding areas, and the difficulty of maintaining a transport infrastructure that is able to compete with modern conditions. The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb) and I know only too well the problems with transportation and traffic in the small settlements of Wroxham and Hoveton, where there is a major river crossing. I remind hon. Members that although we are all supportive of public transport and many of us try to use it, in large parts of Norfolk and Suffolk the car is not a luxury but an absolute must for people to get around—to get to work, to hospitals and so on.

We have to bear in mind that considerations include the protection of endangered species and the maintenance of the broads, which were in serious danger of major deterioration some 20 years ago. A fundamental issue in which the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) and I are involved is the dualling of the A47 across the Acle straight; that is still under discussion. The project raises major concerns about the environment and whether it is possible to move drainage ditches, in which there are important species, to enable improvements to the road, which is a lifeline to Great Yarmouth. The improvements would prevent appalling accidents of the kind that have taken place there, in which cars have come off the road and people have drowned, sadly, in the ditches.

There are major issues involving farming, tourism, boating and sailing. It is reckoned that the holiday boating trade is worth about £146 million and employs some 2,000 people in Norfolk and Suffolk. Interestingly enough, the number of people taking boating holidays has halved in the past 20 years. In addition, we should not forget the threat from the sea. Any change in weather conditions or tides could have a catastrophic effect on the Norfolk coast. In 1953, the sea breached the sea defences along the north Norfolk coast. Many settlements were literally washed away and a number of people were killed. Global warming or the cyclical change in climate, or a repetition of the events of 1953, would result in a considerable part of the constituencies of many Members and friends present today literally disappearing.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North, quickly skated over the origins of the broads, and I can understand why, but it is actually an important subject. It is amazing to think that it was only in 1953 that the botanist Dr. Joyce Lambert came up with what has turned out to be the correct analysis of the origins of the broads. Through her research and the research of others, she proved that the broads are a consequence of peat-diggings in the middle ages that had been filled in with water. That challenged the accepted thesis that the broads were shallow water, and were relics of the great estuary of the Roman times—or, as one historian said, large puddles that were left behind as the sea retreated in the post-Roman period. That raises the important and interesting point that the broads are as much man made as they are influenced, developed and modified by the environment.

The Broads Authority came into being because of the need for an overall authority to co-ordinate issues to do with navigation, the environment and tourism. My predecessor, Richard Ryder, now Lord Ryder of Wensum, took through the Commons what became the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988. That Act set up the Broads Authority and provided statutory powers, including those relating to navigation. Crucially, the broads had not then been designated a national park, largely because of issues to do with navigation. In a strange way, the broads are a hybrid. I suspect that if one went out into Parliament square and asked 10 people whether they thought that the broads were a national park, nine of the 10 would assume that they were.

The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that, in terms of definition and under the Sandford principles, the broads are not a national park. The phraseology that many of us have used on many occasions is that it is a full and special member of the national parks family. I am sure that use of language of that sort can only emphasise the special nature of the broads. Does he agree?

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention, and I pay tribute to the interest that he took in the broads when he was a Minister at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I know that he went on holiday there as a child, and I remember that he also negotiated extra moneys for the Broads Authority. He is right to say that the broads are special and that they are directly associated with the national parks. We should emphasise that, in order to highlight the special nature of the area.

As the hon. Member for Norwich, North said, the impetus after 2001 was for greater co-operation between navigators and conservationists. This was reflected in what was originally the draft Bill entitled the Broads National Park Authority Bill that existed in 2006. That Bill ran into opposition for a number of reasons, not least because of the difficulty involved in using the term “national park”. As we have seen, it subsequently became much more narrowly defined as the Broads Authority Bill that we are debating today.

I am not being pedantic, but I am grateful that it is called the Broads Authority Bill. At one stage there was a consultation, in which focus groups said that people did not understand where the broads were, and that it would therefore be best to describe them as the Norfolk broads. At that suggestion, the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) quite rightly threw his toys out of his cot on behalf of his constituents, pointing out that the broads are in Norfolk and Suffolk. That is right and proper. They overlap the constituencies of many of us who are sitting here today.

At the heart of the Bill is the importance of establishing a balance between work and life on the broads, and the environment. Many interested parties, including those who live and work on or near the broads, environmentalists and wildlife organisations, the local authority, the Broads Authority, the Environment Agency, the East of England Development Agency, other Government Departments and even the European Union have an interest in and an input into the area. I want to highlight a number of important issues to see whether the hon. Member for Norwich, North will be able to respond to them when he makes his concluding remarks, and also to put them on the table for further debate.

The Bill gives considerable powers to the Broads Authority in relation to navigation, the licensing of boats and the maintenance of vegetation, as well as improved regulation of water skiing and wave boarding. I showed the draft Bill to a colleague who said that while the powers might be necessary, they appeared quite draconian. There might be good arguments for having the powers, but it is right and proper that we should question and tease out the reasoning behind them, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk did in an earlier intervention. I have to say that I was not convinced by the answer that the hon. Member for Norwich, North gave to the hon. Gentleman at that point. I am sure that when we have regime change in the Labour party and the hon. Member for Norwich, North is called to the colours and takes his place officially on the Front Bench, he will be able to call on the ministerial box for help. I see that the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) is leaving at this point; he cannot bear the thought of that.

The original draft caused considerable worry to local boating and sailing interests. The hon. Member for Norwich, North was absolutely correct to say that a good, long dialogue had taken place between the Broads Authority, the British Marine Federation and the Royal Yacht Association, which culminated on 21 January with a written agreement—a concordat. I suspect that neither side is fully satisfied, but the agreement was welcome. There have been amendments to the Bill and further measures specified in a side agreement to protect the interests of recreational boaters.

However, there remain individuals who still have concerns about the powers that the Bill gives the Broads Authority. Those four individuals have petitioned Parliament. I do not want to over-egg this, but I expect that there are others who share their concerns but have not gone through the motions of petitioning Parliament. Can the hon. Member for Norwich, North tell the House at this stage whether the Broads Authority is taking into account the concerns of the four petitioners—Alan Richard Williams, Paul Derrick Howes, Mollie Yensie Howes and Peter Sanders? I know that there is a continuing debate, but I mention the matter on the Floor of the House because those four people have petitioned Parliament and their concerns need to be addressed.

I shall make two points. The hon. Gentleman asked me about the legality of the process. I notice that leading counsel has advised the authority that provisions in the Bill are compatible with the Human Rights Act—I know that that is a special aspect of it—which has enabled the authority to make a declaration to that effect in the Bill. I am told that the authority has consulted the four individuals. They have not come to see eye to eye with each other on the matter, but they are prepared to discuss it further in the light of this debate, what happens in Committee and so on. I have read the petitions. Some of the points raised are genuine issues to which there are answers, but as to the outcome, I would not at this stage like to put my salary on it.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that. It seems that there is continuing dialogue and the petitioners may have some hopes that some of their concerns may be addressed. That may be done in Committee, but if not I am sure that those concerns will be considered in the other place as well.

When reading the Bill, I was struck by the increased powers given to the authority. There are numerous examples of inspection and enforcement by what is referred to as “an authorised officer”. Can the hon. Member for Norwich, North tell the House who those authorised officers are and what their qualifications are to carry out their duties? Will the authorised officers be part of the present staff of the Broads Authority, which I think consists of about 100 individuals, or will additional officers have to be recruited? For the sake of transparency, it is important that we have that information.

It is likely that the new powers and activities of the Broads Authority will incur greater costs. The hon. Member for Norwich, North made that point and was looking towards the Minister as he did so. I know that the Broads Authority has already made it clear in a briefing note for this debate that:

“The formula for allocating National Park Grant does not, in the view of the Broads Authority, reflect the higher costs of managing a water-based protected area with significant navigation.”

Additional moneys were granted by DEFRA through the good offices of the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) in 2005, but 2007-08 is the last year of funding. Does the hon. Member for Norwich, North or the Minister know the financial consequences of implementing the Bill? It may be revenue neutral, but if there are additional costs, does that mean that savings will have to be made in the Broads Authority’s current budget or is it possible that it will get the extra resources to cover the implementation of the Bill?

Finally, I shall deal with the management and accountability of the board. In many respects the authority is a hybrid because although it looks, acts and feels like a national park board—we have debated that—it has its own legislation because of the particular navigational responsibilities. It comprises 21 members—a mixture of local authority members, appointees of the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and representatives of navigational users. Schedule 6 would amend the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988 so that:

“The members appointed…shall include persons appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with such bodies appearing to him to represent the following interests, that is to say—

(a) boating;

(b) conservation;

(c) farming and landowning;

(d) land based recreation

as he considers appropriate, and in making such appointments the Secretary of State shall have regard to the desirability of maintaining an overall balance…between those interests.”

On the face of it, that sounds perfectly legitimate as an attempt to make certain that all the different interest groups are on the board, have a direct input and can bring their influence to bear. As I understand it, the elected representative elements are in a minority, while the appointees, of one kind or another, form the majority.

In its own way, the new board is all very admirable, but as the hon. Member for Norwich, North pointed out, there is a concern that it will not include any representation from the Norfolk and Suffolk parish and town councils. All the other national authority boards have direct representation from parish and town councils. It is true that the new membership includes one elected member from each of the district and borough councils with parishes and towns in the broads area, but the Norfolk and Suffolk county associations, which have approached me and other hon. Members, do not feel that that gives the most local tier of local government the required mechanisms to feed in their views on the many aspects covered by the new Broads Authority, especially the newly acquired planning role.

How does the hon. Gentleman envisage the relationship with the broads forum, which has input from parish councils and other groups? Does he think that it will feed into the Broads Authority or that never the twain shall meet?

There is obviously a fundamental difference. The Broads Authority board has an executive function, while the forum is a kind of talking shop where there are exchanges of views but no executive function. In my view, and in that of several colleagues, that is insufficient. The map of the Broads Authority’s executive area shows that its boundary merely skirts some settlements, and the population included is incredibly small—about 5,000 souls—as compared with the Lake district and other areas. However, that is still a reasonable number of people. Moreover, at a time when local elections are going on and we are all continually saying that we must bring democracy down to the lowest possible level, we should be encouraging parish and town councils to participate in this.

The hon. Gentleman is being very balanced in his remarks. He has referred to the difficulty of dealing with the broads as a national park per se because of the navigation interests, and he is grappling with the question of how to get parish representation, which, as he says, has been significant as regards other national parks that do not pose the constitutional challenge that the broads do by their very nature. This may be more of a subject for the Committee, but does he accept that it needs to be approached with care because the wish to involve a parish element needs to be dealt with in a way that does not create an imbalance with the other elements that are represented—for example, the navigation element, which he rightly pointed to as a complicating factor in the whole way in which the Broads Authority is established?

The right hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. However, the Norfolk and Suffolk associations do not demand massive representation. Indeed, they believe that one representative for both Norfolk and Suffolk town and parish councils would give them collectively a direct voice on the management board of the Broads Authority. They especially emphasised the new planning powers. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the discussion may be for Committee, but I want to stress the point strongly in our debate today. I do not yet know the views of other colleagues, although I think that I know that of the hon. Member for North Norfolk. I hope that the Broads Authority and the Under-Secretary will take them into account.

I accept that, as the right hon. Gentleman said, we do not want an imbalance. If one group in the broads forum gets directly on to the executive board, there is a danger of four or five other groups saying, “If they’re on, can’t we be?” However, it is important to bear it in mind that we are considering elected people.

My hon. Friend makes an important point. Although the area that we are considering has a population of roughly only 5,000 people, it covers many parishes. Furthermore, we are for ever trying to persuade people to stand for parish councils. Far too many are not properly contested. We want to take parish councillors seriously and give them more to do. We now have an ideal opportunity to take them seriously and give them a small amount of representation on an important body.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point.

I have tried to highlight three issues. First, there are the increased powers of the Broads Authority. I do not suggest that they are Machiavellian, but they are strong. The identity and qualifications of the authorising officers must be considered, and that leads directly to the budget and its management. Secondly, there are the four petitioners and the issues that they raised. Thirdly, I hope that the board will accept that the town and parish councils should have a representative on it.

The purpose of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk and I in blocking the Bill was not to prevent its progress but to hold a good-natured and informed debate—so far, that has happened—because we all have at heart the interests of making the broads safe for those who sail and play on them and getting the balance right between work, leisure and life.

As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said, a large part of the broads navigation network lies in his constituency. However, the Bill is also important to my constituency because a large part of the southern broads system is in it, most notably Oulton broad and the River Waveney, which gives its name to my constituency. That is all in Suffolk, which is why there is a Broads Authority, not a Norfolk broads authority or the mouthful of a Norfolk and Suffolk broads authority.

We are considering delightful areas of natural beauty that attract many visitors, who form an important part of our local economy. The broads are also an important source of leisure activity for many of our local people. Oulton broad is often known as the urban broad—hon. Members should not be deceived by that, because it has a beautiful natural environment—because it extends into the built-up area of Lowestoft, which provides excellent public access to the whole broads network. It is perhaps a microcosm, showing how many activities can and do exist on the broads. Oulton broad has sailing, cruising craft and motorised craft large and small, and the great tradition of motor boat racing is represented by the Oulton broad motor boat club. Many years ago, motor boat racing for the Daily Mirror trophy at Oulton broad was televised, and it is still one of the leading venues for the sport in Europe.

Somerleyton—a delightful place—and Beccles quay are the two other main yacht stations and centres of boating in my constituency. All are linked by the navigable River Waveney. The Waveney is not navigable by motor boat or yacht as far up as Bungay, but Bungay is an important centre for canoeing. Last October we were delighted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Bungay to celebrate the opening of an important stretch of the river for canoeing. That provided a national example of what could be done in co-existence with the other important sport of fishing.

All those activities, throughout the broad, will continue to thrive with the Bill in place—none of them are threatened by the Bill. When the Bill proposals were first published, however, some of my constituents had concerns. I called a meeting between those constituents and the chief executive and chairman of the Broads Authority, and we discussed each issue painstakingly. We all ended up satisfied on every count. The scrutiny was particularly good, and perhaps even more detailed than could be done in the Chamber. Today, however, is a good opportunity for positive promotion of the broads in the House.

My constituents’ concerns centred mainly on navigation interests. The Broads Authority undertook, however, to reach formal written agreements with the Royal Yachting Association and British Marine Federation, both of which must represent the interests of the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association. Those agreements were designed to give comfort to the navigation interests, and to require the Broads Authority to continue to consult the Norfolk and Suffolk Boating Association on all relevant matters. Those agreements are now in place, and I can see no obstacle that now stands in the way of the Bill.

The Bill gives new powers to the Broads Authority to remove some obstacles to navigation, such as the power to remove abandoned, stranded or sunken vessels if they become a hazard or a danger to navigation. For years we had one such hulk at Oulton broad, and everyone wanted it out of the way, but there were great difficulties in doing so. I am delighted that the Broads Authority will now have clear powers to deal with such matters.

The Bill also gives the authority the power to enter private land to cut back vegetation and trees that overhang the river and may affect navigation. Again, constituents who have contacted me welcome that. They have shown me pictures of the broads from the 1880s to the 1930s that show traditional open landscapes. Originally, the broads did not have overhanging trees. The trees have grown since and need cutting back occasionally so that people can enjoy the natural environment from the water, which is what the broads are all about.

Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that the authority will not just go in and cut back trees without contacting the people on whose land those trees are growing? There will be consultation.

I would not expect anything less from the Broads Authority. That is the way in which it usually works. It must be empowered to take such action, because if a reluctant or unreasonable landlord is involved, the interests of many other people will be adversely affected.

The hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk is right: there was great concern about the ending of the separate financial account for navigation. As I said in an earlier intervention, I am not so worried about that now. It was seen as a necessary procedure to protect navigation interests, but having discussed the matter I can imagine the separate account becoming siloed—almost sidelined. I understand that currently more money is spent on navigation than is raised from navigation income. The new format protects that. I am told that the Bill provides for navigation expenditure to be greater than or equal to navigation income, so I do not see how navigation can lose out. Indeed, the Broads Authority might decide to allow more money to be spent on it if the navigation account became part of a set of transparent accounts.

The key issue affecting the broads today is dredging. The problem of silt is becoming more and more acute, and it is my constituents’ main concern about Oulton broad, which is silting up badly. The amount of silt is increasing each year, and the broad is becoming shallower each year. So much of it is affected that boating is being restricted. Dredging is needed not just to enable people to enjoy the broads, but for the well-being of the natural environment of the broad and the sustainable management of its natural beauty and biodiversity.

We need two assurances from my hon. Friend the Minister. First, we need a statement about funding. As has already been pointed out, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) granted £500,000 a year for three years, which has made a real difference, but the formula allocation for the national park grant ought to reflect the higher costs of managing a water-based protected area with significant navigation, and I think it reasonable to ask for the £500,000 to be taken into the core funding of the Broads Authority area. I realise that there are financial pressures, but unless we can use that money to deal with the dredging problem, we will find it difficult to move forward. Indeed, we may move backwards.

The second issue does not directly concern finance, but relates to the definition of the dredged material in the context of its disposal. It should be possible to dispose of it locally to avoid incurring enormous, even prohibitive, costs in transporting it over distances. It would seem reasonable to deposit the material in the fields whence it has come, but under the European Union waste framework directive it is classified as waste. It must therefore be disposed of as waste, meeting the requirements of a number of regulations and requiring the establishment of a licensed disposal site. That too would involve considerable and probably prohibitive expense.

Last year I met representatives of the Broads Authority and a constituent with the Minister’s predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), and we examined the issue in some detail. It was established that this was an unintended consequence of the legislation, and that the framework directive was not intended to catch the dredged material. Indeed, so unintended was the consequence that had the legislation been in place when the Barton broad restoration project was carried out in 2000, the project would not have been possible. The fact that the Barton broad clear water 2000 scheme has been an outstanding environmental success shows how important it is to do something about the regulation. My hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset agreed to sort it out, and officials at the meeting confirmed that that could be done within the European Union system. However, we are still waiting for that matter to be resolved. I wrote to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and he helpfully replied last August that revised guidance was being prepared, which I welcome, but he was not able to say when that guidance would be published. Is he able to tell the House today when it will be published? That is of urgent concern, because dredging is the key issue.

As has been said, the Broads Authority has a difficult job to do. It has to strike the right balance between conserving the natural environment and promoting and allowing public enjoyment. We must never forget that people live and work within the Broads Authority area—in my constituency and those of several other Members—and that they need to be able to carry out their daily lives in a reasonable way. I am concerned by some of the decisions of the planning committee of the Broads Authority. It sometimes seems to have a heavy hand, although at other times it seems to get it right. The new authority must make sure that it strikes the right balance.

I was one of those who hoped that the name could be changed to “national park”. I would have loved to have been able to say, “In our part of the country, we have the Broads national park.” We had a vigorous debate about the name when we thought that we were going to have a national park, and we rightly ended up with the proposal to name it the Broads national park. We do not have the “Cumbrian lake district” or “Devon Dartmoor”. Everybody knows where the broads are. I am disappointed that we were not able to proceed with the national park name, and to have included that in the Bill. I understand and do not underestimate the difficulties of reconciling certain matters with the Sandford principle. However, one has to remain optimistic, and I hope that we will return to the issue in the future; I hope that we will be able to create a Broads national park some day, because having a Broads national park in the heart of our area would be a great boost for us all.

The broads are an important area nationally. They are important for their history, appearance and biodiversity, and for the opportunity that they provide for recreation. On that basis, they fully deserve their designation. The reason why the area is not designated as a national park has been dealt with. It is to do with the Sandford principle and the extra duty imposed on the Broads Authority for navigation. Other national parks have two duties: to conserve those elements that contribute to their designation and to promote the enjoyment and understanding of the national park. Under the Sandford principle, if there is a conflict between those two duties, the duty to conserve should have priority. Obviously, the duty on the Broads Authority in respect of navigation makes that a little more difficult than for other areas, although I am not convinced that that cannot be resolved.

I have visited the broads on several occasions, mainly as a member and sometime chairman of the Brecon Beacons national park. I attended national park annual conferences in the broads and enjoyed the whole broads area and also meeting the entire family of national parks. It became clear to me that the broads were a valued member of that family. I was most impressed with the work that it did with the university of East Anglia on developing management schemes to improve the water quality of the broads, which had deteriorated largely because of nutrification—the build-up of phosphates in the sediments as a result of intensive farming. The removal of silt and sediments remains an important issue, and one that must be addressed through dredging.

The Liberal Democrats broadly welcome the Bill in that it gives the authority increased powers to carry out both its conservation work and its duty in respect of navigation. Some people are concerned about certain elements of the Bill. The word “draconian” has been used on a number of occasions in reference to the power to enter land, to enter a vessel and to direct the master of a vessel to a particular course of action for that vessel, while the master remains responsible for it. Those issues can perhaps be overcome in Committee.

The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) made the important point that the Broads Authority and national parks in general should consult widely within the communities in which they operate. The perception from time to time of people who live in national parks and in the Broads Authority area is that the authority is not really accountable to the people who live there. Yes, it has a national responsibility because of its designation, but it also has a responsibility toward the people who live there and the local economy.

The perception to which I refer arises from the fact that no members of the authority or of national park committees are directly elected to the authority. I was pleased to hear the hon. Member for Norwich, North say that there should be more consultation. The suggestion, which also pleases me, is that members of town and parish councils be considered for membership of the authority. Every single national park in England has that system, and it seems to work well in building bridges and understanding between the town and parish councils—the real basis of the democratic system in this country—and the Broads Authority, which has to do a really difficult job in balancing the different and conflicting views.

Perhaps I might go a little further. I have long believed that an element of national park committees—and, indeed, of the authority—could be directly elected. The broads has a population of about 5,000, which seems a nice constituency to elect perhaps one or two members—or an element, at least, to be decided locally—to sit on the authority. That would make the authority more directly accountable to the people who live and work in the area.

This is not an entirely new idea; it has been adopted in the two newly designated national parks in Scotland. Scotland was very late in joining the national park family, but it is making a huge contribution to the development of the purposes of national parks. When direct elections were initiated in Scotland, people put their names forward for election—between three and five people stood for each of the electoral divisions—and people turned out to vote because they could see that the authorities were going to have a real influence in their lives and in the local community. I do not know whether any of these issues can be addressed at this late stage—be it in Committee, through secondary legislation or through a statutory instrument—but they are certainly worthy of consideration. Such elections would make the authority more accountable to local people and increase their trust in it.

We Liberal Democrats welcome the Bill, although one or two points need ironing out. I was responsible for setting up a management agreement for Llangorse lake—that work was on a much smaller scale than the Broads Authority—which is the largest freshwater lake in south Wales and for all I know is larger than any lake in southern England. I had to try to reconcile the different interests of the power-boaters, the water-skiers, the yachting fraternity, the canoeists and the conservationists. The lake is a registered site of special scientific interest, and a registered common, which made matters tricky.

In general, we support the Bill, but we feel that the opportunity should be taken to strengthen the authority and to make it more accountable to local people.

Hon. Members may ask why on earth I am speaking in this debate, given that my constituency is in the middle of England and nowhere near Norfolk or Suffolk. My experience of the broads is also very limited and gained many years ago. However, I chair the all-party waterways group, which does not deal exclusively with issues concerning the canal network. Its remit is, if hon. Members will excuse the pun, a little broader. Indeed, the Broads Authority is an associate member of the group.

When we had a discussion about the prospects for the Bill some time ago, and how the changes necessary could be introduced, I was interested to learn that certain aspects of the operation of the Broads Authority are very different from my considerable experience of the canal network. I shall not comment on the geography, geology, flora or fauna of the broads, which have been more than adequately covered, because I am concerned about safety on the broads. I was surprised to learn that the Broads Authority cannot ensure that all craft have third party insurance. It is bizarre that there are no enforceable licensing arrangements for hire craft. Indeed, there is no national boat safety scheme.

With regard to inland waterways and the canal network, British Waterways has difficulties in enforcing the purchase of licences, but responsible boat owners do purchase them. Certainly, if I spot any boats that do not have a number, I tip the wink to British Waterways—

Snitching.

Yes, that is the word. I snitch because we need to ensure that income is generated for British Waterways and it is important that people license their boats. When one licenses a boat on that network, one has to provide an insurance certificate and a boat safety certificate. I am amazed that the latter does not apply to the broads. People hire boats on the broads for a week or fortnight. They take their families with them and most have a very enjoyable experience, but there should be an enforceable safety regime in place.

The boat safety system addresses the issues that one would imagine, such as whether the boat itself is safe, and it also addresses the storage of petrol, diesel or liquefied petroleum gas, whether such fuels could escape to cause a fire, and the heating systems on the boats. LPG has a very high density and if it escapes it lies in the bottom of boats. People can go to sleep at night and never wake up. On the canal network, there have been fires and explosions, and people have been seriously injured, and that happens even though British Waterways has a good mechanism for enforcing a safety regime. However, the Broads Authority has no such mechanism.

The word “draconian” has been used, but it is not draconian to have an enforceable licensing system with third party insurance and a boat safety regime. That is absolutely necessary, essential and crucial. For that reason, and for that reason alone, I sought to make a contribution in the debate and support my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who introduced the Bill. I certainly hope that it completes its Second Reading and finds its way into Committee.

I have listened to the debate with a great deal of interest, and changes may well be made to the Bill on representation—the way in which we deal with petitioners and so on. Those issues can be worked out in Committee, but it would be disastrous if the Bill did not end up on the statute book, as it provides statutory provisions for the Broads Authority, enabling it to deal with the three issues to which I have referred: third party insurance, the licensing of hire craft, and the equivalent of the national boat safety scheme. If that does not happen, a ticking time bomb is waiting for people who use the broads. Inevitably, an accident will happen, which will only be to the detriment of the Broads Authority and the people involved, as well as to the income generated and the employment provided in the locality. I am very supportive of this private Bill: I certainly hope that it will complete its Second Reading, that there will be no obstructions to its progress through the House or through the other place, and that we can get it on to the statute book as quickly as possible.

I certainly welcome this debate, and I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on the way in which he presented the Bill and on his concise summary of its provisions.

I spoke in the 1988 debate, and served on the Standing Committee that considered the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill, which introduced the authority, alongside the predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) who has since become Lord Ryder of Wensum. He piloted the measure with a great deal of skill and precision. Indeed, Colin, now Lord, Moynihan did a great deal of work on the Bill as a Minister on behalf of the then Department of the Environment. The Bill was much needed, as it was long overdue. I think that everyone agrees that it has worked well, but 20 years have elapsed and in that period a great deal can happen: priorities change, and habitats and ecosystems can change, too. Economic and tourism pressures change and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk pointed out, there are many competing interests, including the protection of endangered species and the way in which we balance the need to protect the environment with the need for tourism and economic priorities. My hon. Friend rightly discussed the threat from the sea and the pace of climate change. He mentioned the floods of 1953, and he could have mentioned, too, the floods of 1978, which in many ways were more powerful than the floods of 1953, but which, because of the improved sea defences, caused far less loss of life and damage to property.

Nothing in the world stands still, and I entirely accept that it is important that we look again at what can be done to improve the existing authority, which is why I am satisfied that the Broads Authority Bill is needed. The hon. Member for Norwich, North has made it clear that it contains some very sensible provisions, and it is important that it goes into Committee. I, too, have been contacted about a number of issues. On the transparent use of funds, the point about accounting procedures is important. In the light of what has been said in our debate, perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give us more details about that in his summing-up speech, and more comfort that there will be full transparency at all times.

I, too, have been contacted by the four petitioners, who have contacted all the local Members of Parliament with an interest in the Bill, as well as hon. Members whose constituencies are in or near Norfolk. They have legitimate concerns and interests, and they deserve a full response. The British Marine Federation and the Royal Yachting Association have withdrawn their objections because concessions have been made, and we approve of that. Moreover, there is scope for amendments to the Bill when it is considered in Committee and another place. There will then be ample time to look at the concerns expressed by the petitioners, which are well constructed and carry substantial weight. I hope that the points made by the petitioners will be properly understood and that further concessions are made as a result.

I turn now to how the new authority will be funded. I share the concern expressed by several hon. Members this afternoon that the present funding arrangements will not prevent real problems from arising after 2008. The Chancellor is looking hard for savings in every Department, and the days of plenty are clearly over. Every Department is having to look at its spending commitments and I am worried that, in the absence of a firm promise that the new authority will be properly funded into the future, problems will arise with staffing and the proper financing of all of its functions. I hope that the hon. Member for Norwich, North will respond to that when he winds up the debate.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk made several points about membership of the authority, and I certainly take on board the representations made by the Norfolk County Association of Parish and Town Councils and the Suffolk Association of Local Councils. They make a strong point, and I want to quote a letter sent to hon. Members with constituencies in Norfolk and Suffolk from Jack Sadler and Ian Wright on behalf of those organisations. In explaining the need for more community involvement at the local level, they say:

“We are concerned that the proposed new membership of the Authority does not include any representation from Parish and Town Councils. Our hope is that you will agree that community involvement is essential when such matters are debated and decisions made which can, and will, affect our living environment and life styles.”

My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk elaborated on those points, because it is very important to encourage localism. As well as district and borough councils, we need to get parish councils more involved in matters such as that covered by this Bill, because they operate at a level that is closest to the people involved.

Moreover, as I said in a brief intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk, the number of people in the area covered by the existing authority may be small, but the number of parishes is substantial. Parish councillors in my constituency tell me very often that they do not believe that they are taken seriously. They say that they do not have enough responsibility and that they do not believe that their views are listened to. It is for those reasons that fewer and fewer people are willing to stand as parish councillors.

In Norfolk as a whole, many positions on parish councils are not contested. In contrast, when I first entered the House, most of such elections were hotly contested: very often, the 10 or 12 places available on a parish council would be contested by as many as 15 or 20 people. However, such contests very much belong to the past now, and places in parish councils are often left unfilled.

I submit that we should take parish councils more seriously. We should use mechanisms such as this Bill to give them more power and responsibility, and more say in how organisations are run; otherwise, the future of parish councils will be very bleak, even though they have a great deal to offer. We are not asking for a great deal. We are simply asking for a representation of perhaps one or two parish councillors on the authority. I quite liked the idea of an election that was suggested by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). Given that there would be a total electorate of 5,000 or 6,000, it would be perfectly possible to elect one or two parish councillors. That would be a highly beneficial way of whipping up interest and additional involvement.

I hope that the hon. Member for Norwich, North will address two further points in his winding-up speech. It is proposed that Breydon water and the lower Bure should be transferred from the Great Yarmouth Port Authority. Has there been full consultation on that transfer and is that authority perfectly satisfied with giving up that particular responsibility?

The second point, which the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) mentioned—I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber, but no doubt he will be back in a second—relates to powers of access to private land to manage vegetation. Obviously, there has been full and highly laudable co-operation between landowners, be they private individuals or organisations, and the Broads Authority on the management of vegetation with equipment that is taken on to land. Is it really necessary for such extra powers to be included in the Bill? I am not aware that any problems have been caused by the denial of access. Perhaps the approach in the Bill is ultra-cautious, or maybe the provisions are a good idea because they have been included in the Bill in anticipation of future problems. Has the hon. Member for Norwich, North consulted the Country Land and Business Association, the NFU and the numerous organisations that own the land in question? If they are satisfied with those powers, I will also be satisfied.

No one doubts that the broads are a remarkably important part of our national and international heritage. They are of national and world importance. Anyone who has been to the broads and seen for themselves the huge skies, the stunning sunsets, the flights of widgeon and teal in the gloaming, or a wherry or a spritsail barge going away in the distance—in the future, they might hear the booming call of a bittern—can only have been enraptured. Those of us who represent Norfolk constituencies are incredibly proud of what the broads represent and the people who have worked in the broads in tourism and many other activities. However, we realise that action is needed to secure their future. I hope that that action will be achieved with the full co-operation and support of everyone involved.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on his clear presentation of the Bill. I have enjoyed all the contributions to the debate so far. I endorse the compelling arguments made by the hon. Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) in favour of the national boat safety scheme and the compulsory insurance and licensing of boats.

I agreed with virtually everything that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) said in his interesting contribution. I was fascinated by what he said about the history of the broads and the fact that we discovered how they had come about only in the mid-1950s. When I visited the wonderful museum of the broads at Stalham Staithe, which I recommend to all hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Derby, North, I read about the history of the broads and the fact that a biologist, whose name I forget, discovered the real history of the broads and the cause of their creation.

I will not oppose the Bill due to the justifications for it that the hon. Member for Derby, North outlined. None the less, there are legitimate concerns, but I want to acknowledge the work of the Broads Authority. After the enterprise’s rather turbulent start, the authority has tried to achieve consensus, or at least to reduce the anxieties of the many people who had concerns. As we heard earlier, those concerns spread beyond those of the four petitioners who saw their objections through to the final stage. There is a danger that their small number means that their concerns could be dismissed, but those concerns are legitimate and they should be taken seriously.

I applaud the work of the Royal Yachting Association, the British Marine Federation and the Inland Waterways Association. They, too, have played a part by representing interests, in particular those of the boating community, in reaching legal agreements with the Broads Authority.

Much reference has been made already to the authority’s three duties: conservation, the navigation interest and tourism—or enjoyment of the broads. A conflict is inherent in the structure of the broads and those competing duties inevitably create tensions from time to time between people, primarily in Norfolk and Suffolk, who are particularly associated with one of the interests that the authority has a duty to protect.

There have been particular tensions between the navigation interest and the authority. The tensions have come and gone, or increased in intensity, but as I talk to constituents I find that some people feel that there has been a loss of trust in the authority. I do not seek to apportion blame and I do not want to dwell on the subject, but some people who hold the broads dear to their heart have lost trust in the authority. The conflict between the three duties means that such loss of trust is almost inevitable, and the tension inherent in the framework of the Bill has intensified anxieties about giving extra powers to a body that is unelected and so, in some senses, can legitimately be described as unaccountable. The authority includes representation from a number of interests, but its structure has no democratic accountability or legitimacy.

Now, as we introduce these new powers, would be a particularly poignant moment for the Broads Authority to reach out to the people who feel most concerned about the Bill, and to try to rebuild trust and create a good working relationship between all the interests on the broads. I am sure that other Norfolk Members would, like me, always be happy to facilitate discussion between the authority and people who have concerns.

I want to deal with the question of representation. I heard the response of the hon. Member for Norwich, North to my earlier intervention on that subject and I also heard what the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) had to say, so I understand that it is a complex issue. There is concern about the role of parish council representatives on the board and whether, because of the competing interests involved, they would tilt the balance too much in one direction. However, I have to say that we are talking only about one or two members, so, come on, there is no good case for failing to provide that extra legitimacy.

I would like strongly to endorse the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams), which I was pleased to see supported by the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham). In particular, the idea of having a directly elected element on the board is important. It is interesting that the most recent additions to the national parks family have gone for direct election. That applies in Scotland, so would it not be great if Norfolk and Suffolk could lead the way in getting rid of the democratic deficit in England? It has happened in Scotland, so why on earth cannot we do the same in England?

If, as the Bill moves into Committee, the Broads Authority could seriously think about how to introduce such reform, it would send a powerful message about its willingness to listen and to take new ideas into account. If it is not possible to introduce that through the Bill, which would be sad, we should think about providing a means to introduce it at a later stage. I would be grateful if the Minister responded to that point in his summing up. If it can be done in Scotland, it can be done in England. It would give local communities within the broads area a direct voice on the management board of the Broads Authority.

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point, with a strong message endorsed by hon. Members associated with Norfolk. There are two parts to that message. First, we believe, in principle, that a parish or town representative should be on the board. That may be done by someone being drafted on in the old way. Secondly, the mechanism for achieving that is also important. That powerful message needs to be taken back to the Broads Authority, which must take it into account.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reinforcing that point and I would like to congratulate him, along with the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), on securing this debate. They were determined enough to have the matter debated in the House and it is right that we have had the opportunity to do so.

Before I lose the thread about the inherent conflict between the competing duties, I want to make a further point. One of my constituents argued that there should be a way of resolving those conflicts—and, ideally, that it should be built into the Bill. He made it clear that, because of the absolute importance of navigation to the future of the broads, he was not arguing for the Sandford principle. He nevertheless made a compelling argument that when there are three competing duties and potential for tension between those competing interests, there should be some mechanism for resolving the conflicts between those duties. I would be pleased to hear the hon. Member for Norwich, North respond to that point.

On safety, as I have already said, I strongly support the case for the introduction of powers to enhance safety on the broads. The tragic accident that we witnessed some years ago demonstrates the case for that. I have been asked—again, I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Norwich, North responded to this point—whether it would not be possible to achieve the same thing through byelaws, which have democratic legitimacy through elected councils.

I am afraid that I was not convinced—I do not think that the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk was either—by the efforts made by the hon. Member for Norwich, North to respond to my questions about the status of the legal agreement. What we have is a Bill that, on the face of it, introduces draconian powers—there is no doubt about that—in terms of access to land, directing the master of a boat and so forth. Those powers are ameliorated and controlled by way of the legal agreement that stands alongside them. Many people who have concerns about the extent of the powers that the Bill introduces say to me, “If the Broads Authority is content to have controls and restrictions set out in a legal agreement adjacent to the Bill, why can’t those things be enshrined in the Bill itself to give satisfaction and reassurance to people?”

May I attempt to answer that? It is quite complicated. I am told that, as soon as the Bill is passed, what are described as contracts will become legally binding. The reasons why their contents are not included in the Bill is that people may want to change certain aspects of those contracts without having to come back to look at the whole Bill again and without having this kind of session. That kind of agreement between two different bodies, whilst it is legally binding, is much better dealt with outside this kind of debate. I think that that was the intention in having the several contracts that have been drawn up.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention and the reassurance, on the record, that the legal agreement is legally binding and is genuinely a legal agreement. That is quite important. I have heard it said before that it is a legal agreement, but as a lawyer myself, although I have to confess that my practising certificate has lapsed—[Interruption.] I am not a practising lawyer. As a lawyer myself, I am afraid that I do not yet understand the basis on which the agreement is a legal agreement. I do not understand the status of it as a legal agreement that can be relied on in court. I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says—nobody wants these matters to go to court—but one has to have a legal agreement to reassure people and to guarantee the rights of people who are concerned about potentially excessive powers.

Listening to the debate between the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Norwich, North, it seems to me that what we have is almost a memorandum of understanding, rather than some form of binding legal agreement. I am not being pedantic. I accept the fact that, as the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Dr. Gibson) suggested, this is something that will have to be pinned down. I genuinely cannot understand what may be the case at the moment, but, at some future point, the agreement surely has to be put into the body of the Bill.

I am grateful for that.

I am not sure whether hon. Members have seen the agreements; I have had a look at them. I am quite sure that, in Committee, we can examine them in much more detail. I thought that perhaps the hon. Gentleman had seen them.

I am grateful for that. To answer the previous intervention, from the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk, what we need is a legal opinion. We can have reassurances from the Broads Authority and from the hon. Member for Norwich, North, but we need a legal opinion that confirms how the agreements are legally enforceable. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) is seeking to intervene from a sedentary position, but I cannot hear what he is saying, so we will move on. [Interruption.] He is attacking lawyers. Well, what’s new?

I end this part of my contribution by making the point that those who have concerns refer me to the fact that common law rights freely to navigate tidal waters have existed for a very long time. People jealously guard their right to those entitlements, and with good reason.

I want to deal briefly with the navigation budget, and the concerns that have been expressed about it. As I understand it, the Bill will effectively merge the navigation account with the general account. Constituents have raised with me the real concern that there is a risk of the navigation budget being undermined once it is subsumed within the general budget. I shall read to the House a brief statement from a constituent, and I would like reassurance on the point that he makes:

“The Bill proposes repeal of that part of the 1988 Act which prevents funds intended for conservation to be drawn from the Navigation Account and for any deficit in the Navigation Account to be made up from the General Account. This is unacceptable.”

We want to ensure that moneys for navigation interests are not filtered away over time and used for other purposes. Of course, equal status is still being given to the navigation duty under the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Act 1988, but given the amount of money that needs to be spent on dredging to maintain the navigable waters, it is critical that people have reassurance on that point.

Jamie Campbell, a Norfolk sailor from Gorleston, has launched a petition specifically directed at the issue of the dredging of the broads. He argues that the Broads Authority has failed to dredge the broads adequately. I am told that the petition has 1,600 names on it; I have not seen it, and I am not in a position to say whether the concern expressed in it is legitimate, but the fact that so many people have seen fit to sign it suggests that the Broads Authority needs to take that concern on board and address it, if it is to reassure people, particularly given that the merging of the two accounts has caused many people concern.

As the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk raised the issue of the extent of the powers given to authorised officers, I shall briefly mention it, too. People have raised with me the importance of ensuring that those who exercise the functions are properly qualified, as the duties require a considerable understanding of the broads. It is important to those who care passionately about the broads that people with proper qualifications perform those functions. Will the hon. Member for Norwich, North, provide reassurance about how those functions will be exercised?

I reassure hon. Members that I am coming to the end of my speech, but I want briefly to mention the Sandford principle. When the Bill sought to create a national park, an awful lot of anxiety was expressed about the proposal, and about the implication that the Sandford principle would apply. That, of course, fed the anxieties of the navigators, because to them it seemed like another step in the direction of damaging or sidelining their interests. I am just telling the House how they perceived the issues. Obviously, they were enormously reassured when the plan to create a national park was removed from the Bill, along with the Sandford principle. However, some people remain concerned that the Sandford principle could, in some way or other, be reintroduced by the back door. It has been suggested to me that if at some future date the Bill’s name was changed so as to reintroduce the concept of creating a national park, the Sandford principle could be reintroduced. I do not think that that could happen, but I would be grateful if the hon. Member for Norwich, North, responded to that concern.

The hon. Member for Waveney keeps disappearing just as I am about to refer to him. He is obviously outside the Chamber fuming about lawyers. He mentioned funding for dredging, and called for a specific assurance from the Minister that DEFRA would acknowledge its responsibility in that regard. In a sense, the principle has already been accepted, because funding for dredging has already been provided on a three-year basis. All that we need now is for that principle to be confirmed for the future, and it is important that the Minister should reassure us on that.

It has been important to have this debate, and I again express my gratitude to those hon. Members who have ensured that we had this opportunity. The Bill provides genuine, valuable additional safeguards to people’s safety and, for that reason, we should welcome it. That does not mean, however, that the concerns of those in my constituency and others are not legitimate or that they should not be properly addressed. I hope that we will receive reassurance on those points from the hon. Member for Norwich, North today and in Committee.

I congratulate not only my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) on his excellent speech but every Member who has participated in the debate. Like the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Norman Lamb), I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) for the way in which he has ensured that this important subject has been debated on the Floor of the House and had proper parliamentary scrutiny. The quality of the submissions that we have heard today and the detailed thought that has been put into them have proved him right in ensuring that we could have such a debate today—and, I hope, at a later stage, should we get a fair wind today to take the Bill up to the Committee corridor.

As the Minister with responsibility for the national parks and the broads, I should explain that the Government support the main aims of the Broads Authority Bill. Our report to the Committee will recommend two changes and highlight some areas in which we think that the Bill might be improved, but I am confident that there should be a satisfactory outcome in Committee, in line with the Bill that my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North has put to the House today.

The main aims of the Bill are to improve safety on the broads through a series of measures, including the licensing of hire craft and compulsory third-party insurance, as well as making improvements to the way in which the Broads Authority operates. The recent introduction of the boat safety scheme will ensure that vessels are properly maintained, as an MOT does for road vehicles. British Waterways and the Environment Agency already operate this scheme successfully, and I congratulate the Broads Authority on the measures that it is taking to bring the broads into line with other major navigation authorities.

Compulsory insurance will bring peace of mind to those who boat on the broads, especially those on lower incomes who might otherwise be fearful of having to meet the cost of any damage done to their vessel by uninsured users. DEFRA had considered including the boat safety and insurance provisions in the general directions powers in the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, but I am told that time ran out before we were able to draft suitable clauses. It is gratifying that the Broads Authority Bill has provided another opportunity for the House to consider these issues so soon.

The Broads Authority has considered whether the safety provisions could have been dealt with through byelaws. That would not have been possible with some of them—for example, the introduction of compulsory insurance—and, although the boat safety scheme has now been introduced through byelaws, this is a rather cumbersome way of dealing with changes to the standards, as it requires the byelaws to be amended each time.

I am conscious that following the authority’s extensive consultation on the Bill, there are a few individuals who still consider that the provisions are anti-libertarian and will infringe their civil liberties, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North pointed out, some people still do not like seat belts, despite the number of lives that have been saved since they were introduced. There was a general consensus in the House today that any restrictions on the individual’s liberty to navigate when and where he chooses must be reasonable and proportionate. I believe that the Broads Authority’s proposals meet that test.

I fully recognise the extremely difficult role that the Broads Authority has to play in trying to manage expectations from a wide range of people, all of whom think that their particular activity should have precedence over any other. The stark reality is that no one activity has precedence, and I applaud the Broads Authority for the excellent way in which it meets those expectations in general. It is a difficult balancing act to perform, and on the whole, although qualms have been mentioned in the Chamber, the authority achieves that balance remarkably well.

Although the Broads Authority is not a national park in the legal sense because it was not designated through the procedure outlined in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, it has an equivalent status, and it is a much valued member of the national parks family, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) so eloquently stated earlier. I can assure the House that the broads will not be changing their name. It is important that we continue to recognise their distinct status by giving them a distinct title.

Incorporating the words “national park” and “national park authority” in the names would wrongly imply that it was a standard national park and authority, exactly like the others. That is because national park authorities have two purposes—conservation and recreation. In cases of conflict, greater weight is always given to conservation, under the Sandford principle as enshrined in the Environment Act 1995. In the case of the broads, there is the third purpose—to protect the interests of navigation. We have heard much about the interests of navigation this afternoon. It is fundamental that we recognise that to introduce the Sandford principle would jeopardise the interests of navigation.

Each of the authority’s purposes is equally important. Hence the Sandford principle cannot apply, and it would be inappropriate for the Broads Authority to call itself a national park authority. But that does not make the broads in any way inferior—or, indeed, superior—to a national park.

Concerns have been expressed about the amount of dredging that takes place in the broads. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) dealt extensively with that in his remarks. Some people consider that more dredging should take place. Although I welcome the implication that boaters are willing to pay more to navigate, the Broads Authority must strike a balance between the water depths that some users would like and the level of tolls that can be charged without driving boats off the system. The recently produced sediment management strategy and action plan provide a framework for the authority to manage its dredging responsibilities in the future.

The national parks and the broads are our “jewels in the crown”. They contain some of the most celebrated and iconic scenery and cover about 8 per cent. of the landscape. In 2005 the Landscape Institute voted the national park movement the greatest beneficial influence on the UK’s landscape in the past 75 years, so I am not surprised that any proposed changes to one of our internationally renowned assets should have generated such debate. However, I can assure the House that the proposed changes in the Bill make the broads a safer place. I commend the Bill to the House and I hope hon. Members will let it go forward to Committee.

I want to pick up on several points raised by hon. Members in the course of the debate. The hon. Members for North Norfolk, for Mid-Norfolk and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) talked particularly about parish representation. The Broads Authority has never included parish council representatives. It is reducing, at its own request, to 21 members. Nine are serving elected members from local authorities in the broads area, who might be reluctant to cede their seats to parish members; two are members of the navigation committee and therefore have their own incredibly important expertise in the context of the broads; 10 are appointed on the basis of open public competition and, vitally, represent our national interest in the broads. Those three groupings combine to make a very strong team. The national park authority performance assessment on the broads in 2005 commented that the organisation had made considerable strides in terms of strategy, planning and stakeholder buy-in, and that it should achieve considerable success in the future.

Of course, national appointments are open to all. If parish members wish to serve on the Broads Authority, they can always apply under the open competition that is available for those 10 appointed places. Several varying interests are represented on the authority at present. I will not name individuals, but if I allude to the range of expertise and experience that is represented, that will give the House an understanding of how important it is to have that variety of expertise available. We have a retired chief constable, a member of the National Farmers Union, a member of the Country Land and Business Association, a director of the Camping and Caravanning Club, and a magistrate. There are people with environmental and conservation expertise, as well as navigation expertise. By and large, the current structure works tremendously well.

I pay tribute to the people who are appointed to the Broads Authority and to national park authorities; they bring huge expertise to those bodies. However, that does not necessarily meet the needs of the local community, who would feel that they should be directly represented on the board or committee concerned.

I understand the hon. Gentleman’s view. I would point out to him, however, that when the House considered the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 it chose specifically not to go down the route of direct elections to national park authorities. In my own experience of matters that are open to public election, what invariably tends to happen is that party politics congregate around that election and can introduce an element which would be wholly unwarranted in such a situation. That may not happen, but then again it may. It is my preference, and one that the House has expressed on previous occasions, not to allow direct elections.