When I tell the House that

"Older people are more likely to be living in poverty, whether this is defined as below half-average income or the receipt of means-tested benefits,"

I am using not my words but those of Sir Donald Acheson in his report on inequalities in health, commissioned by the Department of Health and published last September.

In Britain today, one in four older people live on incomes that are less than half national average earnings after taking housing costs into account. However, it is often in the personal and the specific that we come to a better understanding of what such figures mean in practice. For some time, I have been a regular visitor to the Sutton Seniors Forum, which meets in my constituency every month. With a regular turnout of 160 people, it is one of the fastest growing of such forums anywhere in Greater London.

That interest prompted me to initiate this debate, but the final spur was a letter from a Cheam constituent which arrived in my constituency office last week. My constituent and his wife might not fall under the definition of poverty that I gave earlier, but the letter expressed sentiments that will find an echo in the constituencies of many hon. Members. Let me quote briefly from it:

"We are pensioners aged 65 and 67, we have the state pension, a very small private pension, and pensioners bonds that mature this year, making up our total income."

He goes on to describe the impact of price increases, tax changes and interest rate cuts, which, in his words,

"must be affecting many pensioners like ourselves. We have some hard earned savings but the interest is peanuts, so to meet the shortfall in income we will have to use our savings, but they will run out one day, and then presumably we live off the state."

Many older people are in the same boat as my constituents—living on a fixed income whose value is steadily eroding, while outgoings are steadily rising. That is the lot of far too many older people. That is where the Acheson report comes in; its recommendations stated that older people need higher state benefits to improve their living standards and, therefore, their health. A decent income is the foundation on which everything else rests.

What is a decent income? Last year, Age Concern published a report entitled "Raising the Wage of Retirement", based on work by Professor Eric Midwinter. In his analysis, Professor Midwinter came up with a figure of £150 per week per person, but even that is modest in comparison to average earnings. At the time, only 27 per cent. of single pensioners had gross incomes at or above that level and only 28 per cent. of couples had at least £300 per week. The amount spent on the three basics that we all need—housing, fuel and food—takes a far greater share of poorer pensioners' outgoings. Figures suggest that a single pensioner who relies on state benefits spends more than half of his or her income on those basics, while a two person non-retired household spends only 37 per cent. When other hon. Members have the opportunity to speak, I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) will be able to draw the House's attention to some figures on fuel poverty that he recently obtained. I could not believe the figures because their impact was staggering.

Professor Midwinter put the matter clearly. In the report, he stated:

"Many older people cannot live 'ordinary' lives, simply because they have insufficient incomes. They can stay alive, they can exist, but they are effectively excluded from much of what we would regard as normal life."

What is to be done? The Government's answer is more means testing for more pensioners, but that will condemn hundreds of thousands of people to a life of poverty. Indeed, as many as 700,000 older people who are entitled to claim income support are losing out now—on average by £16 a week. How a means-tested benefit can be called a guarantee is beyond me.

What about pensioners who have incomes of less than £68 per week, but are disqualified from income support because they have savings of £8,000 or more? There are more than 600,000 such people caught in that savings trap. The Government's Green Paper, published last year, says a lot about income support, but very little about the basic state pension. However, the trends are clear; the steady erosion of the basic state pension began under the Conservative Government, when the link with earnings was replaced by a link with prices. That erosion is set to continue. In 1980, for every £100 of average income, the basic state pension amounted to £21; by 2010, it will have fallen to only £13.

The Government are often criticised for placing far too much weight and reliance on the work of focus groups and other research tools in determining their policy and direction. Would that it were so in the case of pensions. Last year, the Department of Social Security published research note No. 83 on pensions and retirement planning, which makes for interesting, but depressing, reading. That research found that most people aged under 40 believe that the state pension will disappear, and that older people do not see the state pension continuing for their children or for their children's children. However, almost no one—according to that research—wants the state to withdraw. People want the Government to stay in the pensions business for the long term. When it comes to providing a basic, bread-and-butter foundation pension, the research found that the fairness, universality and dependability of the state pension carried much weight with the vast majority of a representative sample of the population.

The research certainly bears out the views of many of the members of the seniors forum in my constituency and, I am sure, of a great many people in this country. A couple of quotes from the research document are especially relevant. It states:

"Most people feel that a state pensioner should not need to claim income support—indeed, they see this as paradoxical."

It continues:

"There is also often disquiet about the fact that Income Support thresholds can leave those who have worked to provide for themselves with a small occupational or personal pension worse off than those who have made no provision at all. This appears unfair and demotivating."

It certainly is. The Green Paper rightly raises the possibility of some changes being made to the thresholds. Will the Minister tell us when decisions will be taken and, more important, when those decisions will be announced to the House; and when changes that will benefit our constituents will be made?

I acknowledge that the Budget contains welcome improvements to the circumstances of pensioners, but one or two unfortunate, and perhaps unintended, signals were sent to older people. Take the new 10p tax rate: it delivered good headlines on Budget day, but the small print revealed that pensioners with small incomes from savings were not to benefit from the new tax rate. Almost 1 million older people will continue to pay 20p of every pound of savings income in tax. The savings to the Government derived from not extending the benefit of the new tax rate is only £55 million. I hope that the Minister will assure the House today that the Government remain open-minded and are willing to consider the representations from a wide range of organisations, not least Age Concern. I wonder how much, or how little, the Treasury consulted the Department of Social Security on the new 10p rate. What message should older people take from their exclusion from that tax rate?

Another issue that focus groups picked out was the belief that British pensioners do not fare well by European standards. That is hardly surprising, because it is true: average incomes of older people in the UK are lower as a proportion of average income of the total population than in most other European countries. Older people in this country are over-represented among the poorest 30 per cent. of the population compared with older people in other European countries.

The Budget can best be described as a bit of a curate's egg for pensioners—good in parts. The basic state pension remains, but the earnings link was broken by the Conservatives in 1980s. To restore that link fully and catch up from the time it was broken would cost £12 billion. My hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) raised that matter on Monday during Social Security questions, and the Minister of State made it clear that restoring the earnings link for the basic state pension was not an option that the Government would consider. To be honest, I doubt that Liberal Democrat Front Benchers are likely to declare a commitment to such a policy either. Nevertheless, it is worth noting that, had the link been maintained, a single pensioner would today have a pension of £94.50 per week.

The minimum income guarantee is income support by another name—means-testing pure, but not simple. However, even after the downward revision of the figure, we know that 700,000 older people will not claim that to which they are entitled. The Government have initiated a series of pilots to try to boost take-up, and that is welcome. I hope the Minister will give the House an update on how the pilots are progressing—it would be interesting to know what take-up rate the Minister believes can be achieved. If take-up is low, the minimum income guarantee is no guarantee at all.

Does my hon. Friend agree that a new category of poor pensioners consists of widows who thought that they had been left well-off by their husbands? The dividends they receive from invested income has now dwindled and, because of that, the consequences of any structural damage to their houses, such as a leaking roof, can be that they have no income at all. Does my hon. Friend agree that that category of pensioner has never been adequately addressed by the Government?

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. Some people who are described as asset-rich but who live on low incomes are caught by the way in which the current income support system operates. I hope that the Government will consider how to address that problem; if they do not, they will condemn many of our constituents to lives of poverty and increasing desperation as their properties deteriorate around them.

From my experience of attending meetings of the seniors forum and other gatherings of older people in my constituency, I know that an issue that often provokes anger, outrage and a sense of frustration is the age addition at the age of 80—the extra 25p which appears in one's pension book on one's 80th birthday. It is not even sufficient to pay for a first-class stamp to stick on the letter that expresses one's opinion, whether positive or negative, and it has remained unchanged since 1971.

Evidence collected by my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon from written parliamentary answers makes it plain that extra financial help would be best targeted on older pensioners. The poorest pensioners are older pensioners, and women pensioners are even poorer than men. According to the most recent figures, for 1996–97, pensioner couples where the man was over 75 had a net income of £226 per week, compared with £259 net income for those under 75; and while a single male pensioner had an average net income of £141, a female pensioner had to live on £126. That is why I strongly support the development of a pensions policy that targets more help on older pensioners. Liberal Democrat policies to increase the state pension for the over-75s by £3 a week and for the over-80s by £5 a week represent a good step in the right direction. There is no danger of low take-up and no stigma, and administration costs would be low, but the measure would be effective and get help to far more people than the so-called minimum income guarantee.

When preparing for today's debate, I came across a very interesting speech made at a conference last September by Chris Daykin, the UK Government Actuary. He put the issues very clearly, saying:

"In the UK, where the level of flat-rate social security provision is relatively low, public opinion seems to favour raising the basic pension to a more realistic level, rather than relying on means-tested top-ups."

He must have been reading the findings of the Government's focus group work, because the research demonstrates strong support across all age groups for a decent pension. The research found that working participants in the focus group were willing to pay more national insurance to pay for an increase in the basic state pension of at least £10 per week, and even as much as £30 per week, for a single pensioner.

The final issue I want to raise during this debate is that of long-term care. I realise that that is not one of the Minister's direct responsibilities, but I hope that he will be able to say a few words on the subject.

Before the hon. Gentleman goes on to the subject of long-term care, I should like to compliment him on his excellent research and tell him that I support the thrust of his argument. One constituent of mine has only a 40 per cent. pension, because he did a great deal of voluntary work overseas. He put some money aside in savings and does not qualify for income support, although he does receive housing benefit. However, his income has now fallen by 20 per cent. Are there not many people like my constituent in the country? Should not the Government reconsider the way in which they deal with pensioners who tried to provide for their retirement, but who are now penalised for having done so?

The hon. Gentleman's constituent could represent many others who, for one reason or another, find themselves without a full basic state pension, despite the important contribution that they have made to society. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon has tabled written questions on that subject and obtained detailed statistics that I do not have at my fingertips this morning. I hope that the Minister will take account of the point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and ensure that it is considered during the consultation on the Green Paper.

Returning to the issue of long-term care, this week alone about 1,400 older people will be forced to sell their home to pay for their care, and the emotions that that provokes range from bewilderment to anger. There is a real sense of betrayal—those people have paid in throughout their lives, but when they need the state to support them, it is not there. The royal commission reported at the end of February and its report concludes that there is no demographic time bomb and that the costs of care are affordable. The royal commission also supported an approach to paying for long-term care that is based on some kind of risk pooling. The current situation whereby people must rely on income or savings is neither efficient nor fair owing to the risk and the sums involved. Finally, the royal commission believes that most efficient way of pooling risk is through general taxation, based on need rather than wealth.

The Government have said that they will debate the royal commission's recommendations, and I hope that the House will soon have an opportunity to consider the matter in greater depth. Time is pressing, and uncertainty about the future funding of long-term care must be ended quickly. Decisions need to be made. The absence of a clear timetable from the Government has fuelled widespread cynicism about Ministers' intentions in this area. How soon does the Minister expect action from the Government?

I am grateful for this opportunity to air several issues affecting my pensioner constituents. I hope that the Minister will say something about the 10p rate, the income support take-up pilots, the derisory 25p extra per week for the over-80s and the urgent need for a clear timetable for decisions on long-term care. I shall finish where I started by quoting from the letter of my constituent:

"We are not moaning money grabbing people that drive a large car, or travel the world two or three times a year. nor can we afford private health care. All we want is to be able to live the rest of our lives in some degree of comfort, not living off the state, not living off my children, and if we do need hospital treatment it will be available."

That is a reasonable request and I hope that the Government will meet it.

The House has listened carefully to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), whom I congratulate on introducing this subject this morning. However, the hon. Gentleman had difficulty in congratulating the Government on their achievements in assisting pensioners over the past two years. I think we should congratulate the Government on their strenuous efforts to help old and disabled people in receipt of pensions.

The Government's first act was to cut value added tax on domestic fuel bills. While that cut applied across the board, it was particularly important for people on pensions. The Government have also increased substantially the winter fuel allowance. Under the Tories, old people had to suffer seven days of temperatures below freezing before they qualified for £7 or £8 to assist with their fuel bills. A winter fuel payment of £100 is now paid to pensioners.

The Government have abolished charging for pensioner eye tests. The Liberals used to complain loudly about such charges, but the hon. Gentleman did not mention that reform in his speech. The Government have offered help to the poorest pensioners in the Budget by reinstating the link with earnings. That is a step in the right direction, and I know that the Government will continue down that road.

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned the Government's assistance to the poorest pensioners through continuation of the link with earnings. He is; presumably referring to the link with earnings through the minimum income guarantee. Is he aware—as my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) made clear a moment ago—that the poorest pensioners do not receive income support, even though they are eligible for it? Therefore, they will not be helped by that link with earnings.

The Liberals will clearly not accept any move to strengthen benefits and to help eradicate pensioner poverty. The Government have introduced several measures that benefit the poorest pensioners. For example, the Government decided recently to compensate former mine workers whose health was broken by the conditions in which they worked underground. Some 100,000 retired mine workers—many of them my constituents—Will receive the largest compensation payment ever made in this country. The Government are keeping their promises, and these issues are worth mentioning in this debate.

Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that that compensation was awarded after a long, hard-fought and ultimately successful High Court action?

Indeed, and I congratulate the mine workers who pioneered that claim. However, credit must go to the Government for not challenging that decision and for establishing the means of awarding that compensation.

There is still much to be done to improve the quality of life of old and disabled pensioners and to tackle pensioner poverty. After 18 years of Tory Government, which took so much away from our old people, pensioner poverty remains. I am pleased to have an opportunity this morning to express views on behalf of my constituents.

The Government must have regard to the gross inequality of the concessionary television licence scheme, which is part of the pensioner poverty issue. The concessionary television licence scheme required urgent review, and I am pleased that the Government have kept their promise and are in the process of that analysis. However, I plead with the Government to treat all old people equally under that scheme, as occurs with the winter fuel allowance. Many old people cannot afford BSkyB, so they miss out on those programmes that used to be broadcast on terrestrial television. Since BSkyB purchased the television rights of major sporting events, many of my constituents who are interested in sport have difficulty viewing those programmes. Television is the only means of entertainment for many old people, and I congratulate the Government on taking the initiative and deciding to review the concessionary television licence scheme. Let us get it right this time.

I draw the attention of the House to the previous Government's attitude towards local government. Under the Tories, many local government services upon which old people relied were withdrawn or charges for such services were levied or increased. As a result of the Tory Government's attacks and their application of capping and the rate support grant to local government expenditure, local government was forced to withdraw, or to levy charges for, services such as home help, assistance with bathing and personal hygiene, and help with gardening and decorating.

Bus deregulation has made it difficult for many old people to travel around their districts because of reduced services and the withdrawal of buses from certain routes. It has created pensioner poverty because pensioners must now rely on taxis. We all know that, when local government provided bus services, old people received more attention and were catered for better. Cross-subsidisation helped many of our constituents. I support the national bus pass scheme that the Deputy Prime Minister is considering, and I urge the Government to speed up its implementation. It will provide major assistance to our old people and help to reduce pensioner poverty further. That is another example of the Government's delivering on their promise to equalise public transport facilities for our old people.

It is the same with law and order. Every week, we hear about attacks on the elderly—many of which occur in their own homes. Our old people are very vulnerable to attacks because they cannot afford to install security lighting, extra-strong doors or window grills. It is those pensioners that we need to support, and I am pleased that the Government are helping people to be more secure in their own homes and providing better street lighting so that old people can feel more comfortable in their community. All those issues are part of pensioner poverty, but the Government are tackling them and making provisions to help elderly people.

As I said, there is still a great deal to be done to erase pensioner poverty. In 1980, the Tories cut the link between pensions and wages, and single pensioners suffered a loss of £22 a week. After the 17 years of Tory rule that followed the severing of that link, the reduced quality of life of many of our pensioners is apparent, and the Government must take action. I am pleased that they are reviewing future pension provision and keeping the promise that they made to the people. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the Green Paper on pension reform.

We must at all times remember that today's pensioners contributed a percentage of their earnings to their pension, but the pension does not relate to earnings. In comparison with today's rates of income from investment, the rate of return on those pension contributions is poor, particularly when we consider the number of years for which people paid into the pension scheme. Rich people tend to get more out of what they have paid in because they live longer than poor pensioners. With means-tested benefits, the pensioners who have saved more lose out.

The state pension is about 15 per cent. of average earnings, and that percentage is falling because wages are increasing. Between 5 and 6 per cent. of the UK's gross domestic product is paid in pensions. Pensioners in many European Union countries receive around 15 per cent. of GDP.

In the two years during which the Government have been in power, they have done more to eradicate pensioner poverty than the Tories did in 18 years. I plead with the House and the country never to let a Government come to power who will attack pensioners as the Tories did in their 18 years in power. The Government are on track to eradicate pensioner poverty, and I offer my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State and the rest of the Government on their work for pensioners over the past two years.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing time for this debate. I am pleased to take part because the issue is important for many thousands of our constituents.

Poverty among the elderly is probably worse in Wales than anywhere else in the UK. In my constituency, 22 per cent. of the Meirionnydd section of the population are elderly, retired people. In the Conwy valley, that proportion is as high as 26 per cent. Thankfully, people are living to a greater age, so the proportion of elderly people is set to increase for the foreseeable future. Life expectancy for a woman in Wales is 79 and, for a man, 74. By 2016, there will be approximately 696,000 pensioners in Wales, and about 9 per cent. of the population will be over 75. That figure is 14 per cent. higher than that expected for England.

According to Shelter Cymru, at present, 60 per cent. of pensioners in Wales live on or below the poverty line. In Wales, a majority of pensioners rely on state pensions and other state benefits as their principal source of income. In 1997, 79,000 pensioners were receiving income support. It is estimated that a further 55,000 to 71,000 elderly people who are eligible for income support did not claim their benefits. Also in 1997, 13,700 disabled pensioners and 2,700 widows were in receipt of war pensions.

In that year, the average household in Wales spent £14 a week, or 7 per cent. of its income, on fuel, light and power. Single pensioners who are dependent on a state pension spent between £7.60 and £8.40 a week on lighting, fuel and power, while those not dependent on state pensions spent between £9.30 and £16.20 on those items.

The number of unfit homes occupied in Wales is about twice as high as that in England. Wales has the worst housing stock in western Europe if the age of the housing stock is used as an indicator. Over one third of the houses were constructed before 1919, and 52 per cent. of older people in Wales live in pre-1919 dwellings.

Since older people tend to be concerned about owing money and sliding into debt, I often come across people who choose to prioritise their spending as best they can, frequently choosing between eating and heating. Is that how we shall treat old people? They have, after all, given us a good start in life and a reasonable standard of living. We owe it to them to treat them better.

It is a long-standing indictment of successive Governments that so many hard-working, honest and decent people have been pushed below the poverty line. One of the reasons for that is that Baroness Thatcher's Administration decoupled state pensions from the average rise in wages and imposed the softer option of price inflation. That has meant that, in real terms, the value of retirement pensions has slipped back considerably over the past 15 years, and that is why there is such a shameful disparity between what pensioners receive and what they should receive. The situation appears far worse when one compares the UK's retirement pension with other European examples.

Pensioners in rural Wales often have to bear the brunt of petrol price rises. Although the Government say that they will introduce free or reduced price travel for pensioners, they will have to leave that measure to local authorities, which cannot, at present, make ends meet to pay for it. I should welcome a full and honest commitment to introduce centrally funded free transport for all pensioners.

Recently, two of my constituents, Mr. Arthur Holland Williams and Mrs. Jenny Hyde, both of Blaenau Ffestiniog—that should give Hansard something to think about—came to see me at my advice surgery. They were speaking out on behalf of many other pensioners in the constituency. Mr. Williams told me that the net effect of the Government's recent pension increases has given him an extra 38p a week. His story is similar to many thousands of others. We ought to remember, at a time when water rates in Wales are crippling, and every outgoing, such as electricity standing charges, fuel, transport and food, is racing upwards, that 38p a week does not even buy a cup of coffee.

A few weeks ago, a pensioner wrote an anonymous letter to me in which he told me off most severely for criticising the Budget. Perhaps when he realises that he is less than 40p a week better off, he will understand what I meant by saying that the Budget was really a poor one—all smoke and mirrors and a spin doctor's triumph.

The Budget is hardly as generous as it seems. The basic minimum income guarantee is extended only to those who claim income support. As I said, it is estimated that between 55,000 and 71,000 pensioners in Wales are entitled to income support but do not claim it. Furthermore, those people who are just above income support levels gain nothing from that new income. There is a 7 per cent. increase in council tax and an increase in the price of fuel and other utilities, so that increase has already been cancelled out. Age Concern, for example, says that, on balance, it would prefer a Budget that helps pensioners by making a generous increase in the basic state pension. That is the crux of the whole matter.

Mr. Williams and Mrs. Hyde, to whom I referred, gave me the following figures relating to a neighbour of theirs, whose outgoings I shall briefly detail. They are as follows: rent, £1,371.76 per annum; water rates, £54.25; council tax, £61.81; telephone, £240; electricity, £210; coal and gas, £523.08; clothing and other items, £260; food and cleaning materials, £1,300; television licence and piping service, £20.24, and household and personal insurance, £185. That is a grand total of £5,026.14. The state pension is £4,464.02, which means a deficit of £562.12. Even working out a very careful and meagre budget, and despite what one could hardly call high living, that person still has a shortfall. She hardly has a lavish life style. She must avoid buying any kind of luxury and is desperately worried about sliding into debt. Her health is being affected by the worry, and that example is typical of many cases that I have come across over the past few months.

The treatment of our pensioners is downright unfair, and that is something that I greatly resent. At a time when they should be enjoying life, having made a great contribution to our comforts, pensioners are desperately worried about making ends meet. On Monday, I met a constituent who was widowed in 1983. Her late husband was an acquaintance of mine. He was a hard-working man who was as conscientious as they come. Sadly—it was a great blow to everyone in the Bala area who knew him—he died of an industrial disease. His widow is being paid £66.75 a week in industrial benefits, which is the lowest rate of income support. Her only other means of support is a retirement pension of £38.77. She is in dire straits and unable to make ends meet. She pleads with the Government to do something.

I appreciate what the hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) said about the efforts being made and the pledges being given, but nothing much is changing on the ground. It is a grave injustice that the lady to whom I referred not only lost the companionship of her husband in 1983 but—after all that he and, indeed, she, suffered—is paid the lowest rate possible. I shall be writing to the Minister about the case to seek more and proper explanations and, better still, I hope, some changes.

The time has surely come to stop tinkering with pensions and to stop hiding behind the elusive £1 excess income, which deprives people of benefit. Surely the time has come to overhaul and simplify the system to ensure that pensions are substantially increased. I welcome some of the Government's proposals, but they are merely tinkering at the edges. We should be considering abolishing utility standing charges for the elderly and ensuring that pensioners' means are taken into account when calling for the payment of council tax and water charges. There are many more things that could be done to improve the quality of life of our elderly citizens. I am angry and ashamed, as I am sure many other hon. Members are, about a system which cuts taxes for the well-off but denies the elderly the decent standard of living that they richly deserve.

I conclude by quoting from a report entitled "The Financial Situations of Older People in Wales" by Age Concern Cymru, Help the Aged and the Welsh Consumer Council. The report concludes:

"It is said that a society is judged by the way it treats its young and its old: if this is the case then the treatment of older people in Wales and Britain as a whole reflects very badly on the British state and British society. While notions of poverty are subjective in many respects it is objectively evident that older people in Britain are the poor relations of the European Union—they deserve more."

I fully agree with those words.

I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this debate and providing hon. Members with an opportunity to draw attention to various matters of concern. We must be aware of the context in which this debate is taking place, and I join my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) in congratulating the Government on doing more than any Government in recent history, and certainly more than the previous Government, to alleviate pensioner poverty. It is telling that there is not a single Conservative Back Bencher present for this debate.

I shall save time by not dwelling on the benefits that the Government have introduced, some of which have already been mentioned: the reduction of value-added tax on fuel, the universal winter fuel payments, the minimum income guarantee, tax allowances which take another 200,000 pensioners out of taxation—on top of the two thirds who already pay no tax—free eye tests, moves towards more and universal concessionary travel and many others which my hon. Friend the Minister will perhaps mention. Let us not forget that the Government have already made enormous advances in alleviating pensioner poverty, but I want to draw attention to some remaining concerns, make some appeals and perhaps offer advice to the Government as to how they might target future action further to alleviate pensioner poverty.

One concern is that the gap will continue to widen between pensioners and the rest of the population. It has already been pointed out that although the minimum income guarantee will now rise in line with earnings, for which we are grateful, the basic state pension will continue to be linked to inflation.

I am concerned to ensure that future pensioners should be allowed what I call, although it is not my own term, active ageing. That means being allowed to enjoy health and mobility and, indeed, in their pre-retirement years, employment which allows them to make provision for their old age. My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton mentioned access to information and entertainment in connection with the television licence.

The minimum income guarantee is welcome, but there are well-known concerns about it. It causes much confusion among older people, many of whom think that it is the same as the state pension, when of course it is not. More than 1 million pensioners do not get the minimum income guarantee—700,000 of them because, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, they do not claim the income support to which they are entitled. A further 600,000 do not receive it because they have savings in excess of £3,000

In that connection, I remind my hon. Friend the Minister of an answer he gave on 13 April to a question from my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). My right hon. Friend asked how much it would cost to buy an annuity now which would give an income equal to the state pension

"in 15 years' time, assuming that the basic pension is raised in line with prices, the minimum income guarantee is raised in line with earnings"

and so on. The answer was that it would cost

"£15,000 in 1999 earnings terms, or £19,000 in 1999 prices"

to purchase an annuity now which would provide

"an income equivalent to the difference between the basic State pension and the Minimum Income Guarantee".—[Official Report, 15 April 1999; Vol. 329, c. 151.]

I remind my hon. Friend that 600,000 pensioners are not entitled to the MIG because they have savings in excess of only £3,000. I ask the Government to bear that in mind.

Age Concern conducted a survey of pensioners and health. There is certainly a perception among pensioners that there is discrimination on grounds of age in some parts of the national health service. Ill health is expensive and contributes to poverty.

My hon. Friend the Member for Normanton said much that needed to be said on the question of mobility and about the need to provide the transport for which increased concessionary travel will be available. I remind the Minister that many old people have large cars because of their disability—for example, they may need to transport a wheelchair—but they cannot claim the new concession on vehicle excise duty. Also, if they have large cars, they suffer from the increase in the price of petrol above the rate of inflation every year. There may be ways in which pensioners can be helped with that problem.

With regard to employment, I mentioned that if people lose their jobs in the years leading up to old age, they lose the opportunity to prepare for old age. The Government must intervene actively where necessary to help older people into employment. It is pleasing that the new deal is now taking account of people over 50.

I shall deal briefly with other concerns. Some older people will be taxed at 20 per cent., even though they fall within the 10 per cent. tax band, because the tax on savings will not be reduced. In addition, the Minister will be aware of the long, hard campaign that I and others have waged on the issue of reclaiming tax credit on dividends.

The abolition of the widows bereavement allowance particularly affects older widows. The abolition of tax relief on new home income plans reduces the opportunity for some older people to realise capital tied up in their houses to increase income.

I have an early-day motion on the Order Paper today drawing attention to the fiasco of the 1986 decision to reduce to 50 per cent. widows' and widowers' entitlement to inherit SERPS. That decision was not publicised by the Department, so between 1986 and 1999 pensioners have been planning for the future on the basis of wrong information. I appeal to the Government to sort out that mess as quickly as possible.

The overall picture shows some darts well aimed by the Government. Much help has been given to all pensioners, and much more immediate help to the most needy, but more needs to be done in future Budgets. Millions of responsible, deserving pensioners are penalised by an array of relatively small losses as a result of recent taxation measures.

The Chancellor has shown himself to be imaginative and generous in his targeting of fiscal Policies. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to use his influence with the Chancellor so that in future Budgets my right hon. Friend will take corrective action where he has room for generosity. If that is done, I look forward to seeing more darts on the dart board, hitting the bull's-eye and the double top, bringing about the secure old age that current and future pensioners deserve. Let us not forget that all the benefits of prosperity that we enjoy have already been contributed to and paid for by current pensioners and pensioners soon to come.

The hon. Member for Sutton Cheam(Mr. Burstow) is to be Warmly congratulated by the House on having seized the initiative and secured the debate on such a timely issue, which is of immediate concern to millions of our fellow citizens.

We have had an extremely interesting debate. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) produced numerous facts and figures. It was useful for our debate to be informed by precise information and by the personal cases of the hon. Gentleman's constituents. our constituents' view of the world. The hon. Gentleman made an excellent speech.

We heard some extremely interesting remarks from the hon. Members for Normanton (Mr. O'Brien) and for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara). There were the ritual genuflections to their own Front Bench, a few nasty things said about the Tories and a few quotes from the latest Millbank tower handout, but the broad thrust of their contributions was a damming critique of the Government's actions or inaction in respect of older and retired people: inaction in the case of concessionary television licences,buses—a matter that the hon. Member for Normanton was right —and age discrimination in varies cases cited by the hon. Member for Knowsley, South.

I was particularly struck by what the hon. Gentleman said about age discrimination in job market and in the national health service. I introduced a private Member's Bill on that subject in the previous Parliament. The Labour party made a number of commitments before the last election. During parlimentary questions last November, the Prime Minister made a commitment to me to legislate on the matter, but, so far, nothing has been done. The indictment of the Government's inaction is well deserved.

The hon. Members for Normanton and for Knowsley, South were even more critical of the Government's failure to restore the earning link, which was the thrust of the Labour party's propaganda in opposition, and of the Government's great extension of means-testing.

There was a good joke this morning from the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam. I am sure that it was a deliberate joke; it was certainly very amusing. The hon. Gentleman asked whether the Treasury had consulted the Department of Social Security about the Budget. I have been in my present job for only a few months, but that is long enough to realise that the Treasury does not consult the Department of Social Security about anything—the Treasury gives orders to the Department.

Policy on matters such as pensions and welfare is made entirely in the Treasury. The Benefits Agency hands out the money in the country, and the only role of the Minister of State and his ministerial colleagues is to defend the indefensible in the House and elsewhere. That is an unenviable role and some of us might consider it unedifying as well, but that is the role in which they have allowed themselves to be cast. Let us have no doubt about who is calling the shots on policy.

There is profound concern among retired people and those approaching retirement for all the reasons that have emerged during the debate. People are wondering what is going on. The answer is that the Government are engaged in making colossal fools of older and retired people. Before the last election and for many years previously, all the propaganda suggested that Labour would restore the earnings link. I had that thrown at me at public meetings and on the doorstep during the election campaign. Millions of people voted for the Labour party in that expectation and the Government have defaulted on it.

The Labour party has always shared with us scepticism about means testing. During my time in the House, I have heard eloquent and persuasive speeches from Labour Members about the unfairness of means testing and the damage that it does to a sense of social responsibility and to the incentive to save. Perhaps the Government had a secret agenda, but no one was prepared for what has happened. There has been the most colossal extension of means testing since the 1930s. The worst aspect has been the extension of that to pensioners.

Most extraordinarily, the Chancellor declared as recently as 1993 at the Labour party conference:

"I want the next Labour Government to achieve what in 50 years of the Welfare State has never been achieved. The end of the means test for our elderly people".

In fact, as I said, he has brought about the most colossal increase in means testing for elderly people since the 1930s, of which the Government should be thoroughly ashamed.

Will the hon. Gentleman therefore confirm that the Conservatives will make it their official policy to agree with the Liberal Democrats that an extra £3 should be given to over 75-year-olds and an extra £5 to over 80-year-olds, which will reduce means-testing?

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, where the country can afford it, it is absolutely right to increase the state retirement pension, for which people have paid through their national insurance contributions, and not to discriminate particularly invidiously against people with small savings or to extend means testing. That has been quite the wrong approach. We shall propose our own policies for the next election—and for the next Government—which will be diametrically opposed to the direction in which the Labour party has been taking us over the past two years. I give that assurance unambiguously and clearly.

As if that were not enough, the Government have used the tax system to discriminate against retired people and those with small savings in a way that would have been

quite unimaginable—indeed was so until it happened. The Government have found a way of forcing people who are below the income tax threshold on their aggregate income to pay 20 per cent. tax on their small savings income. That particularly impacts on small savers and retired people.

I understand that, as a result of the Government's vicious decision to force people whose total income is under the threshold that Parliament has fixed—below which people should not pay any tax on their income—to pay tax, 300,000 non-taxpaying pensioners and a further 330,000 non-taxpayers will lose an average of £75 a year each, and 80,000 pensioners will lose more than £100 a year, and they can ill afford that. That is utterly unforgivable. The Government have cynically done that—perhaps in the belief that retired and older people are so stupid that they will not realise what is going on. If that is what the Government think, they have another think coming.

With a great many bells and whistles, it was announced in the Budget that we would have a new lop starting rate of income tax, but we were not told that it would not apply to savings income. So, those who have retired, and therefore do not have earned income—they may have very modest savings—will not benefit from the lop rate. That is vicious discrimination against savers in general, and retired people in particular. If the Government do not think that the country will notice, they are in for a very nasty shock.

This is a Government who are all positive rhetoric and no positive substance. The real substance, such as it is, has been thoroughly negative—certainly for the retired and elderly sections of our population over the past two years. I dread to think where retired people, particularly those on modest incomes who have small savings, will find themselves at the end of four years if we continue as we have over the past two.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on securing this important debate. I wonder where all the Tory Members are. The words of the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) ring a little hollow, given the empty Benches behind him.

All hon. Members have referred to their constituencies in this debate. Both my constituency of Hornchurch and the borough of Havering have a very high proportion of pensioners. Like other hon. Members, I see pensioners in my surgeries and meet them in the street, and they write to me and call me, so I feel able to represent their views quite effectively.

The biggest complaint that I receive undoubtedly concerns the reliance on means testing. Without any shadow of doubt, the Government have moved in the right direction. The Budget was marginally redistributive. The cut in value added tax on fuel was important, although, personally, I would have abolished it completely. Free eye tests are also important, as is the minimum income guarantee.

However, the number of people who are dependent on means-tested benefits, particularly income support, is generally rising. In my constituency, the number of pensioners in privately rented accommodation who are dependent on income support is 500. The number who are council tenants is nearly 2,000. That is unacceptably high.

I know that the Government and my hon. Friend the Minister have often said that their principal aim on pensions is to remove reliance on means testing. I read the pensions Green Paper when it was released a short time ago, and have some specific questions about exactly how the state second pension—the replacement for the state earnings-related pension scheme—and the stakeholder pension will work.

The Green Paper claims that, as a result of the state second pension, there will be enormous increases over SERPS for low-income earners when they retire, but does not explain exactly how that will work. I would be interested in knowing the exact mechanism for guaranteeing such increases. Where will the savings and investment come from? What kind of figures are we talking about? How many pensioners will the state second pension remove from reliance on income support? I would be very interested in that, given the constituency that I represent. What time scale will apply to the state second pension? How soon will pensioners start to benefit from it?

I worked in the pensions industry during the 1980s as an underwriter, and saw the mis-selling. "Mis-selling" is just a euphemism; what took place was fraud—with the previous Government's blessing, by the way. Having seen that, I cannot envisage how the figures will stack up in the stakeholder pension scheme. There will be no compulsion, or even pressure, to ensure that employers contribute or help to set up the schemes, and that is the vital missing part. If the schemes are to be successful, there must ultimately be some compulsion on employers to take part and contribute to them.

I do not know how low-income workers will be able to contribute sufficiently to stakeholder schemes to give them a decent income when they retire. Such schemes generally concern people not on very low incomes, but on relatively low incomes. What actuarial analysis lies behind the potential stakeholder schemes?

I should like the Government to move toward the type of nationwide occupational schemes in Australia, which force employers to contribute and to take part in setting up the schemes. Even if we moved towards that, the problems on retirement of the very poorest pensioners and wage-earners would not be solved. I have always believed that the answer for the poorest pensioners and lowest wage-earners is ultimately the national state pension, to which we all contribute throughout our lives. That must be the saviour for the poorest pensioners. As many hon. Members have pointed out, if the increases in the state pension had been in line with earnings, and not just prices, since the link with earnings was abolished in 1981, the lowest pension would be about £90, rather than the current pretty miserly one.

As I said, the biggest complaint made by pensioners who come to my surgery is about means-testing. There is an almost visceral dislike of means testing among pensioners, which is entirely understandable. The Government have launched many schemes to find out why pensioners are not taking up their entitlement to income support. About 700,000 pensioners refuse to do so.

I can answer those questions for the Government, without using any schemes. The last thing that people want—certainly those in my constituency who might have worked on the docks all their lives, been through the war and perhaps brought up a large family in difficult circumstances—is to have to go down to the Department of Social Security office to be patronised by someone half their age, patted on the head and told that they can have something to which they should be entitled in the first place. That leads to bitter, deep and long-standing resentment among pensioners.

We should be moving towards universal benefits that are available to everybody and, effectively, abolition of means testing. I would like greater emphasis to be placed on that.

It is a pleasure to take part in a debate on this important subject. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) has campaigned very hard on this issue, and I congratulate him on securing the debate. It is also a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer), who raised issues relating to employers being required to put money into stakeholder schemes and made some telling points. I hope that the Minister will respond to them. There may be less pension provision, not more, if employers start opting out of occupational schemes, into which they are putting money, and run stakeholder schemes instead.

In the few minutes available to me, I shall address primarily the future of pensioner poverty—where are we headed? However, a comment made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam prompts me to remark briefly on where we are now. I asked the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to say what proportion of pensioners in different age bands—on his definition, not on mine—were living in fuel poverty, which is spending more than 10 per cent. of income on fuel. The figures for younger pensioners were frightening enough, but the figure for households headed by a pensioner aged over 80 was 80 per cent.

That figure for such households was reached through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' definition of fuel poverty and its own figures. It shows the problem that we face and highlights our particular concern about older pensioners. However, I want principally to address our tomorrow—indeed, all our tomorrows, in 2020 or 2050. Where are we headed?

The Government have said that we start from a situation in which one pensioner in four is dependent not on means-tested benefits, but on income support alone. Hundreds of thousands more receive rent rebates, council tax benefit and so on, but 1.5 million pensioners out of about 6 million pensioner benefit units receive income support. The Government tell us that, on unchanged policies, that figure will be one in three in 2050, but the pensioner population will rise over that period and that figure will increase to 3.5 million pensioners, compared with 1.5 million today.

The Government also say that we need not worry because, if the Green Paper proposals are implemented, the figure will be one in four—but one in four of a bigger pensioner population, or 2.5 million pensioners. The Government say that, if they introduce their policies—leaving aside the possibility that lots more people will suddenly save, and assuming that a mass savings habit does not suddenly start—the figure will still be one in four, but 2.5 million pensioners will be receiving income support instead of 1.5 million. That figure also leaves aside all the other means-tested benefits.

If I were about to write a pensions policy for the next 50 years, I would not consider an extra million pensioners receiving income support in 50 years, when the whole blasted scheme was working, to be a triumph. I would consider that a failure. The Government say in response, "But we are trying to encourage more people to save for their old age, through stakeholder schemes." I am sure that stakeholder schemes will overcome some of the barriers that people face under the personal pension regime, but there is real danger that, because of the Government's commitment to link the minimum income guarantee to earnings—I reiterate my support for that—the yawning gap between the basic pension and the poverty line will discourage people from saving.

It has been suggested that an annuity of between £15,000 and £20,000 would fill the current gap between the basic pension and the income support line, but that gap will grow quickly—not in line with prices or earnings, but faster than both. The gap between an item linked to prices and an item indexed to earnings rises faster than both; the simple arithmetic tells us that. The annuity that people would need to buy to fill that gap—the stakeholder pension pot—would rise exponentially, which would discourage people from saving.

I believe that the Minister genuinely wants to do something about pensioner poverty and that he cares about poor pensioners. For those who receive it, the minimum income guarantee will be of great value. A crucial issue, therefore, is non-take-up. In its election manifesto, the Labour party used the available figures and said that 1 million pensioners did not claim their income support. It has since emerged that there was a statistical blunder: that was not the Government's fault; they did not know that the figure was wrong. We hear that the figure is between 400,000 and 700,000; I ask the Minister to go back to his civil servants and demand proper figures now.

I have asked for details of those 400,000 to 700,000 pensioners: for example, how many of them are older pensioners? That is germane to assessing the validity of our strategy for helping older pensioners. I am told that I will have to wait for those details until May, when we will finally get some take-up figures. They will be three or four years out of date.

I used to be involved in constructing such statistics. One error made those figures wrong: the Government missed out private widows' pensions when they were working out people's incomes. I do not see why it should take four or five months to put that error right. Parliament is being denied proper information on a key issue for evaluating the Government's pensions policy.

The Government are relying heavily on means testing. Even if the figure is one in four in 2050, it will represent 2.5 million people; if it is one in five, it will represent 2 million people. That is a serious amount of means testing. A crucial aspect of assessing that policy is whether take-up is a big problem. It is shocking that we do not have proper information. I hope that the Minister will go back to his Department and get us proper information.

I want to raise a final point about the future of pensioner poverty. Let us assume that Government policy is introduced; although a mass savings habit does not

develop, there is no mass desertion from saving and we end up with a figure of one in four, which is an average over all pensioners, from those aged 65 to those in the oldest age groups. What will be the proportion for the over-80s or the over-85s? It will not be one in four because we know that the newly retired are, on average, much better off than the very elderly. The figure may be one in four for all pensioners, but perhaps one in six or one in seven for the newly retired. What would it be for the very elderly—one in two?

If half the people in our country aged over 80 end up on means-tested benefits after 50 years of a bright, shiny new pensions policy, what will have been the point of it? By then, people aged 80 may still have 10 years of life left, on average. If the Government will not put pensions up across the board, which would be expensive, can we not do something to make sure that those people at least do not have to fill in means-tested benefit forms every year, with us hoping that they will claim, when they reach extreme old age?

The Minister is a reasonable man, and I shall sit down now to allow him as much time as possible to respond.

I too congratulate the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on his success in securing the debate. I was pleased to hear that he is a regular attender at meetings of the older people's forum his constituency. I commend that to the House; it is important that Members listen to what older people say. I will say a little more about how the Government are listening to older people and I hope that the hon. Gentleman's practice will be taken up much more widely.

The complete absence of Conservative Back-Bench Members is striking and telling, as a number of contributors have said. This is the International Year of Older People, whose slogan is "A Society for All Ages", and it is appropriate that we are having this important debate at a relatively early stage of it.

There have been big changes in the structure of the economy during the past 50 years. Traditional industries have declined and working patterns are very different. During that period of immense social change, spending on social security has moved inexorably upwards. Despite the increase in spending, poverty and inequality have increased—in particular, for pensioners. The average pensioner income has risen sharply over the past 20 years, due largely to the success of occupational pensions, which I welcome, but a large number of people have not shared in the benefits of that rise.

The best-off 20 per cent. of pensioners have an income that is, in real terms, 70 per cent. higher than in 1979. The figure for the least well off 20 per cent. is only 30 per cent. There has been a huge rise in inequality among pensioners, and hon. Members were right to draw attention to that. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) provided some interesting figures on the position in Wales.

Addressing that inequality requires fundamental reform of the pensions system. Our pensions Green Paper, which was published before Christmas, sets out our strategy for reform. It is based on the principle that everybody who can save for their retirement has a responsibility to do so. In turn, the Government have a responsibility to provide security in retirement for those who cannot save enough, and to regulate the pensions system effectively.

We want to put pensions on a sound footing, so that every pensioner is assured of a decent income in retirement and people can rely on secure and effective private pensions. We want to deliver security for today's pensioners and peace of mind for tomorrow's.

I want to focus most of my remarks on today's pensioners, but my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Cryer) and the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) raised important questions about the future of pension provision, so I shall respond briefly to those points. Our proposals are based on four interlinked pillars.

First, we had a manifesto commitment to uprate the basic state pension annually at least in line with prices, and we have honoured that commitment as we have all our others. The basic state pension will not be means-tested and will not be privatised. Secondly, the minimum income guarantee, delivered through income support, will provide an income floor below which no pensioner without savings will fall, and we aim to uprate the level of that guarantee over time in line with earnings. Thirdly, the state second pension will ensure that everybody who has worked and contributed throughout their lives—allowing, for the first time, for periods out of work caring for a disabled person or bringing up children below the age of five, and for periods out of work through long-term disability—will have an income on retirement above the minimum income guarantee.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch asked for more details about how that will work. Under the state second pension, anyone who has earned in lifetime earnings less than £9,000 a year will be treated as if they had earned £9,000. In addition, the accrual rate for someone at the £9,000 point will be twice as much as it would have been under the state earnings-related pension scheme. I hope that it is clear from that explanation that, for people earning above the lower earnings limit and below £9,000, and for those earning rather more than £9,000, the state second pension represents a significant improvement on what is available under SERPS. It should come into effect in 2002 and, to gain the whole benefit of that, a person would have to have spent his whole working life in the state second pension. As with everything to do with pensions, it will take a long time for the full benefit to work through. I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that we are proposing a substantial improvement.

The fourth pillar is stakeholder pension schemes, which will provide people for whom no suitable funded scheme is now available with good value, reliable, funded pensions, which will benefit from higher levels of national insurance rebate than are currently available. There are large numbers of such people. In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch, let me say that employers will be required to give access to a stakeholder scheme under our proposals. We will not require employers to contribute to them, although some are considering doing so.

That approach has been widely welcomed, and we are now analysing more than 550 responses to the Green Paper. However, the central point in this debate is that there are millions of existing pensioners for whom those reforms will come too late and who need help now to enjoy their retirement. We are determined to do more to help those who need it most. We have taken action to help all pensioners while giving priority to the least well-off, who are the central concern in this debate.

We have announced a £2 billion a year package for today's pensioners. From this month, income support rates for eligible pensioners will increase by three times the rate of inflation to give a minimum income guarantee for pensioners who are entitled to income support of £75 a week for a single person and £116 for a couple. As a result, pensioners receiving income support will be at least £160 better off in real terms in the coming year, and 65,000 pensioners not previously entitled to claim income support because they have been just above the threshold—a point made by the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy—will for the first time be able to do so and enjoy the benefits of the higher level of minimum income guarantee.

In April next year, the guarantee will be increased in line with earnings. That will help to ensure that even the least well-off pensioners are able to share in rising national prosperity. From that month, a further 20,000 will become entitled and so benefit from the guarantee.

The guarantee is being set at a higher level for older pensioners. The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam referred to the needs of older pensioners. Given the earnings-related rise, from this month, the rate will be £125.30 for couples one or both of whom is over 80, and we expect that rate to increase by another £5 per week next April. So, next year, an older pensioner couple on income support is likely to be more than £600 a year better off in real terms over this two-year period. Those are substantial gains for the least well-off pensioners—those on income support. We are proposing a series of well-aimed darts, to use the term of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South (Mr. O'Hara).

Hon. Members have drawn attention to the fact that 700,000 pensioners are not taking up their entitlement to income support. I hope that the Minister will say something about the Government's pilot projects, because that is an important matter. Those well-aimed darts are not hitting their targets, because those pensioners are not getting the benefits.

One and a half million pensioner households certainly are receiving the benefits. However, the hon. Gentleman is right: this is an important issue. Last year, we commissioned new research into the reasons why up to 700,000 pensioners are not submitting claims. We set up pilot projects to examine new ways of identifying potential recipients and how best to encourage them to claim. We are now examining the results as they emerge, and we are planning our next steps. I hope to be able to tell the House more about that in due course.

However, we are left with the problem of pensioners with low incomes and modest savings that are just above the savings limits for income support. They see little benefit from the effort that they have made to save for their old age, and we do not think that that is right. People should feel that it is worth while to save, and we want them to do so. That is why we said in the Green Paper that we want to examine ways in which we can better reward those who have saved for their retirement. We have consulted on that and we are analysing the responses. We shall announce our proposals for change later in this Parliament.

The Budget made substantial changes to improve the tax position of pensioners. The income tax personal allowance for pensioners aged between 65 and 74 rose by £310, which is £130 more than the normal indexation. Other changes were made for people aged over 75. As a result of those substantial changes, 200,000 pensioners will be taken out of income tax. Two thirds of pensioners will not pay any tax at all.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam asked me to talk about long-term care. We are addressing that complex issue. The report of the royal commission was published at the beginning of March, and we are considering it carefully. Yesterday, I spoke to one of the commissioners, Claire Rayner. I am unable to say when that response will be published, but we are considering the matter urgently.

The inter-ministerial group on older people, which I chair, has commissioned wide-ranging research on older people's attitudes and aspirations. It has focused on active ageing as one of the major themes—to pick up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, South. We are also focusing on the importance of consultation. During the year, we are having a series of "listening to older people" events, jointly organised by non-governmental organisations, to support the United Nations International Year of Older Persons. There will be about 10 events, and all 15 of my fellow Ministers on the inter-ministerial group will be taking part in one or more of them. We want to know what older people want from the Government.

Order. We must now move to the next debate.

I am delighted to have had the good fortune to secure this debate—I expect that the Chamber will be packed to the rafters before long—and to have the chance to air the problems and, indeed, opportunities involved in park home living as it affects my constituents on some 1,000 pitches in 47 parks in the district of Wyre, as it affects some 200,000 people in the United Kingdom, and as it affects older people living in rural areas. That last category is quite relevant to the earlier debate.

It is, I suppose, the inevitable fate of Governments coming to power after a hiatus of 18 years to be faced with problems that should have been resolved years earlier, which have been compounded over time, and which have been sorely neglected for so long that people have despaired of their ever being sorted out. I doubt, however, whether many problems discussed in the House have involved such a basic difficulty in regard to definition. Nowhere in the legislation—which is sorely inadequate for the purpose of providing all park home owners with the security and consideration that most of us take for granted—is there so much as a definition of "park home".

The Mobile Homes Act 1983, the Caravan Sites Act 1968 and the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 contain no better definition than that contained in housing booklet 30, "Mobile Homes", published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It states:

"The legal definition of a mobile home is the same as that for a caravan. Broadly speaking, it covers any structure designed or adapted for people to live in which is capable of being moved from one place to another (whether by being towed or by being transported on a motor vehicle or trailer). This does not include railway stock on a railway line which is in use, nor tents. It does include twin units separately constructed and designed for assembly on site, provided that the twin unit is physically capable of being moved when assembled. The twin unit must be no more than 60 foot long 20 foot wide and the living accommodation no more than 10 foot high."

I am glad that we are not discussing tents, but we should not really be discussing caravans either. I think that we should scrap all references to caravans and mobile homes when referring to park homes in residential parks that have planning permission for 365 days a year. We should be discussing housing needs, housing resources, housing law and housing policy. I do not propose to talk about holiday parks in which people often live for 11 months of the year. Although they give rise to serious anomalies and problems that will need to be dealt with in the future, our first priority must be to deal with residential parks.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned holiday homes. People who obtain mobile homes often have to sign a document containing the word "holiday", and are not aware what that means. Many authorities are able to turn such people away from sites. The Government should tackle the problem. The word "holiday" should not be taken into consideration when people sign deeds or other documents relating to mobile homes.

I commend the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, and I share his concern. Personally, I feel that the issues relating to holiday parks are even more complex than those involving residential parks; but, before we do anything else, it is in the interests of all who live in any structure covered by mobile home or caravan legislation for us to clarify at least the residential aspect.

Park homes are not caravans. Usually, they are mobile only once, when they are installed, as I learned when I first visited a park home. Park homes are delivered—often to delightful rural locations—as prefabricated units; but once they have been installed with mains services bricked in, capable of being extended, adapted and reroofed, of having their insulation improved and, in principle, of being completely replaced part by part over time, they can hardly be described as mobile. They are homes, some valued at under £10,000 but others costing as much as £100,000. They are sited in parks owned by others, for which a pitch fee is paid, but they are still homes, which can provide a very comfortable, pleasant way of life—especially for older and semi-retired people who want a quiet existence.

Two of my constituents, Mr. and Mrs. Michael Ward of Wyre Vale park and Lodge park in my constituency, are Park Home and Holiday Caravan magazine's park owners of 1999. I am told by my constituents in Cabus and Catterall that they provide two splendid, safe, secure parks for older people. They have made a serious long-term investment in their parks, enabling them to develop high standards and excellent relationships with park residents in attractive surroundings. They plainly have a good, expanding business, for their parks are permanently full. News of impending vacancies is conveyed by word of mouth rather than advertisement. They intend to be around for a long time, and good luck to them.

Unfortunately, however, park home living is not all like that. I am hardly an expert on the subject; until about three years ago, I had never heard of park homes. But one day when I was campaigning in Poulton-Le-Fylde, I got talking to someone who had a story to tell. As a result, we decided to get together with some other people and hold a public meeting. We booked a room for 25. Given that it was a warm summer evening in Garstang, and that the subject was aimed at older, retired people who presumably would be keen on a quiet life, I expected half a dozen people to turn up; in fact, 72 turned up.

We ended up outside, in a grassy area, holding an impromptu meeting at which I heard tale after tale of people made vulnerable by age and infirmity who, having invested their life savings in park homes in isolated rural surroundings, had been verbally abused by park owners and their staff. They had been encouraged to move on so that the owners could claim a 10 per cent. commission on a sale. Annual pitch fee increases way above the rate of inflation had been imposed on them with no negotiation or discussion. Their parks, in which they lived and in which they had invested money—often their life savings—had been redesigned without consultation. Park owners had undermined their ability to sell their own property, and had then offered to buy it themselves for a much lower price. I have heard of inadequate electricity supplies—whereby putting on a kettle at the wrong time blew the electricity supply of the entire site—and of cases in which parks' physical standards were poor, and sometimes dangerous. I have also heard of cases in which attempts at building a residents association, to start a reasonable dialogue, were constantly thwarted and undermined, and in which people were unsure of their rights, confused, angry and afraid.

Subsequently, we had a succession of meetings. As soon as we received publicity, I started receiving letters from people across the country who were concerned about the issue. We organised a local conference to put people in touch with some excellent residents associations, such as the National Association of Park Home Residents, the British Park Home Residents Association and, perhaps above all, the Independent Park Home Advisory Service. We then went to meet Lord Graham—who I contend knows more about park homes than all the Members of this place and the other place put together. He has campaigned on the issue for years, and is held in great respect everywhere.

Spurred on by all that encouragement, we started to talk to the listening and progressive council leader—Councillor Richard Anyon—of Wyre borough council, which was quick to develop its practice on the matter. The council produced an information booklet for local park home residents, began to give more attention to site licences and pioneered home insulation schemes for park home residents. However, although a great amount of work is continuing at local level, that work is a mere drop in the ocean of painstaking casework and campaigning undertaken for so long by so many people.

As recently as last month, when I spoke to the annual conference of a very good park owners association—the British Holiday and Home Parks Association—in Edinburgh, I was told quite sincerely by a number of people that there really are no problems in park homes, and that any issues are stirred up by agitators and the permanently disgruntled.

At the conference, research was quoted—from about 1990—from the then Department of the Environment, stating that nine tenths of residents are happy with their lot. There are a great many knowledgeable, decent and honest park owners—I know that because I have met many of them—but, on that matter, they are absolutely wrong. I know that they are wrong because I have attended many public meetings, on many subjects—one man and his dog turn up at many of the meetings, although the dog usually goes away half way through them—and have come to realise that 70, 80 or 100 older people do not come along to such meetings if there is not a real problem.

I also know that those park owners are wrong because I have met Professor Philip Kenny, of the university of Northumbria, who has been a legal adviser on park homes for 15 years. He has called for radical reform of the Mobile Homes Act 1983, to align current law with housing legislation, and has commented that

"persons who are strangers to the world of mobile homes would be astounded by the absolute power of financial oppression that one person has over another."

I also know that they are wrong because I have listened to the experience of IPHAS's advisers—people of courage and integrity—such as Joan Aylott, Alan Savory, Colin Packman and Bernard Johnson. It takes courage and integrity to do the work that they have done over so many years.

Courage and integrity are qualities possessed also by Roy Waite, who for many years has been a driving force in park home residents organisations. Roy is watching this debate and, after it, will probably tell me that I have it all wrong. However, if he were on the Floor of the House, he could tell hon. Members about local authorities that have completely failed to regulate and inspect parks; of councils whose own parks have been neglected; of the grotesque exploitation of vulnerable people, pressured to sell their homes way below market value; of residents harassed by park owners wanting to redevelop a site that the residents are entitled to occupy permanently; and of the outrageous, criminal treatment of the residents who came home to find their home towed off the site and dumped by the roadside.

I have seen some excellent examples of park home living. However, in a recent study of harassment, the centre for urban and rural studies, at the university of Birmingham, has shown that there is a general feeling that current arrangements are ineffective, and that the protection of residents' civil rights offered by the law, by industry self-regulation, by residents' associations and by other agencies is inadequate.

The loopholes afforded by legislation that was intended to apply to caravans, but that now applies to a very important part of the United Kingdom's housing resources, may create circumstances in which the vulnerable, poor and old—and those who are ignorant of their rights, or are without the self-confidence, knowledge or resources to enforce those rights—are exploited. It is an issue that cannot be ignored by any decent and responsible Government who are committed to meeting housing need, to ensuring supply of good-quality, affordable housing, and to fairness.

I believe in the truth of the words uttered by one of my constituents, at our very first meeting in Garstang, that, somewhere in the United Kingdom:

"Rachman is alive and well and running a residential park."

I believe that, among the great majority of perfectly decent people running residential parks, there are some rogues from whom people should be protected. I believe that we have a potentially very fine, very important industry that is being undermined. Its reputation is being damaged. It could do so much better, both in meeting housing need and in providing business opportunities, but only if we get the problems sorted out and if—this is probably an insult to cowboys—we kick out the cowboys.

It is a good industry. That is demonstrated by nothing so well as the monthly magazine, Park Home and Holiday Caravan, which is indefatigably edited by Anne Webb and reports not only the good but the bad sides of the industry. The magazine reports on comfortable, secure, often extremely attractive and well-run parks, and on the ever-developing design of park homes. In a recent edition, I read an inspirational piece about the way in which a park home had been creatively adapted to meet the needs of a disabled person. This month, we heard of a group of residents who, between them, have bought the park in which they were living and are now managing it co-operatively.

The British Home and Holiday Parks Association and the National Park Homes Council are responsible organisations of park owners, run by competent and reasonable people. We have seen the industry attempt its own quality assurance—from the park homes charter to the gold seal assurance for park homes; the National Park Homes Council's quality awards for parks, which are setting high standards—and whose residents are now able to access 25-year finance packages; and the forthcoming involvement of the independent housing ombudsman. Those are all worthy initiatives—let us make no mistake about it—but they are no substitute for fundamental reform of the law, and they should not be touted as such.

I was pleased to be part of an all-party delegation led by Lord Graham, in late 1997, to see the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong), and was absolutely delighted that she agreed to establish a review of legislation on park homes and to involve in that review representatives of the main industry groups, the three residents associations and the Local Government Association.

I have been to one meeting and received the minutes. The group appears to be working well. It is a focus of national interest from people living in park homes throughout the country. It has commissioned research, defined many areas for discussion and developed good working relationships between all parties. People of good will on all sides are making positive contributions. It is rightly tackling the complex issues on which we need reform in primary and secondary legislation.

We must have standard written agreements signed by both parties at the time of sale. It is nonsense that, under the Mobile Homes Act 1983, they can be delivered three months later. We must have an appropriate time limit, perhaps 28 days, from receipt of references for a park owner to decide whether to approve a private sale or to give clear reasons—there can be perfectly good reasons—why it cannot go ahead. It would be sensible if purchasing procedures were formalised to register the occupancy of the pitch and the sale of the home.

I am amazed by how trusting people are when they invest so much money and make a major life decision to take on park home living. That is a legacy of caravans. Some park homes cost more than £100,000. Many others cost much less, but may still require the investment of life savings. It is palpably not an undertaking to be entered into lightly, without proper searches and legal advice. The ability of a park owner to levy a commission of up to 10 per cent. of the value on the sale of a park home—it is often a 10 per cent. fee for doing nothing—is an incentive to the unscrupulous to persuade people to move on. I have no doubt about the anger felt by those who improve the value of their home and see the commission increase.

I do not disagree with what the hon. Gentleman has said, but does he find it curious that after its investigation Shelter did not recommend the abolition of the commission? Does he know why that view was taken?

I am not advocating the abolition of the commission. I understand why Shelter took that view. Responsible park owners and organisations have told me that, together with new home sales, siting charges and pitch fees, the commission is a crucial way of financing new investment in parks. Without the 10 per cent. commission, pitch fees would have to rise accordingly, which could make park home living less accessible to people in housing need.

New investment in parks is vital. We must have improvement and modernisation. It is reasonable for those who work hard and invest their money to expect a fair return. The financing of home parks is the knottiest problem. We need more openness and clarity about it. Pitch fees should be negotiated properly between the park owner and the park resident. We need a neutral system of fair pitch fees and the equivalent of a rent officer to support it. If the commission is to be retained, it could be banded according to value. If we stick with 10 per cent., some estate agency services could be provided within that commission without an extra 2.5 per cent. being levied.

The role of local authorities is crucial. Councils should have a powerful duty to protect and enforce. As well as granting planning permission and licensing a park, councils should have a statutory duty to inspect that the crucial licensing issues of numbers, space, infrastructure, services and amenities are being maintained. Perhaps in partnership with a voluntary agency, they could provide accurate, disinterested housing advice to residents and owners and could take on a role as a prosecutor for harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. When the Government have dealt with all those issues, I look forward to the rebanding of park homes valued at less than £40,000 for council tax purposes. That is for another day and comes under different legislation, but it is still an important issue that is worth flagging up.

I hesitate to interrupt, but my hon. Friend has made a plea for someone to inspect and uphold conditions and possibly to prosecute. The Government are considering setting up a housing inspectorate, which would be independent of local authorities because they might be subject to inspection and prosecution. Bearing in mind what my hon. Friend has said about some local authorities being park owners, as in my constituency, might there be a case for asking the Minister whether the housing inspectorate could take on the role that my hon. Friend described?

That is a thoroughly good idea and I look forward to the Minister's response.

I do not underestimate the size of the task facing the park homes working group, the industry or residents, but they are up to it. The group must set out the rights and responsibilities of residents and owners clearly in law; oversee fairness in pitch fee reviews; ensure that local authorities or an independent organisation play a powerful new role in setting and monitoring standards; and provide an accessible source of solid advice and information. All those interested in the industry should welcome that, as should anyone who understands that fairness, openness, good communication and decent relationships should be at the heart of a people-oriented business.

I am confident that the working party will come forward with some excellent recommendations. The task will not go away, because there is a problem at the heart of the industry. When the working party has fully got to grips with the problem and made its recommendations to Ministers, I trust that the Government will take action during this Parliament. Vulnerable residents have been patient, but they cannot wait for ever. The industry has a future in providing quality, safe and secure accommodation in lovely, mainly rural surroundings, principally for older people. We need the industry to pull its weight.

When the problems are resolved, the industry can provide housing and business opportunities for the living and working countryside that will emerge from the new rural White Paper. Even under a new system of regulation, park homes can be less intrusive than housing, providing sustainable, workable solutions to many of the issues of old age and affordable housing on an appropriate scale for those who have lived their lives in rural areas and for those who, having spent years earning a living in towns and cities, are fully entitled to want something different in their retirement.

I am not suggesting isolated enclaves of older people in the countryside. There are parish councillors and members of the local Age Concern group among the residents of Wyre Vale park. They provide services for their community. One of them, Mr. Dennis Hollowday, is the town cryer at Garstang. He does a fine job. A reformed park homes system can play a uniquely positive role in the new life of the countryside, as can older people. Reform has been needed for so long and the Government are to be praised to the skies for picking up the baton and running with it. Let us see them finish the race in style.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing today's Adjournment debate and dealing comprehensively with some of the problems faced by those who own and rent mobile homes.

Three statutes currently regulate mobile home occupation. The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 requires site owners to obtain a site licence from the local authority before any land may be used as a caravan site. The Caravan Sites Act 1968 gave basic protection to all mobile home occupiers living on protected sites. It prevented site owners from evicting occupiers with residential contracts other than by obtaining a court order. The Mobile Home Act 1983 went further and gave security of tenure to those with mobile homes who own the home in which they live and rent the pitch from the site owner.

One of the main complaints about the 1983 Act is that it gave mobile home owners insufficient rights over increases in pitch fees demanded by site owners. Many site owners use a standard agreement drawn up by the National Federation of Site Operators. It contains a pitch fee review clause and takes into account such factors as the retail prices index and sums expended by the owner on the upkeep of the park.

Another factor that causes occupiers considerable concern involves the problems that they face when site owners try to block their right to sell to a third party. A survey by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions found that more than 25 per cent. of respondents anticipated some problem when they came to sell their homes and 51 per cent. anticipated problems because of the park owner. Site owners are entitled to claim commission of up to 10 per cent. of the sale price of mobile homes on their sites. The justification for that charge is that what is sold is an amalgam of the value of the mobile home and the value of the site on which it is placed.

Site residents have also complained of poor conditions on parks. A Shelter report noted that local authority practice in enforcing the site licence conditions under the 1960 Act was "variable". Other problems experienced by mobile home owners include illegal eviction, harassment by site owners who had obtained planning permission, and grey areas within the legislation that are open to exploitation by unscrupulous site owners. The high percentage of elderly people who live in mobile home parks also increases the potential for exploitation.

Council tax is another problem for those who live in mobile homes. Nearly all mobile homes are in band A, which covers properties valued up to £40,000. Many mobile homes are not worth anything near that sum and the council tax banding should be amended to reflect that.

The DETR established a park homes working group last year with a view to reviewing a number of issues related to mobile homes. I hope that the Minister will be able to let us know how its work is progressing.

Mobile homes make an important contribution to the availability of affordable housing in rural areas in the private and public sectors. Compared with urban areas, the rural housing market has a high proportion of owner-occupation at 73 per cent., a high proportion of private renting at 12 per cent., but a low proportion of social housing at just 15 per cent. Demand for housing is significant and includes that arising from more affluent local households, retirees, commuters, second home owners and in some areas summer holiday lets.

In December 1998, the Rural Development Commission said:

"High demand from people wishing to move into the countryside or to have a holiday home, coupled with the constraints on the supply of housing, have forced up the price of housing so that it is not affordable to local people on low incomes. In 1991 it was estimated that in many rural areas 40 per cent. of new households would be unable to afford to enter the owner occupied housing market."

Recent research on rural housing found that the majority of new housing in rural areas was built by the private sector for the upper end of the market and that new social housing provided by local authorities or housing associations fell short of replacing that loss by the right-to-buy scheme. It is worth remembering that in the period 1981 to 1991 the stock of local authority dwellings fell by about a third.

As the stock of social housing has declined, so has the option to rent privately. Much of the private rented sector has been sold for owner occupation or converted into holiday accommodation. Those trends are likely to continue in social housing and the private rented sector, suggesting that rural housing needs are likely to increase.

Projected household growth, technological and economic trends and the fact that many people wish to live in the countryside mean that the demand for housing in rural areas will remain strong. Therefore, the price of housing in rural areas will continue to increase. It is important that any further decline in the private rented sector is halted and new opportunities are developed, particularly in rural areas.

Another problem is the under-representation of young adults in rural populations. A high proportion of young people in rural areas live in the parental home—82 per cent. of males and 67 per cent. of females compared with 67 per cent. and 51 per cent. respectively in urban areas.

The supply of housing in rural areas is currently inadequate to respond to the needs of young people. Housing information and advice need to be made more widely available across rural areas as few social housing resources are devoted to meeting the needs of young people. The private rented sector also has an important role to play in providing housing for young people.

The Rural Development Commission says:

"The provision of affordable housing is caught in a spiral … we believe that the time is right for a new rural housing initiative aimed at addressing the problems of housing and homelessness in rural areas in a comprehensive way, bringing together the Housing Corporation, local authorities, Registered Social Landlords, private lenders and the many public, private and voluntary organisations who have an important role to play."

My party has recognised that. We would give councils stronger powers to insist that developers included low-cost housing for local people in new developments. We would also seek to increase the availability of low-cost rural housing. We would allow councils to remove the 50 per cent. council tax rebate for second homes. Additionally, where ownership of second homes is squeezing out local home buyers, we would permit councils to introduce a variable premium of up to 100 per cent. on the council tax or a flat-rate tax to reduce purchases of second homes and/or to require change-of-use planning consent for the transfer of a full-time residence to use as a second home. All the revenue raised should be retained by the local authorities for specific community purposes with no reduction in Government grants.

In conclusion, while the rights of park home owners need to be enhanced, it must not be at the expense or discouragement of responsible site owners. Park homes have an important role to play in the provision of affordable homes in rural areas. A new A-minus council tax banding should be created to reflect the lower value of mobile homes. Second-home owners should not be rewarded as they are under the present system, but made to pay their fair share of local taxes. Councils should be allowed to spend their capital receipts, not simply given borrowing permissions against a proportion of their value and either alone, or in partnership with housing associations, they should be encouraged to build new homes where there is local need. Support for young people in rural areas should be improved to reduce the disadvantage that they face in the housing market.

Finally, given that the overall level of public spending on housing at the end of this Government's term of office will be lower than under the Conservatives, it is difficult to see how any of the problems that I have highlighted will he tackled adequately. However, I know that the Government are concerned about the issue, and I am hopeful that we will hear some good news from the Minister when he responds.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing this debate and giving us the opportunity to raise a crucial issue, particularly in rural areas.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) drew attention to the three critical pieces of legislation on the statute book: the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960, the Caravan Sites Act 1968—a landmark piece of legislation, which gave basic protection to all occupiers of mobile homes living on protected sites—and the Mobile Homes Act 1983.

As the hon. Member for Torbay pointed out, the 1983 Act went further than the 1968 Act, and gave security of tenure to residents of mobile home sites who owned the home in which they lived and rented the pitch from the site owner. As the hon. Gentleman said, as with the 1968 Act, the 1983 Act only covered owners and occupiers of protected sites. The central feature of the 1983 Act was the requirement on the site owner to serve a written statement on the occupier containing the express and implied terms of the agreement within three months of making it.

The implied terms that are incorporated by statute into agreements between site owners and owners of mobile homes cover such issues as the home owner's indefinite right to live in the home on the site unless the agreement is validly terminated by either party; the circumstances in which a valid termination of the agreement may take place; the occupier's right to sell or give the mobile home to a person approved by the site owner; and the rules regarding succession as they apply to owners and occupiers.

The House will be aware, from the reasoned and reasonable speech of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, that the vast majority of site owners in this country are decent, honourable individuals who genuinely seek to ensure that the sites that they own provide facilities that enhance the quality of life for those living on the sites. Unfortunately, a small minority—as in many other walks of life—tarnish the good work and honourable behaviour of decent site owners by their unscrupulous, short-cut approach to the ownership of sites.

Regardless of that, three main problems have been alluded to in the debate. The first is the question of pitch fees. Many sources of argument about this matter between owners and residents are due to a lack of transparency. Reports and investigations carried out over the past 20 years have shown that a general complaint is that there has not been enough discussion and transparency in respect of increasing pitch fees. That has done a great deal to sour relations.

Secondly, there is the problem of selling the mobile home and the issue of the 10 per cent. commission fee, a matter with which the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre dealt comprehensively. He explained why Shelter did not recommend the abolition of the commission fee, and the reasons given were probably right. However, the fee is misunderstood by residents, and there should be more transparency and greater explanation of the reasons and purposes for the fee so that one can minimise the sense of grievance of some residents.

Thirdly, there is the issue of site conditions. As I said, the vast majority of site owners are honourable and decent people who seek to provide a high quality of life on their sites. However, there are too many complaints concerning the minority who do not live up to such reputable standards. The Shelter report showed that local authority practice in enforcing the licence conditions under the 1960 Act was variable, and that was reinforced by the then Department of the Environment in its 1992 survey.

Other problems are experienced by owners of mobile homes, including illegal eviction and harassment by site owners—a matter referred to by the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre. More must be done to ensure that local authority practice in enforcing licences is carried out on a more uniform basis and to a higher standard throughout the country to protect residents, and more pressure must be brought to bear on site owners who fail to provide decent standards.

It should never be forgotten that a number of those homes are valuable—and not only in commercial terms. In a way, that is irrelevant. More importantly, these are the homes of individuals and their families. They deserve as high a quality and standard as any of us participating in the debate would expect in our own homes. Because they have chosen—or, in some cases, have to live in—an alternative form of housing to the vast majority of housing in this country, there is no excuse and no reason whatever why those people should be expected or forced to accept lower standards than those that we would expect.

In conclusion, hon. Members have drawn attention to the Government's establishment of a working party to look into the matter. I welcome that. It will be interesting to see whether the Minister is in a position today to give the House any further information about the progress of that working party, although I fully understand that it may be premature to expect such an explanation. However, if he were able to give it, it would be beneficial.

All of us will look forward to the publication of the working party's report. Hopefully, it can identify areas where there is a need to move forward, and we will then be in a better position to evaluate what action needs to be taken, if any, to enhance and improve the quality of life for the owners of mobile homes.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing a debate on this important subject, and on the clear and comprehensive way in which he outlined the issues that we must consider.

I share the belief of my hon. Friend that park homes—sometimes referred to as mobile homes—can play a significant role in the wider housing market. Most park home sites are in rural or coastal areas, and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) rightly highlighted some of the difficulties faced by people in securing accommodation in rural areas. Park homes can extend the choice and opportunity for people living in such areas—particularly the elderly and couples without children—to live in decent, affordable homes.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre made a particularly telling point when he described the way in which elderly people have benefited from good-quality, attractive accommodation in park homes where they can lead a pleasant and peaceful life and enjoy the amenities.

My hon. Friend referred to the issue of definitions, and mentioned that the definition of a park home is no different from that of a caravan.

The Government are in no doubt that park homes have well outgrown their origins as caravan dwellings. In the early days, caravans often catered for people who could not find anything better and lived in a caravan because it was the only option, even though it was not suitable as permanent accommodation. The situation today is very different. A modern, well laid out park home estate with new homes is worlds away from the old-style caravan site, and park homes—as all hon. Members who contributed to today's debate have stressed—can offer an attractive form of low-cost, permanent housing.

Park homes provide a unique form of tenure which brings its own benefits but can also bring its own unique problems. The resident owns his or her home but rents the pitch on which it stands. I recognise that park homes legislation has not been revised for some 16 years and so may not benefit from comparable advances in mainstream housing legislation. One might compare the protections afforded to private tenants against harassment and illegal eviction with those covering the park homes sector.

I also appreciate the concerns expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre that park home sites need efficient and effective controls over issues such as the layout of parks and the scope of park operators to change them, and the conditions in the park, which the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) rightly highlighted. All hon. Members will agree with him that people living in park homes should have the right to proper and decent conditions. However, before we delve too deeply into wholesale changes to planning legislation, we need to examine carefully the pivotal role that local authorities have to play in that area through the site licensing arrangements. We should examine ways to ensure that existing legislative controls are put to best use.

The unusual nature of the park homes form of tenure can sometimes create tensions between residents and park owners or operators. Finding a balance between the needs of both parties is not easy but the Government are committed to ensuring that both get a fair deal. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre will agree that for many people park home life is a pleasant and relatively trouble-free existence. He highlighted the high quality environment provided by a Mr. and Mrs. Ward in his constituency and his stories could be echoed by many other hon. Members who have park homes in their constituencies and observe well laid out and managed parks providing an excellent environment for people to live in.

Research for my Department in 1990 suggested that most residents were satisfied with park home life. More than 90 per cent. were very or fairly satisfied with their home and more than 80 per cent. were similarly satisfied with the park they lived on. Relations between park operators and residents on most parks were also good. More recent research revealed very similar levels of satisfaction and it is important that we bear that in mind. Problems exist, and I do not want to hide from that fact, but the large majority of park home residents have a pleasant life style in pleasant conditions and are happy with the arrangements.

The park homes industry has done much to raise standards in the sector. The two main trade associations—the British Holiday and Home Parks Association and the National Park Homes Council—have developed and refined a park homes charter for their members. It offers residents and prospective residents guidance on their rights and responsibilities and sets out the minimum level of service they can expect to receive from their park operator.

However, as I am all too aware from my postbag and from what has been said in this debate, not all park home residents receive the quality of service that they are entitled to expect. It is clear that a minority—it is only a minority—of park operators make their residents' lives a misery, either through neglect or, in some cases, deliberate mismanagement. Some may be genuinely ignorant or unclear about their legal responsibilities. Others may cut corners to keep costs down, but a few deliberately and openly break the law. Only a small number of rogue operators may fit into that category but that is no comfort to the residents on the receiving end of their actions. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre graphically described the failings and problems brought to his attention. His image of the idyllic summer evening meeting in Garstang, which subsequently turned out to be a recital of the serious problems affecting many elderly people, was something that the House will have listened to with concern.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre is an active member of the all-party group for the welfare of mobile home owners. The group plays a crucial role in focusing attention on the issues that are of concern to park home residents, including security of tenure, the written agreement between resident and park owner, pitch fee reviews and issues relating to home sale, including the sales commission payable when a home is sold.

My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre referred to the important role that local authorities play in the park homes sector and he highlighted the good work of Wyre council in his area. Local authorities have powers to control health and safety conditions through the site licensing system and to tackle any problems of harassment and illegal eviction faced by residents. However, it is clear that local authorities' performance in these areas varies widely. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford highlighted the Shelter report, which found a wide variation in local authority performance.

I have listened with fascination to the debate because, like most rural areas, Stroud contains several park homes, which are very well run. One of the problems of the relationship with local authorities is the grey area of who actually provides the services. I hope that the working party will be able to clarify that issue, because at the moment it is too easy for the local authority to pass the buck to the site owner and vice versa. That seems to be where some of the difficulties occur.

My hon. Friend makes a fair point about the importance of clarity in responsibilities and the avoidance of buck passing. I assure him that the debate this morning will be considered carefully by the working party, as part of its general work, and I can confirm that the need to establish a clear framework to provide greater clarity and understanding of obligations—and, therefore, greater certainty that good practice will prevail—will be part of our objective. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford stressed the importance of transparency in the arrangements so that it is clear who owes what duty to whom, and everyone understands the arrangements for prices. I expect the working party to consider that carefully.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) raised the question of a housing inspectorate taking over the role from local authorities of examining conditions on sites. I do not believe that would be an appropriate role for the inspectorate, and it would lead to a confusion of roles between local authorities which have existing public health and other planning responsibilities for parks. If those were cut across by another body, it might be a recipe for confusion and a lack of clarity. That is not the way forward, because we want to see arrangements that ensure that proper standards are maintained and appropriate action is taken when sites fail to meet those standards.

Following discussions between members of the all-party group—including my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre and Lord Graham, to whom my hon. Friend paid a well deserved tribute for his long-standing interest in the subject and the hard work that he has done to pursue the interests of park home residents—and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing, my Department agreed to establish the park homes working party to examine the problems in more detail.

The working party was established last year and comprises representatives from the two main trade associations representing park operators, three national residents' groups, the Local Government Association, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, the Welsh Office and officials from my Department. It is making good progress. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre knows, it has kept the all-party group closely informed of its deliberations and he has had the opportunity to observe one of its meetings at close hand. I am grateful for the tribute paid by my hon. Friend to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing for setting up the working party, and for his kind words about the working party's approach to its task.

The working party is taking a very comprehensive look at the statutory framework of park homes legislation in order to identify best current practice in the application and enforcement of controls by local authorities. It will explore whether significant gaps or weaknesses exist in the legislation that might be remedied. The working party will consider the question, raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre, of how park homes should be defined.

The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) was present earlier in the debate and raised the matter of holiday homes. The legislation covering holiday homes is different from that applying to mobile homes and park homes. The Office of Fair Trading has responsibility for holiday home standards and is working closely with the industry to raise those standards.

Initially, the working party's work has concentrated on the role of local authorities. Its primary aim is to develop best practice guidance on how to make the most effective use of existing legislative powers.

Research commissioned by my Department is informing the working party's consideration of the problem of harassment and illegal eviction in the park homes sector. We had hoped that the Local Government Association would be able to take forward work on site licensing controls through a survey of its members. However, the response was disappointing and few authorities focused on issues of best practice. My Department has therefore decided to deal with this element of the working party's remit by means of a further research project and is in the process of inviting tenders for that research.

The working party is also now starting to consider the perceived gaps and weaknesses in park homes legislation. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre will agree that it is leaving no stone unturned in its close scrutiny of the issues. It will consider all the main matters raised today, including those highlighted by my hon. Friend and by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford

. The hon. Member for West Chelmsford described three key problems: pitch fees, sale and commission arrangements, and site conditions. He rightly stressed the importance of clarity and transparency in arrangements, and I have already said that I agree. He also emphasised the importance of ensuring that all park home residents should be able to enjoy decent conditions, and I entirely concur with that.

The hon. Member for West Chelmsford asked about the working party's progress. I hope that what I have said has demonstrated the working party's approach to the task. Quite a lot of work remains to be done, so it will be some time before the report is complete. The hon. Gentleman, and the House, will appreciate that it would be premature of me to make any commitments before the working party has completed the review.

Because of the delays with its study into best practice, the working party is having to review its work timetable. It had originally hoped to produce recommendations to Ministers by autumn last year on making effective use of existing legislation, and by spring this year on the need, if any, to amend legislation. However, it now aims to produce recommendations on the former later this year. I know that many people would like quick results, but I am convinced that a careful and thorough approach to such important issues will pay dividends in the long run.

We have to try and take as many people as possible with us. There is a large measure of agreement between all parties in the industry and among residents, and the aim is to secure the best for all concerned. It is important to build on the large amount of goodwill that exists. We must not allow divisions over relatively minor matters to breach the consensus that will be helpful for the future of the industry and which will benefit the conditions on park home sites.

Until the working party has completed its task, I am not ruling anything in or out. It would be wrong to pre-empt its conclusions, as I have said. However, it is only fair that I make it clear to the House that, given the pressure on the parliamentary timetable, it is very unlikely that any changes could be made to primary legislation in the short term. We would also need to consider any forthcoming recommendations for significant change against the background of the Government's commitment to better regulation. We would need to examine carefully the costs and benefits of any change and the impact it might have on the park homes industry and others.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and appreciate what he has said about the need for thoroughness to ensure that all relevant issues are properly reviewed and resolved. However, does my hon. Friend accept that many thousands of people all over the country will greet with considerable dismay his statement that legislation is unlikely in the short term? They know that these serious matters have to be resolved in a thorough manner, but they need them to be resolved within a reasonable time.

I hear what my hon. Friend says, and I too want action to be taken as quickly as possible. However, my hon. Friend must recognise that there is undoubtedly scope for making progress through best practice. We must explore that option to ensure that existing arrangements are made to work better. Also, it is only fair to be honest about the legislative position. The problem does not arise only in connection with park homes: the Government—and many hon. Members—are keen to promote other very important legislation but, although there will be time in due course, legislation cannot be introduced quickly because of the requirement for all legislation to be properly scrutinised. That takes time, and the pressures on the parliamentary timetable inhibit the volume of legislation that can be introduced in any one year.

The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) raised three matters, two of which were touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre—council tax band A, and housing needs in rural areas. The hon. Gentleman also referred to overall levels of spending on housing investment.

I appreciate that many park homes fall into the lower end of band A, and that residents may feel aggrieved at the banding arrangements. However, in any system that uses valuation bands rather than actual valuations, it is inevitable that properties of slightly different size, character and value will pay the same council tax. That is implicit in any banding system.

Last year, we carried out a thorough review of the system of local government finance, including the council tax. The large consensus was that the existing arrangements were working reasonably well, and that it would be premature to make any dramatic changes. Revaluation is a very expensive operation that cannot be done quickly, as any revaluation has knock-on consequences. We are keeping the council tax under review, and will reconsider the case for improvements to the system if we carry out a revaluation during the next Parliament, but I do not believe that such a revaluation is a high priority requiring urgent action.

I can tell the hon. Member for Torbay that, since 1989, the Housing Corporation has directed funding from its approved development programme to a special rural housing programme, targeted at villages with populations of fewer than 3,000 people. In the 10 years to 1999, the programme provided some 16,000 new rural homes. For the current 1999-2000 financial year, we have asked the Housing Corporation to aim for around 3.4 per cent. of new social letting under the programme to be in villages inhabited by fewer than 3,000 people.

We have also increased substantially the overall level of housing resources available to local authorities. In 1997-98 and 1998-99, the capital receipts initiative has made nearly £800 million available to local authorities in England. That is to be followed by the extra £3.6 billion for local authority housing investment over the three years 1999-2000 to 2001-2002 announced in the comprehensive spending review.

Our guidance to local authorities on the development of their housing strategies makes it clear that they should consider carefully the needs of all groups, including rural communities, and plan accordingly. We expect local authorities to make their contribution to meeting rural housing needs in areas where it is a local priority. It is not true that, at the end of this Parliament, the level of housing investment under the Labour Government will be lower than it was at the end of the previous Parliament. By the end of this Parliament, the level of capital investment will be double that which we inherited. It does no service to the House or to housing to pretend otherwise.

I thank my hon. Friend for raising this very important issue today. Park home life plays an important role in today's housing market. For most residents, it offers good-quality accommodation on well-run sites. As we know, for others, the picture is less rosy. It is in everyone's interests that we address the problems that blight a minority of parks. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government are determined to do so and are anxious that progress will continue, through the park homes working party, to ensure that the legislation works effectively for park operators and residents and, where it is found wanting, we shall look carefully at the case for change.

I appreciate the opportunity to initiate a debate on this important issue. I appreciate even more the fact that we now have a little more time for the debate, although I hope that the Minister has not been too much inconvenienced. Some of my colleagues on both sides of the House with Cornish constituencies may want to take advantage of some of that extra time. As my speech was rather tightly timed, I may relax slightly. Although there might be some slight variations of view—there are certainly variations in the interpretation of what has been happening recently—all Members with Cornish constituencies are united across the political divide as to the case for a fair deal for children in Cornish schools. We share concern about the difficulties experienced by schools in matching funding with the important principle of ensuring that our children receive the best possible education.

The background to that concern is the Conservative education legacy that left schools in crisis, nowhere more so than in Cornwall. Perhaps it is no surprise that not one Conservative Member is in the Chamber at present; it would be extremely difficult for them to defend that position. There were cuts in local council funding and an endless revolution in education policy, as successive Secretaries of State felt the need to make their mark. As they could not offer the funding that was actually needed, they offered change. That was change that teachers could have done without, because they had a job to get on with—delivering quality education. Schools were left underfunded and teachers were left demoralised.

The election of the new Labour Government, pledging to make education a No. 1 priority, was, therefore, a cause for real optimism among teachers and parents alike. However, during the past year, desperate letters from demoralised teachers and school governors have reappeared in my postbag—they were not there for a while after the general election—and the reasons are not hard to find. The financial position is especially acute in Cornwall, because the Conservatives took the view that Cornish children needed less funding for their education than children in other parts of the country. Almost £10,000 less was received for a primary school with 100 pupils, and that was £10,000 less every year. A small secondary school with 500 pupils received £50,000 less each year. Throughout the county, that was a great many books, computers, teachers and classroom assistants.

I have never accepted the way in which Government standard spending assessments are calculated for rural areas, such as my own. Although I shall be critical about the lack of change, I hope that the Minister for School Standards will accept that I understand that is a legacy from the previous Government and that it is not easy to change. She might be aware that I raised that matter in debate several years ago under the previous Government, and that I received precious little response.

However, even with our funding shortfall, Cornish schools have always produced outstanding results. In a recent survey, more Cornish schools were picked out for praise than in any other education authority in the south-west. That is due to the dedication of staff and the extremely supportive, although financially poor, local communities. Parents of children at schools raise funds, but, equally, they provide children with a supportive environment at home; elsewhere in the country, that may not happen as much as it should.

Yet why should our schools receive less funding than other areas, even if they achieve good results with the funds available? I hope that the Minister will agree that Cornish children need the same help as those in any other area. We do not expect special treatment, and we understand that some children, in some places, need special help—for example, with languages—that does not normally apply in Cornish schools. However, the issue is broader than that; it goes beyond the few local authorities that have those special needs. We want a fair deal for our children and we believe that we deserve it.

At the turn of the year, I obtained some figures in response to a question from the Library. The answer was the last thing that I expected—it was certainly not the reason that I asked the question. The sad and surprising fact was that unfair allocation of funds—the differential between the national average and what we receive in Cornwall under the SSA—has become worse, not better, under the Labour Government. Our children now receive even less per head compared with the national average than under the Conservative Government. Every year, the cumulative effect of more than 10 years of decay and delay already does its worst to our children's education system. Labour have failed to take the action necessary to put that right. The debate offers me an opportunity to draw that to the Minister's attention, and hopefully, the matter can be reconsidered.

In part, it is a national issue and not merely a Cornish one. At the turn of the year, the latest national figures from the Audit Commission showed that, throughout the country, expenditure per pupil continues to fall in real terms by £53 per pupil in primary schools and by £90 per pupil in secondary schools. As I have explained, Cornwall's allocations are lower than that national average and are worsening by comparison.

Labour promised "Education, education, education", but since taking office, they have spent two years tied broadly to Tory education spending plans. Of course, it was a manifesto commitment to stick with those budget plans—one that Liberal Democrats criticised. We are seeing the results of that decision. At the general election, people voted to kick out those cuts in education, but so far it is precisely those cuts that the Labour Government have delivered.

However, there is not a shortage of funds. Gordon Brown has raised taxes overall; he has not cut them. According to a recent written answer, the Department for Education and Employment carried forward £121.7 million in unspent funds from 1997–98 to 1998–99, while schools throughout Great Britain continue to struggle for funding. I am sure that the Minister will point out that spending will rise during the years running up to the next general election and beyond, but during the whole Parliament, education expenditure in real terms is set to rise by only £3 billion above Conservative trends. I must compare that sum with the amount of more than £10 billion that would have been added for education, over the course of a Parliament, by the Liberal Democrat proposal for a penny on income tax.

The debate is about Cornwall in particular and, although I do not expect that the Minister will agree with me about the overall national figures, I want her to address the point that Cornish children are underfunded even in relation to those national problems. In 1996–97, the last year of the previous Conservative Government, under the SSA, children in Cornish primary schools were allowed £69 less each than the average for children in the rest of the country. Under the Labour Government, that figure has now risen to £89 less for each Cornish child. In 1996–97, each secondary school pupil received £84 less than the average for the rest of the country; under Labour, the amount is now £97 less per child.

The differential is significant. In a secondary school of 1,000 pupils, £97,000 every year is more than enough for the books, equipment and repairs that are needed. The Government's funding formula, calculated on pupil numbers, continues to discriminate against rural areas, where there are inevitably higher costs—especially for transport—because of their geography. This year, for example, Cornwall county council had allocated a large amount to school transport, but then found that it had an overrun of £1.2 million. There are also higher costs in maintaining relatively small schools in village communities. I believe that is entirely right, because such schools are vital to the infrastructure of those communities and provide a local education for children who might otherwise have to travel many miles. However, those schools are relatively expensive to support; they create difficulties over class sizes and require extra staff and administration that would not be necessary if there were a small number of much larger schools—as would be typical of urban areas.

Small village schools also suffer from erratic shifts in the school-age population, and the county council has to do its best to overcome that problem by ensuring that the loss of one or two pupils does not automatically result in the loss of a teacher. However, there comes a point where the funding allocation must result in the loss of a teacher, which is a catastrophe to a school that has only three or four teachers. A well-managed school with relatively reasonable class sizes can suddenly find itself a teacher short, with the head teacher having to do more classroom work and class sizes that have suddenly massively increased. Such changes cause devastating problems to local schools. Last year, I visited Tregony school, which lost a member of staff because local parents had literally produced one or two too few children. That loss led to bigger classes, mixed age groups and stressed teachers. If the Government allowed Cornwall the average national funding per pupil, that teacher need not have been lost from that school.

A wider issue is at stake: instead of the "bums on seats" funding mechanism, schools should receive needs-based financial support, so that all schools receive the amount they need to survive on a reasonable basis. Such a formula would allow for individuality of resources, pupil numbers and location and be far fairer to rural areas by leaving the decision making on funding to local education authorities, which are more likely to know the needs of the local area than Mr. Blunkett is. That is not a plea for far more reserved funding to the county—

Order. Twice during his speech, the hon. Gentleman has referred to right hon. Members by their surname. He should know by now that he should refer to them either by the name of their constituency, or by the office they hold.

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was not aware that I was doing that, but I shall try to ensure that I get it right from now on.

The process of increasing flexibility is not one whereby Cornwall county council tries to reserve more funds centrally—in fact, the county council has a record of going beyond Government requirements in allocating funds directly to schools. However, greater flexibility is required.

Over the past two years, a group of Cornwall county council officers, school governors and secondary heads have conducted a needs analysis to determine what funds local schools needed to meet national curriculum requirements and the basic standards mentioned in documents published by both the previous Government and the current Government. "Costing Cornwall's Schools" revealed that a sensible calculation of the minimum amount Cornish schools need to provide a decent standard of education and an acceptable environment results in a £37 million shortfall under current funding formulas. That is a Conservative legacy and we do not expect the shortfall to be made up in one euphoric moment by the current Government realising that a mistake has been made and handing over the funds. However, as long as the problem is not addressed and moves in the right direction are not made, the cries of pain from Cornish schools will increase, especially from primary schools.

Largely as a consequence of underfunding, large numbers of Cornish children find themselves in classes of 31 or more. Large class sizes were the subject of specific and repeated criticism by Labour in opposition, but the startling and unexpected truth is that the problem in my county has worsened since Labour came to power. Nearly half of our primary school pupils are now in classes of 31 or more, and that proportion is rising steadily, despite the commitment in Labour's general election manifesto "Britain Deserves Better" to reduce class sizes to less than 30 in key stage 1.

Although, since Labour took office, the average proportion of pupils in classes of more than 30 has slightly decreased in England, the problem has become worse in Cornwall, with 300 more pupils than last year in classes of more than 30. Cornwall deserves better, and Labour promised better, so when are the Government going to do better? In March 1999, the Audit Commission reported on the issue, saying:

"There is a strong relationship between the percentage of larger classes and spending per pupil."

That relates precisely to the problems I have been describing. I might add that a teacher pointed out that bringing four-year-olds into schools as part of the process of giving more four-year-olds the opportunity to start in a school environment results in difficulty in achieving the class sizes targets in both key stage 2 and the classes that accept the four-year-olds.

Labour promised pre-school education for all four-year-olds, but that has had to be done on the cheap, because the Government tied themselves to Conservative spending plans. To get funds, schools have offered places to all four-year-olds, but it is rare that a proper nursery class can be afforded. That is not good for younger four-year-olds or their classmates in the often overcrowded classes that have resulted. Meanwhile, pre-school playgroups have been devastated by the loss of four-year-olds and the funds that they attracted, and that loss will not be made up by the inadequate Government support that has been offered. Nevertheless, I welcomed the recent announcement of extra support and told the pre-school playgroups that have been in touch with me that some money was coming.

In rural villages, such pre-school groups are often the only form of child care available, but group after group is folding. Prior to 1992, I was the Liberal Democrat education spokesman and I developed our policy in that area. Because we had the luxury of having promised to raise funds through an extra penny on income tax, we could promise parents pre-school education for all three and four-year-olds either in nursery classes, or in pre-school playgroups, according to parental choice. We would have funded premises hire, equipment, training and salaries for pre-school playgroups, so they would not have faced the problems that the current system has engendered, even though there would have been a trend of children moving into more formal nursery classes.

However, the Labour Government have not done that, with the result that, according to the Pre-School Learning Alliance, there have been 20 closures of pre-school groups in Cornwall alone since the end of 1996. Add to that the 28 pre-school groups that have told the alliance that they are worried about imminent closure and the result is that, since Labour's election, we shall have lost almost one in five of all the pre-school playgroups in the county.

Some of those groups are long-established, such as the one I visited recently in St. Austell, where the problems were causing real emotional distress. Although there are local people who want to use the playgroup, it has lost the core number it needs to make up the finances and so enable it to keep going at current staffing levels.

The national minimum wage, although welcome in many respects, is adding to that financial difficulty. I now receive a stream of letters from pre-school playgroups expressing similar concerns and asking me to visit. The closures are a real problem and the money that has been made available is not equal to the scale of the problem. That issue especially affects rural areas such as Cornwall that contain smaller communities, in which alternative support mechanisms for mothers are few and far between.

I receive many letters from Cornish school head teachers and governors who are struggling to cope. Only the other day, I received a letter from one head teacher who described how he was trying to cope with a deficit of thousands of pounds and, at the same time, honour the Government's commitment to lowering class sizes in key stage 1. He writes:

"In order to meet this shortfall I have prepared a budget which sought to retain our present organisation. Even this could not be achieved without cutting some teaching time, placing a 50 per cent. class based commitment upon myself, as well as cutting classroom support staff.

The final item is particularly painful in a school where 33.6 per cent. of pupils are on the Special Needs Register. If we are to keep our obligation to keep infant class sizes below 30, we shall be obliged to have large mixed age classes in key stage 2 with significantly less support for children in difficulty".

That letter illustrates the problems facing rural schools. Another local head teacher tells a similar story, saying:

"The original building is Victorian … the existing windows do not all even close properly …Although we have 22 per cent. of pupils on the special needs register, we cannot afford any additional teaching time for these pupils, therefore placing additional pressure on teachers to reach targets.

After the introduction of nursery vouchers, the school has accepted four year olds every term. Consequently, the reception class is always over 30 every Summer Term. In fact, the class size has been 38 twice in the last two years. As a class based headteacher, I spend 0.4 sessions in the office. This allocation has not been changed for more than five years. due to lack of funds, yet the amount of administration has significantly increased."

What am I looking for? Above all, I seek a sympathetic hearing from Ministers for the case that the Government's formula for allocating school funds nationally through SSAs desperately needs to be changed. Per pupil funding for Cornish schools needs to be far closer to the national average. The area cost adjustment means that funding is based on local wage levels, which greatly helps the south-east; yet teachers are paid on nationally set scales. We had hoped that the review of that process would significantly alter the distribution. We understand that progress is likely to be slow as there are losers as well as winners. Nevertheless, the movement so far has been in the opposite direction: we have fallen back relative to the national average.

Schools are funded according to average teacher salaries, yet many Cornish schools retain dedicated and experienced staff whose salaries are higher than the national pay scales as a result. I am not talking about a school's local flexibility, which I accept cannot be funded. Dedicated and experienced staff help to achieve results but hurt school finances. In some cases, teachers have lost their jobs because their salaries were too expensive. Allowance must be made for actual school salary costs.

Cornwall has many relatively costly small village schools, but Government funding largely ignores the extra costs—particularly school transport costs—generated by the county's geography. That matter needs urgent review. It is especially difficult to cut class sizes in small rural schools, particularly when the Government stick to funding formulae that are based overwhelmingly on pupil numbers, not real costs. In opposition, Labour calculated the cost of cutting class sizes to be around £68 million, but that figure has since increased 10-fold. I understand that the Government are struggling with real financial problems, but I am not yet convinced that they are aware of the particular problems facing smaller rural schools such as those in Cornwall. The real costs of maintaining pre-school education, including play groups, must be recognised better.

I have not yet mentioned an issue that I always broached with Conservative Ministers, who had a truly abysmal record in that area. I refer to investment in school buildings and infrastructure. I offer the Government a bouquet because those allocations have been much better. Cornwall's allocation this year is probably more than the county expected to receive—and is almost more than it can manage to spend. [Interruption.] But not quite. That is very good news. It will be a long time before the backlog of school dilapidation work, estimated at more than £100 million, is dealt with, but I am not critical of the Government in that regard. Most of the problems are a Conservative legacy, and I believe that Ministers are genuinely seeking to overcome them.

In contrast, I doubt that the Minister was aware that the spending per pupil figures for Cornwall were so poor. I was surprised by them when I requested the figures from the Library in January. At that time, I had no idea what the figures would show or that I would initiate an Adjournment debate on this subject. Having become aware of the situation, I sought to alert the Minister. Although we may differ about the Government's immediate record, we share a general, basic concern about the plight of Cornish schools and the way in which national formulae and systems operate.

I am grateful that we have extra time to discuss this subject, which is extremely important for the people—and particularly the children—of Cornwall. I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on securing this Adjournment debate and enabling us to discuss the issue. However, that is where I part company with the hon. Gentleman and his views about education funding in Cornwall.

The hon. Gentleman said correctly that Labour inherited an appalling legacy from the previous Government, and he touched briefly on the good news that Cornwall has received regarding funding for capital programmes in the county. However, I do not think the hon. Gentleman painted the full picture.

There is a question regarding funding for secondary and junior schools within Cornwall. The county council has decided to give proportionately far more funding to secondary schools instead of junior and primary schools. Head teachers have formed a conference and have argued strongly that the county council—which, although not controlled by a single party, has a preponderance of Liberal Democrat councillors—must address that issue. I urge the hon. Gentleman to raise the matter with his county council colleagues because it is not fair that rural primary schools—many of which he referred to—should suffer a lack of funding as a result of decisions taken not by this Government but within the county.

The hon. Gentleman also neglected to mention the removal of outside toilets in Cornwall. For how many years did Liberal Democrat Members complain about the state of toilets in Cornish schools? Cornwall had the worst record in the country in that regard.

New Labour, new toilets.

I agree with my hon. Friend. That move is tremendously welcome. I spoke yesterday to educationists who emphasised that outside toilets are a health issue. Children often refuse to go out in the rain to use outside toilets, which leads to long-term health problems. I congratulate the Government on providing the money and signalling the end of outside toilets in Cornish schools.

The Government have made an even bigger gift to Cornish schools in the form of the £50 million that will be allocated through a private finance initiative arrangement to revolutionise the school buildings in which Cornish children study. Three secondary schools in my constituency will be located on the same site, and one of them, Pool, is a designated school for children with disabilities. The child of one of my constituents is a wheelchair user and Pool school has a bridge over which pupils must cross that is some 30 feet to 40 feet above the road. It is lunacy that that school should be designated for children with disabilities. My constituent's son cannot attend the school and my constituent must travel 30 miles every morning and evening with his son to a different school. Thanks to the Government, my constituents' children who are wheelchair users can look forward in the future to attending local schools with their friends. I welcome that advance.

I am sure that Opposition Members have visited Stithians school. Before elections, Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates troop through that school in droves, never to be seen again. A week after the general election, the children of Stithians school e-mailed me to say, "Politicians from all parties come and visit our school, but we never see them after the election. Will you be different?" I visited that school and lodged a plea with education Ministers on its behalf. I am absolutely delighted, as are all at Stithians, that it is a priority school within the PFI arrangement.

If the hon. Lady would like me to visit schools in her constituency, I should be delighted to do so.

The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) has been a frequent visitor to Stithians, as have other senior politicians. I am telling the truth.

That arrangement will provide a boost to the entire village, of which Stithians school is the heart. More than 30 primary and junior schools will also benefit from the package.

I must take this opportunity to refer to the Redruth, Pool and Camborne education action zone—the documents and preparations for which are now complete—which concentrates on early years education. I have tremendous pleasure in announcing that those documents were printed this week and offer real opportunities to the schools, governors, pupils, parents and the communities of north Cornwall. It is a tremendous bid involving the business community and all the schools, and I hope that the Minister will look upon it with grace and favour when it comes before her.

I could not disagree more with the hon. Gentleman's analysis of education funding in Cornwall. I was recently in a car park when an aggressive-looking lady came and banged on the bonnet of my car, demanding that I wind down my window. I did so, thinking that I would not be happy to hear what she had to say. However, she said, "I had to stop you to tell you how pleased I am with what your Government are doing by putting money into Cornish schools." I rest my case.

I am grateful to the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) for giving me the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend not only on securing the debate but on securing an unusual length for it—he has a happy knack of doing so.

I shall concentrate on points of agreement across the Floor, and I should point out that it was unfair of my colleagues to draw attention to the complete absence from the debate earlier of Conservative Members. This debate is about Cornish education and there are no Conservative Cornish MPs—Cornwall is a Tory-free zone—and it is only reasonable that Conservative Members should be absent from this debate.

Order. The hon. Gentleman should not refer to the absence or otherwise of hon. Members. The purpose of an Adjournment debate is to allow an hon. Member to put a case to a Minister, so only the initiator of the debate, the Minister and, of course, Madam Speaker or a Deputy Speaker are required to be present.

Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is precisely the point that I was about to make—I thought that it would be unfair to concentrate on that issue.

There is agreement, first and foremost, that the situation that the Government faced in May 1997, in Cornwall as in other areas, was dire. The county's education system was suffering not only from the discrepancies to which my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has already referred—I shall turn to those in a moment—but from a heavy backlog of lack of capital investment in its schools.

Secondly, it is common ground that despite that shortfall, the efforts of Cornwall's teachers, governors, parents and the community at large have produced remarkably good results. Nobody would dissent from that. Thirdly, there is agreement that over a long period—this did not suddenly happen—Cornish children in secondary and primary schools have suffered from a discrepancy.

Since May 1997, the local education authority—Cornwall county council—has not been controlled by a Liberal Democrat majority, but has been under no overall control. During that period, Labour councillors have been happy to support independent and Conservative councillors and appoint them to the chairs and vice-chairs of committees. The chair of the education committee is occupied not by a Liberal Democrat but by an independent councillor. There is a perception—I cannot say whether it is an entirely accurate one—that when the council has been under no overall control, the officers have taken a much bigger role in setting the council's priorities and policies, particularly on expenditure.

The previous Liberal Democrat chair of education and her committee were seeking to narrow the gap between the amount that was being devoted to front-line education resources—the schools themselves and other education services—and the amount retained at county hall. That situation has deteriorated, and the perception of the Cornish Association of Secondary Heads and the Cornish Association of Primary Heads is that county hall now retains a greater proportion of the resources made available to the county. That fulfils no national governmental pledge, let alone the wishes of the people of Cornwall. I hope that the county's officers will be prepared to reconsider that deteriorating situation, which was improving when the Liberal Democrats were in control of education.

I want to underline a couple of points that my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has already made. He will recall visiting with me a small village school in my constituency and being greeted on the doorstep by the head teacher with the words, "I am delighted to see you, but if you've come with more bright ideas from Government, thank you and goodbye." One of the previous Government's failures was to misunderstand the priority needs in many of our schools, which were for more investment rather than more instruction, and for more resources and fewer requirements about the national curriculum and other national policies.

A period of steady growth and improved investment, unaccompanied by the dramatic twists and turns of national policy, would also be extremely welcome in our schools. I suspect that in every classroom there must be a teacher who is wondering whether that process of incessant change will ever stop. The Government are, of course, taking measures that are good for schools. I hope that they will give teachers confidence that there will be steady progress rather than sharp twists and turns in national policy.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell has said, in the past few years, the discrepancy between the national average standard spending assessment per pupil and the SSA available in Cornwall has increased, and there is no immediate sign that it will not continue to do so. He quoted figures for the financial year 1996–97, in which Cornwall's primary schools received £69 per pupil less than the national average. In only three years, that figure has increased to £89. Similarly, the gap between the national average funding for secondary schools and the funding for Cornwall has increased from £84 per pupil to £97.

Those discrepancies are serious and must be urgently addressed; otherwise we shall be unable to deliver to the pupils, parents and community of Cornwall the education that they deserve. I believe, as I am sure other hon. Members do, in trying to give credit where credit is due. I believe in the Government's good intentions, and especially those of the team at the Department for Education and Employment, but we will be unable to deliver what our constituents desire unless there is a change.

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell said about the capital programme. It is a great relief to be moving towards redressing the backlog of so many years. At the beginning of March, I celebrated the 25th anniversary of my original election to the House. During that period, it has been a constant sore that Cornwall has been left behind in the provision of modern facilities. However, modern facilities are not the whole answer, and there must be an lessening of the discrepancy between the running costs of our schools—particularly relating to the problem of teacher:pupil ratios—and the funding that they receive.

We hope that in the last two or three years of this Parliament the Government will break out of the self-imposed straitjacket of their predecessors' financial restrictions. I hope that when they do so, they will be prepared to attend to the major discrepancy from which we in Cornwall have suffered.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate, to which I intend to make a brief contribution.

I should first point out that schools in my constituency are the responsibility of two local education authorities—Cornwall's and the Isles of Scilly's. People on the islands appreciate that the Government have recognised and responded to their special needs and concerns, particularly the problems faced by post-16-year-olds going on to further education.

I want to make three points about the debate on the financial settlement, a subject which has been well aired today. First, schools in my constituency continually complain about the lack of opportunity for long-term planning because of the late settlement of the budget each year. Every year, they are unable to plan for future years because they are given only a few weeks in which to undertake that essential planning.

Secondly, irrespective of the political debate, schools are concerned about the reduction in resources. In the past 10 years, St. Ives junior school in my constituency has experienced a 20 per cent. increase in pupil numbers but a 20 per cent. decrease in staff resources. Admittedly, the Government have been in power for only a small part of that time. Schools have many initiatives thrown at them and are given little time for thinking and planning to implement them. The Government ought perhaps to take on board the concerns that teachers, not just in my constituency but throughout Cornwall and, I suspect, the rest of the country, have expressed about that.

Thirdly, I seek reassurance from the Minister on behalf of schools in Cornwall that in future funding packages the Government will take into account Cornwall's geography and the fact that we necessarily have many small schools. Parents do not campaign to ensure that their children get a poor education, but they often campaign hard to keep small, local schools which provide high-quality education. That needs to be taken into account in future funding packages for LEAs like Cornwall's.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor) on securing this Adjournment debate. It is amazing that whenever hon. Members are fortunate enough to gain extra time for such debates, which is usually an accident, they have no difficulty at all, if the debates are about education, in getting colleagues from their area to join in.

I doubt that there is one hon. Member who does not spend much of his or her constituency time visiting schools and talking to parents about such an incredibly important issue. I acknowledge the contributions of my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) and of the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for St. Ives (Mr. George) and the importance that education has for them as local Members of Parliament. I also acknowledge the sincerity with which they presented the issues to the House.

I am grateful for what I think was an acknowledgment of the Government's efforts and, equally important, of our good intentions. I cannot imagine that we will ever reach a point at which people will say, "Enough—no more for education." It is such an exciting issue, there is always so much to be done, and there are always so many frontiers to be pushed that, no matter what any Government do, it will always be claimed that we could do with more resources.

I am inevitably going to talk about a record of which I am proud, but I do not for one minute pretend or claim that we have enough resources or that I as an education Minister or we as a Government should stop seeking more resources for education.

I know that the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell will expect me to remind him that during the period of the comprehensive spending review settlement, £19 billion extra will be spent on education. I am not a brilliant mathematician, but if one adds that sum to the £4 billion extra that we have already allocated, the total is far more than would have accrued from 1p on income tax over the same period.

In real terms.

It may be in real terms—but an average of £2 billion from 1p in income tax? The Liberal Democrats would be hard pushed to argue that we have not provided more than would have been gained from 1p on income tax.

Before responding to the points made in today's debate, I should like to acknowledge the high standards of education attainment in Cornish schools. I claim no credit for that, and I am sure that other hon. Members would not do so—it is down to the hard work of teachers, governors, parents, pupils and the wider community. I am delighted to acknowledge that key stage 2 results in the county are above the national average. In particular, I congratulate the secondary schools in Cornwall, whose results for pupils gaining five GCSE grades A to C are 5 per cent. above the average. Even more pleasing, that represents a 2 per cent. increase on last year, which is a faster than average growth for schools with pupils taking five GCSEs.

I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne would remind me that improvement across the county is not even, which is precisely why we have introduced initiatives such as the education action zones. We want to give more support to teachers who work in the most challenging social and academic environments. With no commitment, I shall of course look with interest at the application from her area to become an EAZ. I have had the opportunity to visit Cornwall as a Minister in the past 18 months, and I have been impressed by the commitment that I have seen.

I want to deal mainly with two issues. I want to talk about the money that comes through the standard spending assessment, and to offer some understanding and reassurance in that connection, and then to talk about the other money—it is not the bulk of it, but it is real money—that does not come through the SSA formula.

Since May 1997, we have increased Cornwall's SSA by £19 million, or 11 per cent. Those figures take into account the change in local authority functions. If we add to that the extra money that we have been able to distribute to local authorities by abolishing the nursery voucher scheme, which has gone into early-years provision, the increase is more than 11 per cent.

I shall deal in a moment with the figures that were cited, but Cornwall's primary SSA per pupil has increased by 11 per cent. in cash terms since we took office, and its secondary SSA has increased by 9 per cent. since May 1997. Funding per secondary pupil has increased by £110 in each of the past two years. In real terms, since we took office, we have increased SSA funding for primary pupils in Cornwall by 5.6 per cent., and the comparable real terms increase for secondary pupils in Cornwall is 3.5 per cent.

The figures quoted to the House were given in cash terms based on the SSA formula. The irony is that I am having to defend what was described as a growing gap in cash terms because we have put more money into education. We have not changed the formula under which the money is distributed so the more we put in, the greater the difference will be in cash terms. I suspect that had we reduced the amount in cash terms, the gap would have been smaller and the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell would not have sought an Adjournment debate because the gap would have narrowed and he would perhaps have congratulated us.

The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say that the formula is the problem. I am not going to justify a formula which, for no good reason, seems to treat children differently in different areas. I cannot fathom why that should be. However, I will defend a system that acknowledges that in different localities there are different legitimate needs and expenses. Unlike other hon. Members who have contributed to the debate, I do not represent a rural constituency, but I readily accept that transport costs are greater in rural areas.

When we come eventually to devise a fair SSA, it will never be an amount per head. We cannot come up with a formula on which everyone agrees, but I suspect that arguing for the average amount for children in Cornwall may not be in the long-term interests of Members representing the area. I caution them against arguing that too often.

I have answered several Adjournment debates, mainly initiated by Liberal Democrat Members, but not one has been used to argue that the SSA formula favours them too much and that they want to give up some money for colleagues. That means that some colleagues who care equally passionately about education have to accept a formula that favours them less—

rose—

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will excuse me for not giving way, but I have only three minutes left.

We tried in vain to change the formula for this year, but we could not get agreement. If political parties do not agree, we face a geographical alignment. We will not get two bites at the cherry, and we did not want to change the formula and get it wrong. We have agreed that, over the next three years, we will try to come up with a formula that is right. The hope that I offer the hon. Gentleman is an acknowledgement by a Minister that the formula is not fair and a determination that, with a bit of give and take and some realism from Members of all parties representing all geographical areas, we can improve it.

The other source of funding, which has not received much comment—probably because the Liberal Democrats think that we have done fairly well in this instance—is the standards fund. Thirteen million pounds has been allocated to Cornwall since the election. I know that hon. Members will welcome the £4,000 to each school for the purchase nationally of about 20 million books.

In the two minutes that I have left, I must stress that we have a good record on class sizes. We have allocated a grant of £760,000 to the county to reduce infant class sizes, and £1 million for capital work in that connection. I congratulate the local authority on coming up with a class-size plan which means that, whereas in 1998 4,362 infants were in classes of more than 30, in September 1999 only 362 will be. That is real progress in two years, progress that was previously undreamt of.

By giving several hon. Members the opportunity to contribute to the debate, I have inevitably not had the time to respond to all the points that were raised. However, it has been an important debate, and is one to which we shall no doubt return.

Civilians are helpless and random casualties of war, and too often their sacrifice and courage go unrecognised. That is why in Romford we want a memorial specifically recognising the civilian casualties of the second world war.

When I first became involved in the project, I could not have foreseen the pictures on our television screens, night after night, of civilians being driven from their country, Kosovo—people made refugees not because of anything that they have done, but because of who they are. Many have lost their lives—civilians placed on the front line through no wish or action of their own.

I detest the intolerance and violence that have led to such ethnic cleansing. It seems to me a failure of reason and a breakdown of civilisation, yet there are times when a tyrant will not reason or negotiate, and we must stand up against him. Thus it is in Kosovo, and thus it was in the second world war.

I have been to Remembrance day services and I am always moved by the depth of feeling, even so long after the world wars. The pain is still strong after 60 or even 80 years. It is right that we honour the service men and women who died in the second world war so that we might be free. It is also right that we honour the civilian casualties—people who tried against all the odds to live their lives as normally as possible in the extraordinary conditions of war. They tried to keep homes going for service men and women to return to after the war.

Almost 30,000 men, women and children died in the London blitz. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and others for their work to get a civilian memorial park in London. There are such parks in Hiroshima and Coventry, and we should have one in London.

My own family were in London during the blitz. They kept being evacuated, but got homesick and always ended up back in London. My sister has described to me how she used to go up on to the roof of her flat and see the fires all around.

On the grand scale of things, one could say that Romford was lucky. On the worst night of the bombing, 55 people died in Romford. However, we are not talking about statistics. Each death was a unique tragedy, leaving scars for the rest of their lives on family, friends and witnesses who survived.

That worst night of bombing in Romford was the night of 19 April 1941. The first parachute bomb dropped at 9.40 pm; the bombing ended at 11 pm. By then, 55 people had been killed and many more injured. The youngest to die was one year old and the oldest was 73. Thirty-eight people died in one road—Essex road—and others in Brentwood road, Hillfoot avenue, Hillfoot road and Stanley road. Whole families were wiped out—the Wilson family, the Barclay family and the Limehouse family of Essex road. The Gill family in Brentwood road lost nine of its members.

There were many tragic stories from survivors. Joan Limehouse was the eldest daughter of her family and had gone out to buy fish and chips for the family supper. She was on her way there when the bombs dropped. By the time she reached home, there was nothing left of her house and she was an orphan.

A service man, Bill Barclay, received a telegram to tell him that his mother, cousin and three brothers had died on that awful night. Bill has said:

"I have always thought these are the forgotten people of the war. Every night I cry about it."

There are casualties of that night who have never been named and are "known only to God". Others could not be identified because of the force of the bombing, and 12 bodies were buried in four mass graves in Romford cemetery.

Essex road was left a pile of rubble, yet strangely, one wall survived and on that wall there was left hanging a picture, still in it usual place. It was hanging at a weird angle, but was completely untouched by the carnage around it. That picture was of Christ—"The Light of the World", by Holman Hunt. It now hangs in St. John the Divine church in Mawney road in Romford, with a memorial book recording the names of the Essex road casualties, for in the week following the bombing, 34 of the funeral services were held in that church.

The priest at that church, Malcolm Griffin, wants a permanent memorial to the men, women and children who died that night. The aim is to erect a statue of Christ and a brass plaque recording the names of those who died, and a tribute to all civilians who have lost their lives in warfare.

Coincidentally, our local newspaper, the Romford Recorder, has taken up the same issue. It wants a memorial plaque incorporated into the street sign of Essex road and the other roads where bombs dropped on that April night. It also wants to place a bench in the cemetery where the unnamed victims are buried—a place to sit, reflect and remember. We are now all working to achieve that aim. Havering local authority is considering sympathetically the request for planning permission for the plaques on the street signs and has given us much support, which we welcome. The project will cost about £10,000.

This Sunday, a memorial service will be held in St. John's church to mark the anniversary of the bombing and to launch the campaign to have the memorials in place before the 60th anniversary in 2001. We will be asking local businesses and local people for funds, as this is indeed a community project. Already, surviving relatives have sent money to the Romford Recorder towards the fund. We would appreciate any support and advice that the Minister can give us about the funds that we can apply for, and about whether there are similar memorials around the country.

The aim is to make sure that the people who died that night are not forgotten by the community and by the young. When the Romford Recorder ran the story, many young people wrote in. Steven Halfteck, aged 10, wrote:

"Isn't it sad about all the people who died? We have been working about the bombing and we think you should have a memorial. If you did have a memorial we could remember the 55 people who died in the bombing."

It is important that we remember.

At the meeting of the council of the borough of Romford on Wednesday 21 May 1941, it was recorded in note 564 on air raid casualties that

"the Mayor expressed the sympathy of the Council with the relatives of persons killed in a recent Air Raid and the Council stood in silence for a short period."

Fifty-eight years later, on Sunday, our present mayor and councillors will do the same. We have not forgotten, but it is right that we should have a permanent memorial.

In conclusion, I quote from Winston G. Ramsey, the editor of "The Blitz Then and Now", who stated:

"Let not those who come after forget the victory won by the ordinary citizens of Britain. By their sacrifice of loved ones, they have earned the right to have their ordeal remembered in a fitting memorial."

That is what we are trying to do in Romford.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Romford (Mrs. Gordon) on obtaining a debate on an issue of such importance to her constituency, and on the very moving way in which she introduced it. No one can fail to recognise the strength of feeling in her community which came through very clearly in her speech.

The subject that my hon. Friend raises should certainly not give rise to contention in the House. The debate gives us all a great opportunity to recognise the debt of gratitude that we owe to those who served our country, and who were injured or died—and their families—as a result of two world wars, particularly the second world war, in which the incident to which she referred took place.

Each year, at Remembrance day ceremonies, both at the Cenotaph, which is attended by leading national figures, and war memorials across the country, we rightly pay tribute to those who fell. My hon. Friend rightly drew attention to her pride at attending her local ceremony, which reflects the view of many Members of Parliament, who proudly join their communities to remember those who have fallen in defence of this country, international freedom and world peace.

We all recognise that, naturally and understandably, such ceremonies have a predominantly military flavour; the armed forces bear the brunt of war—directly and often terribly. The names on most of the country's many war memorials are of men and women who served in the forces—either at home or, particularly, overseas—but we must never forget that war does not only affect those in uniform. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the civilian population made an invaluable contribution to the war effort during the second world war, as a result of which many lost their lives. I shall say more about that later. They, too, deserve our respect, and should be commemorated.

It was reported in a magazine article last year that it is Government policy that no further memorials of the second world war should be allowed to be erected. That report arose from an unfortunate misunderstanding concerning a village in East Anglia, and understandably caused great consternation not only in that small community, but among the wider readership of the church magazine. As a result, a number of hon. Members received letters from constituents, whose concerns I fully understand. Obviously, I have written to those hon. Members—to reassure them and, through them, their constituents.

I am very pleased to be able to take this opportunity to put paid to the rumour that the Government have imposed—or would even consider imposing—such a restriction. It would be quite contrary to our intentions and fundamental beliefs. We are very happy to encourage further commemorative ventures. Indeed, I am pleased to say that several such projects are currently afoot, of which the one to which my hon. Friend referred is an extremely important example.

As some hon. Members may be aware, in December, the Prime Minister announced plans for a national memorial at Coventry cathedral. In some ways, Coventry suffered even more than London in the blitz, although it has, of course, been reconstructed following those horrific events. The memorial will honour those who worked on the home front—in the dockyards, shipyards and factories, down the mines, in transport, on the land, and in many other areas in maintaining daily life and sustaining the war effort.

The proposed plaques on street signs would represent a very simple, dignified recognition of the bombing. The streets have, of course, been repaired; one would not think that anything had happened. Essex road has been returned to its state before the bombing. We want to commemorate the bombing to let the people who live there know what happened, and so that the young will always remember.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Although the physical scars of the bombing may have been removed, mental scars among families and communities are still apparent. I was very pleased to hear of her local authority's concern and encouragement, and its favourable indications that that awful night will be remembered on the street signs. That is important, and ties in very well with the church's proposal, with which I shall deal later. My hon. Friend also drew attention to the enormously encouraging interest among many youngsters in this country's history—how their grandparents stood up against totalitarianism and fascism, and the suffering that they endured.

As well as commemorating the service of those who worked on the home front, the memorial will commend their self-sacrifice to future generations. I am so pleased that schools are taking that up. I am also pleased to say that a campaign is under way to raise funds for a memorial to the women of the second world war, which will commemorate those who served in civilian roles as well as in the armed forces.

I turn to the specific subject of civilians who were killed during the war. More than 60,000 United Kingdom civilians lost their lives as a result of enemy action during the second world war. As my hon. Friend pointed out, 30,000 of those were killed in the London blitz alone—quite apart from all those who were injured during those awful attacks. Men, women and children of all ages and all walks of life lost their lives, as the bombing in Romford represents.

Since the end of that war, more than 120 memorials have been erected to the memory of civilians who were killed. Understandably, many of them are in London and on the approaches to the capital—both of which suffered terrible losses during enemy bombing raids. A plaque was recently installed at St. Paul's cathedral, commemorating those who were killed in the blitz. The people of Romford are therefore seeking to follow a well-established, admirable and honourable tradition.

As we have learned from my hon. Friend, a parachute mine was dropped over Essex road and the surrounding roads in Romford on the night of 19 April 1941. In Essex road alone, it demolished 17 houses, and 38 civilians were killed. Of those, 34 were identified, and their funerals were held at St. John's church, Romford the following week. Other roads were similarly affected; as my hon. Friend said, a total of 55 people died in the locality. The names of the 34 people who were identified are inscribed in a book of remembrance that is kept in the church.

I read with interest and humility the information that has been prepared by the vicar of St. John's church. It is impossible not to be moved by it; my hon. Friend's speech demonstrated that better than I can. A dreadful toll was extracted from that one road: 38 people were killed in one night and several families lost as many as five members. Nearly a third of the dead were children. The effect on what was, no doubt, a tightly-knit and supportive community must have been devastating and, indeed, lasting, which has been shown by the response from Romford.

It is important to say that, although the great conurbations—London and the west midlands are the two I know best—may appear to be great, amorphous sprawls to people who live outside them, they contain a mixture of local communities, many of which include families who have lived there for many generations. The impact of such incidents on local communities in those areas is as great as it would be on more isolated villages and towns across the country. It is right that we remember that, which is why this particular venture is so much to be encouraged.

As my hon. Friend said, amidst the rubble, a reproduction of Holman Hunt's famous painting "The Light of the World" survived, and still survives, in St. John's church. A passage quoted from "Ordeal in Romford" says that

"in a sea of devastation, 'The Light of the World' remained—a reminder and a challenge".

I find it heartening that, 58 years after that tragic event, the people of Romford have kept the reminder and risen to the challenge. They clearly still have their civilian war dead very much in their minds, and are setting about doing something to ensure that their memory will be perpetuated.

The people of Romford are also to be commended in that the proposed memorial will extend beyond local loss of life and will pay tribute to all civilians who lost their lives in warfare. The service of commemoration, which is to take place at St. John's church this Sunday, will also be an act of prayer for peace in the world.

As hon. Members will know, it has long been the policy of successive Governments that war memorials should be erected following a public appeal for donations, rather than provided by Government funds. That is because the Government receive many requests—from individuals, groups and organisations—for assistance to fund war memorials. It would be neither fair nor possible or practicable to support one application and not another.

Public subscription also has the advantage of being a way in which the people of this country can make a direct and unmistakeable demonstration of their respect for those who lost their lives. That is what my hon. Friend and the community that she represents are proposing, and the venture has the Government's warmest approval and support. I welcome this opportunity to wish the organisers every success with their fundraising activities.

I also welcome the support from the local paper, the Romford Recorder, which will stimulate further interest in the campaign. I look forward to hearing of progress and my Department would be more than happy to provide the organisers with advice on fundraising, about which my hon. Friend inquired, and to offer representation at any dedication ceremony when the memorial is in place.

I join my hon. Friend, on behalf of the whole House, in paying our respects to the memory of the civilian war dead of Romford and in expressing our admiration for those who are undertaking this most worthwhile venture to perpetuate their memory.

It has been said:

"I welcome the opportunity provided by the debate to return to a subject that I have raised with successive Ministers during the course of several years. I do so without apology because the subject is important in its own right and of increasing concern to many people. I refer to the appalling damage inflicted each year on hundreds of miles of the unmetalled green lanes of our countryside."—[Official Report, 17 July 1995; Vol. 263, c. 1426.]

I acknowledge that it may be regarded as the height of vanity to quote oneself, but that is how I started my previous Adjournment debate on this subject, nearly four years ago. I have repeated those words today because, tragically, the situation has not improved in key respects. Sections of the country's green lanes are being extensively damaged through misuse by modern vehicles.

The process of reclassifying public rights of way under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 has, at the very least, been profoundly unsatisfactory. Clarification is urgently needed, and has been for some time. More than that, there is growing consensus that we need to adopt a wider land management approach to our green lanes and the countryside through which they pass—an approach that goes beyond merely classifying user rights.

Without doubt, some of the damage to our green lanes is caused by agricultural vehicles—perhaps a considerable amount. Much of it is caused by 4x4s and other recreational vehicles. In parenthesis, I acknowledge that national organisations representing the interests of 4x4 drivers and many 4x4 clubs are environmentally aware and operate extremely responsibly.

My first substantive point is that the root cause of much of the misuse by vehicles of our green lanes in recent times has been, and remains, the reclassification process under the 1981 Act. In 1996, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who was then Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, registered concern that legal dedication of vehicular rights was being established on the back of wrong advice from a number of highway authorities.

In the then Government's opinion, some highway authorities were misconstruing the 1981 Act. The present Government, as I understand the situation, have followed suit. In July 1997, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions issued guidance in the form of a legal view that it is unlawful for vehicles to use roads used as public paths—RUPPs—unless vehicular rights have been established in accordance with the Road Traffic Act 1988. In Stevens v. the Secretary of State, of 16 January 1998, the High Court, on appeal, upheld that position. There is a presumption of only bridleway and lower rights attaching to RUPPs, unless and until higher rights have been shown to exist.

However, the judgment in the Stevens appeal went on to say that recent vehicular use could be used as supporting evidence of historic rights and that to rule vehicular rights out before the matter of historical rights had been determined would be to prejudge the issue. That second part of the judgment has complicated rather than resolved matters, because there is now considerable debate and uncertainty over whether it is illegal to drive on a RUPP unless it has been proved that there are historic vehicular rights and whether it is legal to drive on a RUPP until it has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that there are no vehicular rights.

In other words, what should be straightforward criminal proceedings can become complex civil matters. It is therefore no wonder that reclassification under the 1981 Act appears to have stalled in some counties. I submit that it is imperative that the issue is clarified. My own position is that I support those who vigorously argue that vehicular use of RUPPs should be illegal unless or until historic vehicular rights have been proved.

Secondly, I turn to a related point: the Countryside Commission's objective 8, which is to reclassify all RUPPs and unclassified country roads as a new category of byways. I share the concerns expressed by the Country Landowners Association in its submission to the Countryside Commission, and by the environmental group Green Lanes Environmental Action Movement, known as GLEAM, and others.

I argue that this proposal is a step in the wrong direction. If implemented, it would create vehicular rights over many routes where such rights do not currently exist. It would extend the potential to inflict damage on our green lanes. We know perfectly well from the process of reclassification under the 1981 Act that many RUPPs sustain bridleway rights, not vehicular rights. The proposal would extend vehicular rights to hundreds of RUPPs for the first time. Much the same line of argument applies to the unclassified county roads. In a letter dated 24 August 1998, which was generally circulated, the Department confirmed that the status of individual UCRs must be established on a case-by-case basis. Many UCRs are nothing more than unsealed minor tracks. Most important, a significant number of UCRs have been held, after public inquiry, not to carry vehicular rights.

If UCRs and RUPPs are to constitute a new category of byways, vehicular rights will also apply to them. The Countryside Commission's objective 8, if implemented, would expose more of our green lanes to misuse by vehicles. I greatly hope that the Government will, in due course, accept the Country Landowners Association's recommendation that, instead of the objective 8 reclassification, all RUPPs and UCRs should be shown on definitive maps as bridleways.

I want to refer to the management of byways open to all traffic where vehicular rights exist. Some of my hon. Friends feel instinctively uneasy when they hear the word "regulations", and I am not unsympathetic to that point of view. However, there is a strong case for national regulations to regulate the use of byways open to all traffic. The Minister will note that my remarks again reflect the CLA position. National regulations could restrict use to motor vehicles below a certain weight and fitted with flotation tyres, apply a speed limit to all motor vehicles, ban use by motor vehicles during winter months, perhaps, although controversially, make exceptions to enable continued use by agricultural and forestry vehicles if they are part of the ordinary traffic of the neighbourhood, and require all restrictions on use to be shown on signs on all BOATs where they meet other highways carrying vehicular rights.

In the context of preserving such byways, it can also be argued that two changes to local traffic regulation orders are desirable. One of those changes would be to provide that such orders can override any national regulations on BOATs by adding or removing specific preservations in relation to specific byways and specific types of traffic.

A second change would be to widen the grounds for making traffic regulation orders to include avoiding disturbance to livestock, game or wildlife, and protecting flora, fauna, geological, geomorphological or physiographical features. That proposal highlights the need to consider the sustainability of rights of way not only to maintain their surfaces, but—and I emphasise this point—for their wider wildlife and environmental value.

I welcome the fact that the Minister for the Environment, in a written answer on 5 February 1998, emphasised that wider dimension. He also referred to the Government publication "Making the Best of Byways", which he described as

"a practical guide to managing vehicles on byways".—[Official Report, 5 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 730.]

It is unfortunate that "Making the Best of Byways", at least in the opinion of some people who follow these issues closely, is misleading in key respects. First, the booklet states that its focus

"is upon unsealed ways which carry public vehicular rights. These include: roads used as public paths (RUPPs) (where rights of way for vehicles exist)."

As it stands, that is highly ambiguous. The last phrase in brackets could be taken as asserting that vehicular rights exist on all RUPPs, which is not the case. As has been pointed out to the Government on a number of occasions, the ambiguity would be removed if that phrase were corrected to read "in cases where rights of way for vehicles exist." I find it hard to understand the Government's reluctance to issue such a correction.

Secondly, among the unsealed ways that carry public vehicular rights the booklet lists

"routes formerly defined as unclassified county roads".

Surely the Government are mistaken. Some years ago, the Secretary of State, in the Cumbria decision, held that the term "UCR" was only administrative. In the letter of 24 August 1998 to which I have referred, the Department acknowledged that the status of UCRs should be established on a case-by-case basis, and, most important, that a significant number of UCRs had been held, after public inquiry, not to carry vehicular rights. In the light of that, it is hard to understand why the Government assert that UCRs carry public vehicular rights.

Thirdly, some argue that the Government are adding further confusion to this complicated issue by inventing a new definition of the word "byway". According to the booklet,

"this word byway has been used in the guide to cover all three classes"—

that is RUPPs, BOATs and UCRs. I use the term "green lanes". Over the years, there has been a Government-led convention that the word "byway" should be the accepted abbreviation for byways open to all traffic. It is argued that it is a dubious practice suddenly to give the word a new and wider meaning.

As time is short in these Adjournment debates, I have been obliged to be ultra-selective. I have touched on only some of the key issues. We can be sure that the problems will intensify and damage to our green lanes will continue unless effective action is taken.

Hear, hear.

I note the approval of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who follows these issues in detail. I hope that the Minister will consider these issues seriously. The preservation of our ancient green lanes demands positive action with minimum further delay, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) on securing a debate on a subject in which I know he is interested, and has been interested for a long time. We are aware of the concern about damage to green lanes as a result of inappropriate use by motor vehicles, not only from the hon. Gentleman's efforts but from letters from hon. Members on behalf of their constituents, from the early-day motion—mentioned by the hon. Gentleman—tabled by the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who I am happy to see is present, and from media reports.

Let me say a little about the legislation on rights of way, and local authorities' duties and powers. The term "green lane" is not recognised in law, but it is usually acknowledged to cover all unsurfaced tracks in the countryside. Not all such tracks carry vehicular rights. Some green lanes carry rights only for those on foot, some for those on foot and on horseback, and some carry no public rights at all, being for private use only.

Public rights of way are recorded on definitive maps. If a way is shown on such a map, that constitutes conclusive evidence of the public rights along the way. Local authorities—usually county councils, which involve two tiers—are responsible for definitive maps. They are required to keep the maps under continuous review to amend them when missing rights, or errors in previously recorded information, are identified.

Does a definitive map always constitute conclusive evidence? I have had numerous problems in this connection in my constituency, and representations have been made to Derbyshire county council. Is it really the case that, when a bridleway is included in a definitive map, that is it? The Trail Riders Fellowship wants to be able to provide facilities for its members to ride bikes on lanes, and intends to challenge the authority of definitive maps, but it is proving difficult to persuade the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to act.

I understand that the legal definition of a right of way is what appears on a definitive map, but I am the first to acknowledge that there can be—and often are, in specific areas—differences of opinion on the names that should be given to rights of way.

The rights-of-way network in England amounts to some 169,000 km, or 105,000 miles, and represents an important recreational resource. Footpaths make up about 78 per cent. of the network; bridleways, for people on foot, on horseback and on bicycles, make up about 17 per cent., and byways open to all traffic, or BOATs—a rather unusual acronym, given that we are discussing routes for people on foot, on horseback, on cycles and in or on vehicles—make up 3 per cent. BOATs are intended mainly for use by horse riders and walkers, but vehicular uses have the right to use them. It should be borne in mind that the description of vehicular users extends beyond motorised traffic. BOATs provide a valuable network of off-road routes for horse-drawn vehicles. The remaining 2 per cent. of routes are currently classified as roads used as public paths.

The duty to record rights of way arose principally from the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949. Under that Act, local authorities were required to record as roads used as public paths—RUPPs—not only footpaths and bridleways, but ways which, while carrying public vehicular rights, were used principally as footpaths and bridleways. The term "RUPP" was misunderstood, however—perhaps because the Act and the accompanying instructions were not sufficiently clear about the ways that they were intended to record.

The Countryside Act 1968 introduced provisions to deal with those misunderstandings, but again the provisions were applied inconsistently, and problems—albeit different problems—occurred. The legislation was reviewed again in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981—on which the hon. Member for Basingstoke made his opinion clear—and provisions were introduced to require local authorities to resolve the legal uncertainty that had grown up over the years about the rights that could be exercised on RUPPs. Local authorities were to review and reclassify RUPPs as footpaths, bridleways or BOATs, depending on the rights that local authorities found to exist.

That reclassification exercise is itself misunderstood. Let me emphasise that no new rights have been created as a consequence; instead, there is certainty about the rights that already existed. One consequence of the 1981 Act was the separation of the issue of rights from management measures available to local authorities to ensure that inappropriate use of ways—footpaths, bridleways or BOATs—does not occur.

Reclassification is not an easy task. It rests largely on historic documentary evidence that was not drawn up for the purpose, and sometimes evidence is or appears to be conflicting. The quality of evidence differs from case to case and from area to area, and, in many instances, must be seen in the local context. Some authorities have reviewed and reclassified all their RUPPs; others have some way to go. In 1997 authorities in England made some 86 reclassification orders, only a few of which appeared to cause difficulties. Many of the ways reclassified as BOATs see few or no vehicles; some are capable of sustaining vehicular use with no detriment to the enjoyment of others.

It has been argued that ways that were created for the use of cars and carriages 100 or more years ago should not now be open to motor vehicles. I sympathise with that view, but the modern road network evolved in part from the network established in past centuries. When rights that have not been exercised are shown to exist, there is a case for recording them. The question that then needs to be addressed is whether those rights—or any others, if exercised—are likely to cause damage.

That brings into play another key element of local authorities' responsibilities for the rights-of-way network. They are also responsible for ensuring that the use of rights of way is regulated, and is not inappropriate. They can do that by means of their powers to make traffic regulation orders. Such orders can be made for a variety of reasons, but, in the context of today's debate, the most relevant criteria are those preventing use by vehicular traffic of a kind or in a manner that is unsuitable, having regard to the character of the way and to preserving the character of the way in cases in which it is especially suitable for use by persons on horseback or on foot. Using those powers, local authorities can regulate use for all or some users for all the year, or at times when ways are vulnerable.

Traffic regulation orders, however, have incurred some criticism as a management tool to protect rights of way, and there may be a case for changing local authorities' powers in that regard. Last year, we announced our intention to consider whether the scope for the making of orders should be widened to include nature and landscape conservation. Also last year, we published our document "Making the Best of Byways". I am sorry that the hon. Member for Basingstoke does not share our view that it constitutes a practical guide to management of the use of vehicles on public rights of way.

The guide was prepared with the help of groups representing landowners, farmers, users and local authorities. It is intended to assist and encourage the development of clear management strategies for unsealed ways, and to set out measures that can be taken to protect them as a resource and to benefit a wide range of users.

The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the introduction to the guide. The guide does not state that all RUPPs carry vehicular rights. To be included in it, ways must be unsealed and also carry vehicular rights. The sub-set in the document includes some RUPPs, some BOATs and some routes formerly defined as UCRs. Excluded from the sub-set are RUPPs that are sealed, RUPPs that do not carry vehicular rights and BOATs and former UCRs that are sealed. The guide goes on to say that rights of way in the sub-set, which for the purposes of the guide are referred to as byways, are available to all users. As all the ways in the sub-set carry vehicular rights by definition, that is true. The guide does not seek to redefine terms used in legislation, or the rights associated with particular statutory definitions.

Nevertheless, we are aware that there is considerable concern about rights of way. The concern is not only about protecting green lanes, or reclassifying RUPPs, but about procedures for the whole network. Last year, the Countryside Commission—as it was then—set out its proposals in a document entitled "Rights of Way in the 21st Century", which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Basingstoke, and which the commission used as the basis for discussions with national organisations with an interest in rights of way.

Much interest was expressed in the commission's proposals on the objective of promoting a more effective approach to managing vehicular use of rights of way. The strong responses were an indication of the feelings on the matter. Some people interpreted the commission's proposals as an attempt to increase the number and length of routes that may be used by vehicles. However, that was not the proposals' objective—which was to achieve greater clarity over the rights that may be exercised on rights of way.

Following its discussions, the Countryside Commission has made its recommendations for change in "Rights Of Way in the 21st Century, Conclusions and Recommendations", which was published last month. The commission concluded that it was essential to establish clear arrangements to replace the current system, and made several recommendations to that effect. It noted the interest shown in vehicular rights and the antipathy often shown towards any motorised use. It proposed that the Government should invite the new Countryside Agency to establish a working group of representatives of the main organisations with an interest in vehicular use of rights of way to identify and agree specific proposals for improving both the management and recording of byways.

On 8 March, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment announced that the Government would be proposing changes to the legislation and procedures on rights of way, as part of our package of measures to give people more freedom to enjoy the countryside. Before reaching conclusions on the details, we are considering the Countryside Commission's recommendations and will be consulting shortly.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Basingstoke for raising the issue. The debate is timely in the light of our recent announcements and our commitment to change.

May I ask the hon. Lady to extend her comments to the suggestion that I made on national management regulations? Does she see scope for those within the Government's thinking?

As I have already told the House, we shall shortly be going out to consultation on the matter. In the light of what the hon. Gentleman has just said, however, I shall pass on his concerns to my right hon. Friend. It is always possible—whatever the consultation document, and regardless of whether a particular idea is defined by Government—for recipients of the document, and others who wish to respond to it, to offer their own ideas on how our approach in addressing any specific issue may be improved.

As I said, we shall shortly be seeking views from the public and interested organisations on our proposals. Today's debate will be a contribution to the forthcoming wider debate on the procedures and processes for the network as a whole.

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a universal service obligation for the delivery of certain digital television services and with respect to the delivery of regional television services; and for related purposes.

Access to television is much more important than might be suggested by television's entertainment content. Television is part of the fabric of today's society and a key provider of information, and access to information can be central to the quality of life. [Interruption.]

Order. May we have a little order in the House so that the right hon. Gentleman—he is not yet right honourable, but he may be one day. May we have a little order, so that the hon. Gentleman may be heard?

Information provided by television can help people to find jobs, to participate in community life and to learn about life's opportunities. Access to television can play an important role in preventing social exclusion.

The Bill deals primarily with the important aspects of the provision of digital terrestrial television. In the analogue era of television broadcasting, the United Kingdom has achieved almost universal access to core BBC and ITV services. First, those services reach people—signals can be received by 99.4 per cent. of the population. Secondly, they are affordable. Television sets are relatively cheap: they cost from about £30 in second-hand markets in my constituency. Viewers can watch a rich variety of programmes. BBC programmes are paid for through a modest licence fee for the whole household, and ITV programmes, at no additional direct cost, are funded by the sale of advertisements.

Compared with digital television, analogue is inefficient in its use of the frequencies available. It runs at much higher transmission power levels, and requires many more transmitter masts and relays. A rapid move to digital terrestrial television to replace analogue is highly desirable. There are, however, real dangers to existing access if the move to digital is left to current legislation and market forces.

One threat to access will be the cost to broadcasters of transmitting to difficult locations. Without a policy for complete roll-out, market forces will not necessarily cater for groups living in sparse rural or remote areas. Another threat is the cost to the poor, particularly the pensioner poor, of upgrading their equipment. It is clear that the less well-off will be the hardest hit by analogue switch-off if their only choice is to buy new equipment.

Without change to current plans, millions of people will be unable to get the benefits of digital television. I want universal access to the programmes that people want to see. I want Parliament to protect the interests of those in rural or remote areas and those who are less well-off, so that the whole nation can benefit from what modern technology has brought us.

The Bill will impose a legal obligation on Government and broadcasters to deliver universal access to digital television. It will make analogue switch-off conditional on a guarantee that those households still dependent on analogue television for core BBC and ITV services will be provided free of charge with the means of access to digital terrestrial broadcasts.

Analogue switch-off may occur on a national or regional basis. In either case, my Bill assumes that switch-off will be considered only when enough households have decided on the digital option either because they are replacing existing, ageing television sets or because they are attracted to the new facilities available with digital. A possible scenario could be to propose analogue switch-off for a time when 90 per cent. of households in a given area are already viewing digital television. In those circumstances, the Bill would require broadcasters to assist the remaining 10 per cent. to access digital. That assistance could involve the provision of decoders or a subsidy towards a replacement television.

Many of the details of the universal service obligation can be left to regulation. It is of immediate importance, however, to put in place now legislation that will ensure that the move to digital increases, not decreases, access.

The Bill will also deal with long-standing anomalies in the availability of regional variations of television programming. That issue is of particular concern to me and to 40 or 50 other hon. Members, because many of our constituents cannot receive the appropriate regional variations of BBC and ITV.

I have been fortunate enough to succeed in the ballot for an Adjournment debate on this issue next week. Today, I shall therefore merely give an example of the frustration caused to my constituents by this anomaly. Mr. Paul Cobb in Heacham, as part of a campaign initiated locally by Councillor Marcus Liddington, brought this incident to my attention. Last year, following a serious sexual assault on a woman in Heacham, Anglia Television filmed and broadcast a reconstruction. The film was probably seen by 750,000 viewers, but sadly not by those living in and around Heacham. Like many people in west Norfolk, Heacham residents can receive only Yorkshire Television. Norfolk viewers unable to see the reconstruction were therefore the very people most likely to have been potential witnesses. The introduction of digital television presents a golden opportunity for the rectification of such anomalies, and we should seize that opportunity.

The objective could be achieved through the use of the larger number of channels available to digital terrestrial broadcasting, enabling simulcasting to take place. That means a transmitter delivering more than one regional variation. Alternatively, the objective could be achieved through the exploitation of other technical merits of digital broadcasting, such as a different deployment of transmitters and power levels. My Bill will ensure that digital terrestrial broadcasting will provide viewers with appropriate regional variations of BBC and ITV television programmes. That obligation will also be linked to the timing of analogue switch-off.

Costs will of course be involved in the implementation of the Bill's objectives, but they should not and need not impose a burden on the taxpayer; nor should the public be forced to buy new televisions or decoder boxes. Fortunately, there is an alternative. Analogue switch-off will both remove the tight constraints on digital broadcasting that were introduced to prevent interference with analogue reception and free up precious frequency space. The result will be valuable commercial and public service opportunities, and a significant source of public revenue. Those involved in digital television may wish to buy frequency space, but there will be other bidders. The cost of providing universal access can be met by those who will benefit from early switch-off. The costs will be much lower than many currently imagine. On Monday, Chris Barrie of The Guardianreported that plans for boxes costing as little as £25 were well advanced.

Some time ago, in response to a complaint, a BBC spokesman remarked that a television licence

"is like a fishing licence: it allows people to receive television, but does not guarantee that they can do so".

A universal service obligation for television broadcasting would recognise that access to television services is a basic entitlement, and would make the delivery of core television services, national and regional, a legal requirement.

I believe that the industry will benefit from early clarification of its obligations—and, indeed, many members of it want that. I urge the House to support the Bill.