I am pleased to have this opportunity to introduce a subject that is of great interest to my constituents. We debated this matter yesterday, and I believe that my right hon. and hon. Friends were absolutely correct to raise it. I am sure that we will continue to address the issue in the House as it is vital to the south-east.

We must consider the immensity of new house building that is planned for the south-east. Contrary to what was said in some quarters yesterday, 1.1 million new homes are planned for the south-east. There is no point dismissing that figure out of hand as nonsense, as the Minister did yesterday, or trying to minimise its importance. Although it is not the new total arising from the panel's report—that figure is also substantial—we must consider the overall figure, which has immense implications for the south-east. The 1.1 million figure is equivalent to building five new cities the size of Southampton in the south-east.

The figure that is equivalent to five new cities is the difference between Serplan's recommendations and those of the panel. The 1.1 million figure is really equivalent to 12 new cities the size of Southampton.

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I refer anyone who wants to quibble with that figure to paragraph 7.35 of the panel's report, where it appears in black and white. Let us have no attempts to minimise the significance of that figure.

The increase is certainly important to my constituency and to the county of Hertfordshire. The Minister knows that I intend to explore in this debate the plan's detailed implications for Hertfordshire. I am pleased to welcome to the Chamber my right hon. and hon. Friends representing Hertfordshire constituencies, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), my hon. Friends the Members for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) and for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells), as well as many other hon. Friends who represent constituencies throughout the south-east.

The panel recommends that Hertfordshire should provide 88,000 additional houses between 1996 and 2016—which is a building rate of 4,400 each year. Under existing plans, Hertfordshire is expected to absorb 65,000 additional dwellings between 1991 and 2011, and some 19,000 houses were built between 1991 and 1996—so Hertfordshire is being asked to absorb no fewer than 107,000 new houses between 1991 and 2016. The panel's report suggests an increase of 42,000 new houses in addition to existing plans, so that is another new figure for Hertfordshire to absorb.

That is an immense figure, which is larger than any existing new town in Hertfordshire—and it is just the increase, not the total. The new settlement would be roughly equivalent to the size of Welwyn Garden City. I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends from Hertfordshire agree that it will be particularly difficult for the county to absorb such new housing without affecting the environment by building in the green belt. Many existing settlements in Hertfordshire, and new towns that have been developed in the 20th century, do not have a large number of brownfield sites. The housing stock in Hertfordshire is relatively modern and not easy to convert, so few new houses will be delivered through conversion.

That is certainly true of my constituency of Hertsmere. As my constituents know only too well, it has proved extremely difficult to accommodate Hertsmere's existing new-build total of 4,600 houses without making incursions into the green belt. There is tremendous pressure on the green belt, most of which, thankfully, has been diverted. However, if there is to be further expansion on the scale envisaged, building on the green belt in Hertsmere is inevitable.

If divided between Hertfordshire local authorities on roughly the same basis as existing plans, the new plans would require Hertsmere to absorb several thousand—probably about 3,000—new houses. That is the equivalent of a new settlement the size of Radlett in my constituency—and it is only the new houses required by the report; never mind those required under existing plans. There is no way that such a development could be accommodated without building on the green fields that surround the communities in my constituency.

The green belt is especially valuable in Hertsmere, which is situated on the edge of London. Apart from existing settlements, almost all of my constituency is greenbelt land, and my constituents derive no comfort from the philosophy that has apparently been adopted in some quarters—even by the Government—that the loss of green belt in one place can be compensated for by the redesignation of greenbelt land somewhere else. The loss of the green belt in Hertsmere cannot be offset by the designation of more greenbelt land in another part of Hertfordshire, the south-east or even of the country.

That is a formula for devaluing the green belt and constantly shifting it further out. It is a rather bizarre philosophy. I say to the Minister that, if the same principle were applied to wildlife conservation, which is another responsibility of her Department, it would be a bit like saying, when one species becomes extinct, "Never mind; we can make up for that by adding another three species to the endangered list and, therefore, it is a triumph for conservation." The same principle applies to the green belt. We all know that, once the green belt has been lost, it is gone for good—that is concrete over green.

The panel's report contains worrying recommendations for the green belt, and I hope that they will be examined carefully in the House and elsewhere. It contains worrying recommendations for constituencies, such as Hertsmere, where the green belt is not the result of national and international intrinsic designation in the way that areas of outstanding natural beauty are. Such areas appear to be the only type of green belt that the report is prepared to put beyond the reach of developers. The recommendations in the report seem to contemplate explicitly a re-evaluation of the green belt in places such as Hertsmere. We have heard it before, but the message from the report is clear: the green belt is up for grabs.

Such a message is, in equal measure, very bad news for the quality of life of residents and very bad news for the environment. We should not lose sight of the fragility of the environment in the south-eastern counties, which have already been placed under great pressure this century. I understand from Friends of the Earth that, on average over the past 50 years, one species has become extinct every two years. Increasing urbanisation and fragmentation of the countryside and wildlife habitats have greatly contributed to that loss. More greenfield development in the south-east will only accelerate the process and create more and more pressure.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I trust that the hon. Gentleman represents a south-east constituency, so I shall give way briefly.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. For his information, I represent a London constituency, although my borough in the north of London butts on to his local authority.

I listened with interest to the concern that the hon. Gentleman expressed about the green belt. No doubt, other Conservative Members will express similar concerns. Why was that concern not expressed in the years of the previous Government? In the final year of the Conservative Government, 1,200 hectares of green belt were designated for development, but Conservative Members expressed no concern at that time.

The hon. Gentleman may regret that intervention. He is going down the same course that was taken yesterday by the Minister for Housing and Planning, who made at some length the charge that the previous Government did not do enough for the green belt—Labour Members are nodding. We were criticised from pillar to post yesterday even though the previous Government, of whom I was proud to be a member, constantly sought to increase the amount of brownfield sites that were being developed.

rose—

I shall give way to the Under-Secretary, but I have a further question. The Minister for Housing and Planning told us yesterday that the previous Government did not do enough. What did he say when he was Labour's Opposition spokesman in the last Parliament, when the Conservative Government designated 60 per cent. of housing to be on brownfield sites? He told "Planning Week" that the proposal to develop 60 per cent. of new houses by 2016 on brownfield sites was a "recipe for disaster". He said that it would create residential densities

"exceeding those during the 1960s and 1970s".

As the Minister is rising to the bait that was foolishly dangled by the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), will she explain just what the then Opposition meant by that?

I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's questions in my winding-up speech. I want to ask him a question now. Does he accept that, in every year of the final 10 years of the previous Government's term of office, there was a net loss of the green belt?

I have already made clear our philosophy on the green belt and how that differs from the Minister's. We sought to protect the green belt, and that is why we introduced the figures for conservation. The Minister is being foolish. Will she explain why the Labour party, when it was in opposition, opposed at every turn the previous Government's efforts to build more houses on brownfield sites?

Is my hon. Friend aware that his fears were confirmed by a comment made as recently 29 April? The Minister for Housing and Planning said that

"in certain cases where it is desirable in terms of urban extension and sustainability, there may be a case for reconsidering green-belt boundaries."—[Official Report, 29 April 1999; Vol. 330, c. 531.]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The posture that the Minister for Housing and Planning now takes brings to mind advice that I heard very early in my career in the House. I was told, "If you can't ride two horses at once, don't join the circus." The Minister is in danger of falling off his horses.

Does my hon. Friend agree that it is quite unprecedented to build on 2,000 acres, as is happening in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley)? That will enable Stevenage to engulf the whole of that part of north Hertfordshire, potentially joining up Stevenage with Hitchin and with Letchworth. Hertfordshire does not want Stevenage to become Stetchworth or Hevenage. We want to preserve what Victoria Glendinning in her book on Hertfordshire described as the web of lanes with villages between. We do not want to lose that; we want to preserve it for the future.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right; we need to look to the future. We are looking for two things from the Minister, and I hope that that is not asking too much in the circumstances. First, we want her to understand what the new housing will mean for the south-east and its residents and how important the issue is. Secondly, we want her to show a willingness to consider alternatives, so that we avoid the environmental catastrophe that is in the making. We have reached the point where we need to consider and debate the alternatives to something that carries profound implications for our constituents.

Those of us in the south-east do not want to see acre after acre of green fields disappearing under concrete year after year. That is the prospect before us and we all have a responsibility to begin a serious and constructive debate on how we can avoid that. To do so is essential for the residents of the south-east and the quality of their lives, to which the green belt is so important, and for the sake of the fragile environment in the south-east. Those of us who represent constituencies in Hertfordshire and the south-east owe nothing less to our constituents.

rose—

Has the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) finished his speech? That was not the peroration that I expected.

I was giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells).

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I want the Minister to understand completely what the issue implies in my constituency. It implies the coalescence of Stansted airport, Bishop's Stortford, Sawbridgeworth and north Harlow to create a massive new city.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. His point adds weight to the submissions that I have already made.

The issue is of importance. The Minister has heard example after example from Conservative Members of the effects that such development will have on our constituencies. We are now looking for a constructive, serious and sensible response from the Government that shows that they are listening and considering the alternatives.

I did not want intervene in the debate, because it is fairly early and south-east Labour Members have not had time to consider their opposition to the plans. We shall get together and discuss the issues.

I apologise for the fact that I was not present for the debate yesterday, but I was incensed by a Friends of the Earth press release which claimed that Labour Members—it named me among them—representing marginal seats in the south-east are under pressure from the Whips to conform and shut up on this issue in case we lose the election. As you know, Madam Speaker, Portsmouth—the part of the country that I represent—is lovely, but it is renowned as the second most densely populated area in Europe.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South—

Portsmouth, North.

The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) is a neighbour of mine, and a hard-working one. If he casts his mind back to the 1960s, he will recall the horrendous proposal to create a Solent city joining Southampton and Portsmouth. Just about every sensible person rejected it, and it was eventually thrown out. Does he share my concern that chapter 12 of the panel's report contains a section on Solent cities, with the very proposal that we threw out all those years ago? Does he share my concern about that, and will he join me in rejecting the proposal?

Of course I share the concern about the possibility of any linking with Southampton, and the earlier remarks suggesting that the result would be a city five times the size of Southampton panicked me even more. I agree with the general concern, and our approach will be restrained and reasonable.

The city of Portsmouth is densely populated. I represent half the city, and there is little space to move. If I wanted to enter this debate to win the election, I would be saying, "Let my people free. We want the houses outside, in the greenbelt area." That would not be in line with Government policy, but for purely electioneering reasons I would be doing the opposite of what Friends of the Earth are claiming. I would be arguing for the right to expand and allow people to live in a reasonable environment.

It is not good for people to live in multi-storey flats, crammed together in council areas, cheek by jowl. The Opposition have not mentioned the alternative yet. If we do not build in the areas that are free to build in, not all the brownfield sites will be able to cope and it will be necessary to cram people into urban areas.

I am speaking in this debate merely to refute the completely false statement by Friends of the Earth that the Whips are restraining me. I do listen to the Whips and I do comply with most of what they say, but if I felt that I needed to change my mind, no Whip would be able to stop me—and my Whip is in the Chamber. I am too long in the tooth to be under pressure to that extent, but I am a loyal Member, and I make my own mind up. There should be another means of refuting the lies that have been perpetrated, printed and circulated.

Labour Members representing the south-east will get together to discuss their opposition to the plan. No doubt, as I am from Portsmouth, my views will differ from those of most of my hon. Friends. However, the debate will continue, and we shall come up with a concise plan. We shall discuss that with Ministers—instead of conducting megaphone diplomacy, as Opposition Members do, and shouting it from the rooftops purely for political gain.

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the request that I initiated to all hon. Members representing the south-east to join together to invite the Government to reject the Crow panel's recommendations. Seventy of the 81 Members of Parliament representing the south-east who are not Labour Members agreed, but not one of the 36 Labour Members of Parliament for the south-east signed up to the letter. Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that the most effective way of putting pressure on the Government is for all Members of Parliament, regardless of party, to unite against this appalling threat to all our constituents in the south-east. Yet not one Labour Member chose to join other colleagues representing south-eastern constituencies. What conclusion are Friends of the Earth and electors in the south-east entitled to draw from that?

I was incensed when I read in a newspaper that I had refused to sign the letter. I do not even recall receiving an invitation. [Interruption.] Conservative Members probably got loads from Conservative central office, but I never received one. I did not know who Crispin Blunt was; I had to look it up. Madam Speaker, it is difficult to accept an invitation if you do not receive it. Proof of postage is not proof of delivery. I could be telling a fib, but I am not. I did not know that I was invited.

What would I have done, had I been invited? I can argue my case, and the people whom I represent want more housing. Conservative Members say, "We signed up to 'Building a World Class Region: an Economic Strategy for the South East', we want to expand our economic development base and we want new industries to come in—but we do not want any more houses!" The fear might be that if more people live in Conservative areas and county areas, more of them might vote, and more might vote Labour or against the Conservatives. They may do so in greater numbers when the new leader comes. Therefore, if the invitation had been received, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) probably would have had an acceptance from me, because I do not worry about going into the lamb's den—I would not call it the lion's den—and I am not frightened of meeting anyone.

The debate has enabled me—not to make any sensible suggestions; you did not expect that, Madam Speaker, because you have been here long enough to know better—to defend my position and to say that Portsmouth, North will be represented at sensible discussions with our Labour colleagues in the south-east to try to encourage our Government to see our view and not to go off half-cock, as the Opposition are doing, as usual.

First I wish to resist, on behalf of Kent, this extraordinary expansion in the numbers of houses required, not least on ground of water provision. How on earth can the Government square their demands that the water companies cut prices—partly, in our area, by postponing the building of new reservoirs—while wishing upon our area a quantity of houses for which there is simply no water provision? That is hardly an example of joined-up government.

My main argument is that, however many houses we eventually have to accept for demographic reasons and so on, we cannot continue to rely on existing planning methods. At the moment, speculative builders are compelled by the planning laws to take each field as it falls vacant—or as they can get hold of it or take it out of their land bank—and bid for as many houses as possible, regardless of local preferences. It is very hard for councils to define the type of house—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I shall take one intervention. I am trying to be brief.

Will the hon. Gentleman explain why planning changes in the 1980s forced developers to take that route, and how the Conservative Government caused many developers to take such a view?

As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, no doubt, I do not feel that we have ever, in this country, got right the business of working out where houses should go and the type of houses that we should build. That is not something to be laid at the feet of any one Government. What is crystal clear is that the Government, who are continuously losing credibility as they try to blame everything on their predecessor, have no serious proposals to make on the issue.

Why, for example, when so many well-off retired people choose to spend their money on sheltered housing of the type that McCarthy and Stone or English Courtyard put up, and when, at the other end of the income range, there is such a huge demand for almshouses that one cannot get into them for love or money, does no one appear to feel that it is necessary to build the type of accommodation for less-well-off people that that demands? If it were properly provided, it would make tremendous savings in social services and other support services. If we want joined-up government, we must think across budgets.

I suspect—I have no idea whether it is true, but we should certainly try to find out—that many in single-parent households, which are partly to blame for the new increase in the number of households, would be a great deal happier in accommodation that has various shared facilities, such as a communal room in which to entertain, than being compelled to live in detached, tiny properties where they feel so isolated that they often get into further difficulties.

Builders sell what they sold the last time. The planning system creates artificial shortages, so there is virtually no choice for purchasers. They buy what is available, to which builders say, "We have sold all that we have built, so it must be what everybody wants." As a result, very little effort is made to break the mould, and many builders still sell houses like those their grandfathers built, except with modern appurtenances such as new kitchens.

I have played a role in the campaign for lifetime homes—the building of new houses that allow for level-entry access, enabling disabled, old or frail people easier use of their homes. I am very pleased to welcome the new planning regulations, which have gone some small way towards that.

Too many people live in absolutely foul homes. Local authorities and housing associations are simply not prepared to do them up because, on some unspecified day in the future, they are to be redeveloped. That means that, for a whole generation, some families live in the kind of house that we would not tolerate for ourselves. We have inspectors for pigsties and hen coops, but, as far as I can see, very ineffective inspection mechanisms for people's houses.

Such problems are partly because no Government—this Government have shown even less interest in doing so than their predecessors—will trust people with resources. The idea of giving them a small amount of money to try to improve their housing environment is tried occasionally in odd places, but when it is deemed a success it is never generalised because, in the end, local authorities do not trust people.

Why are we so totally unimaginative about the provision of granny accommodation? It is extremely difficult for people to extend their houses to provide for their elderly relatives—mainly because of planning laws. Why are we so reluctant, for example, to enable people to erect temporary houses? Modern mobile homes provide admirable accommodation for various elderly people. I have seen such housing work extremely well, yet planning regulations are against it. That is fatal.

Last night, we heard the Government's extraordinary argument that more provision in the south-east will benefit the poor. When carried to the extreme, that suggests that the entire population of the United Kingdom could move to the south-east.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's aim of imposing 250,000 new homes on Kent, while, as he said, the Environment Agency is preventing the expansion of water provision and the water regulator is trying to prevent the extension of reservoirs, is absolute nonsense, and that the Government ought to think again?

My hon. Friend confirms the point with which I started: such an argument is as arid and ridiculous as one can imagine.

The Government's argument is exactly comparable to the Deputy Prime Minister's desire to punish motorists so that they will use public transport: that from a man who has never seen Victoria underground station in the rush hour because he drives around in his ministerial car.

One of the things that I have found distressing since the publication of the Crow report is the lack of a rational debate about housing in the south-east. I found it disturbing that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that the entire United Kingdom population could move to southern England. I seem to recall a former Tory Cabinet Minister saying, "Get on your bike and find a job! Come to the south-east." The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that.

Another argument seems to be that we can beat market forces. I am a little confused when I hear that deployed by Conservative Members, who argue at the same time that market forces cannot be beaten when it comes to jobs or old-style industries in which people could lose employment.

I was under the distinct impression that the House did precisely that on Monday on behalf of a firm in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

I have always argued that we should intervene in the market; it is the Conservative party that has always argued that we should not.

It is important that we get beyond the rhetoric of this debate and yesterday's, and get down to what we want to achieve in the south-east. Reference has been made to the south-east England development agency report. The south-east might be top of the economic activity league table in the United Kingdom, but it is not top of the table in Europe. Over a long period in the early 1990s, we were falling down the table quite rapidly. It is also important to consider the jobs and skills base in the south-east. Then, we may begin to consider housing.

My city has undergone similar growth to Reading, Wokingham and the Berkshire area over the past 30 years, but, because it was planned, and the development corporation and private investors worked together, the city works. We do not have the congestion that is suffered around Reading, Wokingham and Newbury.

The question is one not of providing no more housing or of concreting over everything, but of what is appropriate.

Concrete cows?

I point out to my hon. Friend that the growth of Milton Keynes has resulted in the planting of 22 million trees. There is more green space in the city than in many urban areas. Having planned properly, such space has been built into the city.

If we are to have jobs and provide quality of life, we must have a more rational debate. Just to say no is a fair response, but would result in rising house prices in urban Portsmouth and any other town in the south-east. Demand would still be apparent, but supply scarce. It is a basic law of economics that prices would rise as a result. Conservative Members may not mind that, but I argue that that is how to cause social disruption and chaos. It would not solve the economic issues in the south-east, such as the creation of jobs. In some rural communities, particularly villages, simply saying no leads to people having to move away from their parents and grandparents, losing continuity with their families.

I think that every Conservative Member accepts that there must be some additional housing; the question is how much. These plans are absurd and without precedent. The hon. Gentleman talked of green spaces in Milton Keynes, but does he not realise that the plans will close all green gaps between rural settlements in my constituency and those of many Members on both sides of the House? Local people will not accept that their concerns and wishes are being overridden by the Government—

Order. The hon. Gentleman is making an intervention, not a speech.

I do not know the particulars of the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and I would not dream of commenting on it. However, a blanket decision to build no housing or to build everywhere is the wrong approach.

Before I entered the House, I was chair of the Local Government Association planning committee, and before that, the planning committee of the Association of District Councils. I had to discuss with Conservative Ministers planning guidance notes on behalf of local government. The concerns that have been expressed this morning were not the concerns that we heard from Ministers at that time.

In Castlethorpe, a village in my constituency, the building of an extra dozen houses kept open the local school, pub and shop because there was sufficient economic activity in the village for those facilities to keep going. If you are saying that there should have been no development in that village—

Order. The Chair does not say anything in these debates.

My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If the Opposition are saying that there should be no development, the village would have lost its pub, shop and school, and we would have heard from the Opposition an outcry about the rural economy such as we heard last week. That is a direct result of their blinkered policy and knee-jerk reaction.

What we are saying is that the Government seek to foist 250,000 new homes on Kent, without taking into account the fact that the people living in those homes will require water, sewerage, education and so on. When will the Government join up and bring together the Department for Education and Employment, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and other relevant Departments to make provision before the proposals are put through Parliament?

If the hon. Gentleman is saying that there should be proper planning provision for water, schools and infrastructure, I entirely agree. However, if he is saying that the Serplan figures as presented were not a political fix by the Tory-run county councils in the south-east of England going against their officers' advice and coming to a political conclusion before presenting that report to Government, he is not living in the real world. That is exactly what happened under Serplan. It was a political fix and an attempt by Tory councils in the south-east of England to embarrass the Government. Professor Crow did a good job in exposing the fact that Serplan deliberately distorted the figures in an attempt to provoke an argument with the Government.

Does my hon. Friend agree that before any planning application and during the discussions, one of the bodies consulted is the water authority, which is asked whether it can provide enough water and deal with the sewage for any proposed development? That is the way in which the planning system was set up by the previous Government. If the Opposition now want the water companies to be taken back into public hands, I support that, but the companies' rules clearly state that they must be notified of planning applications.

My hon. Friend makes an important point, contrasting the policies of the previous Conservative Government with the present knee-jerk reaction of the Conservatives in opposition.

In my city there are 750 families in temporary accommodation. Opposition Members say that we should not be dealing with that problem, but they are wrong. In respect of Milton Keynes—I am not speaking of the south-east generally—Professor Crow's report is balanced and offers sensible suggestions regarding the way forward for the Milton Keynes-Bedford triangle.

One of the Opposition's arguments is that the green belt is sacrosanct and should not change. I remind hon. Gentlemen that it was a Labour Government who created the green belt in 1947, opposed by some of the predecessors of the current Opposition. If hon. Gentlemen think that everything in the green belt is a green field, they obviously do not know what the green belt looks like in some areas. If swapping parts of the green belt is beneficial for the local community, and if the local community wants to do so, as has been done—to be fair to the previous Government, they allowed that in certain circumstances—that is a reasonable position.

The fact that there will be more green belt as a result of the changes in Stevenage is a positive development. I would argue that the green belt ought to be extended. There is no green belt round my city, but the concept of linear parks has been devised, which did more than a green belt would have done. The debate must be conducted on a more rational basis. Economic issues should be at the heart of the debate and should be taken more seriously than has been the case hitherto.

The Opposition imply that the Government have already reached a decision on the Crow report. All that has happened is that Tory counties dominating Serplan have put forward proposals, an inspector has sat in public, heard evidence and made a recommendation to the Government, to which they have yet to respond. It is hardly a case of the Government telling councils what to do. The Opposition suggest that the Government will accept every dot and comma in the report, but I should be surprised if they did.

May I suggest to my hon. Friend the Minister that when the Government consider the Crow report as it relates to Milton Keynes, they view it as a sensible way forward? Growth will take place because market forces dictate that—I find it strange that Opposition Members think that they can defeat market forces—and if market forces dictate that growth will occur, it should be sustainable, planned and locally accountable. I hope that the Minister will apply that in respect of Milton Keynes.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on initiating the debate. For the sake of brevity, may I say that I entirely endorse his analysis of the Crow report.

We debated the issue yesterday, and we return to it today. I hope that that sends a clear message to the Government that we will not let the matter drop. I make no apology for returning to it yet again, as it is supremely important to my constituency since the unprecedented approval by the Government for the building of 10,000 houses in the green belt west of Stevenage in my constituency.

That decision will be devastating locally for the environment, and for transport, the resources and facilities of our area, but it is not just an issue of local importance. It affects not just Hitchin or Hertfordshire. It affects the entire country, wherever there is greenbelt land. Planning proceeds by precedent. If the decision is allowed to go ahead, it will be cited as a precedent elsewhere.

Throughout my 16 years in Parliament, there has been pressure on the green belt in the area that I represent. I have appeared at public inquiries whenever proposals have come forward, and we have seen every one off. Not a single acre has been lost to house building from greenbelt land in my area. However, this decision creates the biggest-ever precedent of which I am aware for building in the green belt. By approving it, the Deputy Prime Minister has driven a coach and horses—perhaps I should say two Jags and all their horsepower—through the sanctity of the green belt. Unless his decision is reversed or restricted, it will be quoted in every constituency where there is greenbelt land.

I want to warn hon. Members that those pressures will be accentuated because of the Crow report. The Government must reject it, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

I will give way to the soon-to-depart Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White). His speech will not go down well with people in his area.

If my getting here was unlikely, my return will disappoint the right hon. Gentleman even more. He said that the Government have already made a decision on the report and then he asked them to reject it. When did the Government agree the Crow report?

I was referring to the Government's approval of a planning decision for 10,000 houses on greenbelt land in my constituency.

The Government should reject the Crow report. It is strange that they refused to do so yesterday, and we shall see whether they refuse to do so today. The report is contrary to their policy of rejecting the predict-and-provide approach. It is strange that they do not reject it, because it conflicts with Lord Rogers's urban task force, which the Government set up, and with the will of the vast majority of people.

When I first took the Deputy Prime Minister to task for approving the decision to build up to 10,000 houses in my constituency, he justified his approval by alleging that there was local democratic support. That was nonsense. It had been steamrollered through the county council by the Lib-Lab coalition, which had an overall majority of one. The council knew that it could not count on that majority because some of its members, rightly, were prepared to rebel on the issue. The standing orders were changed and the matter was put through a sub-committee where there was a majority. The council undemocratically refused to let the matter come before the full council. That decision was steamrollered through with the approval of only 14 out of 72 members on the council in Hertfordshire. It was never democratic.

Since the Deputy Prime Minister cited democracy as his reason for giving approval, the Conservatives have regained control of Hertfordshire, not least because of that issue. The Conservatives have also regained control of North Hertfordshire district council by a thumping majority, also because of that issue.

There is massive public disapproval of building on the green belt. There is massive public concern about the Crow report. The Government should reject it, and do so rapidly. They should at least return to the already very high projections that were being worked on before. If they do not, they will find that many Labour Members, who are not present today, who refused to sign the letter asking the Government to reject the Crow report, will not be back here after the next election.

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing this important debate. When the news of the Crow report was released in Hampshire, there was genuine shock and concern among my constituents and constituencies across the entire Hampshire region. It was one of the few times since I became a Member of Parliament that my telephone began to ring quickly after an announcement. It is because of that shock and concern that I am disappointed with the quality of the debate last night and this morning. We appear to be listening to a history lesson on party politics about who said what and how much greenbelt or brownbelt land has been built on. Some speeches have tried to blame a certain party for this development.

I can say categorically that my constituents and others in the south-east do not want this to be turned into a cheap party political issue. They want to see a way forward to solve some of the difficulties that we all face in our areas as Members of Parliament.

I want to thank the Gentleman because, when this issue broke, he was the first person to contact me. I appreciated that because he wanted to talk constructively about the way ahead. The hon. Gentleman is trying to keep this out of the political arena and work constructively.

Hon. Members may laugh, but, among Hampshire Members, there has been cross-party support, Tory and Labour. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) has responded to a letter from me to take part in this debate. I appreciate the fact that, across Hampshire, we have managed to keep politics out of this issue. That must be the way forward if we are to serve our constituents properly.

Hampshire Members are concerned that, over a couple of years, Hampshire has gone through a process of battling with the difficult figures that have been imposed on us. We have just agreed on a figure of 56,000 homes for the Hampshire area. That took considerable manipulation of public opinion. It was difficult to persuade people that that figure could be accepted—most of the community were, like me, against it. Therefore, one can imagine the horror when, having agreed on 56,000, we are told one week later that the figure for Hampshire should be 169,000, making it the highest figure of all the south-east counties.

Does the hon. Gentleman reject the collective nimbyism of the Conservative party? If so, does he accept, as the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs does, the robustness of the figures showing the need for additional housing over the next 20 years? Does he also accept that if we do not build that housing, people will go without?

People need housing in the south-east and I do not take a nimby approach, but I am concerned about the public's confusion.

We hear some encouraging noises from the Government. We hear that they do not want to build on greenfield land, that they want to protect the countryside, reduce traffic growth, encourage bottom-up planning and address the difference of the balance of growth between the regions. They also want to try to end the policy of predict and provide. The public hear those announcements and are encouraged, but the report from Professor Crow contradicts all that. It is no wonder that the public feel confused and let down by their politicians.

The Government's response to the report presents the Deputy Prime Minister with the first opportunity to demonstrate that he means some of the rhetoric. I hope that, when the Government respond—perhaps the Minister will do so this morning—they will show that the language that they have used will be matched by their response to the document.

The biggest area in which the Crow report is out of sync with moving Government opinion is on the whole issue of predict and provide. We know that predict and provide is a hit-and-miss approach to housing. We know that if the figures are wrong and there is building on greenfield land, it can no longer go back to being greenfield land. It is a dangerous approach, which we reject. However, some individuals argue that such housing would be a good thing for the south-east. We are seeing the development of some organisations that are arguing that the south-east should be the powerhouse of Europe, that it should be in the top 10 regions of Europe and that we should be moving forward and making it dynamic region.

I do not want the south-east to be one of the top 10 regions in Europe if the price for that is ruining our countryside, clogging up our roads even more and making our schools too full. That is not the approach we want. Of course we want economic advantages in the south-east, but quality of life is a much more important principle than some of the economic gains. If the price of that is building new houses, I reject that approach.

We should also be looking at a balance of economic gain among the regions. Pushing the south-east forward in the way that is being suggested by some of the housing figures and documents I have read is not the right way forward. We need to balance the north-south divide. I am sure that hon. Members who represent seats in the midlands and the north would welcome some urban regeneration and progress in their areas.

Even if we believed that we needed these housing numbers in the future, in reality, what we would get would not meet demand. In the future, we will need more homes for single and elderly people. A great deal of demographic evidence suggests that that is correct. The Crow report is a green light to developers to build four and five-bedroom executive homes on greenfield sites with no infrastructure next to them. That is not where our new homes and our future population need to be.

In the Whiteley area of my constituency, I have seen what can go wrong when greenfield sites are suddenly covered with such executive homes. There is a development of nice homes in Whiteley, but no community. There are no postboxes or telephone boxes, no bus routes through the development and no community centre. The local schools cannot take the children who live in that development, and there is pressure on the GPs in the area. There is disquiet about traffic problems, because there is chaos day in, day out from traffic trying to get into the area. Those problems were caused because the planning was ill thought through. Homes are built on green fields without the infrastructure being put in place.

One problem is that the type of housing to be built is not a planning consideration. Social housing should be a planning consideration, so that the authority can dictate what type of housing should be built in a particular area.

The hon. Gentleman is right. We should find ways of building more affordable homes in the south-east.

If we are to avoid the Whiteleys and the big greenfield developments that do not work, we must provide more affordable housing. We should build more housing in villages, so that our youngsters can stay there. We need housing to ensure that young professional couples on fairly small salaries can afford to live in those communities. In Winchester, the price of housing is phenomenal and out of all proportion. We must have much more affordable housing in the future.

Will the Minister please consider the report carefully? This is not a party political issue: it is about what the south-east needs. The report will not deliver the homes that we need in the south-east. We need a more creative solution, and I hope that the Government will consider that carefully.

I should like to follow the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) by giving practical examples of where the planning process is going wrong and where it will go further wrong. In the villages of Beltinge and Broomfield in Herne Bay in my constituency, planning applications have been submitted for hundreds of houses. No consideration has properly been given to the fact that there is insufficient water and primary health care provision, that the junior schools in Herne Bay are bursting at the seams, and that the secondary school is over-subscribed and the children have to travel out of the town past their nearest school to another school to obtain their education.

The Environment Agency, for its own ludicrous reasons, is trying to prevent Mid Kent Water from extending a reservoir. The water regulator, under pressure from the Government, is trying to cut the investment by Mid Kent Water in capital projects by a massive 40 per cent. Southern Water, which is responsible for the disposal of sewage in the area, is also having its capital expenditure cut. The Government have cut their contribution to Kent county council's funds, leaving less money for investment in education, while the council is having to find £5 million to subsidise asylum seekers under a programme that the Government have failed to get to grips with. That is not joined-up government.

Crow proposes to impose 250,000 homes on the county of Kent with no consideration of how water, sewage services, medical care or education will be provided. Unless and until this joined-up Government can do joined-up writing and read joined-up writing, this project will be an absolute disaster. I urge the Government to review and reject the Crow report.

It was said earlier that the previous Government had rigged Serplan to reduce the number of houses. Let me tell the Minister and her Back-Bench colleagues that I and others fought furiously the then Minister, our former colleague Robert Jones, when he tried to impose even those figures on the south-east. The current proposal is not a step too far, it is a mile and a half too far and it cannot go ahead.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that the proposal for 1.1 million new houses in the south-east over the next 20 years, including 150,000 extra houses under the latest plans in my county of Essex, is environmental vandalism and is unacceptable because of the strains that it would place on the infrastructure. Soulless communities would emerge from such a mass of housing in my county.

If these plans were to go ahead, Essex would have to provide more than 150,000 extra homes. That is 7,500 extra homes a year, which is equivalent to 62 square miles of land in Essex. Under the existing structure plan for 1996–2011, Essex was expecting to build 78,600 new homes. Under the current proposals, as upgraded by the Crow report, there would be a 43 per cent. increase in those projections. Similarly, under the structure plan proposals, 12,000 houses were expected to be built on greenfield sites. Under the latest projections, 46,000 houses would concrete over greenfield sites in Essex.

Mid-Essex would be expected to take a disproportionate amount of the housing for the county. Villages such as Boreham, which is about four miles from the outskirts of Chelmsford, would become a suburb of Chelmsford because of the 11,000 homes that would be built in the north-east of the town. The whole of the A12 corridor would have to be built on to meet those targets. That is wrong and unacceptable, and the infrastructure could not cope. Soulless new housing estates would be built, and that would lead to acts of vandalism through mindless boredom because of the sheer numbers. I urge the Government to reject the report.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing a debate on this subject. His constituency marches with mine. It is not possible to read speeches into the record, but I should like Hansard to repeat my hon. Friend's speech under my name, deleting Hertsmere and replacing it with South-West Hertfordshire, because I have the same problems as he has. The idea of covering 28 sq km of Hertfordshire in concrete is unacceptable.

My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) sent a good letter to two-Jags, our Deputy Prime Minister, complaining about what was happening under Serplan and Crow. Some Liberal Democrats signed it, because they know a good thing when they see it. Despite the brave words of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), no Labour Member signed it.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) has explained the change of balance and control in Hertfordshire. The Liberal Democrats supported the Labour party in the county. In Hemel Hempstead, which was an impossible seat for the Conservatives to win as it was a strong Labour seat, this was the No. 1 issue and a Conservative councillor was elected. In a perverse way, I welcome these proposals, because the Labour gains in the general election will melt like snow at the next election.

I can read into the record the comments made by practically everyone connected with planning. They condemn what is going on, except the House-Builders Federation, which of course is in favour of it. The chairman of the environment committee in my council, Jane Pitman, said:

"I am absolutely stunned. The figure is an early Christmas present to the developers."

I have had letters from my two councils warmly praising the stand that we are taking against these developments.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) made the point that there is no provision for water, schools, health care and sewerage. The hon. Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) is wrong. The water companies have a legal obligation to supply water to houses, and they cannot block that.

I detect a political spin. The Government produced figures to Serplan from a smoke-filled room and there was a huge outcry. What have they done? They have got a tame professor and an appointed panel, and have come up with an even larger figure. In the fullness of time, the Government will reject Crow and everyone will say, "What a reasonable, kind Government to go back to Serplan"—go back to a plan that will create a new town next to my right hon. Friend's constituency.

I do not believe that these proposals will wash. They will not work. It will mean electoral gains for us, but will be a disaster for South-West Hertfordshire.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on securing the debate. He was, as always, assiduous in presenting the concerns of his constituents. I also welcome the Minister to her relatively new job. This is her second outing on the subject of the debate in as many days, and I assure her that it will not be her last.

I note in passing that the Minister does not have the benefit of the presence of the Minister for Housing and Planning beside her today. No doubt he is tied up, if not with affairs of state, at least with the campaign of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) for the post of mayor of London.

Next year, draft regional planning guidance will be published, and then there will be a period of consultation. Would it not be sensible if, during that period, the new Minister visited the counties concerned as part of the consultation, and heard at first hand the concerns of local people about the impact of the proposals on counties such as Oxfordshire?

I agree. I think that Ministers, including the Deputy Prime Minister, should make their own contribution to breaking down the north-south divide in this regard.

One of the casualties of the reshuffle in which the Minister was promoted was the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale). Like the Deputy Prime Minister, Conservative Members regret his passing. Now there was a Minister who knew all about development on the green belt.

Yesterday, the Minister ploughed through her script, refusing to take interventions and ducking many of the questions raised by my hon. Friends. Today, as luck would have it, she has the opportunity to put that right. Yesterday, she spent an inordinate amount of time attacking the record of previous Conservative Governments; I hope that, today, she will tell us about the future.

When it comes to the environment, Labour Members say one thing and do another. They used reassuring words before the election about protecting our environment, but, in office, the reality is very different. Halfway through this Parliament, it is plain for all to see that two key policies are failing: Labour's regional policy, and its policy to encourage more new development on recycled or brownfield land.

Labour set up an urban task force chaired by the eminent Lord Rogers, which reported with some 105 recommendations. At the last count, the Government had implemented only one, and that only on a pilot basis. Lord Rogers also had some uncomfortable things to say about the current direction of Government policy. The task force concluded that the Government had no prospect of achieving even their own target of 60 per cent. new development on brownfield sites on the basis of existing policies. That, it thought, could be achieved only through a shift of the regional balance of wealth and opportunity to regenerate the towns and cities of the north and the midlands. This is the first recorded example of a Government being sunk by its own task force.

Professor Crow's report, of which we have heard a great deal this morning, makes it clear that the target for new housing on recycled land is to be reduced from 60 to 50 per cent.

This is also a tale of two Britains. It is, to say the least, ironic that, last week, the eight regional developments agencies delivered their 10-year blueprints to the Deputy Prime Minister against a background of growing turmoil over the Government's plans for massive new house building in the south-east and elsewhere. In my so-called region of the south-east, the RDA has come up with a range of proposals to make the south-east "a world-class region" and one of the top 10 in Europe. No doubt that will be welcomed in the pockets of relative lack of prosperity in the south-east, but what does it mean for parts of the south-east that are already in danger of economic overheating, let alone those in less fortunate parts of the country which were hoping that the Government's policies would help them to catch up? Whatever happened to joined-up government?

Now, in very short order, we have seen two dramatic developments: the publication of Professor Crow's panel report, and the leaked report from the Government's performance and innovation unit. The latter is very worrying, because it advocates a loosening of planning controls on development on farm land, stating that

"the presumption within national policy against development of best and most versatile land should be removed".

We have heard a great deal about the conclusions of the Crow panel about the alleged need for 1.1 million more homes in the south-east before 2016.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Crow proposals are wholly unrealistic? The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) articulated the concerns of all of us who represent Hampshire constituencies. During the 1990s, an average of 5,800 dwellings a year have been built in Hampshire, including the cities of Portsmouth and Southampton, and, if the Crow requirements are to be met, 8,500 will need to be built per annum. That is simply not attainable.

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The suggestion that there should be a 64 per cent. increase in the south-east over and above even the projections of Serplan is quite barmy—the equivalent, as we have heard, of five cities the size of Southampton. As the Council for the Protection of Rural England has pointed out, the Crow report puts more than 430 sq km of rural land—an area larger than the Isle of Wight—under the threat of urban sprawl.

The Conservative Opposition have spoken against housing on greenfield sites. Do the same arguments apply to commercial development on such sites?

There are major considerations relating to new commercial development on greenfield sites, but this debate is primarily about housing.

The debate casts a penetrating spotlight on the accelerating migration from north to south in our country. As I have said, this is a tale of two Britains with an ever-widening gulf between them, and of Ministers who are apparently unwilling or powerless to reverse the trend—but reverse it we must, unless countless acres of green field are to be concreted over for ever. That is why we are proposing a different planning regime in areas that are already prosperous, and whose infrastructure is under pressure. The aim is to relieve pressure on those areas, while encouraging regeneration and economic development in other areas so that the brightest and the best will not move south, but will stay where they are to make their own contribution to that regeneration and development.

Here we have two flagship Government policies that are in crisis—that are clearly failing. The results are potentially catastrophic. We have heard today of the likely effects on a number of constituencies. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere described the problems faced by Hertfordshire, and many others representing constituencies in the area have made similar points. We have also heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and from South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page), and we heard a powerful speech from my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), who mentioned the 10,000 new homes planned for his area.

My hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) both asked where these new homes are supposed to go. How is an infrastructure that is often already strained to bursting point supposed to cope? What is to be done about roads, schools, hospitals and natural resources such as water? The Government's policy makes a mockery of sustainable development.

Nor are these concerns limited to Conservative Members. A letter signed by nearly 70 Members representing constituencies in the south-east, organised by my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) and delivered to the Deputy Prime Minister last Friday, bears the signatures of Liberal Democrats as well as Conservatives. Sadly, it does not bear the name of a single Labour Member. Do Labour Members not care about the likely effects on their constituents in areas such as Crawley and Milton Keynes, or are they too cowed by their Whips?

Some, however, are made of sterner stuff—for instance, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who, referring to plans to build more housing near Newcastle, said in February last year:

"I put it to my right hon. Friend that that sort of madness is deeply ingrained and must be stopped rather than merely discouraged."—[Official Report, 3 February 1998; Vol. 305, c. 826.]

Let us hope that the hon. Gentleman's translation to being a Minister in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will bring some sense to bear on the Government's policies.

In yesterday's debate, the Minister for Housing and Planning was pressed more than once to disown the panel's report. He refused. Indeed, he rather ominously went on to claim that densities in the south-east were the lowest in the country. In an earlier debate, he accepted that there would be more encroachment on to the green belt. Are Ministers preparing a way for the massive new development foreshadowed by the report? Why are Ministers so determined not to disown it? Why can they not welcome the common-sense approach advocated by us—in short, a common-sense revolution in planning?

We say that decisions on local planning should be made in and by local communities that are affected by those decisions, with minimum interference from Ministers and civil servants. The Government say that they no longer believe in predict and provide, but they cling to housing figures that are being dictated from on high.

It comes to this. The evidence is overwhelming. The Government seem prepared to preside over a bricks-and-mortar invasion of the south-east to allow the concreting-over of vast swathes of our countryside, destroying some ancient and picturesque communities. How can we reach any other conclusion when Ministers refuse to disown the panel report's conclusions? I call on the Minister to come clean on the Government's attitude to the report and to take the opportunity to declare that it is wrong-headed, dangerous and wholly unacceptable in a democratic society. Will she grasp that opportunity now?

I congratulate the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) on his choice of subject for the Adjournment debate. I listened carefully to the tone of his speech. It is sad that he was badly let down by the speech of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson), the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, which cut across a reasonable effort—which I was prepared to try to rise to—to begin to have a sensible and constructive debate about the issue.

Housing in the south-east has been, and will remain for some time, a source of intense interest. That is absolutely right. People are worried about the effects of unconstrained house building. Several Members have voiced their concerns about the effects that it might have on different communities.

The hon. Member for Hertsmere made a plea that, in my response, I would demonstrate an understanding of those concerns and a willingness to approach the matter with full seriousness before the Government give their response. I am happy to give him those two assurances, but I make a plea to Opposition Members: they should recognise that serious and extensive consideration of the complex issues involved is needed, and that they should not resort to knee-jerk reactions, in the way that many have.

I am grateful to the Minister for saying that she is listening, but I also asked her to look at the alternatives. I specifically invited her to look at the common-sense alternatives that have been suggested by the Conservative Front-Bench team. May I gently give her the following warning? If the Government do not do that, they will face a wave of anger in the south-east that is even bigger than the wave of anger coming from the rural communities.

We will consider what the panel report says and say what we think about it. That will include other options.

Will the Minister give way?

No. I will make a little progress and then I will be pleased to give way.

I outline why my plea for serious consideration of the issues is important. The debate on housing in the south-east illustrates the potential conflicts that we all seek to resolve. The south-east needs jobs. It needs to be competitive in the international economy. I am surprised to hear that the Liberal Democrats do not want the south-east to be among the top 10 European regions. We should not pull down the shutters and tell firms to go elsewhere. The south-east supports London—

Will the Minister give way?

I will carry on for a moment and make my point. The hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity.

The south-east supports London, one of the few world cities of immense financial importance. The combined pull of London and the south-east ensures that the United Kingdom stays attractive to international investors. It is all in the melting pot in the debate on the south-east—jobs, housing, regional imbalances, international competitive, the strength of the UK economy. It is a big picture.

Therefore, we need to continue to attract high-value enterprises and employment to the region. Employees will need decent homes to live in. Employers need to know that they will be able to attract good-quality workers who can live in the area in which they work. Although we will increasingly support efforts to bring the economic attractiveness and capacity of other regions up to those of the south-east, we must not allow ourselves to constrain the south-east to the extent that it fails to realise its economic potential for the UK as a whole.

rose—

rose—

I give way initially to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten).

I make it clear that the Liberal Democrats of course support economic vibrancy in the south-east, but not if the price is housing on green fields, clogged-up roads and infrastructure that cannot cope with that development.

The record will show that the hon. Gentleman said that, if the price was too high, he would not want the south-east to be one of the top 10 European regions. That is a serious matter for the Liberal Democrats.

The Minister has accused Opposition Members, and I include the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), of a knee-jerk reaction. That is not so. The Serplan proposals have been debated for years. There has been careful consideration of all the factors that she has mentioned and now Professor Crow has come along and thrown the whole thing into turmoil—the whole south-east is in turmoil as a result of that man. It is incumbent on the Government to say that they will swiftly consider—

Order. That intervention is far too long.

I will deal with that matter when I come to it in my speech.

We need to recognise that people in the south-east will also suffer if we do not provide housing. House prices will rise and poorer members of communities will be squeezed out. The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) alluded to the social problems that can occur.

At the same time, we are conscious of the need to safeguard and enhance the environment of the region. Environmental quality is an important attractor in its own right. There is superb countryside. We want to retain that landscape and biodiversity.

Previous Labour Governments developed the planning system precisely to enable the countryside to be protected and to get away from sprawl. Let us contrast that planned approach with the years of Tory failure. I will not go into that in detail again. We rehearsed it last night and Opposition Members' interventions have taken my time, but they know the record and it stands for anyone to see.

The problem is that, having built inertia to sprawl and car dependence, the Opposition and their local authority members do not like the consequences. The tragedy is that they are trying, Canute like, to stop the drift from towns, hoping that attempting to stop housing developments in the face of housing needs will solve their problem. The Government have set about revising policy to allow more sustainable development—sustainable in environmental, economic and social terms.

We are revising planning guidance. We have introduced the new deal for transport, the urban task force—

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) approached the Chair and stated that I had been unfair to him because I had shortened his intervention. It is my duty to ensure that interventions are short. The occupant of the Chair is even handed with every hon. Member, no matter which part of the House in which they sit. I put that on the record. I certainly do not wish hon. Members to come to the Chair and to tell me what my duties are and what my job should be.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will not take up the time of the Minister because I know that she has to respond to the debate. I will refer the matter to you privately afterwards, if I may. I apologise if I have—

That is not a point of order. If the hon. Gentleman has any worries or concerns about my conduct in the Chair, he should take the matter up with Madam Speaker.

It is unfortunate, given the manner in which I was prepared to approach the debate, that the antics of Opposition Members have severely curtailed my time and that I cannot make some of the reasoned points that I would have wished to make.

Let us get a couple of things straight about the panel report. The Government did not produce the Serplan report, as the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) contended. The Government did not produce the independent panel report. That report was prepared after an exhaustive examination in public. It sets out its case strongly.

Will the Minister give way?

No, I will not give way to anyone else.

The panel heard the views of different interested parties in the region. It listened carefully to those views and Opposition Members know its conclusions; I will not rehearse them. The Government will respond to Serplan and the panel report when we are ready, which will be as soon as possible. We do not want the matter to drag on and we consider seriously the views of Opposition and Labour Members.

Order. We now come to the next debate.

I am privileged to be able to initiate this important Adjournment debate. First, however, I should like to welcome my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to the Treasury Bench.

In this Session, we have had more debates, early-day motions and parliamentary questions on the subject of wildlife protection than I would even dare to mention now. Nevertheless, I make no apology for returning to the subject again, after making a speech on it in another Adjournment debate, in July, right before the summer recess.

There is enormous interest in the subject because action on it is so urgently needed. Since July, when we last debated the destruction of our wildlife sites, more than 100 sites of special scientific interest have been destroyed. Government statistics show that more than 2,000 sites have been destroyed in the past six years. When a habitat goes, the wildlife living in it declines also.

With such rapid destruction and degradation of our precious wildlife resource, there has been steady growth in public and political support for tough and comprehensive new laws. In August, in a poll conducted by the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, 65 per cent. of people said that they would like the Government to change the law, to give greater legal protection to wildlife. Additionally, 35 environmental and conservation groups—representing more than 6 million people—are now united in their desire for urgent environmental legislation. Furthermore, an unprecedented 351 hon. Members, from across the political spectrum, have signed early-day motion 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), showing their support for the passage of such laws.

With such clamour for wildlife protection, the Government's document, "SSSIs: the Government's framework for action", which was published in August, was most welcome. I am pleased that it was a Labour Government who, within a short time of being elected, consulted on the issue and produced such a document. Finally, we have a Government who have acknowledged that something needs to be done on the issue.

With such support, and the Government's document, there is now a very real chance of seeing wildlife legislation in this month's Queen's Speech. Many hon. Members, and millions of ordinary members of the public, will be watching and waiting for that to happen. However, they will be watching not only for legislation, but for tough comprehensive legislation.

Let us be clear about it: the opportunity to legislate on wildlife does not come along every day, and we have an opportunity to get it right. If we do not get the legislation right on this occasion, by the time we get another chance to try, in perhaps five or 10 years, we shall have lost many, if not all, of the sites that we are seeking to protect. If the legislation is not comprehensive, sites such as Thorne and Hatfield moors in my constituency will—to use rather unparliamentary language—have had it.

I welcome the framework document, but it is neither sufficiently tough nor sufficiently comprehensive. It contains, for example, no mention of measures to protect species outside SSSIs or at sea. It does not contain a legal presumption against development affecting SSSIs; nor does it mention an issue that is at the forefront of my constituents' minds—lowland raised peat bogs being cut up by an American multinational, bagged up and sold cheaply to gardeners to sprinkle in their pots. The word peat is not mentioned once in the document.

As I told the House in July, Thorne and Hatfield moors are part of the United Kingdom's remaining 6 per cent. of peat bogs—94 per cent. of which have been lost. Thorne and Hatfield moors are one of the United Kingdom's most vulnerable habitats. The moors comprise England's largest raised peat bog, and are home to 3,000 insects and 800 flowering plants. They are also vital to birds. I have a postcard from Helen Kirk—from the Thorne and Hatfield Moors Conservation Forum—showing a European nightjar, which is a summer visitor to Britain. The moors are internationally important to the survival of that species.

Such a location should be guarded as a national treasure, yet it is being plundered for its peat by a multinational organisation. Thorne and Hatfield moors are SSSIs. However, their old mineral permissions—granted in 1951, when much peat extraction was still done by hand—could not have anticipated the wholesale destruction that industrialised peat extraction would wreak.

Companies such as Fisons and Levington's, and now Scotts, have turned large parts of Hatfield moors into nothing more than a lunar landscape. The site is unrecognisable as an area that was once, 4,000 years ago, an integral part of a vast wetland stretching from the Humber estuary. Earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment described it as an intolerable situation. Yet, sadly, the situation would remain the same under any legislation based on the framework for action, as that document gives no indication of how the Government propose to move forward on the issue. Friends of the Earth estimates that there are still mineral permissions on more than 400 sites. We cannot ignore the issue.

The Government must seriously examine peat extraction, and conclude that it is not sustainable. Peat extraction is not economically significant to South Yorkshire. I have campaigned hard with my colleagues in Doncaster on regeneration, to create growth and jobs. I have also not made friends with some of the environmental groups, because I want Finningly air base to be transformed into a regional airport. However, that development will be on a developed-land site.

I am also working hard to discover how we can make the most of South Yorkshire's tourism opportunities. If we have enough vision, the number of jobs in that sector could be increased by opening the area to a major tourist attraction that visitors not only from Britain, but from around the world would like to visit.

In South Yorkshire, we are also working hard to embrace the information technologies and environmental technologies of the future. Our strength and opportunities for growth lie in those sectors, because of the nature of our area. Yorkshire has sound economic alternatives to peat extraction. Moreover, gardeners have sound horticultural alternatives to peat use.

Britain's gardeners will need persuading on those alternatives, and it is time for some of our current crop of celebrity gardeners to take a stand on the issue for the better. Geoff Hamilton—who was long the voice of gardening on the BBC—was totally opposed to using peat in gardens. We have to ensure that celebrity gardeners take their responsibility seriously. They have to accept that they have some responsibility for gardening's growing popularity—which, in recent years, has led to a fourfold increase in peat use. It does not help that gardening centres sell bags of peat for considerably less than they sell alternative materials.

I shall give an example of contradictions in the current SSSI arrangements, and explain the Natura 2000 proposals. Natura 2000 is a new status for areas of European conservation significance awarded under the habitats or birds directives, and could be part of the future of Thorne and Hatfield moors. However, in its infinite wisdom, English Nature—which, in 1997, proposed removing SSSI status from large parts of Thorne and Hatfield moors—has blundered again.

In 1997, English Nature's rationale for removing the moors' SSSI status was that parts of them had been worked for peat extraction; hence, the vegetation had been stripped, hence—in English Nature's logic—the moors were no longer either special or significant. I am pleased to tell the House that, with the help of my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, English Nature bowed to public pressure demanding that Thorne and Hatfield moors be treated as an integral, whole and interdependent ecosystem that needed restoration and protection in law, not further destruction.

We hear now that, rather than submitting Thorne and Hatfield moors for Natura 2000 status, English Nature has redrawn the boundary to exclude the worked parts of Hatfield moors. Therefore, the provision to review the planning licences on the Natura 2000 site will not include the area currently being ravaged by Scotts. Consequently, we have a chicken and egg scenario, in which an entire area is covered by SSSI designation, but continued peat extraction is undermining the opportunity to take advantage of other environmental protection legislation to protect the entire moorland as one entity.

Once again, English Nature is playing politics with conservation boundaries. The action is driven not by science, but by a weak-willed desire to reconcile opposites. In so doing, English Nature has once again left a huge hole in the protective cloak that could have shrouded those precious wetlands.

The point of the Natura 2000 project was to confer millennial status. It demanded a look forward to the needs of wetlands 50 years ahead, not the nightmare creations of 50 years ago. I am afraid and disappointed that, by leaving out large sections of Hatfield moors, it is giving up on the moors. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on that.

I seek reassurances that the worked areas should be included in the review of planning licences. Not including them will make a significant statement about how the areas are viewed.

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. Does she agree that, although the protection of SSSIs is a necessary precondition for the long-term improvement of the preservation of wildlife in this country, it is not the only thing that needs to be done? Does she agree that in any future wildlife legislation the importance of local nature reserves needs to be recognised? I should like to tell her about two important local reserves in my constituency, the Summerseat nature reserve and the Chesham woods area, both of which are managed by the Lancashire wildlife—

Order. That intervention was far too long.

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. As a constituency Member, my concern is about peat lands, but I am fully aware that others have constituency concerns relating to areas that are missing in the framework document. Local nature reserves, which involve local people and local communities, are an important part of sustainability and ensuring a future for valuable sites as we enter the next millennium.

It will take more than Alan, Charlie and Tommy to do a "Ground Force" makeover on Hatfield moor if it endures another five years of destruction. Until recently, the accepted wisdom was that were the Government to modify old minerals permissions, they would have to compensate the extractors on a profits forgone basis. That may be why the framework document did not address the issue.

However, there are two obvious problems with that approach. First, compensation payments would require an enormous commitment from the taxpayer, possibly millions of pounds per site. Secondly, paying such compensation would send out the wrong message about the public interest in the conservation of such sites. Why should the British taxpayer compensate an American multinational for not destroying one of our best wildlife habitats at Thorne and Hatfield moors? We would not compensate them not to demolish St. Paul's cathedral, so why compensate them for not destroying a peat bog?

In June this year, Friends of the Earth obtained legal advice stating that the Government could pay compensation that recognises only costs involved, not profits lost. That was based on the premise that any such action would manifestly be acting in the public interest. What consideration has been given to that legal opinion, which represents a good way to protect a precious site that is being destroyed relentlessly in the name of a quick buck?

I should also like an assurance from my hon. Friend the Minister that the Government are predisposed against peat extraction. It is not like coal, which served our industry well since the industrial revolution, or aggregates, which are needed for roads and buildings. We can live without peat for horticultural use. There is no partnership to be established, no common objectives, no business development that will not ruin the unique raised mires of Thorne and Hatfield moors.

One of the many letters that I have had from constituents on the issue was from Mark Paine, a local health care professional. He said:

"For those of us that live around here and are privileged to know the Moors, the sight of our peat being taken away and sold as 'compost' to unwitting gardeners bamboozled by marketing spin cuts very deep indeed. Thorne and Hatfield Moors are places whose very existence in scientific terms truly contributes to the health of our environment, and therefore our ability to sustain healthy lives of our own."

Peat wetlands are the UK equivalent of tropical rainforests: precious, under siege, irreplaceable. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to take a hard look at Thorne and Hatfield moors and to listen to the concerns of my colleagues this morning about other aspects of the framework document. Please do not ignore the plight of that beleaguered SSSI site.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing a further debate on SSSIs. I hope that these debates—as she said, we have had several in the past six months—will act as a spur to the Government and will not be seen as a substitute for Government action. Protecting SSSIs adequately becomes ever more vital as each day passes. Every day, an SSSI is destroyed or damaged.

Last week, English Nature published its annual report, which showed that one third of all sites of special scientific interest are suffering continuing damage and neglect. Last year, 8,300 acres of SSSI land were actively damaged. Rob Cooke, the manager of English Nature's SSSI project, says:

"What has emerged is that 28 per cent. of the natural features of our SSSIs are in poor condition and either getting worse or not getting any better."

He continued:

"Indications are that about a third of England's SSSI area of just over two and a half million acres comes into that category".

That is the equivalent of 750,000 acres.

The report picks out Whernside in North Yorkshire, where more than half of a 9,500 acre site of bog and heathland has been devastated by overgrazing. English Nature thinks that it could be restored with the right management, but there is no legislation to ensure that. One site—Horse Field in Gilling, North Yorkshire—has been destroyed.

To prevent any further sites being totally destroyed, we need legislation in the next Queen's Speech. Baroness Young, the chairperson of English Nature, agrees. She has said:

"Changes of legislation are urgently needed to ensure that these irreplaceable sites are properly managed for their wildlife and natural features."

She went on:

"Most of these SSSIs are suffering from neglect, but without the powers to ensure that these sites are managed for wildlife, English Nature is trying to work with one hand tied behind its back. It is frustrating because many of these sites could be improved by positive management, funded through English Nature's wildlife enhancement scheme. When we cannot achieve this management through partnership"—

this is the important point—

"we need to have additional powers to ensure that damage and neglect of these sites can be tackled."

Landowners also recognise that. In response to the Government's consultation, they have said that although

"deliberate damage was rare, where it occurred there should be appropriate means of dealing with it."

Species are suffering—not just the familiar, often mentioned ones such as the dormouse and the water vole, but others such as the black redstart, one of Britain's rarest birds. The recent loss of sites in London along the Thames to development has destroyed the breeding grounds of birds, despite their being recognised in the planning process as important wildlife areas. Sadly, some of the new developments have been stimulated by the building of the millennium dome. Perhaps that is not quite the right signal for the new millennium.

English Nature is not the only organisation to back further wildlife legislation. The Wildlife and Countryside Link—which brings together 22 environmental groups—is calling for legislation. As we have heard in previous debates, nearly 350 Members of Parliament have called for legislation and signed an early-day motion tabled by the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper). It seems that everybody is urging the forces of conservatism forward. Before the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) jumps up, we are talking about the forces of conservatism with a small "c".

Before the election, Labour promised greater protection for wildlife. That pledge is still in the Government's annual report, on page 79. Next to it are the words "on course". A consultation paper was issued in September 1998. Those words are of little help to sites such as Offham down or Rainham marsh, which have been damaged since May 1997, despite Labour's pledge. They are also of little help to the 11 wildflower meadows in Devon which The Daily Telegraph reported last month have been largely destroyed. For them, Labour's pledge of "greater protection for wildlife" is very much off course.

When the Government publish their next annual report, the words "on course" next to greater protection for wildlife will not be good enough; we have to see the word "done" instead. To deliver that pre-election pledge, the Government will have to legislate, and legislate well.

I wish to highlight a few issues surrounding the framework for action document. Liberal Democrats join others in welcoming what is in the paper. In legislation, such measures would go a long way towards delivering the Government's pledge, but not all the way. There are some significant omissions, some of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Don Valley. Given the difficulty in obtaining parliamentary time for such a Bill, we must make sure that we get it right first time. We cannot afford to be less than comprehensive, and then have to wait 20 years for another legislative slot.

There must be reform of the common agricultural policy, with a greater focus on positive environmental management and organic production. That must be better financial support for the management of SSSIs. This is particularly important given the state of agriculture, often described as being in crisis and often debated in this House. We need also to ensure not only that we give the powers to the new conservation agencies to protect wildlife, but that they use those powers. Government guidance and support must be strong to ensure that that happens.

We need to make sure that legislation protects not just SSSIs but other valuable wildlife sites as well. The London Wildlife Trust has told me that many rare orchids, butterflies and birds could thrive in churchyards and cemeteries across the capital if only they were given the chance. The same could apply to Wilderness island and Roundshaw downs in my constituency.

Does not it follow that, in any future legislation, the powers, responsibilities and budgets of the county wildlife trusts need to be enhanced so that they can encourage biodiversity in the urban settings that the hon. Gentleman is describing?

That is the case, and resources are important.

As the hon. Member for Don Valley has said, we need to protect species in our seas and coastal areas. For whales, dolphins and porpoises around the UK the situation is far from satisfactory, and those animals are threatened by ever-faster boats and jet skis. They are not adequately protected by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and I understand that the position will be no better under the proposed legislation. The Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society has raised the matter with the Government, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure hon. Members.

I hope that I and other hon. Members will have demonstrated that the case for legislation is clear and becomes more pressing as each day passes and another SSSI is damaged or destroyed. The Government will have the support of the whole House if they announce such a measure in the Queen's Speech this autumn. I urge them to do so, and to ensure that legislation is robust and comprehensive enough to stand the test of time.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this important debate on sites of special scientific interest. None of us should apologise for the frequency with which we bring these matters to the House.

For many SSSIs, it is already five minutes to midnight and, for others, sadly, the bells have tolled—they have gone. In years to come, we must not hear my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley asking, "Where have all the peat bogs gone? Gone to plant pots every one". That is the risk we face.

SSSIs are, without doubt, the very best examples of our natural heritage. The importance of their plants, animals or geological and physiographical features has led to those areas receiving the SSSI designation from English Nature. The 4,000 or so such sites cover 1 million hectares in England—4,000 precious and valued square miles.

Historically, a good deal of my constituency has been economically dependent on mineral extraction—including coal, clay, sand, roadstone and gravel. That era is steadily drawing to a close, and we are now restoring the tranches of derelict land in a variety of ways, prominent among which is the rapidly developing national forest—a remarkably successful project.

Former mining areas, such as my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley, have been environmentally scarred for generations. Our landscape and wildlife have not been seen traditionally as our strengths. We particularly value the relatively few SSSIs that we have, and we are especially sensitive about any damage to or loss of such sites.

As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) suggested, it has been estimated by English Nature that, nationally, 28 per cent. of SSSI aspects— those features of interest for which a site is nationally important—are in an unfavourable condition. There is either no sign of recovery, or they are declining even further. That should give us all great concern. Tighter legislation is essential to ensure that all SSSIs are managed so as to maintain to a high standard their particular features of interest.

We recognise that changing the legislative framework is not sufficient on its own to obtain the necessary improvements. We need a new policy direction, refined regulations and, above all, adequate resources. To obtain better management of SSSIs requires us to work in partnership with their owners and managers.

It is crucial to have the right mix of regulation and incentive to ensure that the major present benefits obtained by partnership working with land managers and owners are maintained. While many SSSIs are positively managed with the active help, goodwill and co-operation of their owners and occupiers, I regret to say that a substantial number are not.

It is time for the Government to legislate to deal with those cases. The present legal framework is unable to deal with SSSI damage arising from certain circumstances—for instance, third parties can badly damage SSSIs, or the sites can simply be neglected, with a consequent loss or decline of many species and habitats.

A major threat to SSSIs often arises when the owner or occupier activates an ancient planning permission which the modern planning framework would never have sanctioned. Owners and occupiers can, after giving notice, carry out damaging activities, preventable only if English Nature produces a management agreement with financial compensation for lost profits.

My hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley pointed to the dramatic weaknesses in that approach, and it is a costly diversion of resources from active nature conservation. In addition, particular difficulties occur on approximately 500 wetland SSSIs which depend on satisfactory management of the water tables on adjoining land. Many such sites are suffering from water pollution or abstraction problems. It is clearly essential to ensure that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food implements water level management plans on land adjoining SSSIs which will maintain the particularly valued feature of the sites.

There is no current requirement for the owners or occupiers of SSSIs to carry out that management which is necessary to maintain the key points of interest of the sites in question—a problem often of benign neglect. A positive management order—analogous to the order served upon the owners of listed buildings—has been suggested by some as a solution to the problem. Such an order would require owners to carry out the work themselves, or enable English Nature to do so and to recover the cost from the owner.

English Nature has publicly stated its belief that such orders would not be workable for SSSIs, since it would be hard to carry out practical management activities—many of which would be ongoing commitments—without the active co-operation of the owner or occupier concerned.

Will the Minister comment on the potential for a different type of positive management order, whereby English Nature could specify, through a site management statement, the work necessary to maintain the scientific interest of the SSSI? If the owner's agreement cannot be obtained, even with appropriate assistance from organisations such as the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency, English Nature's council should be empowered to serve a positive management order requiring that the work be completed.

An appeal against the terms of such an order could be made to the Secretary of State by the owner. If the order was confirmed, the owner or occupier would have the choice of completing the works within an agreed time scale, with financial support from English Nature, or agreeing to voluntary sale of the land to English Nature or an approved conservation body. If the owner refused both those alternatives, compulsory purchase proceedings would be initiated, with an appeal process through the planning inquiry system and confirmation by the Secretary of State.

The attractions of that approach are that the same process of appeal could be used to resolve refusals to allow operations likely to damage the scientific interest of the SSSI and that such a system could eventually replace the present order under section 29 of the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981.

There is a pressing need to reform the common agricultural policy so that payments are focused to deliver positive benefits for SSSIs and to discourage the intensive agricultural practices that have the most damaging effect on wildlife. Production subsidies should be redirected to protecting and managing special sites and the countryside, converting to organic farming or creating jobs in rural areas; direct subsidies to farmers should be conditional on sustainable farming, with protections for hedgerows, rivers and streams; and payments to beef farmers should be made under discretionary powers from the European Union to support traditional, low intensity herds, so as to maintain conservation grasslands.

I make a plea from the heart for much tougher planning guidance so that far higher hurdles must be surmounted before any developments on SSSIs are sanctioned. We should also consider revocation of old mineral extraction permissions that could damage SSSIs.

Those of us with constituencies that have suffered a great deal of despoliation are especially alert to threats to our SSSIs. When I reviewed the condition assessments and management prospects for 16 sites in my area, I found that of the 53 features of interest a bare 30 per cent. were in a favourable condition, compared with 56 per cent. nationally; 26 per cent. were in an unfavourable condition, but showing signs of recovery; and the remaining 44 per cent. were in an unsatisfactory condition, compared with 28 per cent. nationally. It was that high proportion of local sites suffering from benign neglect that prompted me to contribute to this debate.

A typical example concerns the SSSIs in Grace Dieu and High Sharpley: very attractive, important and valued areas just outside the urban fringe of Coalville. Parts of the areas have some public access and parts are closed by their owners to "protect the SSSIs"; yet an assessment of the sites shows that two thirds of their features are in an unfavourable condition that is not improving. Clearly, restriction of public access has not led to adequate protection for those important and sensitive sites. More has to be done.

Like every Labour candidate, especially those contesting rural or part-rural seats, I campaigned vigorously on environmental issues in the long run-up to the 1997 general election. Labour's policies, enabling the countryside to become ecologically richer, more varied and more accessible were, and are, especially popular. Those policies include our commitment to strengthening protection for SSSIs and other valuable habitats.

Like every Labour Member, I welcomed the announcement earlier this year by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment that he would deliver on that commitment by amending the 1981 Act, and I was encouraged by the Government's public consultation paper, "SSSIs—Better Protection and Management". There is strong cross-party support for better wildlife protection. Many hon. Members are signatories to early-day motion 11.

It is clear that the statutory conservation agencies need new powers and resources to tackle the worsening problems facing almost a third of SSSIs. There is an urgent need to act, and it would be popular, so what better time than two weeks from today, what better setting than the other place and what better means than the Queen's Speech? I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the necessary powers and resources are made available very soon to prevent yet more deterioration of our national natural assets.

Oscar Wilde said that

• "each man kills the thing he loves,
• By each let this be heard,
• Some do it with a bitter look,
• Some with a flattering word,
• The coward does it with a kiss,
• The brave man with a sword!"

Is not our nation at risk of allowing some of the things that we most love—SSSIs—to be killed by a method not mentioned by Wilde: benign neglect by their owners or occupiers? Is not it about time that we were brave enough to step in and prevent that?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this timely debate and I welcome many of her comments.

The subject of new Government action to protect our best wildlife sites has been debated several times this Session in both Houses, and an unprecedented number of hon. Members of all parties have given their support to early-day motion 11, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) last November. I wish that they were all here today for what is perhaps our last chance to debate this issue before the Queen's Speech.

We are nearing the end of this Session and all of us here today are optimistic that the next Session will see the introduction of new and far-reaching legislation to protect our wildlife. If so, the task will then be to ensure that it is as comprehensive as possible, because there is unlikely to be another major opportunity in the foreseeable future. Some, indeed many, matters may be dealt with by other means than primary legislation—by regulations and other policy measures to benefit the condition of wildlife—but stronger legislation is essential. We cannot allow the present rate of damage and destruction of sites and loss of species to continue.

There was widespread welcome last August when the Government published their response to the consultation on sites of special scientific interest, known as the framework for action. It includes many vital proposals, such as nationally important status for all SSSIs; a duty on all public bodies to secure positive management of sites that they own or occupy; powers of entry to land for agencies such as English Nature for the purposes of surveying and monitoring and to determine whether an offence has been committed; court power to order restoration following damage; court power to impose unlimited fines; and the extension of local authority powers to refuse development on designated sites.

The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions—especial thanks are due to my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State and the Minister for the Environment—has worked hard with a wide spectrum of interested groups to try to ensure that we get things right in the new legislation.

I am especially delighted that water companies have been asked to include in their business plans from next year measures to deal with the damaging effects of effluents and water abstraction, especially because the demand for water is likely to increase with the projected growth in the number of households; because my constituency is in an area of important rivers and wetland sites, including the Nene and Ouse washes; and because there is evidence that the three counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire and Northamptonshire have less wildlife per hectare than almost anywhere else in the country.

I was very glad to read in the framework that the Government recognise the need to provide adequate funding to underpin other wildlife protection measures. We know that many of the problems affecting wildlife habitats today, and SSSIs in particular, are not due to direct destruction—wilful vandalism—by development, as happened in the past. Most public bodies, landowners and farmers do not set out deliberately to damage the sites that they own or manage. The damage is more often a result of neglect, which may in turn be a result of special agricultural practices, and is often related to inadequate or inappropriate funding mechanisms.

Landowners are, and most regard themselves as, the rightful stewards of the countryside, and they need support for that role, such as financial incentives—carrots, not just sticks. There should be much more support for what are called agri-environment initiatives, including subsidies such as that for countryside stewardship, which is very popular with farmers although there is not enough money to meet the demand. I say that with the Minister listening. At present, only 3 per cent. of CAP money is spent on such schemes. The Wildlife and Countryside Link, with which I have been proud to work in recent months, reckons that figure should be 30 per cent., which would provide scope for major environmental improvements.

It should be rewarding for farmers to spend their time conserving our wildlife in the interests of us all. In any case, we cannot achieve conservation without the active involvement, support and engagement of farmers. We need copper-bottomed legislation, but we need the right incentives and funding, too.

The otherwise excellent framework document has a serious omission—as serious as that of mineral extractions highlighted at the beginning of the debate. I am especially concerned that, as the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) said, no proposals have yet been made to protect marine mammals, such as whales, dolphins and porpoises, from harassment. The seas around the United Kingdom are home to more than 20 different species of cetaceans, as those animals are collectively known.

Research conducted by the Whale and Dolphin Conservation Society, of which we have heard today, has shown that cetaceans are threatened by accidental capture in fishing nets, chemical pollution, noise pollution and other disturbance by vessels of their habitat. Some of that, ironically, may be due to the great interest in and affection for those animals felt by many of us humans. They are known to be highly intelligent, they have often appeared to reciprocate our interest and they do not pose any threat to us. In consequence, there has been a great interest in boat-based whale and dolphin watching in recent years, and I am convinced that that requires some form of regulation with a statutory underpinning, if we are not to end up damaging or destroying the subjects of our admiration through our neglect and thoughtlessness.

Less forgivably, increasing evidence is emerging of deliberate harassment of cetaceans, especially dolphins, in coastal waters. The Sunday Times has highlighted the campaign against the use of jet skis to chase dolphins. The riders of the jet skis may mean to chase the dolphins, but not mean to hurt them. Many people think that dolphins can swim fast enough or dive deep enough to escape the vessels chasing them, but jet skis can travel at speeds of up to 70 mph whereas a dolphin's top speed is about 35 mph and it cannot keep that up for long. Also, dolphins are of course mammals and therefore have to come up to the surface to breathe every few minutes. They are especially vulnerable when they have young calves with them.

Several measures are urgently needed to provide effective protection for cetaceans in UK waters. First, powers of enforcement should be extended. At present, powers are held only by the police, but most of the offences against marine species are—not surprisingly—committed at sea where there are no police. It therefore seems common sense to give similar powers to other agencies which can enforce the provisions of existing and any new wildlife legislation. Secondly, sanctions should be increased. We need effective deterrents—sticks as well as carrots—including powers to bring prosecutions, powers of arrest and penalties for offenders.

Thirdly, the concept of recklessness should be more widely introduced into wildlife law, as in the Protection of Badgers Act 1992 which was introduced by the previous Administration. As I have said, most people do not wish or intend to harm dolphins and whales, whether they go on trips to watch them or even if they chase them on jet skis. Perhaps most people, if they understood the serious risk of harmful consequences of such actions, would stop them.

Under UK law, a person is reckless if he or she commits an act which to an ordinary prudent individual would appear to involve an obvious and serious risk, whether it is because they are thoughtless, or, having recognised the risk, they carry on regardless. I believe that where a nature conservation agency has notified that an action is likely to harm a protected species, failure to act on that information should give rise to an offence of recklessness. Therefore, what we must do here in Parliament is to amend the existing legal protection in order to make it an offence intentionally or recklessly to disturb protected species of animals, including all cetaceans. An alternative approach would be to provide more specifically to make it an offence to harass any cetacean, combining that again with the concept of recklessness.

The Government plan a marine review, and I welcome that, but the need to protect the wonderful creatures that we are so fortunate to have in the seas around our islands is urgent and I believe that we should use the opportunity provided by a new wildlife Bill—which I desperately hope to see included in the Queen's Speech—to address that urgent need.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on introducing this debate. Unfortunately, we should point out that almost all Opposition Members have failed to turn up, let alone contribute this morning. The SSSIs are important to every constituency, and I would have thought that a better attendance from Opposition Members would have ensured a good debate.

Order. I wish to make it clear to the hon. Gentleman that this is an Adjournment debate and the only people who must be present are the occupant of the Chair, the Minister and the hon. Lady who initiated the debate. It is not necessary for any other hon. Member to be present.

I am sure that you would agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is desirable for hon. Members to consider SSSIs and the future of wildlife in this country. The SSSIs are one of the most important factors in the protection of the countryside and wildlife, but, in the past 18 years, we have seen developers encroaching on them. That will always continue, because the greed for a little bit more will always exist. The feeling is that development on an extra small piece of land will not make any difference, but protection is needed against such encroachment.

A new challenge for the new millennium should be to provide solid, reliable protection for SSSIs and wildlife for the future. If such protection needs a new name, let it have a new name. We should seriously consider how we write such protection in stone, so that it cannot be nibbled away at the edges. It should also be easier for SSSIs to be listed, because we have already heard of how small pieces of land, whether in cities, towns or rural areas, may not fit into the category of SSSIs. The definition should not be so strict or regulated, and any piece of land should be included as long as it is worthy of protection. We should make it easier for people to obtain designations for land, and the protection that listing as SSSI gives should be afforded to all our constituencies, no matter how large or small the piece of land concerned. The main point is that a site should be worthy.

In addition, we must recognise that wildlife in the countryside needs protection. The best way to provide that is through a national rangers agency. The question of resources is always important, but those rangers could look after SSSIs and country parks. By linking up with the national parks, they could offer true protection.

I am lucky in having part of the West Pennine moors in my constituency. That beautiful area is owned by North West Water, which itself is now part of United Utilities. There is nothing wrong with the arrangement: the company spends money on rangers and on ensuring that there is protection for wildlife.

More than a million people a year want to visit the part of the moor that is in my constituency. I do not want to tell those people that they cannot go there, as I think everyone ought to be able to share that beautiful countryside. However, what will happen if a French or American company snaps up United Utilities? We will then have to rely for that area's protection on an overseas company that does not understand the requirements of the countryside.

That is why I believe that the area would benefit from being declared an SSSI. We failed to achieve that in the past, but we could lose the protection afforded by the present owners overnight. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider new ways to protect for future generations the countryside and the rural wildlife habitat that we love.

It is easy to look backwards, but we should look to the future and to the provision of further protection for the countryside. Extra funding will be needed. Farmers throughout the country are having a really tough time. However, given that no alternative funding for wildlife protection is available outside the assisted areas, farmers in those areas could be hired as part-time rangers. That alternative income would mean that they would not have to rely entirely on farming, as they would be employed to protect our countryside, wildlife habitats and SSSIs. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider how such a scheme might be implemented, by his and other Departments.

I am sure that in every constituency there is at least one application for a licence for commercial exploitation—for the extraction of minerals or of peat, for example—to which the first response is always to say no. I recognise that roads and houses have to be built, but no new licences should be granted unless a genuine need exists, and unless existing licences are taken into account.

A licence application has been submitted for a huge sand extraction facility at the village of Euxton in my constituency. However, the sand from a similar facility not far away is being stored because no one wants to buy it. The real value lies, not with the minerals extracted from such sites, but with the resulting hole in the ground, which can be filled with household or industrial waste.

Licence applications for mineral extractions should be refused if similar facilities exist within a 25-mile radius. Companies should be told that they cannot attempt to get a hole in the ground through that means. Existing licences should have to be shared, and the resources involved should have to be exhausted before new licences are granted. That would be a clear indication of the Government's determination to protect the countryside, and it would reassure the villagers of Euxton that those who want to make a quick, cheap pound out of a hole in the ground will not succeed.

I know that the Government will not fail the people of this country, or SSSIs, or wildlife. Unlike the previous Conservative Government, the Labour Government will be able to go into the next general election with their head held high.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing this morning's debate. I apologise that I was not here for its start, but I could not change a commitment of long standing. However, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute a few comments.

The events of a couple of years ago at Offham down, at Lewes near my constituency, first made me aware of the vulnerability of sites of special scientific interest. The farmer there decided to plough up an SSSI on his land, to take advantage of the common agricultural policy's financial subsidy scheme. Who could blame him? However, local people decided that his action was not right, and turned out in force to replace the soil as soon as the farmer's plough turned it. Eventually, action was taken to restore that site.

That brought home to me just how vulnerable SSSIs are. I know that the Government intend to introduce legislation to protect them—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, and other Ministers, have told me so. It is merely a matter of when such legislation will be brought in.

About a year ago, I introduced my Wildlife Bill into the House. Like most other private Members' Bills, it did not get very far, but it received a heartening level of support among hon. Members. For example, 349 hon. Members have now signed early-day motion 11, supporting my Bill and the wildlife charter proposed by a number of relevant organisations.

Moreover, the provisions that I have suggested and about which we have heard this morning also have support across the country. Earlier this year, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) and I delivered to Downing street a quarter of a million signatures collected from people who wanted to urge the Government and Parliament to introduce stronger wildlife protection legislation.

We have heard this morning about some of the omissions from the Government's framework for action document. I welcome that document, which contains many of the elements that I included in my Bill. However, the Government have not made a commitment on the matter of marine protection, which my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) mentioned. There should be a greater emphasis on local wildlife sites, and more attention needs to be paid to the vulnerable land around the SSSIs.

Many habitats will disappear if action is not taken now. At present, 28 per cent. of SSSIs are in a state of neglect, and many of the species familiar in our countryside will not survive for future generations to enjoy. Given the present system of agricultural subsidies, we need to offer financial incentives for the good management of the sites. We need carrots as well as sticks.

Other hon. Members may not agree, but I do not consider that there is a contradiction between campaigning for wider access to the countryside and for environmental protection. I have previously mentioned the beautifully named Drencher bottom, Well bottom and Big bottom on the south downs. They are not areas of special scientific interest, but they are of interest to anyone concerned with wildlife. Those areas have suffered intense neglect which was discovered, I fear, only when some local ramblers trespassed, as they should not have done. I urge the Minister to be sympathetic to the calls made to him this morning. I hope that the Queen's Speech will include the required legislation.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on securing the debate, and I welcome the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to his new role. He will have realised that many of us are veterans of these Wednesday morning discussions of sites of special scientific interest, of which there have been many during the past few months. He may have to clear his diary on Wednesday mornings for many months to come as they are a regular feature. I welcome the Minister not least because the sight of him at the Dispatch Box after what he will agree has been one of the more tortuous journeys up the greasy pole gives hope to us all. I am delighted to see him make it.

Like many hon. Members, I hope that we are moving towards legislation. Last time we debated SSSIs, in July, the Minister for the Environment had been on the "Today" programme campaigning for legislative time. I, like others, understand that he has been successful in that, and I certainly hope that he has. The delay in taking steps to protect SSSIs and other areas of great wildlife value has been damaging.

Other hon. Members have given figures this morning, and the Minister will know that about 300 SSSIs are being damaged every year. Half of them are in unfavourable condition, and many suffer from neglect. This century, 134 species are known to have become extinct, and the rate of extinction is about three species every two years. SSSIs should obviously be used to protect our most endangered species, and the importance of early legislation is clear.

The hon. Member for Don Valley said that she hoped for early action, drawing a contrast with the previous Government. I should gently remind her that the previous attempt to deal with the problems was the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, which was introduced during the second full Session of the Conservative Government, who saw the matter as an urgent one.

That Act, which was enacted by the Conservatives, has done nothing to stop peat extraction on the site to which I have referred and on which damage continues. The very problem that I am seeking to address is the failure of previous legislation to control peat extraction, and ultimately to put an end to it.

We all accept that the 1981 Act, which updated previous legislation from the 1940s, needs itself to be updated. But the Government's framework document says that the new proposals would not wholly replace the relevant provisions of the 1981 Act. There is a tendency to say that that Act did no good at all, but that is not so.

I hope that the Government will end the damaging delay of the past two years or so. A feeling has got about that the Government always want to be green tomorrow, but not quite today. I hope that we have finally reached the stage when they will fulfil their promises.

Having said that, the Opposition agree on the ends of any new legislation affecting improvement to SSSIs. I have several questions for the Minister, and some concerns about the scope and practicalities of any Bill. First, on the scope of the Bill, the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) has mentioned access, which is an area of legitimate concern. The Minister will be aware of the dangers of including access provisions in the legislation. They would make a Bill more controversial, which would be likely to delay its passage, and that would be regrettable. Any proposal to extend access must not pose a threat to wildlife; most walkers and ramblers behave responsibly, but the Minister will acknowledge that it takes only one irresponsible person to damage a habitat, possibly irreversibly. I hope that such concerns will be uppermost in his mind as he prepares the Bill.

The Wildlife Trusts have made a number of good points on access, saying that a

"distinction must be made between access on foot for quiet enjoyment and access for other recreational pursuits that are more disruptive to wildlife".

The trusts add:

"Agencies should have the power to close (permanently or temporarily) areas or close or divert rights of way, if…access is having a significant affect on the wildlife or habitat."

The trusts also make the good point that there

"should be wide-ranging consultation before access to other areas of open country are agreed."

Those are sensible proposals, and it would be interesting to hear how the Minister's thinking is developing on that important aspect of any legislation.

Other bodies have raised concerns about whether access on open land will be linear only or more wide ranging. What practical measures will be taken on the control of dogs? That is a matter of great concern both to those who own farm animals and to those concerned about such issues as ground-nesting birds, because decisions on the control of dogs have the potential for directly damaging SSSIs, which would undermine the many good intentions of the Government's framework for action.

My second area of concern is the balance between partnership and enforcement. I welcome the framework's words about the Government's preference for voluntary agreements where possible. However, enforcement powers will clearly and necessarily be taken, and it would be useful to hear more details about those powers or the principles that will underlie them. When would they apply? What powers of entry on to land does the Minister envisage? How should they be enforced? The Minister will accept that the long-term management of SSSIs and other land benefits from a positive relationship between regulatory bodies and landowners. That is the best way in which to have land managed sensitively in the long term.

The right of appeal mentioned in the Government's proposals also raises some questions. The appeal would be to the Secretary of State, but when a dispute arises between a public body that reports to the Secretary of State and a private individual, the individual may not feel that justice has been served. Have the Government considered any alternative way in which to resolve disputes?

My next area of concern is funding. The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) mentioned that matter, and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has said that the

"nature conservation agencies do not currently have enough funds to deliver the proposals"

that the Government have made. The RSPB estimates that

"£20 million is required for this in England alone"

but adds that that sum is

"insignificant when compared to the agriculture subsidies which have often led to the demise of many sites in the first place."

Can the Minister tell us whether the resource implications have been thought through?

A significant role in the protection of wildlife—specifically SSSIs—is played by existing agri-environment schemes such as the countryside stewardship scheme. It would be interesting to know whether any expansion was envisaged for those schemes, which have proved so useful.

The next subject of anxiety lies outside the SSSIs—I refer especially to the land that adjoins them. That land should not be developed unsympathetically. The Minister will know of examples of planning developments near a protected SSSI that render it much less useful. I refer the Minister to our previous debate this morning about development in the south-east, and to yesterday's debate about greenfield sites. Many Labour Members, especially the hon. Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson), welcome more development on green fields in the south-east of England because they believe that the new houses are likely to be occupied by Labour voters. I hope that the Minister will deprecate the environmental vandalism that some of his hon. Friends seem to advocate, which would adversely affect SSSIs. The argument about green fields in the south-east and in the rest of the country will continue. It has a direct bearing on this debate.

The framework for action may not provide sufficient protection for areas of outstanding natural beauty and locally designated protection zones, which were mentioned earlier. The World Wide Fund for Nature claimed that the framework did not constitute a way forward either by providing a legal basis for the biodiversity action plan or by helping the marine environment, which the hon. Member for Peterborough mentioned.

Let us consider the Natura 2000 sites. The Government have been told that they have not done well enough and their list has been sent back. The World Wide Fund for Nature believes that there should be up to 1,000 special areas of conservation under the Natura 2000 programme. Why have the Government proposed so few sites, which would be a great addition to the web of support that we can provide for wildlife and general species protection?

I am worried that the framework ignores the role of the common agricultural policy, which other hon. Members have mentioned. Any discussion must take place against the background of the current CAP's failure to pass many sensible environmental tests. The way in which land is farmed is probably the most important influence on the future environmental health of the land and the species that live on it. Agricultural practices are supremely important. The Berlin negotiations on the future of the CAP failed in many ways: they did not help the consumer or the farmer. They also failed the environment.

The CAP must move—albeit gradually—towards a different sort of subsidy. Subsidising production alone is an out-of-date concept. It distorts the market for food and is out of date because it fails to protect the environment. I suspect that we shall have to continue to subsidise those who look after the land for the foreseeable future, but the largely urban public would be much happier to pay taxes to subsidise farmers to buy environmental goods rather than simply to subsidise production. That point did not come across in Berlin, and I hope that the Government will address it in future CAP negotiations.

The Opposition will welcome sensible proposals; a wide consensus will support sensible and practical moves to protect wildlife. As long as the Government stick to sensible and practical policies, we shall not try to obstruct or delay legislation. I hope that legislation based on the framework will hold to those principles.

I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) for initiating a good debate, to which Members on both sides of the House made thoughtful and positive contributions. People of all political persuasions are concerned about SSSIs; the extent of the support for the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) shows the strength of feeling in the House.

I shall do my best to address as many as possible of the points that were made in the debate. As is often the case in such debates, I must hastily edit my contribution. Therefore, I am unlikely to reach all the points that were raised. I shall respond in writing when necessary.

The Government have a good story to tell about SSSIs and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley for the opportunity to relate it. I shall deal briefly with the points that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) made. The hon. Gentleman asked about the scope of the Bill. This is not the place to go into detail or to discuss the right to roam. However, any threats to SSSIs do not tend to come from ramblers.

The hon. Gentleman also asked about the balance between partnership and enforcement. I agree that that is a delicate matter and that it is preferable, when possible, to have a positive relationship with the owners of the site. However, any policy must include enforcement powers if it is to be taken seriously. We shall consider that carefully.

The hon. Gentleman asked about funding. It always warms my heart to hear an Opposition Member demanding that more public money be spent. The Government have already allocated an extra £6.14 million to English Nature. If we decide to grant more money in due course, we look forward to the Opposition's support. The development of greenfield sites is much debated. It has some relevance to SSSIs, but we cannot consider that this morning.

The debate has focused on the protection of special sites of scientific interest. I understand that emphasis. We need to pay particular attention to the conservation of those important sites that constitute some of our most precious areas for wildlife, harbouring rare or endangered species and providing the habitats where they can flourish. The Government have given priority to drawing up proposals that we believe will provide for better protection and management of SSSIs. They are the 5,000 or so sites in England and Wales that constitute the best areas for nature conservation and have been designated by English Nature and the Countryside Council for Wales as containing nationally important species and habitats.

Many SSSIs are well managed and in good condition, and I pay tribute to those owners and managers who have taken account of the environmental significance of their land, and enjoy a constructive relationship with the conservation agencies. However, we have to recognise that too many special sites are wantonly damaged, and, in many cases, they are not in good health.

English Nature already aims to increase the proportion of sites that are being positively managed for conservation, and to reduce the proportion that are in an unfavourable condition. As I said earlier, we have already provided additional resources to English Nature in the current financial year to assist that work, and we expect long-term benefits. However, we recognise that more needs to be done to encourage that process and provide the best framework in which it can operate. For those reasons, my Department published a consultation paper on sites of special scientific interest last September. It contains significant proposals to help deliver real improvements in England and Wales in the immediate future. Many hon. Members referred to it today. We followed that in August with the statement, to which hon. Members have also referred, that sets the framework for legislative and other action by Government.

On legislation, our proposals have covered a range of options. The sites are diverse, covering a huge range of habitats and special features, and they are subject to a variety of pressures. More than half the sites are in good shape. The problems that we face in perhaps a quarter of those sites are also diverse. We have consistently emphasised that better protection and management must be secured by changing our approach in several areas, including policy, administration, law and finance. However, the framework for action is clear in spelling out the legislative changes that must be made.

Obviously, I do not expect the Minister to reveal what is in the Queen's Speech, but does he expect that, in next year's annual report, the word "done" will appear against commitment 115 which relates to greater protection for wildlife?

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the priority that the Government attach to their programme is a matter for finer minds than mine. They are wrestling with the problem even as I speak. However, the Government take the issues seriously, as I hope to demonstrate if I get the time to do so.

We have proposed new powers for the agencies, the most significant of which will allow them, for the first time, to refuse consent for damaging operations. There would be a right of appeal against refusal, but no expectation that the agency would be obliged to offer compensation for activities for which consent is refused. I believe that that answers some of the points raised by my hon. Friends.

We shall also provide the agencies with new powers to combat neglect and to address management issues, so as to secure the positive management that delivers conservation benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) asked about positive management orders on SSSIs, and our new powers to combat neglect anticipate the procedures that he mentioned, including powers for conservation agencies to draw up objectives for positive management on a site and to make an order requiring action to be carried out, subject to appeal to my Department.

We shall introduce increased penalties for damage to SSSIs, and increased powers to require restoration. We shall also introduce additional powers to deal with third party damage, where greater powers and better enforcement are necessary.

We shall provide the agencies with additional powers of entry to land, and more flexible powers to purchase SSSI land compulsorily, although we envisage that both those provisions would be needed to be used only exceptionally. We shall emphasise the responsibilities of public bodies towards special sites and we shall also propose amending the financial guidelines on management agreements issued under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, to move further away from compensating managers for not damaging sites and towards paying for positive management. That deals with another point that has been raised.

We are absolutely clear that further legislation is needed to underpin partnerships and to provide better means of addressing problems. We have proposed significant new powers for the conservation agencies. However, deliberate damage is rare: what we need to address is neglect and unsympathetic management, which is a bigger problem. Legislation alone will not solve all the problems, and we will be looking for a range of other options to deliver our objectives. The National Assembly for Wales will, in many cases, be responsible for deciding how to proceed in Wales.

The majority of sites remain in agricultural use, so that our overall policies for agriculture, including the development and implementation of agri-environment schemes, remain of fundamental importance. The overall outcome of recent negotiations on common agricultural policy reform, to which the hon. Member for Ashford referred, represents a small step—I shall not make too much of this point—in the right direction. It has potential benefits for the environment generally, and for sites of special scientific interest. The Government have consulted widely on the implementation of optional elements of CAP reform in the United Kingdom, including attaching environmental conditions to subsidy payments, and modulating payments to provide additional savings for a limited number of environmental and structural measures.

A significant number of SSSIs are also in wetland habitats, and are often listed as Ramsar sites of international importance, or they may be affected by issues concerning the quality and availability of water resources. We are fully aware of the public concern over the effects of over-abstraction of water from wetlands. We have asked water companies to include environmental and quality improvement programmes costing around £8 billion in their business plans for the years 2000–05, including measures to deal with the adverse effects of effluent or over-abstraction on 102 SSSIs.

The debate today has also referred to several other matters, including, for example, planning and development. We confirmed in the framework document that we would clarify planning policy guidance to reflect the national importance of sites of special scientific interest, with a strong presumption against development that would significantly affect the sites. The test has already been introduced, in relation to trunk roads, through the transport White Paper. We propose issuing for consultation a revision of planning policy guidance note 9 on nature conservation and planning next spring.

In the short time left to me, I shall deal with the questions of my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley about Thorne and Hatfield. She graphically expressed her concern about several sites, but especially about Thorne and Hatfield moors in her constituency. Let me emphasise that we acknowledge the international importance of the best examples of our peatland resources. They will be included in the Natura 2000 series, through which we deliver our obligations under the European Union's nature conservation directives, or they will be listed as Ramsar sites—wetlands of international significance.

The habitats regulations will also require a review of all extant permissions and consents—including planning permissions that were granted prior to their inclusion in the list of candidate special areas of conservation, or their classification as a special area of protection for birds, under the birds directive. Where the review, which will be carried out by the local planning authority, concludes that the integrity of the site is likely to be adversely affected, the consent will have to be modified or revoked, unless Ministers decide that an imperative reason outweighs the conservation interest.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, because I have a lot more to say about the points in which she is interested. I shall do my best to say as much about them as possible, although I may have to write to her about some matters.

We drew attention to those obligations and associated procedures in our statement of 12 May 1998. Where permission is revoked or modified, there is an entitlement to compensation, and the Government have indicated that they would consider reimbursing the local authority where compensation costs were high. We have sought advice from English Nature on the effect of existing permissions on a number of international sites and are considering that carefully.

Part of Thorne moors is already a candidate special area of conservation and English Nature is giving further consideration to whether it should be listed as a Ramsar wetland. I am also pleased to confirm that, in the last few days, English Nature began consulting owners and occupiers about the classification of parts of Thorne and Hatfield moors as a special protection area for birds. We shall seek to reach an early decision, once consultations are completed and we receive its report. Classification of the site as a special protection area for birds will inevitably lead to a review of the permission under the habitats regulations.

In addition, the Government are urgently considering ways of expediting reviews on candidate special areas of conservation in the light of the continuing delays in the process, to which I have already referred, for drawing up a final list of sites for the Atlantic biogeographical region, of which the United Kingdom forms a part. I cannot say more about that today, but I hope to be able to do so very soon.

I now come to the subject of peat. Wider issues—

Order. I am afraid that the Minister will have to write to his hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on the remaining points. His time is up. We now come to the next debate.

In desperation, I have initiated a debate on orthopaedic out-patient waiting times. I feel able to achieve something for my constituents on many of the topics about which I receive letters, but on this subject, I feel helpless.

In the few years that I have been a Member of Parliament, I have received a stream of letters, telling me of increasingly outrageous waiting times. I do my best—I write to the trust, to the health authority and to the Government—but, every month, the letters keep coming. Therefore, I am grateful for the opportunity that the debate gives me to raise the issue of where the buck stops—with the Minister of State on behalf of the Department of Health.

I start with a brief excerpt from a letter from a general practitioner in Yate in my constituency, who copied to me his letter to the Secretary of State dated 18 October. It reads:

"I have an 81 year old patient who was referred for an Orthopaedic appointment in June 1998…he…heard nothing…We…phoned the hospital who told us that"

the likely date for his

"appointment was April 2000; he will have therefore waited 22 months."

That gentleman will have to wait 22 months to see a consultant, perhaps to be placed on a waiting list. I have written to all the bodies involved. All express concern, but little happens.

I shall cite two cases that show how people on the ground are experiencing these delays. My constituent Mrs. Evans, a civil servant from Chipping Sodbury, now gets around on crutches because of her orthopaedic problems. She would like to stop work because of the pain that she is in, but she has received a letter saying that she will have to wait 78 weeks to see a consultant. She cannot afford to take 78 weeks off work, so she is getting by by working part-time, in pain. She told me that she feels betrayed because she paid national insurance when she could and now, when she needs the system, it is not there.

I told Mrs. Evans—admittedly, with some trepidation—that 78 weeks was a relatively short wait. It did not help her to hear that 104 weeks was the norm, and that 78 weeks seemed a step in the right direction. However, as the chief executive of the relevant trust wrote to me about Mrs. Evans,

"waiting times for orthopaedic outpatient appointments…continue to be unacceptable."

The trust does not deny that. The chief executive was

"delighted that the Trust was able to appoint a 5th orthopaedic consultant",

as a result of which waiting times have come down from 104 to 78 weeks. The chief executive says:

"I…acknowledge that a reduction in waiting times from 104 weeks to 78 is scant comfort for the patient,"

and that there is a health authority problem. She says:

"the area served by Avon Health Authority is under-resourced in terms of orthopaedic surgery".

Ominously, she continues:

"however, there are no resources earmarked for further investment in orthopaedic services, and there are no plans to provide additional capacity for orthopaedic outpatient appointments."

Therefore, waiting times have shortened slightly, but, this summer, the trust chief executive told me that it was a health authority problem, and that there were no plans for extra investment. When we write to the trust, the trust does its best, but says that the health authority is responsible.

Having seen that waiting times were shortening slightly, I was shocked to receive a letter from a constituent, Mrs. Aze, who sent me a letter from the trust, saying that she would have to wait not 78 weeks and not 104 weeks, but between 115 and 125 weeks—nearly two and a half years. Mrs. Aze says:

"I am approaching 70 years of age…my GP…considers that I am in need of an examination in the near future to prevent me from becoming a cripple…It is obscene to send…a letter to a patient who has been referred to you for ACTION",

saying that it will be 125 weeks before she is seen.

Mrs. Aze has found out that it would cost £8,000 to obtain a private operation. She cannot afford that. She has been told that she could get a private consultation to skip the 125-week wait, and then wait for an NHS operation, but the health authority, understandably, does not encourage that because, although it would solve one person's problem, it would not tackle the underlying problem.

Not surprisingly, the Aze family wrote to everyone that they could think of. On 29 October, they wrote to the previous Secretary of State. He did not reply, of course; he passed the letter to the south-west region of the national health service executive. Its parliamentary business officer wrote:

"how sorry I was to read about your wife's wait for an outpatient appointment…The Government sets a standard waiting time of 26 weeks".

We all fell about when we heard that, because it is nothing like the experience of real people. The letter continues:

"clearly North Bristol NHS Trust are not keeping to this target,"—

we had noticed that—

"so I will refer your letter to"

the chief executive of the health authority. For what?

"I will ask her to write to you with an explanation for the delay".

So the constituent writes to the Government, assuming that the Government have a hand in the matter. The Government pass the problem down to the regional branch, and the region says that the trust is not performing and that it will ask the health authority to explain why. Understandably, the constituent feels slightly dissatisfied with that response.

I know that action is being taken. The health authority has set up an investigation into out-patient waiting times, which will take 12 to 18 months to complete. Why is that only now being done? I was elected two and a half years ago, and within weeks was receiving letters saying that out-patient waiting times would be 104 weeks. Why has the subject only now acquired urgency? Why did not the investigation start two years ago?

In August, I received a letter from Avon health authority. We seem to be exchanging many letters on the topic. After telling me about all the money that the Government are putting in, which does not seem to be making much impact, the geographical director of the health authority says:

"monitoring of the service agreement between ourselves and the…Trust shows an under-performance of 2,203 new outpatient attendances. We remain in very close dialogue with the Trust on this issue."

I would like to be a fly on the wall and listen to that dialogue.

However, let us get this straight. The trust says that Avon health authority area is under-resourced in terms of orthopaedics—which is true, given the number of orthopaedic consultants per head of the elderly population. Therefore, the trust says that the authority is part of the problem. The authority says that the trust is under-performing. The Government say, "We will get the health authority to write to you to explain why the trust is not performing".

My plea is, will someone, somewhere, take responsibility for this disgraceful situation? I have been writing these letters for two years, and two years is a fairly typical wait in my authority area to see a consultant. I am impatient for action. My constituents are impatient. That is why I have raised the topic today.

Where do we go from here? What does the future look like? This morning, I spoke at length to the chief executive of North Bristol NHS trust. She tells me that the case of Mrs. Aze has moved on considerably. She tells me that Mrs. Aze was told that she would have to wait between 115 and 125 weeks because she had been referred by her GP to a specialist orthopaedic surgeon; that she has now been placed on the list of the fifth orthopaedic surgeon—who, I understand, is more of a generalist—and that therefore she will wait not 125 weeks, but perhaps 25 weeks. I should like to think that her waiting time has been shortened by 100 weeks as a result of my intervention, but I doubt it. However, that does not change the underlying issue.

In response to my debate, and in response to my publicly raising the issue locally, the health authority still admits that 70 weeks is a typical wait. Although Mrs. Aze was an extreme case of someone who wanted to see a specialist orthopaedic consultant, and although this individual case is nearer resolution than it was, Mrs. Evans and many other people are still no nearer resolution.

What of the future? The new Secretary of State has said that heart and cancer treatment is a priority for him, and of course those issues are vital to people who are affected. Are those new priorities to be funded from a fixed cake?

I know that the Government can tell us about the £21 billion; we can all argue whether that is a meaningful figure. There is money going into the health service, but does the designation of heart disease and cancer priorities mean more money for those specialties, and not less for the rest of the NHS? Or is money to be directed from less glamorous parts towards those high-profile and important concerns? If the latter is so, will orthopaedic waiting times in Avon rise rather than fall? Yes, heart disease and cancer matter, but if funding for them will come from a fixed overall cake, will the unglamorous be left behind?

That is stupid.

The Minister says that that is stupid, but we must be clear whether the Government's declared new priorities are to be funded at the expense of other parts of the NHS, or whether new money, over and above the amount that had already been announced when the new Secretary of State took his post, has been found. If it has not, the less headline-grabbing, glamorous priorities will be left aside.

What do my constituents have in common? What about my 81-year-old constituent about whom the GP from Yate wrote, or Mrs. Aze, who is nearly 70 years old? Are elderly people who need routine operations such as hip operations to be forced to wait for years and, in the words of Mrs. Aze, left to become a cripple?

This debate is about out-patient waiting times in Avon, not just orthopaedic services; there are many more horror stories. I plead with the Minister to spare us from bombardment by a raft of statistics on all the money that is being invested in the NHS. We have heard it all before. My constituents hear it on the television time and again, and write to me asking, "What do these people know?" We are told that waiting times are falling, but I receive letters about 70 or 100-week waits, and about how my constituents must either take a year and a half off work or wait two years at the age of 70 or 80 for treatment. Such matters need urgent attention.

My plea is for the Minister to accept that the buck stops with him. The trust has been investigated several times by the Government and various departments, but its consultants are working their socks off. There is no suggestion that they are not pulling their weight. Indeed, the trust chief executive suggests that some may be working too hard.

When will people waiting for orthopaedic appointments in the Avon health authority have to wait only 26 weeks? Will the Minister please tell us today when he expects the Government's target on orthopaedic out-patient waiting times to be met? Will he accept responsibility for the NHS—not blame the trust or the health authority, but accept that the buck stops with him? Will he ensure that, the next time that someone writes to his Department about such problems, they are not fobbed off and told how concerned the Government are, but how somebody else has been asked to explain? I have no answer for my constituents when they ask why they must wait 100 weeks to see a consultant just to be put on a waiting list. I have no answer; I hope that the Minister does.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing a debate on a subject of great importance to his constituents. I shall cover the Government's overall waiting list policy, and the measures that we are taking nationally to improve patient access to NHS services, and then look at the level of Government investment in both the national health service nationally and the Avon health authority, and the measures that are being taken in Avon to reduce the number of patients who are waiting longer than 13 weeks to see a consultant.

It is important to say at the outset that I recognise, as everybody does, that waiting a long time to see a consultant is distressing and worrying for patients and their families, particularly if people are in pain. That is why we as a Government are committed to tackling out-patient waiting times. As the constituency cases that the hon. Gentleman brought to the attention of the House make clear, Avon health authority has major problems with long out-patient waits in certain specialties. Considerable effort will have to be made to address that problem. In fairness, it is important to emphasise that the extremely long waiting times that he raised are the exception. The average first out-patient appointment waiting time is the same as that in Avon health authority: seven weeks.

Waiting times and lists are a key concern of NHS patients, which we recognise. In modernising the NHS, we are determined to make access to services faster and more convenient. We are committed to reducing both the number of people waiting and the time that they wait. We are working to improve access for all NHS users.

We are also introducing important, special measures for patients for whom rapid access to the NHS is vital, such as those who are suspected of suffering from one of the big killers of modern times—cancer. The new focus on diseases such as cancer and coronary heart disease that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced is within the context of achieving our targets for waiting lists and waiting times. It is not an alternative.

Yes, of course all that we do in the NHS is funded by the resources that we make available to it, including the additional £21 billion investment. However, it is right for us to set our overall aims—as we have very clearly on waiting lists—and, within that, to make clear our targets.

It was disappointing that the hon. Gentleman had nothing to say about the hard work of staff in Avon. As he will know, we have already instituted a two-week wait for patients who are referred urgently with suspected breast cancer. The Avon health community has responded marvellously to the challenge of meeting the breast cancer waiting targets. The whole health community can be proud of the out-patient waiting list. In the first quarter of this year, 100 per cent of patients were seen by a consultant within two weeks when the urgent referral was received from the GP within 24 hours.

The hon. Gentleman would have painted a fairer picture of the work of staff in Avon health community had he referred to that considerable success. The staff are excellent, and I am sure that, when the two-week wait for urgent referrals is extended to cover all cancers next year, Avon will once again be among the leaders in achieving that standard.

We have tackled in-patient waiting lists: the list has fallen by 200,000 over the past year, and is now 69,000 below the level of March 1997. We are on track to achieve our manifesto commitment to reduce waiting lists by 100,000 from the level that we inherited.

This year, we are applying the same determination and good practice to reducing waiting times for out-patients. Last year, NHS trusts saw 175,000 new out-patients. This year, we expect the NHS to see more than a third of a million more new out-patients. That will mean that, in 1990–2000, more than 11 million new out-patients will be seen—for the first time in the history of the NHS.

In September, following a top-level meeting with NHS staff and Health Ministers, the Prime Minister announced a package of measures to tackle out-patient waiting times, including a £30 million boost to out-patient services, tough new monitoring of performance and the extension of the booked admissions programme.

Money from the £30 million waiting lists and times performance fund will go directly to the NHS to help tackle out-patient waiting times. It will allow the NHS to focus on tackling problems locally, providing additional out-patient clinics, employing additional staff and investing in new medical equipment. It will also help to fund sustainable solutions, modernising out-patient services and access to the NHS.

The national patients access team, which this Government established, is in the lead in taking forward such initiatives. It is providing intensive programme management for the booked admissions programme, and runs a visit programme to advise trusts and health authorities on how to reduce waiting lists and times and ensure widespread adoption of best practice. I understand that NPAT visited North Bristol NHS trust and made several suggestions, which the trust is beginning to implement. It is also assisting in the review of orthopaedic services across Avon.

The booked admissions programme is part of the Government's on-going commitment to modernise the health service, to make it more dependable, and to enable the NHS of the future to provide immediate access to dependable health advice, same-day testing and diagnosis, and prompt and convenient access to care and treatment.

We announced the first wave of 24 booked admissions pilot schemes in September 1998, with an investment of £5 million. A further £20 million is being invested this year in a significant expansion of the programme. The Royal United hospital in Bath was one of the hospitals in that first wave, and has received an NHS beacon award for the excellence of its pilot scheme.

In September, the Prime Minister announced a further 60 new pilot sites, taking the total number of people benefiting from the programme to 2 million. Three of those schemes are in Avon—at the Weston Area NHS trust, the North Bristol NHS trust and the Royal United Hospital Bath NHS trust. Since that announcement by the Prime Minister, the programme has been extended to cancer services in order to streamline services and minimise delays for patients with suspected or diagnosed cancer.

Cancer services in Avon, together with those in Somerset and Wiltshire, will benefit from an additional £500,000 to develop a scheme for booked admissions. That will enable patients whom their GP suspects of having cancer to receive the earliest possible appointment with a specialist. It will avoid delays between different treatments and enable care to be carefully co-ordinated.

As I mentioned, to underpin the Government's programme for the modernisation of the NHS, we are spending more than ever before on the health service. The comprehensive spending review provides £17 billion for the NHS in England over the next three years. That is the biggest cash injection in the history of the NHS.

The money is now reaching local health authorities. Avon health authority will this year receive £582.5 million—a cash increase of £36.5 million or 6.69 per cent. That gives Avon the highest level of growth in the south-west region, and includes almost £5 million from the modernisation fund specifically to target waiting lists. In addition, the health authority has received £5.6 million in targeted funding in areas such as staff recruitment and retention, mental health, cancer waiting times and nurse prescribing.

We are not neglecting the fabric of the NHS. As part of the largest capital programme in the history of the NHS, it is forecast that the total capital spend in Avon will be more than £83 million. That includes £2.64 million from the modernisation fund to improve the accident and emergency departments at all the major acute trusts in Avon.

Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the staff of the NHS in Avon, who last year treated 11,331 more elective cases than in the previous year, an increase of 11.9 per cent. They also dealt with a growth in the number of emergency admissions of 3,800 or 4.5 per cent.

However, there is no doubt that Avon's performance in certain specialties is worse than that of the NHS as a whole. I am happy to acknowledge that Health Ministers must take responsibility for what happens in the health service, but, in the delivery of services, there is a huge responsibility on everyone working in the NHS in Avon to work together to tackle the problems and bring the standards in Avon up to the levels achieved in other parts of the country. We will support Avon through the national patients access team, the finance and additional measures that I have set out and the booked admissions programme, but it is the local NHS that must deliver.

As I stated at the start of my speech, the health authority and the trusts recognise that the current position is unsatisfactory. This year, the health authority and trusts have planned to reduce substantially the number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks for an appointment. Although the problem of long waiters is common to all the major hospitals in Avon, it is most marked in the United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust and the North Bristol NHS trust.

I can confirm that in the case of Mrs. Aze, who was sent an appointment date of 125 weeks, her consultant wrote to her GP on 19 October and she will be seen by another consultant with shorter waiting times.

On the position in the key hospitals, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that there has been a new management team at the North Bristol NHS trust since its creation earlier this year. We are looking to the team to provide a clear management lead in tackling the problem of long lists. The trust has already taken various steps to improve the position. Extra staff have been appointed and extra clinics are being established. Additional measures have been and will be taken to reduce the number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks.

I am grateful to the Minister and I do not want to interrupt his flow. I hope that in the remaining four or five minutes, he will address my specific question. When will the target waiting time of 26 weeks for out-patient orthopaedic appointments be hit in Avon? Given all that the Minister has said and all the money that he told us is being put in, he must be confident that that target will be hit soon. When?

There has been a long period of poor service and underinvestment, which has led to the length of waiting lists that the hon. Gentleman described and which I acknowledged. My priority, which must also be the priority for the trusts and those working in them, is to get a grip on the problem and to make sure that waiting times are reduced. I shall set out the measures through which that must be done. We start from a position that is worse than that experienced in the NHS as a whole. People working in the health service in Avon must get a grip on that.

Various measures have been and will be taken to reduce the number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks. For example, an additional two new consultant clinics per week in general surgery have been established at Frenchay hospital, with additional clinics at Southmead hospital.

In orthopaedics, which is of particular concern to the hon. Gentleman, the North Bristol NHS trust has appointed a new consultant and will use money from the performance fund to appoint additional physiotherapists as clinical assistants. The trust has also agreed low back pain referral protocols with GPs to allow direct referral to a physiotherapist, rather than to a consultant.

In ophthalmology, another problem area, a new consultant has been appointed from October this year. A new locum consultant gynaecologist appointment is being made from January next year. It is intended to use money from the performance fund to develop plans to provide four nurse practitioner-led clinics a week doing minor procedures to release consultants to see additional out-patients. A new staff-grade doctor in ear, nose and throat is being appointed from January. New clinics are being established in plastic surgery, rheumatology, dermatology and neurology, some of which it is intended to support through the use of performance fund moneys.

The trust is examining various measures to improve the way in which out-patient services are provided and to ensure that the best use is made of out-patient clinics by reducing the number of non-attenders and by filling vacant out-patient slots. The trust is engaged in discussion with other NHS trusts identified as "beacons" for good waiting list management to ensure that the trust identifies best practice and applies it to the local situation.

The United Bristol Healthcare NHS trust intends to increase activity in ophthalmology, dermatology, neurology, dental specialties and ENT. This activity will be targeted at long-waiters. The trust is working with local primary care groups and considering the increased use of physiotherapy screening for orthopaedic out-patients to ensure that patients are seen by the most appropriate professional. In addition, the trust is working to ensure that its management of out-patient appointments process is in accord with best practice.

Orthopaedics is the specialty with the longest wait to see a consultant. Over the past five years, the Avon health authority has invested an additional £5.1 million in improving the orthopaedic service. As I said, the health authority is conducting a wide-ranging review of orthopaedic services across the Avon area to inform its funding decisions for next year. It will be assisted in that by the national patients access team.

In conclusion, I believe that action taken by the Avon health authority and the local NHS trusts will lead to a reduction in the number of patients waiting more than 13 weeks and, more importantly, a reduction in the maximum length of time taken to see a consultant. Current times are far too long. The regional office of the NHS Executive has carried out an assessment of the action plans prepared by the health community, and is satisfied that the waiting list objectives will be met. We want patients in Avon to wait less time to see a consultant in future, and will continue to work with the local NHS to achieve that aim.

I shall start with a rather grisly fact. If one lives in certain parts of Lowestoft one has a 60 to 80 per cent. greater chance of dying before the age of 75 than the average individual living in Suffolk. That fact is contained in the 1999 report of Suffolk's director of public health. That is a shocking statistic for those who live in the two wards concerned as well as for the whole town of Lowestoft, the county of Suffolk and anyone who cares about health inequality. It reveals what is meant by the term "health inequality".

The director has made it clear in his report that there is a strong association between high death rates and deprivation. The two wards, together with a ward in central Ipswich, have the highest standard mortality ratios in Suffolk. They also have the highest levels of deprivation and the highest number of people on income support—about 25 per cent. The director's report tells us that Lowestoft as a whole has the highest premature death rate of any town in Suffolk and that it is significantly above the Suffolk average. All the information and statistics in the report are based on research from the years 1995–98.

Unfortunately, this is nothing new. In the director's 1997 report, which was based on statistics from the years 1987–95, the same three wards were at the top of Suffolk's standard mortality ratio. The report begins:

"Overall, Suffolk people are amongst the most fortunate residents of this country when it comes to health—or at least to death! In any one year a Suffolk resident of any age has, on average, an 8 per cent. lower chance of dying than the average individual of the same age living in England and Wales."

However, the report goes on to say:

"This encouraging overall picture for Suffolk does, however, conceal some marked variations in death rates within the county…The three most deprived wards in Suffolk…have deprivation levels akin to those found in many inner city areas of the UK's big cities. They also have the most significantly high SMRs in Suffolk and the highest levels of unemployment…If you are amongst the 10 per cent. of the population living in the wards in Suffolk with the highest death rates you are almost twice as likely as the 10 per cent. living in the best wards, to die before age 75."

The director was so concerned that he called the report, "Time for action".

Sadly, and unacceptably, as I have pointed out, the 1999 report reveals that things have not improved and that, if anything, they have got worse. I spoke to the director this week and he is concerned that things my have got worse. The SMR for the Kirkley ward was 143 in 1997 and it is now 184. The SMR for the Harbour ward was 138 in 1997 and is now 164.

I have looked at other figures from the Office for National Statistics, which allows primary care groups to compare their death rates. It uses a measure known as the death, age, sex standardisation rate. Those figures show the Lowestoft PCG area substantially higher than all other Suffolk PCGs.

We see the same inequalities in mental health. The director's 1999 report shows that Lowestoft's standard admission rate for psychiatric specialties is 131. The next highest is Ipswich with 109 and the lowest rate in the county is 77. Again, the director confirms the link with deprivation.

Health inequalities such as these are immoral and unacceptable, even more so when one lives in a community that is at the wrong end of the statistical table. I am pleased that this Government are the first Government to make one of their two overall priorities the reduction of health inequalities to narrow the health gap. Few communities will appreciate that more than Lowestoft. However, if it was time for action in 1997, people want to know why things have not improved in 1999. What has happened?

I have looked at Suffolk's health improvement programme. The first programme is just a catalogue of what has been happening, but we must recognise that it will take time for health authorities to develop their programmes. As they are developed in the future, they will need to be more focused on specific priorities for addressing health inequalities, with a clear strategic direction.

It is clear that we need a two-pronged approach. First, we must tackle the causes of ill health. The Kirkley area of Lowestoft has been designated a single regeneration budget area. That funding is being used for a healthy Kirkley initiative, drawing together public bodies carrying out community based work. There is improvement in housing conditions and enhancement of the physical environment. A training centre is up and running to help youngsters back to work. That partnership has put in a bid to the new opportunities fund for a healthy living centre. If it is not against protocol, I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), will support the bid.

There is some public disquiet about the rate of progress, but we must recognise that multi-agency work takes time. The new deal is making an impact in Lowestoft, as is the minimum wage legislation, and we fully expect the working families tax credit to help. We had excellent news this summer when the Government awarded Lowestoft assisted area status and designated it as a European objective 2 area from 1 January. All those initiatives will be a huge boost to the employment prospects, economic recovery and future prosperity of the people of Lowestoft. However, it will take some time for them to have an effect, so we must look at the second prong.

Like crime and the causes of crime, while we are dealing with the causes of ill health, we must ensure that the resources are available to treat the existing high levels of ill health. People in Lowestoft have asked whether the director's reports have influenced the spending patterns and distribution of resources in Suffolk. The answer seems to be not at all. The current allocation of resources within the county does not match or relate to the health inequalities. That is a sore point in my constituency. The director reveals that clearly with regard to mental health services in this year's report.

Government policy could not be clearer. The document entitled, "The New NHS modern and dependable" states:

"The healthcare needs of the population, including the impact of deprivation, will be the driving force in determining where cash goes. There will be a national formula to set fair shares for the new PCGs as there is now for health authorities. It will be for health authorities to determine the pace of change at which individual PCGs within their area should move towards their fair share."

So far in Suffolk I have seen no such movement.

Suffolk health authority has said that the budgets are tight and difficult. It is not easy to take resources from one part of the county to give to another. Let us be clear. Suffolk health authority has had above inflation rises in Government cash awards. In 1998–99, it was 4.14 per cent. and in 1999–2000, it is 5.5 per cent. It had extra money for the winter difficulties in 1997. It has had extra money for waiting lists and a good share of the modernisation fund. However, it has had only the basic rise in its annual revenue allocation from Government. It has not had any discretionary rise because, as a whole, Suffolk is relatively healthy in national terms. The Suffolk average SMR is 7 to 8 per cent. better than the national average. The Suffolk average for deprivation is quite low.

Government policy is to give greater uplift in resources to the more deprived health authorities to narrow the inequalities between them. The problem faced by Lowestoft is that it is an area of high deprivation suffering huge health inequalities in an otherwise better-off county. How will the Government ensure that their philosophy of addressing health inequalities through differential funding is replicated within a health authority? Is there an allowance for Lowestoft's deprivation currently included in Suffolk health authority's settlement? If so, how much is it? Is there monitoring to see whether that money is directed towards Lowestoft? The authority appears to use an historic roll-over budget rather than redirecting resources. I know that the Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), when he was the Minister of State, wrote to Suffolk health authority about the issue in February 1998.

Before coming to the debate today, I consulted a number of health professionals in Lowestoft. The commonly held view is that the gap has got worse rather than better. Resources were directed towards an acute hospital in another part of the county that had particular problems.

In my discussions, I discovered that there are mounting problems with mental health services. There is restricted access to cognitive behaviour therapy for patients with ME and chronic pain, restricted access for victims of sexual abuse and young people to support and advice services, and, alarmingly, reduced access to the Waveney alcohol and drugs service. That is worrying, as there is a drugs problem in the area to which I have referred.

The plan to develop the locally available renal dialysis service at the local hospital has been abandoned. As a result, some people will have to make the 60-mile return journey to Norwich three times a week for dialysis. That is uncomfortable for any patient, and transport is a particular problem for those suffering deprivation. If my hon. Friend the Minister has not been to East Anglia, I can tell her that 60 miles on East Anglian roads is far worse than 60 miles in other parts of the country. The abandonment of the plan to develop local renal services poses a great problem for my constituents.

Is my hon. Friend aware that Norfolk and Suffolk health authorities planned to improve the renal unit at the James Paget hospital, the benefit of which is enjoyed by both our areas? The inability of Suffolk health authority to raise that revenue has scuppered that plan, whereas Norfolk health authority has introduced proposals that benefit the people who use the renal service in Norwich and at the James Paget hospital.

My hon. Friend is right. The James Paget hospital has an admirable policy of providing services for both counties. It wants to treat the two counties equitably, but the failure or inability of Suffolk health authority to fund the renal service means that people in both our constituencies are suffering.

We now have a worse problem. Suffolk health authority is undertaking a planning exercise to prepare for a 2 per cent. budget cut across the board to deal with its deficit and in anticipation of its expected settlement for 2000–01. How can we have a 2 per cent. cut and record levels of expenditure through the £21 billion extra money that the Government are putting into the health service? The two are incompatible. Someone will have to explain to people in Suffolk how that can he. Will the Minister look into this matter?

Will the basic increase that Suffolk health authority is expecting be inadequate to cope with unavoidable, rising costs, bearing in mind that it is expecting only the basic uplift? Or is the projected deficit the result of stored-up, longer-standing budgetary problems that pre-date this Government? Whatever it is, people in my area will be dismayed if we suffer a 2 per cent. cut. I ask the Minister to look into how that problem can be overcome and consider a financial remedy.

Even if there has to be a 2 per cent. reduction, it should not be across the board, because then the inequalities in Suffolk would be perpetuated. Government policy requires health authorities to narrow the gap, so how can a reduction be imposed on hard-pressed general practitioners and on the primary and secondary services in Lowestoft that deal with the highest levels of ill health in Suffolk? The policy demands a re-routing of resources in Suffolk to deal with the findings of the director of public health in successive reports. Even with the tightest budget, there must not be an across-the-board response.

Government policy on reducing health inequalities is just what we need in Lowestoft, and it is vital that it is implemented. The new Health Act 1999 gives the Secretary of State new powers to ensure that it is. Will the Minister look into the issues that I have raised, and help Lowestoft to receive its fair share of resources: the share that the appalling statistics and Government policy determine that it should have?

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) on securing this debate and on raising the issue of health inequalities, which is a matter of great concern to the Government. He is a powerful advocate for his constituency, and has drawn attention to the problems faced by his constituents in Lowestoft.

The Government are strongly committed to tackling health inequalities. Under the previous Government, health inequalities were barely mentioned, never mind tackled, and the idea that they might be linked to poverty, unemployment or the wider inequalities in society was anathema to them. The result was that, when we came to office, we inherited a society in which the health gap between rich and poor had continually grown. My hon. Friend makes that case powerfully when he talks about his constituents.

One of the first actions that the Government took was to commission an independent inquiry into health inequalities. Sir Donald Acheson reported that, although average mortality had fallen over the past 50 years, unacceptable health inequalities persisted, and many measures of health showed that inequalities had either stayed the same or had grown and widened in recent decades.

Health is too much of a local lottery. Surrey man can expect to live on average 11 years longer than Manchester man. For women, the difference is nine years. The problem is not just about where people live, but about who they are. Their chances of dying young are significantly higher if they are working class than if they are middle class. The unemployed are twice as likely to suffer from depression as those in work. High blood pressure, smoking and obesity are more prevalent among the low skilled. People in substandard housing are at greater risk of cold and damp. Death rates from coronary heart disease among people living here but who were born in south Asia are 46 per cent. higher for men and 51 per cent. higher for women than the rates for England and Wales as a whole.

People on low incomes are not only more likely to get ill, but are less likely to get the treatment that they need. The highest numbers of heart operations are not in the areas with the highest rates of coronary disease. People in poorer areas are less likely to survive cancer than those in more affluent areas.

In Lowestoft, the pattern is similar. Kirkley and Harbour wards have higher than average unemployment and crime rates. They also have the highest premature death rate, and Kirkley has the highest out-patient referral rate in Suffolk. Those wards also have a 29 per cent. higher rate of emergency admissions than the average for Suffolk. Lower job opportunities, lower incomes, higher rates of drug and alcohol abuse, social exclusion and poverty all take their toll compared with other parts of Suffolk.

My hon. Friend is right when he says that such health inequalities are immoral and unacceptable. They are as unacceptable to the Government as they are to him. In Lowestoft and across the country, the Government are committed to tackling this unfairness.

I want to talk about the action that we are taking to tackle health inequalities, and to try to answer the points made by my hon. Friend. He is right that we need to tackle the underlying causes of ill health, whether it is poverty, unemployment, poor housing or other problems that cut right across every Department, not just the Department of Health. That is why we are raising the income of families with children through the working families tax credit, raising child benefit and the child premium for income support.

The working families tax credit provides extra help to 1.4 million families. Families with children and someone in full-time work will have a minimum income of £200 per week. The Prime Minister has said that we must end child poverty in a generation. We have a long way to go, but these are important steps along the way.

To cut unemployment, we have invested £5 billion in the new deal programmes. We are investing £450 million in sure start to help vulnerable children to make the best possible start in life. Sure start brings together early education, health services, family support and advice to families in low-income areas with children under the age of four.

The Government are also working to tackle pensioner poverty. We are providing a new minimum income guarantee for pensioners worth at least £75 per week for a single pensioner and £116 for couples this financial year, and a winter fuel payment of £100 for every pensioner household. As many pensioners on low incomes will know, sitting in a cold house because they do not have the money to turn up the heating is not good for their health. We are also investing in our poorest communities through projects such as the new deal for communities, the single regeneration budget and sure start. The most powerful way of tackling the ill health of some of our poorest communities will not just involve the health service; it will involve reducing the poverty that caused the problem in the first place. That is why the Kirkley regeneration initiative described by my hon. Friend, which has secured single-regeneration funds for the area, is so important. Its purpose is to tackle local unemployment and deprivation.

All the programmes that I have mentioned will help to tackle some of the underlying causes of ill health. My hon. Friend is right to say that it will be a long process, but we must make a start, and we must do it now. We also need direct action to tackle health inequalities, which is why the Government are currently developing initiatives such as health action zones, healthy living centres and health improvement programmes to improve the health of communities.

One of the programmes in Lowestoft is the "healthy Kirkley" initiative, a community health project which brings together the local NHS trust, the community health council, Waveney district council, Suffolk county council and the local primary care group. Together, those bodies are trying to deal with the symptoms that are so often related to deprivation: depression, isolation, low self-esteem, stress and asthma. The partnership is addressing community needs directly, organising, for instance, a Saturday morning drop-in centre for young parents and a scheme enabling unemployed people to be trained through the renovation of local housing. The initiative will obviously be strengthened by the bid for a healthy living centre, to include the wards of Kirkley and Harbour. My hon. Friend made a powerful case for that bid, and I am sure that the message will be passed on. There are further schemes to deal with the problems of older people, smoking, misuse of drugs and other substances, and domestic violence.

Let me say something about programmes in Suffolk as a whole. The alliance for health in Suffolk, financed by Suffolk county council and Suffolk health authority, has established a healthy schools project to promote a health ethos and environment in schools. The project has links with mental health, coronary heart disease and stroke prevention groups which, as part of the health alliance, aim to reduce health inequalities. All those local partnerships are examples of programmes that we must promote and make effective throughout the country if we are to have an impact on the root causes of ill health and health inequality.

We must also consider what our health services can do more directly. That applies to health authorities, trusts, primary care groups and other health partners. My hon. Friend expressed anxiety about the allocation of resources to Suffolk health authority, the distribution of resources in Suffolk and the impact on inequality. I can tell him for a start that the Government have commissioned a review of NHS resource allocation, which is now under way. A key objective is for the way in which resources are divided across the country to contribute to a reduction in avoidable health inequalities.

The Government believe that resources for health care should go where needs are greatest. At national level, we take relative need into account when allocating money to health authorities, so that we can distribute more additional resources to the areas in greatest need. Last year, all health authorities received a minimum increase of 1.67 per cent., and additional growth funds were aimed at the health authorities in greatest need.

As my hon. Friend said, Suffolk health authority received a 5.5 per cent. increase in its budget this year, which represents a real increase 2.9 per cent. in its power to spend money on health services for people in the area. That compares with real increases of 1.35 per cent. last year, 1.9 per cent. in 1997, only 0.5 per cent. in 1996, and a mere 0.06 per cent. in 1995, under the last Government. Suffolk has received funds from the modernisation fund for waiting lists, mental health treatment, lung and colorectal cancer and information technology.

I am aware that the health authority is running a deficit this year, and is now planning how to recover its balance by 1 April 2000, which it is required to do by the regional office. How the authority allocates its resources to achieve that balance must be a matter for local discussion; nevertheless, I expect the authority, the primary care groups and all the local health partners to take account of health inequalities and deprivation during that discussion. I am very interested in what my hon. Friend said in that context, and I will pursue the matter.

I understand that the 2 per cent. mentioned by my hon. Friend is not an across-the-board cut. If he wants to discuss that further, I shall be happy to talk to him, because, as I have said, I believe that health authorities must take account of health inequalities.

Health authorities, including the Suffolk authority, are now expected to take account of such inequalities, and to draw up plans for improving the health of local populations. This is the first time that all health authorities have led the preparation of comprehensive and cross-sector health improvement programmes. My hon. Friend asked what the Department could do to ensure that the programmes included action on health inequalities and areas of deprivation. I can tell him that the Department will provide guidance on the setting of local targets to measure progress in the reduction of health inequalities, and on assisting health authorities.

I understand that the development of Suffolk's health improvement programme involved health services, social services, education and housing services, and many of the other agencies and groups involved in health issues. The plan of action for improving health in 1999–2000 has identified health inequalities as one of its five priorities, the others being coronary heart disease, cancer, accident prevention and mental health. Those are important aspects of the national health strategy, which will have a considerable impact on the health of Suffolk residents.

The primary care group in Lowestoft is concentrating on health inequalities and mental health issues. It is currently working with key stakeholders to produce a primary care investment plan, which I understand will be finalised soon. Taken together, the health improvement programmes and the primary care investment plans should deliver a comprehensive range of targeted measures to tackle health priorities both countywide and in local communities.

The Government are also taking broader action across the NHS, which should help to tackle health inequalities not just in Suffolk, but throughout the country. The decision to place cancer, heart disease and mental health problems among our top priorities also constitutes an attack on health inequalities. After all, the people who are most likely to die prematurely of cancer, or to have heart attacks under the age of 65, are those on low incomes. The death rate from coronary heart disease is three times higher among unskilled men than among professionals.

We have charged the new cancer director, Professor Mike Richards, with assessing the wide variations in cancer care and cancer survival rates across the country, and with drawing up a strategy to end the national lottery in cancer care. It simply is not fair that where a person lives, or who a person is, should affect the treatment that that person receives, as well as his or her chances of getting cancer in the first place.

My hon. Friend asked what the Government could do nationally to raise standards in every area. The national service frameworks that we are currently developing to deal with coronary heart disease, mental illness, the problems of older people and diabetes will reflect the need to tackle inequalities, and will ensure that national guidance will enable every area to improve the health of its population.

Tackling health inequalities will require determination on many fronts. For too long, the main problem has been securing official recognition of those inequalities. The NHS will be a key player, but not the only player. We shall have to work in partnership with other organisations; but the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring that everyone has a fair chance of leading a healthy life, regardless of where they live and regardless of social class, ethnicity and gender. That means tackling the causes of health inequalities, but it also means modernising our health services, so that the NHS becomes a truly national service in which patients can have fair access to consistently high quality and prompt treatment throughout the country.

We have a long way to go if we are to reduce health inequalities in Britain, but we are making plans in order to start making a difference now.

I welcome the opportunity to raise the issue of the ownership of Newtown common. Until recently, the subject would not have generated much public interest, but, because of the activities of a property dealer trying to get people to part with substantial sums, the ownership of the common and the obscure and outdated legislation that surrounds it deserve the House's attention. No one should have to go through what my constituents are going through.

I welcome the Minister to the Dispatch Box. He brings with him a well-earned reputation for fighting for justice, often against long legal odds.

The debate is about a battle between 180 constituents who live on, or around Newtown common, and Bakewell Management. Just over 100 houses are involved, which are located on, or near the common. They are owned by owner-occupiers—not all of whom are well off—who bought the houses having undertaken all the usual searches through solicitors. Not one search revealed any liability of the type that is now claimed. Since time immemorial, they have driven the short distances to and from their homes to the main road.

One typical couple bought their house in 1971 and have been driving to and from it ever since. They paid off the mortgage in 1991. The husband is 70 years old. His wife is 61. Both have retired. The value of the house is now estimated to be £180,000. They have little capital.

Mr. Merton Vaslet, who is aged 80, has lived in his house and used the Newtown common roads for 36 years. He is quoted as saying:

"I have crossed Newtown Common quite happily until now. Then I'm told I don't have access to my own home".

Dr. Stevenson, another home owner who has used the common roads for 28 years, said that residents were prepared to go to the High Court to block the claim. Others have lived in the area even longer; one lady moved there more than 60 years ago. At no stage had any of them been invited to pay any money for accessing their homes—until a few weeks ago.

Let me introduce the second party—Mr. Michael Farrow and his company, Bakewell Management. In 1986, a company named Historic Records Agency, whose managing director is Mr. Farrow, bought the title "Lord of the Manor of Newtown" from the Earl of Carnarvon for £4,200. Mr. Farrow proceeded to remove a reference to wastes and commons in the conveyance and sold the title for £12,000. Claiming ownership of Newtown common, he transferred it from the Historic Records Agency to himself and then to his wife, who in turn transferred it to a company named Bakewell Management. That company now claims ownership of the common and has applied to the Land Registry to validate that.

Mr. Farrow tried to register the common with the Land Registry in 1988, objections were made in 1990 and the application was cancelled in 1995. However, in July 1997, Mr. Farrow reapplied. On 15 April 1999, an advertisement was written by the Land Registry offering 14 days in which to lodge complaints. Should Mr. Farrow be successful in his application, he will claim to have the authority to start to charge people for something that they cannot avoid doing, but have never had to pay for before: getting to their own front door.

Mr. Farrow wishes to charge residents who use the common to get home a fee for the privilege. He is demanding 6 per cent. of the value of their home. What is even worse is that his chartered surveyors, a company named Deal Varney, which has since resigned from the case, had given the residents an ultimatum. I quote from a letter to residents:

"we are instructed, under the terms of the amnesty, the owners will accept 6 per cent. of the open market value providing agreement is reached before the 15th November 1999".

Bearing in mind the fact that Mr. Farrow is yet to be registered as the owner, residents have to decide between paying him 6 per cent. of the value of their homes by 15 November, and standing their ground, risking the fee rising to 10 per cent. or more—a figure was mentioned in the same letter. Many of the residents cannot afford such a sum and will be forced to sell and move elsewhere. The practice might have been appropriate from the feudal sheriff of Nottingham. There is no place for it in 1999.

I am delighted that the residents have joined together in an association that is led by Tim Kelleher. I am grateful to Doug Ellis, to his wife Liz, who is the clerk of the parish council, and to Councillor John Clegg, who represents Newtown Common on Basingstoke and Deane district council, for all their support in mobilising a campaign to oppose Mr. Farrow.

What is the legislative foundation of Bakewell Management's claim? Is it valid? If it is, should the law be changed? Section 193 (1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 states that, if a deed of public access is signed by the owner of the common, that allows the common to be publicly used for "air and exercise". The signing of the deed automatically triggers a ban on vehicles passing over the common, unless the landowner expressly gives permission.

Under the Road Traffic Act 1930, it is an offence to drive more than a short way off a highway on to a common without lawful authority. However, in a local byelaw, there is a condition under which that ban must not apply. It clearly states that the ban is not intended to stop

"the use by any vehicle on any road on the Common for the purpose of travelling to or from any property to which the Common affords the sole means of vehicular access".

Mr. Farrow seeks to exploit a loophole in the law, by virtue of the fact that

"a by-law cannot be made or legally interpreted in such a way as to overrule a public statute".

That is an obvious example of the contradictions that occur in the confusing field of law, but I am surprised that such a blatant statement allowing vehicles to be driven over commons to reach properties can apparently be bypassed and ignored.

As I speak, there is still no confirmed landowner and the evidence is conflicting. The residents who use, and always have used, the common to reach their homes bought their houses having fully researched the position. Now, it is as if another £25,000 were being added retrospectively to the price.

Mr. Farrow, who invested £4,200, sold the title of "Lord of the Manor of Newtown" for £12,000. I have no quarrel with that. If someone wants to be Lord of the Manor of Newtown, that is fine with me and no harm is done to anyone else. However, Mr. Farrow now wants about £500,000 from my constituents. When I took up their case, as any other hon. Member would have done, he wrote to me:

"Depending on the circumstances and how much loss the company suffers because those who were going to contract with the company did not do so as a result of your statements, they could give rise to a legal action against you".

I can look after myself, but not all my constituents can. I cannot understand anyone going to the lengths that I have described to enrich themselves at the expense of my constituents.

I turn to the role of the Government. These are my questions to the Minister. First, as a Member of Parliament, if not as a Minister, can he understand the anger and fear of those of my constituents who find themselves in the predicament that I have outlined?

Secondly, does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in this day and age, people should not be held to ransom in that way, when they have done all the searches and used all the right professionals?

Thirdly, where has the Land Registry got to in processing the application?

Fourthly, if the Land Registry has no option, does the Minister agree that the law should be changed, so that residents in Newtown will not be disadvantaged if they do not succumb to Mr. Farrow's demands, but will continue to enjoy the rights that everyone thought they enjoyed?

Fifthly, what legislative changes would be necessary? The 1955 royal commission on commons recommended the establishment of statutory registers for all common land, including a record of the rights exercisable over it and its ownership. It was proposed that there should be new statutory management schemes for, and a universal right of public access to, common land. In the event, it was decided to implement the recommendations in two stages, the first being the enactment of the Commons Registration Act 1965, with its scheme of statutory registers. The second stage, dealing with statutory management schemes and the principle of a universal right of public access to common land, was never implemented. It is widely recognised that the 1965 Act was not entirely adequate to give effect to its original purposes. It has been frequently criticised by the judiciary.

It is, therefore, clear that fresh legislation is necessary to deal with not only the matters originally envisaged, but deficiencies, anomalies and injustices that have been highlighted since the 1965 Act came into force—not just those in Newtown Common, but those in other parts of the country, including Surrey Heath; I see my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) in his place. The legislation should provide that when there has been no charge or restriction by the owner of a common for vehicular access across a common, and when—in the 60 years from 1925 to 1985, or for a period of at least 20 years, or since the house was built—the access has formed the vehicular access to a private house, there is presumed to be a grant of vehicular access from the owner of the common to the owner of a private house accessed across it. It should provide also that neither the owner of the common nor his successors in title may in future charge for vehicular or other access or put restrictions on the access across the common.

I hope that I have carried the Minister with me so far, and that, if I have, the Government will either introduce the changes themselves, by amending a suitable Government Bill—perhaps the right to roam legislation, if it is introduced—or give a smooth passage to a suitable private Member's Bill seeking the same objective.

I believe that I have outlined a real injustice, which I ask the Minister to put right.

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for raising this issue and giving me the opportunity to present the Government's response, and also for his kind opening remarks.

The situation that the right hon. Gentleman has described seems, on the face of it, to be outrageous, and I can well understand the feeling of injustice that his constituents feel. Were our roles reversed, I might well have made a similar speech.

Today, I received a letter from Mr. Farrow of Bakewell Management, saying that the proposed charges will be lower than those that have been reported, although he does not go any further than that. He also points out that other organisations such as Surrey county council and the National Trust charge for access across common land. I should add to that that the Government have advised local councils that they have a duty to their tax payers to charge reasonable charges for access across common land. The emphasis, of course, is on the word "reasonable".

Mr. Farrow also said that Bakewell Management proposes eventually to form a trust and to endow it with a lump sum, and that the trust will be controlled by local people. I am sure that the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire notes that with interest.

It is a gift of dubious benefit. Bakewell proposes stripping out the common's asset value and—so that Bakewell is not encumbered with any obligations of maintaining the common—parking it in a trust. One has to consider the offer with some caution.

I share the right hon. Gentleman's view on that point. I should also say that, although Bakewell may well have the letter of the law on its side, I wonder whether it is able to defend its position morally, as well as legally.

The matter stems from an application for first registration of Newtown common that has been made by a company called Bakewell Management Ltd. It is essentially a matter of private ownership of land, and the applicant is therefore entitled to keep certain aspects of its application private. It would be inappropriate for me to discuss the details of the particular case.

As the right hon. Gentleman will know, all applications for registration of land are dealt with by the Land Registry, the main statutory function of which is to keep a register of title to freehold and leasehold land throughout England and Wales. The head of the Land Registry is the chief land registrar, who is appointed by the Lord Chancellor under the Land Registration Act 1925—which gives the chief land registrar responsibility for conducting the whole business of registration. As the right hon. Gentleman will understand, it is not a matter in which a Minister could intervene.

There are, however, some general issues that apply to every application for first registration. The procedures to be followed are set out in the Land Registration Act 1925 and the land registration rules 1925. Whenever an applicant shows that he is the owner of a property, the chief land registrar is bound to register that property showing the applicant as the owner—he does not have a discretion.

The most recent application for first registration in this case was lodged in July 1997. In March and April 1999, advertisements were placed in the Newbury Weekly News and the Basingstoke Gazette giving brief details of the application and allowing 14 days for any objections to be lodged. The advertisements provoked a number of objections, the majority about rights of way over the common. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the current position on the application is that it is still with the Land Registry for determination.

A specific criticism has been made about the time limits imposed by the Land Registry for lodging objections or evidence in support. Generally, a reasonable but fairly short time will be allowed initially for people to lodge objections. The Land Registry recognises that most objectors will not have all their evidence immediately to hand and may well also wish to seek legal advice. If so, the Land Registry will generally be sympathetic if it is asked for more time, and legitimate objections will be accepted for consideration at any stage of the application.

Many of the residents seem to be frustrated that they are not allowed to object solely on the grounds that they genuinely believe that the applicant does not own the common. They can make a formal challenge to the application only if they can show that they have a competing claim. That does not mean that the Land Registry will ignore any relevant information that may have been provided to it by a third party. The Land Registry may well choose to take up such information with the applicant, but it will be a matter solely between the Land Registry and the applicant.

I hope that that satisfactorily deals with the registration issues.

As I am sure the right hon. Gentleman has discovered in his investigations, the title "common land" is something of a misnomer. The term "common" refers to rights held in common by certain people to use the products of the soil of the common—for example, for grazing or cutting turf. Common land is, therefore, not land that is available to everyone, but generally owned by someone, and that person enjoys rights of ownership, although those rights may not be precisely the same as those enjoyed over land that is not common. The majority of common land is in private ownership.

As the right hon. Gentleman has discovered, it has been an offence—under either the Law of Property Act 1925 and/or subsequent Road Traffic Acts—to drive over common land without the owner's permission. He also mentioned a local byelaw that seemed to suggest that a ban should not apply on Newtown common. I sympathise with his view that that is an apparent contradiction in a confusing sphere of law. However, I am sure that he will appreciate that, in all spheres of law, it would be far more confusing if primary legislation could be overridden by a local byelaw.

The right hon. Gentleman suggested that something should be done to rectify what he suggests is antiquated law—particularly by a Government whom he knows to be committed to modernisation. I agree that, in some ways, common land law is ripe for review, and I shall return to that in a moment. However, the issue in this case is not primarily about common land law at all, but more about landowners' rights generally. Specifically, the issue is whether it is appropriate and lawful for landowners to have the ability to make an unlimited charge for activities that take place on land of which they are recognised as the legal owner. In that respect, common land is essentially no different from other land.

According to the law, landowners have the ability to charge for the right of vehicular access over their land, and that ability has been tested in the courts in cases very similar to the current one. Although I fully appreciate why the residents of Newtown common, and other people, consider it unacceptable that someone should be able to acquire land and then make significant changes to their use of it unless a large fee is paid, one of the purposes of the legislation was, and continues to be, to protect land from the intrusive use of vehicles.

In certain, limited circumstances, prescriptive rights may be acquired through long use. For example, generally, it is possible to obtain a right of way by 20 years' use, so long as the use is neither by force, nor secretly, nor with permission. However, the courts have ruled that it is not possible to obtain a right of way by long use when the use is a criminal offence. From the information available, it seems unlikely that the residents of Newtown common have any such prescriptive rights because, as I have already mentioned, the provisions of the 1925 Act and subsequent Road Traffic Acts have made it an offence to drive across common land. Undoubtedly, however, the residents have sought specific legal advice on their rights.

The right hon. Gentleman asked about the possibility of legislative changes. He has mentioned the proposed right to roam legislation. That is a nice try, but I am afraid that it does not apply in these circumstances, as our proposals for access to open countryside, including registered common land, are about access on foot only. However, we shall soon be considering whether there should be any changes in the legislation that affects common land. If so, there will be public consultation on what changes would be desirable. I cannot promise that the Government will feel it necessary to act on vehicular access over common land, because, as I have said, there are wider issues to consider. Extinguishing landowners' rights without compensation would no doubt have implications under the Human Rights Act 1998. However, there may well be a case for placing some reasonable limit on the charge that the owner is entitled to make. I must again emphasise that I can make no commitment to legislation. I should also point out that, to be of any assistance to the residents of Newtown common, such legislation might have to include a retrospective element. The right hon. Gentleman has served in government for much longer than I have, so he will know that all Governments are reluctant to make legislation applicable retrospectively.

I am sorry that I cannot offer the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents the reassurance that they seek. I understand their anxiety and the uncertainty that the unresolved situation creates for the residents, particularly for those who lack the resources to meet the possible access charges. The situation causes me some disquiet, and I have looked carefully to see what comfort I can offer.

I shall watch with interest the level of charges that Bakewell imposes and compare them with the reasonable charges for similar access made by county councils and the National Trust. I hope that whatever charges are imposed can be defended morally as well as legally.

I know that the Minister is being as helpful as he can. Having made inquiries on what county councils charge, what does he regard as a reasonable charge? Would legislation to deal with the issue necessarily be retrospective? If the residents of Newtown common decide not to pay the 6 per cent.—or whatever the fee is—but to sit tight, and if legislation is introduced in due course that gives people rights on common land, there will be no need for the retrospective element that the Minister deplores.

I cannot say off the top of my head what I regard as a reasonable charge. There are other examples. We have referred to a couple of them. The right hon. Gentleman can look at them and see for himself what is considered elsewhere to be a reasonable charge. I shall consider his points about getting round the retrospection, but I cannot give any commitment today.

As matters stand, I regret that I cannot see a way in which the Government could assist the right hon. Gentleman's constituents, but I am willing to meet him to discuss the matter further if he thinks that that would be useful.

The Minister said that the behaviour of Bakewell, although legal, was difficult to defend morally. If a private Member's Bill got round the problem, would he be minded to support it?

The right hon. Gentleman has occupied various posts in the Department that I now have the honour to represent. Because he is so much more experienced than I am, he will realise that he is pushing his luck by asking me to say on the spot that I shall support such legislation. The Government are clear on that. We cannot give a commitment on legislation. However, I assure him that we shall look carefully at any sensible proposals that anyone, particularly the right hon. Gentleman, comes up with.