Since I was fortunate enough to win the ballot for this debate, I have become more and more popular. Many organisations have contacted me to make sure that I am appraised of their worries about the draft directive and, as a result, I am becoming increasingly alarmed. I recognise fully that the Minister has our best interests at heart, but several organisations are concerned that, unless we are firm about our position, we shall be rolled over.

I am sure that the Minister will tell us that a deal has been brokered that meets all our anxieties. That may be so, but practice has shown us that what comes out of the European Community does not always hold fast for organisations in the United Kingdom. I am worried about the impact of the directive on businesses throughout the country. I have been contacted by the Retail Motor Industry Federation, the Countryside Alliance and the Association of Private Pet Cemeteries and Crematoria— to mention three organisations. If the Minister can allay all our worries, I shall be delighted, but I suspect that the problem will not be solved by our debate today.

I am not targeting the Government's plans to establish a network of mega-incinerators to deal with household waste, but European legislation can spin out of control if the Government do not do their homework properly and defend United Kingdom interests. I am referring in particular to the inappropriate application of aspects of the European waste incineration directive to pet crematoriums and to farmers. The directive is now nearing the final stages of the legislative process and the danger is that the Government may have woken up too late to the harm that they are about to inflict on various industries.

I shall deal first with the worries of the Retail Motor Industry Federation. It believes that the directive would have a serious impact on small and medium enterprises, which make up the bulk of businesses in the retail motor industry. Those businesses, which have vehicle maintenance and repair workshops, are the primary users of small waste oil burners. Contrary to the statements of the Department of the Environment Transport and the Regions, neither the federation nor any of its constituent associations was approached by Entec, the environment consultancy employed by the DETR to gather views on the proposed directive. Consequently, it was not until 22 February this year in a meeting with the Environment Agency that the federation was made aware of the impact of the directive on small businesses.

Similarly, there was at no stage direct consultation by the DETR with the Oil Firing Technical Association for the Petroleum Industry, heating equipment manufacturers or the Building Services Research and Information Association. During the past two years BSRIA has been actively engaged in the development of an industry standard for appliances burning waste oil. That valuable work has been conducted on behalf of equipment manufacturers.

As there is no threshold to the application of the directive, the same flue gas monitoring requirements are equally applicable to major country waste incineration projects and to small workshop heaters. The initial monitoring and control equipment for the heaters will cost as much as £40,000, whereas the initial cost of the heaters is only £6,000. The equivalent value of the heat from burning the engine and gearbox oils taken from vehicles is £1,800 to £2,000 a year. The cost of the emissions control equipment is clearly disproportionate, given the fact that the heaters will no longer be able to burn waste oil. The alternative is that garages will buy gas oil if the heater can burn it, and will have to pay for waste oil to be taken away. That will add at least £3,000 a year to the cost of small businesses, and more if an alternative form of heater has to be purchased.

I believe that the industry is right. The directive is another example of gold-plated legislation being supported by the DETR with no concern for the impact on small businesses. The DETR needs to recognise its inadequate consultation on the subject, and to insist at the European level on the introduction of a threshold in the directive so that it will not apply to heaters of less than 0.4 MW.

The Countryside Alliance believes that if the directive goes ahead unamended, it will lead to the closure of small incinerators operated typically by farmers, hunt kennels and veterinary practices.

Has the hon. Gentleman read the Entec report that covers this aspect of the regulation? It is clear in its advice to the Government on the impact on small farm-based incineration, stating that it would be almost impossible to pass on the compliance costs of the regulation. For a small business with a turnover of around £75,000 a year, the capital cost of compliance would be £200,000 and the annual running cost £12,000. Hardly surprisingly, one would expect that business to close. Does the hon. Gentleman agree?

I certainly do. The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point. If the directive goes ahead unamended, it will have a devastating impact on small farmers. I know that there are such farmers in his constituency, and that many of them will go out of business. It is desperately disappointing that the Government did not cotton on to those concerns earlier.

The Countryside Alliance's policy team has spoken to the directive rapporteur, Hans Blokeland. He was aware of the difficulties that the directive would create in Britain and assured the Countryside Alliance that an amendment was still possible. He claimed:

I cannot give you promises but I can give you hope,

and added that changes and exemptions were possible at the conciliation process. That will require all concerned to make them an issue and convince the Minister that it is worth the trouble of having the directive changed. I ask the Minister to take that point seriously, because it is more than worth the trouble.

One might understand the rigour with which the sector was being tackled if the environmental gains to be achieved from its regulation were substantial. However, the Entec report suggests that the gains will be trivial. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the apparent proportionality of that approach?

The hon. Gentleman again makes an excellent point, which I shall address in some detail. Obviously, we do not blame Ministers directly for such matters—[Interruption.] Perhaps some of my hon. Friends would blame Ministers directly; they seem slightly worried about that weakness on my part. However, Ministers cannot be expected to monitor everything. The Entec report suggests that the effects of proportionality should have been thought through much more clearly.

The conciliation process began in June. I am advised that when an amended draft of the directive becomes available, the Countryside Alliance policy team will examine it to assess the outcome and other options. I am also advised that if the directive is passed as amended, two further options will be available. First, as existing incinerators will have four years to comply with the directive, it may be possible to incorporate a review clause into the directive to assess the impact of regulation in four years' time. That might provide an opportunity to reform the law in future.

The second option is a small additional directive to provide an exemption from the directive. Pointless though that sounds, it would be the least painful option if the Government were minded to choose it. It could provide the United Kingdom with the best available opportunity for a positive legislative role.

The draft directive requires higher standards for all incinerators equipped with flue gas monitoring. Small incinerators, costing on average £5,000, will have to fit that equipment, at an estimated cost of between £30,000 and £40,000. As I mentioned, the plant will also cost an extra £3,000 to £5,000 a year to operate.

No one is suggesting that incineration should not be undertaken at the highest standards possible, a point to which I shall return. However, it is important that the effect of the proposal on several business sectors is properly evaluated.

As the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) said, the Government employed consultants Entec UK to examine the effect of the proposal on pet crematoriums in particular. There are about 60 pet crematoriums around the country, providing a caring service for many families when they are bereaved by the loss of a cherished pet. Some people might consider that a huge joke, but when I return to my house in Chalkwell, the only thing that I can guarantee is that my dog is always pleased to see me. For many people in the United Kingdom, their animal is everything. Therefore when an animal dies—by and large, with the exception of tortoises and parrots, animals do not live as long as human beings—it can be devastating.

I have my own views on cremation. When I pass on, I want to be—

Not yet.

As my hon. Friend says, I have no plans to do so at the moment. However, I would prefer to be put in the ground. Other people have different views on the matter, but increasingly more people are of the view that when they lose their beloved pet they would like it to be cremated. It is a very big issue for many people. An important article appeared in the Sunday Express at the beginning of the month, which dealt movingly with the trauma of losing a pet and the impact of the directive if it were passed unamended.

Entec's small-business litmus test on a pet crematorium showed that businesses will have to close. The Association of Private Pet Cemeteries and Crematoria estimates that upgrading each site would cost a minimum of £75,000—a huge amount of money—and that the majority of pet crematoriums would have to close as the increase in the cost of pet cremations would be prohibitive for a large section of the community.

The hon. Gentleman has been very kind. What is his view of the impact of the policy on the Government's approach towards diversification on farms? That is clearly an option for many farmers, including at least one in my constituency, but it would clearly be ruled out by a regulatory environment on such a scale.

The hon. Gentleman makes another splendid point far better than I could. I hope that the Minister, who has been listening carefully to the debate, will take that option seriously. Small farmers would certainly welcome such an opportunity.

When they came to power, the Government—ominously—renamed the deregulation unit the better regulation unit, a renaming at which some of us might groan, although it is an interesting piece of Orwellian socialist rebranding. The small business litmus test on every proposed piece of legislation or regulation rightly remains part of the Government's better regulation guidelines. However, in this case, we discover a remarkable new principle of applying the litmus test, but then deciding that the result does not matter. That is absolutely ridiculous—all spin and no substance.

In August 1998, in a foreword to the "Better Regulation Guide", the Prime Minister wrote:

I have therefore decided that no regulatory proposal which hasan impact on business, charities and voluntary bodies should be considered by the Government without a thorough assessment of the risks, costs and benefits, a clear analysis of who will be affected and an explanation of why non-regulatory action would be insufficient.

We all say amen to that. He especially wanted to avoid

excessive or poorly conceived legislation,

which risked being

particularly damaging to our small firms.

Yet two years later, an entire small business sector, largely composed of family businesses, is about to be wiped out. What an earth is the purpose of all the spin? There has been no substance and absolutely no delivery.

I now turn to small farm incinerators, an issue that concerns many hon. Members with farms in their constituencies. After subsidies were removed from the United Kingdom rendering industry, the big increases in rendering charges encouraged a move towards the use of burial for disposing of animal waste. For the protection of animal and human health and to avoid contaminating the water table and perpetuating long-lived BSE-infected material in water or soil, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food began to crack down on landfill. It was very much at the prompting of the previous Government, acting on scientific advice, that farmers began increasingly to invest in on-farm incineration. On-farm incinerators are used for quick, hygienic disposal of carcases, including casualty stock, mainly on intensive livestock farms and poultry units.

Especially relevant to United Kingdom farmers is the strict regulation of the disposal of bone-meal and meat, which does not operate elsewhere in the EU and means that carcases have no value. Incineration is therefore the disposal method of choice, backed and encouraged by Government policy. A regulatory impact assessment was undertaken, based on sound scientific advice. Entec reckoned that there were about 60 on-farm incinerators. William White Fabrications Ltd., one of the manufacturers of the incineration units, had already installed about 300 units in the United Kingdom and wanted to raise production by 80 units in the coming year before the threat of the directive hit home. The company stated:

At a stroke it will wipe out all the benefits and gains that our development has achieved.

Sun Valley Foods used 90 small incinerators in its operations. A fair estimate of the number of on-farm incinerators would be 3,000. I congratulate the Government on admitting that the assessment was wrong; going wrong by a factor of 50 is quite something.

As to the impact assessment, based on a total figure of 120 animal remains, Entec estimated the capital cost of the directive at £43 million, with annual running costs of more than £2.6 million. If we accept that there are 3, 120 farm and pet crematorium incinerators rather than 120, a quick bit of maths—assuming rough parity between incinerator types—will produce a broad estimate of the capital burden on the sector of more than £1 billion, an extra running cost of £68 million a year. Those are huge figures.

Another principle of better regulation is proportionality, a matter raised by the hon. Member for South Derbyshire. The "Better Regulation Guide" advises fitting the remedy to the risk and regulating only when necessary. What are the risks that are worth destroying pet crematoriums and the small incinerator construction industry and burdening farmers with millions of pounds in extra costs at what is already a very tough time for them?

The quantifiable cash benefits identified by Entec amount to £40,000; the quantifiable health benefits are virtually negligible. Even allowing for Entec getting it wrong again, those insignificant pluses may be completely outweighed by the risk to health involved in implementing the directive.

As an alternative to the incineration of animal remains, farmers are being pushed back to burial on site, with endangers human and animal health. Even if they could be persuaded to pay more to transfer animal waste to centres with large incinerators, there would be environmental drawbacks. For example, how long would carcases remain on the farm and what condition would they be in before being transported? Would the transport be odour-free? How many extra miles would be travelled by the juggernauts transporting the material? What extra pollution that is harmful to human health would be emitted by those heavy lorries? Would the transport of rotting carcases in skip lorries between farms increase the risk to human and animal health?

We are facing a nightmare scenario. How does that fit in to joined-up government? What price would be paid for the Government's reliance on the proximity principle for waste disposal? The DETR proclaimed only in May

Waste should generally be disposed of as near to its place of origin as possible…the proximity principle is particularly applicable to hazardous wastes as they are intrinsically hazardous and moving them over long distances may increase the risk of damage arising.

How did the Government get themselves into this pickle, which conflicts with so many of their policies and rides roughshod over environmental, agricultural, health, transport and employment concerns?

Once again, I thank the hon. Member for Southend, West for giving way. I draw his attention to one of the common failings in the regulation, which we shall debate tomorrow when we discuss the integrated pollution, prevention and control regime: the lack of any attempt to look at the comparative picture throughout Europe. How are other members of the European Union that are affected by the regulations responding to them? Regrettably, there seems to be complete ignorance about the matter.

The hon. Gentleman is very sharp in summing up how angry the public are because the United Kingdom, being honourable through and through, adheres to the regulations while the rest of Europe turn up their noses and do their own thing. That is most unfair and damages the Government's position in our developing relationship with the European Union.

It is not too late for the Government to extricate themselves from their self-inflicted pickle. I hope that even at this extremely late stage the Government will press to exempt animal remains from the scope of the directive as they are already covered by the animal waste directive. I accept that it needs reviewing and updating and that some incinerators on farms do not conform to an acceptable standard. However, that should be dealt with by batch certification of incinerator models.

There must be consultation, which has been lacking so far; and the Government must try to avoid serially shooting the nation's interests in the foot. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to my plea, which I make on behalf of 120 small businesses that perform a much-valued service to the community, a dozen or so manufacturers of small incinerators, hard-pressed farmers who are trying their best to do their environmental duty and for the sake of common sense.

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on his success in the ballot and on his excellent and typically powerful and persuasive opening speech. My emphasis will be different from that of my hon. Friend.

I have tried for many weeks to obtain a similar debate on Government waste incineration strategy. Since their strategy hinges on the European Union directive, our interests are, broadly speaking, one and the same. I understand my hon. Friend's anxiety about the effects on small business of too rigid an interpretation of the draft directive, but the directive as interpreted by the European Parliament is also full of loopholes, in typically European fashion.

As my hon. Friend said, the public are angry and anxious; my interest this morning is in the toxic fallout from major new and planned, but not yet built, high-chimney incineration plants. Small incinerators as part of small businesses on farms would be better than major new plant, as my hon. Friend said. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) also has an interest in the subject.

My concern about waste incineration and the EU directive was prompted by East Sussex county council's proposal last December to site a waste incineration plant at Mountfield in my constituency. I shall not detain the House with a blow-by-blow account of the tortured deliberations of the joint committee of East Sussex and Brighton and Hove councils, which failed dismally to come up with an agreed joint waste strategy for the two authorities. However, after that committee had made its best—or worst—attempts, East Sussex county council turned to its own plans; the councillors went against the recommendations of their officers and opted for an incineration plant to be sited at Mountfield, which is slap in the middle of the designated High Weald area of outstanding natural beauty and close to three important water reservoirs. It is also close to the Tunbridge Wells to Hastings railway line, with all that that implies for shipped-in waste, on the A20100 into the historic town of Battle; the A21 trunk road to Hastings is nearby. The country lanes around the tiny village of Mountfield would become impossibly congested if the proposal became a reality.

However, what concerns me this morning are not just the arguments for and against Mountfield as a site for an incinerator, but the underlying principle of waste incineration as an appropriate and adequately safe technology. Whatever the outcome of the debate, Mountfield may yet be let off the hook because a sub-committee of East Sussex county council recently recommended dropping that proposal. I hope that the rest of the council will have the good sense to endorse that decision in a few days' time. Whether or not that happens and the people living in and around Mountfield are able to brief a collective sigh of relief, the dangers to public health, the contamination from toxic emissions and, in particular, the carcinogenic threat will continue wherever major high-chimney waste incineration plants are allowed to operate.

I am indebted to Councillor Harmer and his colleagues on Mountfield parish council, to Mr. Thorogood, Rosalind Hodges, Lucinda Fraser of the Mountfield Heritage Group and to many more of my constituents who have diligently researched the health risks arising from waste incineration. They have surfed the net for informative websites and have collected data from as far afield as the United States, Japan, Italy, France, Germany, Switzerland, Scandinavia and the Netherlands, as well as from eastern Europe. All the findings point to the conclusion that waste incineration technology is not yet completely safe.

The Minister, responding to the hon. Member for Lewes in an Adjournment debate on 31 January, seemed to argue that waste incineration was justified because recycling and composting alone will not enable Government targets to be met. He stated that

waste incineration and energy from waste will have an important part to play in an integrated system of waste management.—[Official Report, 31 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 885.]

Since that debate, and rather later than the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions originally anticipated, Waste Strategy 2000 has been published. Paragraph 5.59 states that waste incineration is

among the most strictly regulated waste management options available

which will soon be subject to even more stringent requirements under the directive that we are now debating.

Paragraphs 5.62 and 5.63 offer comforting words about the importance of high environmental pollution standards and the noticeable improvements that have been made in the environmental performance of United Kingdom waste incinerators. However, is that what the draft directive really implies?

The European Parliament's common position paper on the draft directive, which was adopted last November, noted that a high level of environmental protection requires the setting of stringent operational conditions. It also provides a loophole for the less-than-assiduous member states by stating that where this is not practicable the limits set should do no more than

reduce as far as possible the negative effects on the environment and the resulting risk to human health.

Later, in paragraph 18, we are told that

there may be grounds for exemption from emission limits.

In other words, for all the expensive Euro-bureaucracy, member states will be able to proceed with standards as lax as they choose in some of the major incineration plants. So, no matter how virtuous the Government and the Minister sound in Waste Strategy 2000, and regardless of the good intentions of the Environment Agency, there appears to be little in the EU legislative framework that will prevent the breaching of emission control standards in major new waste incineration plants.

I have something different in mind. It would be a far better world if we allowed small businesses to get on with their own incineration practices, with small-scale plants. The same could apply to farms. My worry is about major new high-chimney installations. Highly toxic material, spreading fall out in the form of fly ash over extensive areas, and gathering in the incinerators as bottom ash too, is a matter of genuine concern. Dioxin exposure has been shown, in as yet unfinished research in the United States, to have a strong causal relationship with cancer, as well as with changes in male biochemistry and physiology, affecting reproductive hormones, and with reductions in glucose tolerance, therefore having possible links to diabetes.

The risks were well summarised in a paper given by an American professor, Dr. Paul Connett, to the Waste to Energy conference on 24 November 1998 in Amsterdam. He said:

Incineration of municipal trash with energy recovery has been an experiment which after 20 years has left the citizens of industrialized countries with a legacy of unacceptably high levels of dioxins and related compounds in their food, their tissues, their babies and in wildlife.

He spoke about the formation of hydrogen chloride, the generation of nitric oxide, the release of toxic metals such as lead, cadmium, arsenic and mercury into the atmosphere and the unmonitored spread of dioxins contaminating human tissue and the food chain alike.

It is therefore imperative that the Government think again about the importance of further research into the damaging fallout from major new waste incineration plants and the effect that that may have on human and animal health. It is much better to operate on a small scale than to release fly ash into the air over wide areas, contaminating water supplies and crops, and affecting health.

If the dangers are ignored, in future, the Government of the day and local authorities could face huge compensation demands from cancer patients and others made ill by toxic fly ash. Without seeking to be unduly dramatic—hon. Members know that it is not my style—the sums involved for compensation from court orders could even dwarf the gigantic payout ordered a few days ago by the US courts against cigarette manufacturers. We should act now to safeguard our future health.

I am delighted to take part in this morning's debate to consider the EU incineration directive. I intend to concentrate on the implications for East Sussex. I fear that those of us who represent East Sussex constituencies might hijack the debate, but other hon. Members will appreciate that this is a hot issue—no pun intended—for my constituents and those of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), just along the coast.

I am grateful to the Minister for making time available last week for a meeting with members of the public in my constituency and me. I fear that he might have to listen again to some of the points that I made then, but it is helpful to put them on the record.

I am worried that the incineration directive represents a further step towards making mainstream a form of technology that still has question marks over it on safety and environmental advisability, as the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle rightly said. One of the worst aspects of incineration is that, because an incinerator has a high capital cost, a large amount of waste must be processed in order to repay the capital investment. In other words, once the plant exists, it is important for the person who runs it to secure as much waste as possible to try to recoup the initial investment. That undermines any attempt made by the local council to increase recycling. An incinerator is a hungry mouth that wants to be fed continually with ever more waste.

The Minister will be aware of the situation in Cleveland, before the system was abolished. The local council had a deal with the operators of the local incinerator to provide them with a certain amount of waste. As the council was so successful at recycling, it could not provide the contracted amount of waste and therefore had to make a penalty payment to the operators of the incinerator. We all want to avoid such consequences.

I accept that the Minister and the Government have a difficulty. The EU landfill directive sets the maximum amount of municipal waste to be deposited in landfill at 35 per cent. by 2014. The Minister for the Environment admits that the Government's recycling figure is a "pathetic" 8 per cent. That leaves a 57 per cent. gap. I am disappointed that the Government's answer is to take the easy way out and establish a chain of incinerators largely to fill that gap—[Interruption.] The Minister shakes his head and denies that that is the Government's position. No doubt he will expand on their view in his response, however, in yesterday's comprehensive spending review, the recycling target of 25 per cent. by 2005 appeared to be downgraded to 17 per cent. by 2004. That may achieve the same target in the end, but nevertheless, many of us wanted the target to be increased massively, not simply reiterated or at worst, diminished. We need to change the Government's approach, which I shall discuss shortly.

East Sussex has identified potential incinerator sites in my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle. Two places in my constituency have been mentioned. The first site is at Beddingham, not far from where I live—I suppose that I should declare that as a matter of interest. Beddingham is a village in an area of outstanding natural beauty. Local landmarks, such as Mount Caburn, feature regularly on postcards and drawings and are recognisable landmarks of a beautiful part of East Sussex. Yet Brighton and Hove borough council suggested that an incinerator should be placed not far from those landmarks in the middle of that pristine countryside. No development or industrial land surrounds the site, which is above a water table. The landfill site has already polluted the ground water supply.

The incinerator might replace the landfill site. When that was opened, the people of Beddingham were told that once it was full, that would be the end of the matter. The landfill site application described its purpose as restoring chalk downland and not as the precursor to an incinerator. It is impossible to imagine any environmental justification for placing an incinerator on that site. Unlike most people in East Sussex, Brighton and Hove councillors have argued for a south downs national park to take away power from democratically elected local councils. They have been the first to argue for an incinerator in the middle of the area of outstanding natural beauty and a football stadium at Falmer, as soon as the national park is designated and the boundaries are redrawn, as they would like them to be.

That choice of location is out of order, as is the suggestion of a site at Newhaven, which is even more worrying. I can show the Minister and hon. Members last week's front page of The Leader, which is delivered free to every door. An article contains quotes from Marek Lorys of the Newhaven chamber of commerce, who says that businesses will leave Newhaven in droves if an incinerator is built in the town. That is also the view of the Newhaven economic partnership, a private-public partnership established by the previous Government, which has support across industry and the councils. In many ways, that group speaks for the town. Its chief executive, Julian Rea, takes the view that an incinerator in Newhaven would send all the wrong signals to those who have tried so hard to boost Newhaven recently, including the Government office for the South East, and that it would set back those efforts.

Last Thursday, the Minister admitted to me that it was perfectly possible under EU law for waste to be imported for incineration in Newhaven, Mountfield or elsewhere. Importing waste for landfill is prohibited, but there is no such prohibition on importing waste for incineration, or energy from waste, as the Government prefer to call it. Newhaven is a major port, situated directly opposite Dieppe. For the reasons that I gave, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that an incinerator operator would want to maximise the amount of waste processed by importing waste into Newhaven. The proximity principle is thrown out of the window when we talk about dealing with French waste from "Monsewers", as the Sunday People said. That must be avoided, but that is the Pandora's box that we will open if we pursue incineration in East Sussex.

Whether or not any incinerators are built in East Sussex, will the Minister pledge that in no circumstances will waste be imported from France, Belgium or anywhere else for burning in incinerators?

Or Brighton.

I shall come to that in moment. In fact, the point leads me on happily to Brighton.

The Minister's strategy is "A way with waste". There is a gap between "A" and "way", which is just as well, because waste is not diminishing overall, but increasing at 3 per cent. a year. The Government's strategy rightly emphasises the proximity principle. Yet Lord Bassam, the Under-Secretary of State, Home Office, when he was leader of Brighton and Hove council, said that Brighton and Hove would never have an incinerator—so much for the proximity principle when it suits Lord Bassam and his colleagues. They are happy to dump waste over the fence into rural East Sussex—an area designated as a national park.

Brighton and Hove's stance is hypocritical. If it is arguing that incineration is perfectly safe—as the Minister may argue—under the proximity principle, the incinerator should be located in Brighton and Hove. If the argument is that incineration is dangerous, how dare Brighton and Hove council impose its dangerous waste on my constituents and others in East Sussex. The council cannot have it both ways. Either incineration is safe or it is not: its logic should follow on from that.

For the reasons that I have outlined, we do not want an incinerator at Beddingham or Newhaven. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will deal with safety issues in his speech.

I want to raise another serious matter relating to the East Sussex Brighton and Hove waste plan. There are six bidders for the contract, one of which is Viridor—the operator of the landfill site at Beddingham. Under the previous Government's arrangements, landfill tax funds went to a body called Entrust, and Viridor now has a role in the distribution of those funds. It has advised on distribution to pet projects for Brighton and Hove council and East Sussex county council. I am not blaming Viridor, which never asked for those circumstances to be created. Nevertheless, it has been put in a difficult position. It is helping the councils that created the plan with largesse running into hundreds of thousands of pounds. At the same time, it is bidding for a contract from those same authorities to deal with their future waste stream. That is worrying. Under those circumstances, does the Minister believe that Viridor should be allowed to bid for the waste contracts?

Finally, let me suggest some possible ways forward. It is easy to identify what is wrong with the Government's strategy and with incineration. I have not mentioned safety issues, which were dealt with by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle and will be addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington. However, there must be a presumption against incineration until such time as the scientific community is convinced that it is safe. There is no scientific consensus and there is no confidence in the population at large that incineration is safe. Recent reports from the US Environmental Protection Agency and others suggest the opposite and show increasing concern about the safety of incineration.

We should also redirect available funds to help local authorities. We should abolish Entrust, which is a private-sector body accountable to nobody and whose funding decisions are obscure at best and bear little relation to the waste stream. I am pleased to say that I have persuaded the body to fund some projects in my constituency, including Beddingham church, but I have achieved that through exploiting the system. I have received the funds for my constituency, but remain committed to the abolition of Entrust. The funds would more properly be invested in dealing with the waste stream.

Entrust money should be used for waste minimisation, recycling and re-use schemes, but it is not. Indeed, in my constituency, an innovative application for funding for recycling was rejected. That cannot make sense. One might argue that those who seek to build incinerators and are involved in the bidding process might have an interest in rejecting bids from other bodies. There is a clear conflict of interest. Entrust should be abolished and the money should be handed over to local authorities who should undertake that work.

We also need some fiscal measures. I am not sure what the small print in yesterday's comprehensive spending review says the DETR is doing about waste. I hope that the Minister will tell us that there will be some money for that.

There is an awful lot of money.

Yes, but is it for waste? It is important that we have direct fiscal measures from the Chancellor. Even if local authorities are given more money or the Government do something themselves through the DETR, it is not sufficient to deal with the problem of waste. We must look at fiscal measures to discourage packaging. It is not enough to rely on the European directive on packaging. We must consider fiscal measures to discourage the use of virgin materials and to encourage the use of recycled materials. We need to take measures to encourage waste minimisation generally and, most importantly, we need action from the Government to develop a market for recycled products. My local authority in Lewes is good at collecting material for recycling, but it cannot always find a market for it. That is very dispiriting for an authority that makes the effort, as many do. We need action from the Government on those fronts.

I hope that I have made it clear today that there are severe difficulties with the Government's strategy and that there is a lack of public confidence in incineration as a technology that the Government have not addressed. I have identified a way forward which, if it did not eliminate incineration, would go a long way to reduce the need for this chain of incinerators which, I fear, may stretch across East Sussex and the rest of the country before very long.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing the debate. He is having a busy week: incineration today and the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill on Friday. The former could help with the latter in some respects.

It is often said that pollution recognises no boundaries, and that is clearly the case. It is one of the reasons why we should co-operate at a European level on many environmental matters, and incineration is no exception. It is also, however, a source of concern to my constituents, most recently expressed when my local authority put forward proposals for a crematorium. The waste incineration directive has taken on new significance since the Government published their waste disposal strategy at the end of May. Although it was presented by the Minister for the Environment as a strategy to boost recycling, it was effectively a blueprint for the building of hundreds of incinerators all over the UK. Unlike the hon. Member for Southend, West, I will target Government plans for incinerators.

New fears about the impact of incineration have been raised following the leaking and subsequent publication of research by the US Environmental Protection Agency. According to the Environmental Data Services report, the ENDS report, the EPA has suggested that dioxins could pose considerably higher health risks than previously thought. The EPA has an on-going project to reassess dioxin exposure and human health risks, and a key finding has been that dioxins are more toxic than previously realised. It puts the chances of dioxins producing cancers at 10 times the previous levels.

I should point out that the report notes that there is currently no indication of ill effects in the general population from dioxin exposure, but it warns that there is no strong evidence for no effect either. It could be that deficiencies in scientific knowledge, as with CreutzfeldtJacob disease, prevent those clear links from being seen. The EPA's dioxin risk management strategy is due out this autumn and I do not want to pre-empt the report. We do not know whether it will impose even tighter controls on dioxin emissions from waste incinerators. Currently, the US national rules, which were passed in 1995 and 1997, aim to achieve a 95 per cent. reduction in dioxin emissions. The same Environmental Data Services report states:

The European Commission has claimed that a draft EU directive on waste incineration…will cut European emissions of dioxins from the same source by over 99 per cent.

In the context of the EPA report and continuing fears locally about the impact of incineration on human health, we should welcome the broad thrust of the EU directive.

I and my colleagues think that a much better way to protect human health and the atmosphere from the undesirable effects of incineration would be to minimise the amount of incineration that is carried out. We therefore have concerns about the Government's strategy. In many respects the strategy is a missed opportunity and risks continuing a landfill and incineration policy. It would have been better to have a commitment, backed up by funding, to a massive increase in recycling, re-use and waste minimisation and a reduction in landfill, without having to resort to incinerators. I hope that the Minister can explain what portion of the increase in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' budget, which was announced in the comprehensive spending review yesterday, will be dedicated to increasing recycling and composting. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) said, perhaps the Minister will explain whether Government recycling and composting targets have changed. In terms of a graph, an increase from 17 per cent. in 2004 to 25 per cent. in 2005 would not be a straight line but an exponential increase. If I am wrong, I hope that the Minister will correct me. If I am right, I hope that he will explain how that exponential increase between 2004 and 2005 will be achieved. Currently, I cannot see how it will. We believe that the number of incinerators is set to soar. The Government should have adopted a precautionary principle, as it should for other matters such as telecommunications masts. The Government's waste strategy targets are weak. In many cases, they are being achieved by the best local authorities, and are already being achieved in many European Union countries.

I often take the opportunity to quote the record of my borough, the London borough of Sutton, which has promoted recycling policies effectively since the 1980s.[Interruption.] I would welcome interventions from Conservative Members on that. I am proud of my borough's record, which has been praised by the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), the London Mayor, and the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). Sutton's strategy aims to encourage recycling and divert waste from landfill. The Minister will know, as it has been well publicised, that the local authority has dual bins—green bins and brown bins—which are collected on alternative weeks. There is also a free clear plastic sack collection, running between May and November, which people can use to recycle their garden waste, and composters are available to anyone who wants one.

The Association of London Government has used Sutton as an example of good practice. During 1999–2000, Sutton recycled 34.7 per cent. of its household waste compared with a London average of only 12.8 per cent. The Audit Commission has confirmed that Sutton not only recycles the most waste but has the second most cost-effective waste management service. The local authority in Sutton has achieved in 2000 the target set by the Government for 2015—15 years ahead of schedule. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) attacked the scheme. He may want to comment on it further, although the fact that such schemes run in other local authorities, such as Conservative-controlled Daventry, may discourage him from doing so. Sutton has set itself the target of recycling 80 per cent. of household waste by 2005 and believes that it is on track to achieve that target. The approach adopted locally could, therefore, be replicated nationally. I hope that incineration can begin to be seen as the last resort.

I also hope that the draft EU directive will clarify whether energy from waste is renewable, or, if not, that the Minister will do so. The Government seem to believe that energy recovered through combined heat and power is renewable. I would argue that that is complete nonsense. No internationally recognised definition of renewable energy deems energy from waste to be renewable. It is a pity that the Government did not accept the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes, which sought to clarify that point. Even in Westminster there is confusion about definitions of environmental matters. In response to a parliamentary question that I asked about recycled paper, I was told that vast quantities of paper are recycled, but that it is then incinerated. I am sorry, but that is not recycling. It was a bizarre response.

Waste contains large quantities of plastics and that is another reason why it cannot be considered renewable. Indeed, the director and general manager of SELCHP, a combined heat and power plant, readily accepts that energy from waste cannot be defined as renewable when plastics goes into the incinerator. A further source of concern, as expressed by the Paper Federation of Great Britain, is that much waste paper currently going to recycling will, if large numbers of incinerators are built, end up in incinerators, because paper has a high calorific value that keeps incinerators burning, instead of going into recycling. I hope that the Minister will assure us that that will not happen.

The hon. Member for Southend, West elegantly expressed the commercial concerns about the proposal. I remind him that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have taken a clear position against incineration. It is surely illogical not to address the issue of the incinerators that are currently in place. It is not good enough to say, "Well, we don't want to build any more incinerators but we are happy to let the ones that exist carry on burning, with the potential health risks of that."

I should like to address that point now. Can I take it that it is now Liberal Democrat policy that all small incinerators on farms and pet crematoriums should be closed down? That is the logic of what the hon. Gentleman just said, but—despite the characteristic incoherence that one expects from Liberal Democrat policy—he cannot mean that.

It would have been better if the hon. Gentleman had just listened to what I was about to say on the issue. That is not Liberal Democrat policy, but it may well be our policy that the Government should consider measures to assist owners and users of small incinerators. It is entirely illogical to argue against incinerators while also arguing that smaller incinerators, about which there may be health concerns, should be left to continue their production.

The hon. Member for Southend, West outlined clearly concerns about incinerators used on farm premises and in the motor trade industry, and I hope that the Minister will respond to those points. Can he confirm that the compliance costs are in the region of £200, 000 to £300, 000 and, if so, can he offer any assistance? Has progress been made on clarifying whether animal carcases are covered by the directive? I look forward to the Minister's response and I hope that he can deal with some of the commercial anxieties that have been outlined, as well as the genuine environmental concerns about the proposed plans for an expansion of incineration.

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on securing this morning's debate. I do so for two reasons. First, the issue is significant and, in that regard, it is noteworthy that of the 417 Labour Members of Parliament, the only one who has turned up for the debate is the Minister, who is a pressed man and whom we always welcome to such debates. Not one Labour Member who did not need to be here has bothered to turn up for this important debate.

To be fair, my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) has been present in the debate. He intervened four times on the hon. Member for Southend, West.

Yes, the hon. Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) made important and helpful interventions. I shall rephrase what I said. No Labour Member who is not a Minister has bothered to make a speech. That is significant.

The second reason why my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West should be congratulated on securing the debate is that the Department has made a catalogue of mistakes in dealing with the directive and, as negotiations are continuing, it is important to ensure that such errors do not continue. I shall address the bulk of my remarks to what my hon. Friend said about the specific effects of the directive on small farm incinerators. However, as the wider issue of the directive has been highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) and by the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), I shall also seize the opportunity to make points about the Government's general incineration policy as it deals with the effects of the directive and the promotion of a cleaner, greener Britain to which the Liberal Democrat Members have referred and which has been described by many environmental groups as an important move towards greener policies from the Conservative party and, rightly so.

A key issue is the interaction between the amount of incineration that is required, the number of incinerators that are needed and the amount of recycling that is undertaken. Yesterday's announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer exposed the Government's dishonesty in their claim of how much extra money they will spend on recycling. They are trying to give the impression that they are improving their targets for recycling. The hon. Member for Lewes made a generous formulation of what the Government have done, however, if hon. Members read the national waste strategy that was published two months ago, they will see that the Government were aiming at a target of 17 per cent. recycling by 2003.

Yesterday, we were told with a great fanfare that the Government are aiming at a target of 17 per cent. recycling by 2004. They have weakened their targets over two months. The Government seem to think that the general public have a memory span of a goldfish and cannot remember what the Government said previously about certain issues. However, some of us can remember what the Government said. We have copies of their national waste strategy and they announced yesterday a reduction in their recycling target from the one that they published two months ago.

By way of clarification, I think that the 17 per cent. target applies to recycling rather than to recycling and composting, so there is a difference.

I am not sure whether that is right. In the national waste strategy, the general target was 17 per cent. However, I am sure that the Minister will clear the matter up. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington intervened, I feel that I should congratulate him on his nice try at defending the Liberal Democrat council. It must be the most unpopular council in Britain in terms of its waste collection. In return for all the recycling that it manages, it commits its residents to the misery—especially at this time of year, when it is hot—of having their rubbish collected only once every two weeks. He will be aware that many thousands of signatures have been put on a petition presented to the Prime Minister by Lady Olga Maitland. Sutton council's waste collection policy is fantastically unpopular, and will be a significant factor in respect of the hon. Gentleman's seat at the next general election.

We are descending into party politics. In my constituency, a similar policy is operated on collection in the Polegate area by Wealden district council, which is controlled by the Conservatives. It is a very popular policy.

As well as being run by Conservative councillors, the council is presumably run efficiently, which is why the policy is popular. Even the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington will admit that Sutton council is extremely unpopular.

I am sorry, but I cannot let that go without comment. The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that Sutton council regularly has one of highest, if not the highest, council satisfaction ratings in the country in opinion polls carried out by MORI.

We shall see the effect at the election next year.

There is one key question for the Minister about incineration, given his recycling targets, however they are being softened and changed by the month. How many incinerators do the Government think need to be built to meet the target? He shook his head at the figure of 160 or 170, which Friends of the Earth suggested. It beggars belief that the Department does not have a range of calculations about how many incinerators will need to be built. Unless and until the Government can give us some figures, hon. Members on both sides of this Chamber are entitled to be sceptical about the Government's performance in respect of recycling and their commitment to a significant improvement in recycling as a way of meeting our international obligations on reducing landfill.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West made several points when he introduced the debate. When the Government negotiate the terms of a European directive, it is clearly their duty to ensure that it does not damage the country. I am sure that all hon. Members welcome the thrust of the directive, which is meant to make incineration cleaner and safer. No one could argue with that intent, but we all know that the devil is often in the detail. Therefore, the Government have a duty to negotiate the detail properly, and they have lamentably failed in that duty.

The history of the Government's action in response to the directive is worth my rehearsing before I ask the Minister to deal with some specific points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West eloquently said, the directive will have a significant effect, especially on small incinerators. They cost an average of £5, 000, and will have to fit new equipment at an estimated cost of between £30, 000 and £42, 000. Clearly, that will have deleterious effects on many farmers and on pet crematoriums.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington brought up a specific environmental point. I am glad that he has clearly read our waste strategy. As he said, we would like to see the emphasis moved much more towards recycling rather than large incinerators. There will be some role for incineration, large and small, and I hope that he would welcome a commitment to small, local incinerators. Pet crematoriums and on-farm incinerators not only provide a useful service, but mean that less transport of waste and carcases is needed. The unnecessary use of transport, especially polluting lorries, leads to an increase in the noxious emissions that cause global warming.

I accept and understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is making, but will the small incinerator not have the same capital costs in terms of environmental protection? In fact, those costs will rise as a consequence of the new directive, which is something that we welcome in some ways—though not all—because it will give greater protection from unwanted emissions. Will that not work against the network of small incinerators to which he refers?

It will not necessarily work for the existing ones. I agree with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West that a derogation is needed and a balance needs to be struck. In purely environmental terms, it would be foolish to close down the entire network of small incinerators, as the Government propose. That might reduce emissions, but it would certainly have the effect of increasing greenhouse gases as all the carcases were transported around the country. Therefore, the policy would be to our environmental disadvantage.

The Government were faced with the possibility of significant industries being closed down. What did they do? The answer is, not a lot. I refer to two written answers that I received from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill). I asked him about the assessment that he had made of effect of the directive on the disposal of animal carcases, and his reply began:

No assessment has been made of the effect of the proposed waste incineration directive on options for disposing of animal carcases.

By any standards, that is neglectful. I commend the Under-Secretary on the honesty of the answer, but the Department should do better than that. However, it gets worse.

We have had much discussion of the Entec report. In my second question, I asked what estimate had been made of the number of United Kingdom incinerators that failed to meet the terms of the EU waste incineration directive. In the course of his answer, the Under-Secretary said that Entec had undertaken a cost-benefit analysis, which we have discussed. He went on to say that the report

identified numbers of incinerators in different sectors, although subsequently we have received information that the report significantly underestimated the number of animal carcase incinerators.—[Official Report, 13 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 543–44W.]

I would not simply use the word "significantly". Entec thought that there were 60 incinerators when, in fact, there were 3,000.

The failures of that report, on the basis of which one assumes that Ministers have acted, have made public policy worse than it might otherwise have been. Will the Government tell us how much they paid Entec for that report, and whether they have paid the bill in full? In the instance to which I referred, the report has been damaging.

The Government have failed to negotiate the proper derogations as they should have done. There is now some hope that the directive will exclude from its scope animal carcases, which will be regulated by a different directive, but that would be without prejudice to any future amendments. The Government have been claiming a great breakthrough over the past few days but, given their performance so far, hon. Members would be right to be sceptical until the matter is nailed down and the derogations set out in detail.

The Minister owes hon. Members some specific guarantees, and I ask him to address the specific point about Entec. Will he guarantee an exemption for small farm incinerators and, separately, ensure that pet crematoriums will not be hit by the directive as they will not fall under the derogation to which I have referred? Will he give an estimate of when the process will finish? The Government have one last chance to rescue themselves from this disastrous episode and, for the sake of farmers and of those who run and use pet crematoriums, I hope that they get their act together and take it.

The debate has ranged more widely than we were led to believe. However, the clever people who advise me suspected that it might.

I shall start by touching on the points raised by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), as he secured the debate. He raised an important issue, as has been made clear by the speeches that we have heard today, and he made some interesting points, which the Government have already taken on board. To some extent, his points have been overtaken by events, therefore much of his indignation is misplaced. Suffice it to say that it was not until 10.48 this morning that the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) referred to the fact that an agreement has been reached that meets the points about which he is concerned. I shall return to that in a moment.

The hon. Member for Southend, West, in a throwaway line in his opening remarks—on which later contributions elaborated—said that the Government have a plan for a network of mega-incinerators. We do not. Anyone who pretends that we do is misleading people, although I can see the political advantages of pursuing that line in certain areas. Questions such as how many incinerators are built, and where they are built, are matters for local authorities. There are plenty of alternatives to incineration and we expect them to be pursued.

The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) was right to say that it would be undesirable if big incinerators were driving our waste disposal policy. Those issues should be taken into account by local authorities when deciding whether incineration should be part of their programme. The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) referred, as did other hon. Members, to the dispute between East Sussex county council and Brighton and Hove council. That is private grief, on which I should not intrude. Clearly, as I am a Minister in a Department to which that dispute—or a similar one—may be referred for arbitration, he cannot expect me to get bogged down in the details of an application.

There are plenty of alternatives to waste disposal, and the best one is recycling. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred to his authority's record in that regard, and other authorities also have good records. The Government are making substantial sums of money available—to which only passing reference was made—the details of which will be announced in the next few days. The headline figures were available yesterday.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I have only seven minutes remaining to deal with the large number of questions that were asked. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I plough on.

For years, waste has been shovelled into landfill. Nobody wants an incinerator or a landfill site on his doorstep. The landfill policy cannot continue, so we must address the alternatives maturely. There is no doubt that incineration, in some shape or form, must be a factor in waste disposal; indeed, it already is. Many European countries that have a better record than us on waste disposal already use a good deal of incineration. Part of the concern about the environmental effects of incinerators—which is perfectly legitimate—arises from problems in relation to an older generation of incinerators. I agree that we should not be complacent, but the technology has moved on considerably and we should bear that in mind. Many countries with a better record on waste disposal and environmental matters—Denmark and Holland, for example—use incineration much more than we do. It is interesting to observe an alliance between a new, green, compassionate and merciful Conservative party—different from the one that we kicked out three years ago—and Friends of the Earth. However, I have heard representatives of Friends of the Earth privately admit that there is a place for incineration in our waste disposal policy.

The hon. Member for Lewes made some interesting and important suggestions, some of which he mentioned when he came to see me the other day, and the Government are actively considering them all. His stance verged between the high ground of lofty moral principle and nimbyism—and he needs to decide which of those two he intends to pursue. He is right to take a close interest in this important issue and we all respect his views, but at times I felt that his sleeves were rolled up and that he was taking part in a local brawl, which did not help his argument.

The hon. Member for Ashford asked about the number of incinerators, but the Government have no figures. I repeat that the Government have no target to aim for. I have heard a figure of 160 bandied about, but I would be amazed if anything like that number were required. I would be surprised if even half that number were necessary. The hon. Gentleman asked how much the Government paid Entec. I shall have to write to him about that, but I understand that the bill has been paid. I was asked about recycling targets, about which there has been some misunderstanding. They are 17 per cent. by the financial year 2003–04, and 25 per cent. by 2005–06. Those national targets will be backed up with local authority recycling targets.

In the few remaining minutes, I should address the point made by the hon. Member for Southend, West. Last Thursday, an agreement was reached between all parties on the amendments proposed to the common position following its Second Reading. Agreement was reached about small-scale animal carcase incinerators and Commissioner Wallstrom issued a press release on Friday heralding this. Although the agreed text is yet to be published we are confident that, as a result of UK efforts, the directive will be adopted with the specific exclusion from its scope of animal carcase incinerators—with the proviso that appropriate controls will be brought in via the proposed revision to the animal waste directive. It will cover pet and farm incinerators. The hon. Gentleman may also be aware that Commissioner Wallstrom stated separately that the incineration of animal waste must comply with environmental standards, which will be included in a proposal for legislation to amend the animal waste directive.

The environmental regulation of animal carcase incinerators is necessary. As farmers and pet crematorium operators would agree, it is part of their commitment to safe disposal. In the context of the revision to the animal waste directive, we shall continue to propose controls to ensure appropriate environmental standards while minimising the burden on small-scale animal carcase incinerator operators. We have not yet received any information on the environmental controls that the Commission will include in the revision. In supporting a clear exclusion from the directive, we recognise that the Entec report significantly underestimated the number of small-scale animal carcase incinerators operating in the UK. The full requirements of the directive will be disproportionate for small-scale animal carcase incinerators.

I am conscious that time has not allowed me to comment on all the points that have been raised. I shall comb through Hansard and write to hon. Members to whose points I have been unable to respond.

I am pleased to have secured today's debate. This is the second time in 15 months that the subject of park homes has been discussed in an Adjournment debate. I took part in such a debate on 21 April 1999. Today's debate follows early-day motion 750, which called for major legislation to resolve the fundamental problems of the sector. That indicates the interest and the concern across the House: at the last count, the motion had been signed by 98 Members from all parties.

The debate comes in the wake of the report of the park homes working party which was published on 12 July, in the middle of consultation on the housing Green Paper. Next week, in another place, my noble Friend, that redoubtable campaigner on park homes and on many other issues, Lord Ted Graham, will participate in a similar debate on the reform of park homes.

We are reaching the culmination of a major national campaign led by Sam Hart, the excellent reporter with The Big Issue, which has taken place at a time when hon. Members of all parties have expressed great concern about this sector. I have seen a petition from constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton), and on Thursday my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), who is another inveterate campaigner on such issues, will deliver a petition from his constituents calling for urgent attention to be given to reform of this sector.

This is an issue whose moment has come. For many people, park homes are a comfortable, safe and extremely pleasant way of life, and a delightful way to spend one's retirement in fine rural areas similar to those that I and numerous other hon. Members represent. They are also a good business opportunity for decent people who are prepared to work hard, invest money and time and treat people properly. However, people throughout the country are beginning to realise that in the midst of all that a serious problem of harassment and exploitation has been uncovered. Cheats and rogues are at work in this sector of housing.

I do not intend to name names, nor need I. We know who those rogues are because we have received letters from people all over the country who have suffered at their hands. Those in the park homes sector who suffer certainly know who they are. Ministers and officials of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions have been fully informed by many park homes residents and their organisations about the iniquitous treatment meted out to a proportion of the people who live in park homes. We know about the abuse. We have heard about the threats and harassment that people who live in this sector suffer. We have heard about the lack of basic facilities: the electricity supply that blows when a few people put on a kettle at the same time.

We have heard of the park owner who refuses to advertise a home that is for sale, who puts off prospective purchasers and puts obstacles in the way of residents who want to sell. He then makes an offer that cannot be refused, and makes a killing when the home is resold. We have heard of vast increases being demanded in pitch fees-the annual fee for maintaining a park home on a particular site. We have heard of the increases imposed, without discussion, information or justification, and of absurd charges levied for basic information about reselling, utilities and other aspects of daily lives on parks.

In the worst instances we have heard of homes damaged and wrecked and of downright criminal behaviour from people who should be brought to book. There are brave people in the park homes organisations. There are steadfast individuals who have striven for many years to bring example after disgraceful example to official attention. It is time for their voices to be clearly heard and action to be taken to right the wrongs. There should be no room in the 21st century for the park owner who abuses the vulnerable, the elderly, the isolated, and who benefits himself by taking advantage of the deeply inadequate law and his position of utter and overwhelming power.

I was proud to be a member of the all-party delegation, led by my noble Friend Lord Graham, which met my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, in late 1997. I was delighted that she agreed to establish the park homes working party to take a full look at the way in which controls operate in the park homes sector.

I should like to commend all the members of the park homes working party for a job well done, especially the members of the Independent Park Homes Advisory Service, the British Park Home Residents Association, the National Association of Park Home Residents and the representatives of the owners' organisations such as the British Home and Holiday Parks Association and the National Park Homes Council. It is an enormous credit to them and to the civil servant, Michael Faulkner, who chaired their proceedings for almost two years, that they were able to work together to share problems, to achieve compromises and to acknowledge differences openly and straightforwardly. Their actions show that there is hope for the industry, for the decent and responsible people for whom it is a livelihood and for the decent and responsible people for whom it is a way of life.

There are some excellent recommendations in the report, which should be commended to the House. The written statement should be provided in advance of the sale and should be signed at the time of the sale and in the presence of witnesses. It is a vital contract and an important legal document. It should be deemed that a sale has approval unless the park owner expressly withholds it in writing within a maximum period. In some circumstances, a park owner could and should resist the sale of a home on his site—for instance, if the park were for retired people, the park owner should be entitled to prevent the sale of a park home to people who did not meet the eligibility criteria because they did not fall within the specified age band. However, we must have strictures to prevent people from inordinately delaying a sale.

Some park home owners have taken up the inspirational idea of collectively purchasing their parks when the owner places the park on the open market. It is good that the working group recommends deleting the age criterion for ending agreements. Park homes are becoming increasingly sophisticated, and major parts are becoming easier to replace. There is no reason why a well-maintained park home should not last for a long time.

Residents associations should be recognised with rights to consultation and information. It is obvious that decent park owners have nothing to fear from the establishment of residents associations.

As the report says, we must take action on the resale of utilities. That is one of several opportunities for the unscrupulous to exploit what amounts to a monopoly position. I understand the working party's recommendation for a statutory maximum price for the resale of liquified petroleum gas, to bring it in line with all other utilities, but I do not understand why the park owner should make money from supplying the basic services that are essential to obtaining a site licence. Whatever the outcome of that recommendation, it is essential that, whether the park owner makes a profit from reselling services or simply levies a charge to recover costs, full information about charges is given as of right to consumers.

The report makes many worthy recommendations and demands scrutiny. We should encourage the 200,000 park residents throughout the land to participate in the consultation, which lasts until 31 October. I hope that the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), can assure me that at least the summary document will be widely disseminated. We know where park residents live and we should encourage the greatest participation in discussions about their future. I represent some 1,000 park owners—about 0.5 per cent. of the park residents in the country—so I was sorry to hear from my office that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions can provide us with only 100 copies of the summary document. That is not good enough. I hope that we can obtain one copy per person, because every park resident should have one.

The document has some significant flaws and omissions. It acknowledges that there is some way to go on some important issues relating to park homes. The major question of commission on pitch fees remains to be resolved. We must have a full independent report on park homes financing. I find it difficult to accept that such a tenuous concept as the commission on turnover that might be achieved is a good basis for financing such significant business ventures. If a key element of park owners' income is dependent on a proportion of residents moving on, that is a serious and significant anomaly. Surely we should promote security and stability, particularly for the older people who form the majority of those who live on parks, rather than accept that a large part of park owners' income and sustenance comes from people deciding to move. That anomaly needs to be addressed.

The issue of good practice guidance crops up a little too readily in the document. Such guidance is fine when it has an adequate statutory basis, but we have problems if there are flaws and holes in the legislation. We need statutory duties from sound laws.

The best word in the document is "housing", which appears in the biggest print on the cover. Park homes constitute housing. Most park homes are extremely affordable, although they are not caravans. They are mobile in that they are taken to the parks, but it is hard to think of them as mobile when they have been bricked into position and are receiving mains services. It is extremely unhelpful to regard park homes as caravans or mobile homes.

Modern park homes are constructed to high standards. They are flexible and can be used for a variety of purposes. They are particularly adaptable for older or disabled people. They often provide a real option for people to realise hard-earned capital and take up residence in extremely pleasant, safe and caring communities, often at a quiet time in their lives. Put on a proper footing, the industry could address important aspects of housing needs for young and old people in urban and rural communities. Park homes could play an important part in the regeneration and diversification of both urban and rural areas.

Caravans and mobile homes are associated with the leisure and tourism industries or, more regrettably, with life on the margins. However, park homes should be regarded as mainstream housing. Almost all the serious problems can be traced to inadequate legislation, which has utterly failed to keep up with social changes and trends over the past 20 or 30 years. It is time to scrap all references to caravans and mobile homes and include park homes in mainstream housing legislation.

The housing Green Paper "Quality and Choice: A Decent Home for All" has been published. The title says it all. That paper rightly promotes a stronger role for local authorities. They must be given new statutory duties to register, monitor and enforce conditions on parks. Those duties must be informed by model standards that are suitable for good-quality homes—rather than inadequate caravans—and good-quality parks run by fit and proper people who are capable of providing an acutely important housing service for vulnerable and needy people.

The housing Green Paper states that the Government will build on developments in the Rent Service. That is right. Surely the rigorous and consistent independence of the rent officer could be brought to bear on pitch fees. That would provide an accessible and authoritative adjudication in an area that is currently ripe for exploitation, where issues are so easily clouded and where power is so readily wielded by those with easy access to the threatening power of the solicitor's letter.

The housing Green Paper also states that the Government will build on existing laws against harassment, recognising that some people have difficulty securing adequate protection from local authorities and the police. That is good and is also mentioned in the park homes working party report. Few aspects of life in this country could be more open to harassment than park homes, where the vulnerable and isolated are not properly protected by the law and lack access to sources of help.

The housing Green Paper also notes the development of a pilot tenancy deposit scheme, which aims to provide security for deposits and, backed by the independent housing ombudsman, swift independent resolution of disputes at the end of tenancies. Residents own and pay for their park homes, but they also have to pay a pitch fee to be sited on particular parks. Park home residents could benefit from such a service or scheme. It could help to resolve some of the crucial issues about commission and transfer of written agreements.

The housing Green Paper is keen to promote the provision of affordable housing in rural areas. That is great. We have a thriving park homes industry, which is crying out for more land to meet increasing demand. Many people choose to live in the sector and many good park homes are being built. There are good opportunities to develop park homes, which I support in the longer term. However, revisions to PPG3 and to general planning guidance should not go ahead until major reforms to put park homes on a proper footing have been implemented. We must drive out the rogues and villains and allow decent people to flourish in what should be a fine industry and a thoroughly good way of life.

Several hon. Members intend to speak on this issue. The full range of political views is represented on the all-party park homes group. Much work is being done at many different levels, and many Members of Parliament often deal with people in the park homes sector in their constituencies. The cause of park homes has been a hard road for many people for a long time. I now feel, however, that there is hope for the sector—hope for the people who live in it and who want to enjoy a pleasant and peaceful life; and hope for the decent responsible people who want to contribute by responding to good business opportunities.

The park homes working party report and the housing Green Paper provide the Government with the opportunity to introduce the serious and thoroughgoing legislation that this sector has never had before and so badly needs. It is an issue whose time has come, and it will not go away. I look forward to the rest of the debate, and hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will assure us of the Government's intentions to take this serious matter forward.

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing the debate and on his speech. In my constituency, almost one in 10 households lives in a park home. Fortunately, almost all those households are satisfied with the quality of the accommodation and the way in which it is managed. There are obviously exceptions to that, but my plea to the Government is to consider the variety of park homes and the different arrangements that apply to them. I hope that the Government will ensure that any change to the legislation will not militate against current best practice. In some park homes in my constituency, any change to the arrangements for the payment of fees would be unpopular with the residents, whereas in others that would be popular.

I hope that the Government will recognise the enormous variety of park homes that exist, even on one site. I spoke today to the proprietor of a family firm that owns a site in my constituency with about 150 park homes, ranging in value from over £100,000 to £25,000 or £30,000. A large new park home brought on to the site could cost as much as £120,000. When a home is sold, 10 per cent. of its value goes to the site owner, who obviously gets more money for the more expensive homes. If the legislation is changed so that site owners no longer take 10 per cent. when a home is sold, that may militate against owners of less valuable homes.

Many people put much of their capital into buying a retirement park home, so they do not want high outgoings. There is a trade-off: they may not want to pay so much in annual pitch fees because if and when they move they will pay around 10 per cent. of the value of their home to the site owner. The site owner to whom I spoke today told me that he employs two full-time maintenance people and provides a personal service for the 150 homes on his site. There is so much satisfaction among the residents that there is not even a demand for a residents association. By contrast, some sites are owned by multinationals and the quality of the management depends largely on the quality of the manager who is employed. There can sometimes be difficulties in that regard.

My instinct is that we should enable the variety of park homes to continue. I welcome the recommendations in the report on relaxing some planning controls and enabling the development of more park home sites. Park homes are popular and have proved their worth over time. Why should we not develop more sites such as those already in existence?

I should like to concentrate on recommendation 8 in the report, on pitch fees and commission. That issue is highly contentious—as shown by the fact that, although the working party met for more than two years, it was able only to conclude that the Government should hold an inquiry. It stated:

The Government should commission as soon as possible an independent study of the economics of the park homes industry, to identify the maximum level of commission to be set and give clarification of the items to be included in the calculation of the commission. The study should also identify the principles on which pitch fees should be set and reviewed.

I hope that the Minister will announce that the Government will now commission such a study. There is no need to wait until the expiry of the consultation period for the report. It would not be contentious to commission such a study. I have every confidence that doing so would enable a balance to be struck between the interests of residents of the sort of park home that I described at the beginning of my remarks and those who occupy park homes that, in the words of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre, have as owners those who are rogues and interested in harassment and exploitation. Fortunately, not many of those are found in the Christchurch constituency. However, it would be desirable for the Government to commission such an independent study on the subject as soon as possible. That would give me every confidence that we could deal with the worst circumstances and accommodate existing practice where it enjoyed the support of park home residents.

My constituents frequently raise the issue of council tax band A, which normally applies to park homes. In some cases, band B now applies. However, in the example that I cited earlier of a site of 150 park homes, including some worth more than £100,000 and others worth only £25,000, the current council tax banding system tends to band them all together. That can lead to injustice and resentment, especially among those who occupy homes that are significantly below the top threshold for band A. I am disappointed that the Government have not yet said anything about their intentions towards band A council tax, as the information will interest several park home residents.

I support many of the comments made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). I congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on having secured the debate. I know from my reading on the topic that he has been active in pursuing the matter on behalf of his constituents, and I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate.

As the working party report highlighted, the legislative framework that governs the matter is inadequate and needs attention. It offers little protection to home owners and, as has already been mentioned, allows unscrupulous owners, albeit perhaps a minority of park home owners, to exploit, harass and extort money from their residents. It is right for debate on park homes to focus on permanent residents, as a clear case has been made for change in that respect. The park homes working party report makes interesting and encouraging reading. I hope that the Minister will tell us that it will lead to early legislation, guidance and various other developments that will effect genuine change in standards in the not-too-distant future.

I shall highlight the plight of recreational park home owners, who, when I began to investigate the matter as a result of a constituency case, did not seem to have been the subject of a debate in the House. The focus has, rightly, been on permanent residents. However, whereas the law affords little protection to permanent residents, it seems to offer almost none to those who decide to invest in a park home as a place of retreat, rest and recreation. A constituency case drew my attention to the matter. I shall ask the Minister a few questions and draw his attention to that case.

I shall briefly share the chronology of events relating to a case raised by a constituent of mine. It involves a site that is not in my constituency but is of interest to my constituents. I shall identify the site no more closely than by saying that it is in West Sussex. The site changed hands in 1996 after many years of good stewardship by a family-run business that paid great attention to the management of the site. Immediately, the fees were increased by 23 per cent., without consultation, explanation or, certainly in the eyes of many home owners on the site, good reason. At the same time, there was an electricity overcharge of £24 per caravan. The new owner insisted that insurance should be taken out for the caravans and their contents directly through him, at an increased rate.

In 1997, a caravan owners association was set up on the site to champion owners' causes and concerns. Rents were raised again and the electricity continued to be subject to overcharging. The association took up the matter with management. Its chairman wrote various letters on behalf of the members and received a fine of £130 for his pains. My constituent, who was a member, also took up the cause and wrote to challenge the owner on electricity overcharging. He, too, received a fine. All the fines have been repeated in the years since 1997. The chairman of the association's fines now total £270 and my constituent's fines total £440.

The owner was simply being required to respond to the concerns. It appears that fines as a form of response can best be characterised as extortion and as harassment of those trying to enjoy some recreational time on the site. When the owner took on management of the site, he also insisted that all the owners sign yearly licences. That does not fully comply with the current voluntary code of practice. Over the past four years, the park has deteriorated. The gardens, which were immaculately kept by the family owners, have now been transformed into open fields which are less attractive and appealing to the residents. The Office of Electricity Regulation has confirmed that the park owner has acted at least incorrectly and possibly unlawfully.

Even if the home owners seek to enforce their rights in respect of the overcharging, they face retribution or the fear of retribution in the form of further fines and being asked to leave the site. Annual licences make that incredibly easy to do. These people have made substantial investments. The hon. Member for Christchurch described the large sums that can be involved in purchasing such homes. On the site, investments of more than £10,000 are being made. It is often difficult to move and sell homes, especially if one does not have the co-operation of the park owner.

A case was referred to me about a deaf and dumb couple who had to leave the site because the fees had gone up so much. In the end, they sold their home to the park owner for £750. He resold it for £3,750. By any measure, that is a substantial mark-up for the park owner. The park homes working party report does not directly address itself to the plight of recreational park home owners, but many problems that it identifies undoubtedly exist across the sector. Caravan sites used for recreational purposes do not come under the definition of protected sites, and so do not benefit from the limited protections afforded by the Mobile Homes Act 1983. Their protection is based solely on the terms of contracts and there is sometimes doubt about whether contracts have been constructed fairly.

Recreational park home owners deserve greater protection, perhaps on a different level from that of permanent home owners. Park associations should have the right to information and consultation. The Office of Electricity Regulation should be proactive in using all its powers to protect residents and ensure that information is supplied to them. There must be clarity about what fees are for and how they are to be reviewed and set. I agree with the hon. Member for Christchurch that the research suggested in the working party report should be commissioned, but in a way that deals with not only permanent but recreational home owners.

I hope that such a different group of home owners will be subject to greater certainty and that the current voluntary code of practice will be enforced properly in the future. I hope that it will become something that can be relied on by park home owners and regarded as a national standard against which licences will be issued and services can be judged. That is how to ensure that those who suffer an inferior service and poor treatment will receive a better deal.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I shall not give way to him as other hon. Members wish to take part in the debate.

I hope that the valuable work undertaken by the working party, albeit focusing on permanent residents, can also be translated into lessons to be learned to deal with the recreational sector. Will the Minister undertake to deal with the worries of recreational home users as well as permanent users? They need to be helped just as much as permanent users.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing today's debate and on the fact that he has previously pressed the issue in the House. He has flagged it up as an important matter, drawn from his experiences of the wide provision of park homes in his constituency. Many of us share similar problems, although we also have experiences of acceptable park home site operators. How such sites function and operate is largely a matter of luck and the attitude of a particular site owner, rather than an obligation to act according to best practice.

Many changes take place in site ownership; new owners move in and regard it as a highly profitable area and press it considerably. There are many techniques by which a person can make money. A person can be a good owner and good employer, can make sure that people are satisfied with matters and can work well by using that technique. Others press like mad every avenue to exploit people. Such action is taken by many site owners in respect of pitch fees, utilities and the exploitation of the site rates.

As my hon. Friend said, many park home owners are vulnerable people and have great difficulty in coming forward publicly and expressing their views. That is why Members of Parliament are under a duty to do so on their behalf. Although some people, because of the publicity that surrounds the matter, are willing to sign The Big Issue petition and forward it to their Members of Parliament, they do not want the site owners to know that they are involved in such activity.

One or two brave individuals act as leaders of their communities and are willing to take the flak, but many people are frightened of coming forward. It must be made clear that the consultation process is open to all home owners, and when people submit their views they can say that they do not want such documentation to be made public. I hope that will be able to flex their muscles more freely. However, that is dependent on implementation of some of the measures contained in the party homes working party report. My hon. Friend has said that there are additional issues that he wants to advance and develop.

One of the extra issues brought to my attention by park home owners is council tax banding. I pursued that matter on many occasions with the previous Government, which introduced the banding, and have done so with the present Government. I have suggested that there should be extra banding so that park home owners are not charged such high council tax. There should be a wider extension at the other end of the scale, giving a closer relationship with reasonable and decent standards of charging which would benefit the people whom we are discussing.

The problem of unadopted roads has been brought to my attention and affects a wide area in my constituency. If an unadopted road leads to a site, there may be great difficulties in ensuring that, although other people have properties in that area, the site owner has the major responsibility. There are two national bodies for site owners, operating a type of self-regulatory system, but the way in which that system works depends on the organisation of which the site owner is a member. In my constituency, there are sites that are not tied in with those bodies, so the best practices of the industry cannot be fed in.

It is clear that we need legislation in line with the best interpretations of the proposals in the report. There is a worry that that may take some time. One of the recommendations, in connection with pitch fees, claims that another study is required. It is important to gather the correct information before making decisions, but the process has been going on for a long time. During the years of the Conservative Government, the park homes group did some valiant work, initiated by Lord Graham, with which many of us have been associated. At last, the Government have made some progress, but we need to ensure that, in the not-too-distant future, we produce effective legislation that tackles the serious problems faced by park home owners.

Until my appointment to the Chairmen's Panel forced my resignation, I was chairman of the all-party group that the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) now chairs. I congratulate him and Lord Graham on the working group, on which my fingerprints are very light and on which he has done good work.

During my time as chairman, I discovered two things about this issue. I attended several conferences on the subject and managed to upset most of the mobile home owners and park proprietors present, which means that either I was completely right or completely wrong—I leave my hon. Friends to work out which. The issue tends to polarise people. People on both sides of the argument have the unhealthy attitude that if one is not for them, one is against them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) said, most mobile home park proprietors are good and most mobile home parks are well managed.

Most residents live out what is often their twilight years—because that is the nature of the occupancy of many of the parks—in comfort and happiness. A small minority of rogue proprietors cause misery. They are usually outside the membership of the professional associations. If we are to do anything useful, we have to target those people so that we discern the baby from the bath water and do not over-react to a situation that is serious but relatively confined. It is obviously wrong for someone to run a site in which the roads and footpaths are in a dangerous condition, where gas supplies are overcharged, where electricity or gas supplies may even be dangerous and where a local authority exercises no control. That is absurd: it could not happen with any other form of housing—which is what we are talking about.

There is also the issue of commission and of how properties are bought and sold. The people who buy such homes are often trading down by selling larger houses to release capital to provide for their old age or, in some cases, an overseas home. Some residents of good parks in my constituency spend the summer in the United Kingdom and the winter somewhere sunnier; that is their choice. If we are to concentrate on the problem parks, we need to persuade the Minister to legislate and to deal with the rogues by giving local authorities the powers to license all sites and all individuals. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made the good point that parks change ownership. What has been a well-run, well-managed and fairly charged park can deteriorate rapidly, if not overnight then within a matter of months, if it falls into the hands of someone who is not a member of a professional association—other than the professional association of crooks—who rips off the elderly, escalates charges and creates mayhem where there was once tranquillity.

The all-party group that has been considering licensing laws for licensed houses has recommended that, in addition to the licences for premises, there should be licences for licensees through some kind of professional qualification. Proprietors will not thank me for saying this, but I believe that not only properties but those who run them should carry a licence. If we could achieve that, we would get to grips with most of the rogues in what can be an unpleasant business, although usually it is not.

The way in which park homes are traded has always perplexed me. People who put down large sums of money to buy such properties have few rights, and those on whose sites the properties are located are on occasion encouraged to exploit the conditions of onward sale. I have never understood why there is not a system similar to that for leases on flats. If one buys a flat with a 99-year lease one knows how much of the lease is left, and that the property is devalued as the lease decreases, even though property prices may be rising.

Madam Deputy Speaker, that is a sensible way forward, although I add a note of caution. [Interruption.] It is being indicated to me, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the proper form of address for you in this Chamber is "Mrs. Roe". As a member of the Chairmen's Panel, it is my view that if this Chamber is to have proper recognition, the person in the Chair, whether formally a Deputy Speaker or not, should be so addressed. I shall therefore continue so to address you.

I urge caution on the matter of leases, which may allow the unscrupulous landlord of a block of flats, of whom there are many, to impose exorbitant service charges through devious means. If we are to take the proposed route, as we probably must, we should ensure that the bad practices of more traditional leasehold property are not inherited.

Malcolm Kent, who is the proprietor of a good park in my constituency, urged me to say that the Minister's proposals must be proportionate. If we do not get the balance right, there is a danger that those good proprietors who might otherwise invest in parks will not do so. We may thus inadvertently encourage the bad proprietors and deny resources to those who wish to maintain parks properly and keep them in good order.

An equitable solution must be found that is fair to the park proprietor and does not lead to residents, many of them elderly, ending their days in misery and discontent as a result of exploitation.

Mobile homes and park homes make a tremendous contribution to the quality of life on the Isle of Wight, where, I am glad to say, the parks are at the respectable end of the market. I am honoured to be the patron of the Medina park residents association, which does a brilliant job.

I endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Parks need a regulatory framework in which to operate, which includes recognition of residents associations. It is essential to have a residents organisation that can negotiate with park owners and managers so that, for example, the cost of providing services and maintaining the roads, which the hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) mentioned, can be verified by residents before licence fees go up. There must be openness between the residents and the people who run the park.

I make a special plea to the Minister to consider council tax banding, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope). There is an anomaly in that park homes, which often have sophisticated and expensive fixtures and fittings, are compared with ordinary homes, which are often empty shells. There is a perception among park home owners that they are penalised because their homes come with fittings already attached, which puts them in a more expensive bracket than would be the case if they lived in a small house or bungalow. People in my neck of the woods feel aggrieved, as it is not unusual for park homes to be in band B or even band C. That is unfair to people who decide to convert from bricks and mortar, which have a much higher resale value—it would be extremely unusual for a park home resident on the Isle of Wight to pay £120,000—and to invest in a property that has a shorter lifespan but provides a high quality of life.

I apologise for my absence at the beginning of the debate, which was for reasons that I explained to you, Mrs. Roe.

I endorse the remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson). I congratulate him on following the work undertaken by Lord Graham and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), which started the ball rolling. I too have encountered inconsistencies in the council tax banding. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look into that matter carefully. The answer lies in increasing the number of bands.

Certain other anomalies need to be dealt with in a regulatory regime, and I suspect that some of them come under the direct responsibility of my hon. Friend the Minister. Colleagues will remember the fiasco a few years ago when electricity companies gave households a rebate. They refused to give a rebate to individual home owners, but gave one to the site. The site owner did not gain greatly—only the electricity companies gained. Those issues need to be incorporated in any change.

There has been a steady move in the right direction. The voluntary code has been extremely helpful, but as the hon. Member for North Thanet said, there are the occasional rogues. We need to control them firmly, but without imposing a regime that will make it more difficult for those sites that are extremely well run. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the debate today. I hope that the Minister can offer some hope to those people who live on parks run by that small number of rogues.

I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing this Adjournment debate. Although the issue of park homes is not of enormous importance to a large number of the population of Great Britain, it is of enormous importance to those who either live in them or own the sites. It is therefore just the sort of thing that we should be discussing in an Adjournment debate. My interest in this matter goes back a long way, before I entered the House. There are several sites in my constituency, some of long standing, some better run and some worse run. I am a founder member of the all-party group and am proud to have been a member ever since.

As has already been mentioned on several occasions, the industry's first difficulty is the vulnerability of many of the park home owners. Many are elderly and have chosen to move into a park home either because it was the only home that they could afford for their retirement or because they wanted to use the capital that became available from the sale of their previous home as a source of income in their old age. Such people are vulnerable and desperately need to retain that capital to give themselves a reasonable standard of living in their old age. It can cause huge difficulties if it is whittled away by increased pitch fees.

The second difficulty, which has not been mentioned by other hon. Members is that some of the licences under which the park sites operate came into existence many decades ago. That is certainly true in my area, where several licences were originally granted by the local authority before the change in the local authority structure in 1974, and a number go back two previous changes. It is sometimes difficult to ascertain why the original licence was set as it was. Some of those licences are rather inadequately worded, as we have now discovered.

Park homes form a vital component of the supply of affordable housing, particularly in rural areas. In many parts of the country that supply is now critical, and in my area it is by far the biggest housing issue. My party's policy is that local councils should be given much greater powers to insist that developers include low-cost housing for local people in all new developments. If the Government followed that policy, the industry would enjoy a significant boost.

Although most people who run residential parks are honest and honourable, some owners are on the fiddle. They are the rogues who give the industry a bad name and from whom the public need to be protected. Britain has a fine and important industry that is being undermined by a minority of unscrupulous park owners who profiteer by overcharging residents for sales, site fees and basic necessities such as running water and electricity. That is why the House needs to consider passing new legislation to clarify existing laws and to ensure that the standard of service provided by park owners is evenly maintained across the country.

I am grateful to the Government for establishing the working group on park homes, which the all-party group has wanted for some time. That has provided all those with an interest in solving the industry's problems with several important recommendations. I broadly welcome the recommendations and hope that we can develop them during the consultation period set out by the Minister.

The Mobile Homes Act 1983 has many deficiencies. One of the most frequent complaints is that it gives park home owners insufficient rights over increases in pitch fees demanded by site owners. It helps that many site owners use a standard agreement drawn up by the National Federation of Site Operators. That agreement contains a pitch fee review clause that takes into account such factors as the retail prices index and the sums expended by the owner on the upkeep of the park.

However, even if that agreement is used, difficulties can arise when occupiers feel that the owner has done little to warrant the increase or that the increase is well above the inflation rate. One interesting statistic from the review conducted by the Department of the Environment in 1991 showed that although one third of park home site owners felt that they had consulted park home owners about their most recent pitch fee increase, only 3 per cent. of park home owners felt that they had been consulted. That is an anomaly. I welcome the recommendation that residents associations should have the right to information and to consultation by park owners on some matters. However, to make real progress on pitch fees, the Government should seriously investigate the proposal, originally made by Shelter, that rent officers should have powers to fix pitch fees whenever there is disagreement.

The issue of commission on sales causes frequent complaints. Site owners are entitled to claim commission of up to 10 per cent. on the sale of park homes on their sites. The justification for that charge is that the site value forms part of the overall price. That is a rather odd justification, because once the site has been sold, the site value should not stay with the original site owner but should go to the person who owns the park home that is to be sold. However, it is true that commission is a crucial way of financing new investment in parks. Without it, pitch fees would rise and that might make some park homes less accessible to those who need them.

I am pleased by the recommendation that the Government should commission an independent study into the economics of the industry to identify the maximum allowable level of commission and to clarify what can be considered when calculating commission. Such a study could also identify the principles on which pitch fees should be set and reviewed.

Another important problem is council tax, which other hon. Members have mentioned. Almost all park homes are in band A, which covers properties originally valued at up to £40,000. However, many park homes were worth nothing like that at the time of valuation, and people are understandably angry about being charged in band A. My party has long advocated the creation of a new council tax band A to resolve the issue. We are delighted that the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) supports that proposal.

I must tell him that when I pressed the previous Conservative Government on the issue, they were not entirely happy about that suggestion.

I was pleased by the inclusion of a recommendation regarding the sale of utilities. I fully support the introduction of a statutory maximum resale price for the resale of gas supplied by cylinder and bulk tank. I also welcome the possibility of a review of the park homes charter promoting good practice in the industry in relation to the supply and pricing of utilities.

Before I finish my speech, I want to make one point to the Minister on behalf of park owners. Although the rights of park home owners need to be clarified and enhanced, it should not be at the expense or to the discouragement of the majority of responsible site owners. Currently, park owners, unlike the owners of other small businesses, do not benefit from any relief on inheritance tax. That point has so far been ignored by the Government. I hope that the Paymaster General or the Chancellor of the Exchequer will review that apparent anomaly, which, when a park site owner dies, has the potential to cause uncertainty and distress for the owner's and previous owner's heirs. Park homes provide a vital source of affordable housing across Britain. With the co-operation of both sides of this House, legislation can be introduced that will benefit owners and residents.

This has been a good debate. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) on securing it. He was right to stress two points: the industry is thriving in many parts of the country, as is clear from the attendance at this debate, and it provides a livelihood for some people, which we must constantly bear in mind. For other people, it is also a way of life. That epitomises the balance that we must preserve in approaching the matter.

As always when we debate such subjects, we have heard a great deal about the bad operators. It is right that those who abuse tenants and their financial position should be dealt with. We have not heard as much about good and exemplary operators, who regard parks as a way of providing fairly high-quality accommodation, either on a long-term residential basis or for recreational purposes.

Harassment is probably the worst aspect of the problems that we have discussed. It should be deplored and there should be a cracking down, especially as many parks attract the elderly and vulnerable, who can be preyed on by less desirable operators. Local authorities have clear powers to deal with harassment, about which we have heard little. If harassment and intimidation are taking place, we must ask whether local authorities are doing their job in looking after those people.

I want to join other hon. Members in encouraging those of all persuasions on this issue to respond to the recommendations that are subject to consultation. The hon. Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes) made a point in that regard. If people want to retain anonymity, I presume that they can do so. It is important to send out the message that anyone with views on the matter should send them to the Minister. I was therefore slightly puzzled when the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre asked the Minister to give a clear indication today. I should have thought that that is the last thing that the Minister can give, and I am sure that he will refer us back to the consultation exercise with a slight sense of relief. He smiles broadly, so I may not be completely off-target, Mr. Winterton.

Order. Because of the status of Westminster Hall, anyone speaking should address the Chair as Mr. Deputy Speaker or Madam Deputy Speaker.

We had an interesting debate before you joined us, Mr. Winterton, and I was under the impression that the opposite was the case.

If a member of the Chairmen's Panel chairs the meeting because of the unavailability of the four members appointed Deputy Speakers in Westminster Hall, he is addressed by name or as Mr. Chairman.

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Nothing gives me greater pleasure than to refer to you as Mr. Deputy Speaker.

It is important that we do not allow the obvious and well-known malpractices of the few to blacken the name of all operators, because that will make them less likely to run parks or open new ones. We do not want to chase out of a thriving business—as the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, it is just that—those who are the best in the business.

The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) spoke about unscrupulous landlords. He used the phrase "perhaps a minority". Perhaps, on reflection, he will want to rethink. On any view, this is a minority, but that is not to say that we should not take the problem seriously. The hon. Gentleman rightly talked about recreational owners. With respect to him, one problem with trying simply to treat these occurrences as any other housing situation by applying the whole panoply of housing legislation and regulation is that there is a dichotomy: some people regard park homes as their long-term homes and others keep them for recreational purposes, which causes problems of definition.

My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) spoke about well-run sites from personal knowledge of his constituency and we should not lose sight of that perspective. I join him in saying to the Minister that I cannot think of a good reason for our not just getting on with the independent study into the economics of the business. We have had a couple years of the working party, as my hon. Friend said. We are in consultation until 31 October, so why wait? Most people who are involved in these questions would be happy to see a start made because so much else flows from it. The issue is complex and requires careful examination.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) spoke with great knowledge, especially as a former chairman of the all-party group. He was right to talk about throwing out babies with the bath water. I agree with him that the problem is serious, but relatively confined: we must constantly keep that perspective before us. My hon. Friend touched on the role of local authorities, as I have. We have heard little about them, although they have a role under existing legislation. My hon. Friend's interesting thoughts on the sort of twofold licensing approach that he commended need further examination. I will not follow him down the leasehold path, not least because so far the Government have signally failed to meet their preelection promises on reforming the law of leasehold and commonhold. I would not want park homes owners to become enmeshed in that scenario.

We heard from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) and the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who also talked about such matters as council tax banding charges and roads, which are often a problem for these sites. I believe that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) made a point about the need for balance, as I am doing. We are talking of up to a quarter of a million people who live in these parks in some 2,000 licensed sites.

It is wrong to suggest that existing legislation is inadequate. Of course improvements can be made, which is why consultation is so important. We already have the Caravan Sites Act 1968, the Mobile Homes Act 1983 and the voluntary charter, which is to be commended; but it is important to bring the responsible park operators on board. One example is the National Park Homes Council. It supports the majority of the working group's recommendations, the advance provision of an agreement, the project to look into the economics of parks and the independent redress mechanism, all of which are constructive and important. However, it has great concerns about simply applying housing regulations and law to the sites. It talks about the prosperous holiday caravan business. I have already mentioned that there is a different side to the issue.

The council also refers to occupiers' safety requirements and the significance of British standard 3632. It does not agree with the principle of offering first refusal on purchasing a park to its tenants or proposals to reduce the commission rate to 2.5 per cent. However, it is happy to await the outcome of research. The key point, which has been made more than once, is that the economics are fundamental. Tinkering with pitch fees or commissions could produce a counter-productive result.

People can be greatly encouraged by the way in which serious and responsible people in the industry are prepared to work together. This is an important debate, and I again congratulate the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre on securing it. I hope that the Minister is deluged with representations during the consultation period.

I call the hard-worked Minister to reply to the debate.

I join other hon. Members in thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) for raising the important issue of park homes. From the contributions that we have heard, it is clear that the issue has not always enjoyed the prominence that it deserves, as it affects a large number of people. Some are residents and others enjoy recreational use of their park homes.

I pay tribute to the work of the all-party group, and particularly the work of my noble Friend Lord Graham. As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) predicted, I shall not make any definitive announcements today, because the object of the consultation is to consult. When the consultation closes, we shall consider carefully the representations made to us, including those made by hon. Members today. In the short time allowed, I shall try to deal with some of the main concerns, particularly those raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre.

I share the view of hon. Members that the park homes sector can play a useful part in providing decent, affordable homes. Many park home owners live in good-quality, attractive accommodation in well-run parks and enjoy the park homes life style. However, I also appreciate the concerns expressed about the need for park home sites to have an appropriate control regime that balances the needs and interests of residents and site owners.

That is why we set up the working party, which consisted of members of residents' bodies, site owners and local authorities. The hon. Member for Eastbourne was right to say that local authorities already have some powers in harassment cases. The report, published last week, made 30 recommendations for change. They included changes to the arrangements for the sale of homes, the issuing of written agreements, harassment procedures and site licensing. We shall consider the recommendations carefully, as hon. Members would expect, and we look forward to receiving responses in the next two or three months. We have set a deadline of 31 October for comments. My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre mentioned that he was having difficulty obtaining an appropriate number of the summary documents to distribute to park home owners in his constituency. I shall ensure that he receives what he requires. If other hon. Members have problems, I should be glad to raise those, too.

An important aim of the working party was to reach a consensus between residents and site owners. An impressive amount of agreement was achieved on a range of issues, and we are grateful to the working party for its efforts. It may be useful if I comment on some of its recommendations and the timetable for further action.

Most of the recommendations are for legislative change. Their broad aim is to provide greater clarity on the rights and responsibilities of residents and site owners and to improve the level of protection available to residents. For example, there is a proposal for the resident and the park owner to sign a written agreement at the time of a home's sale, so that both parties are aware of their obligations from the outset. There is also a proposal to tighten arrangements that currently allow park owners to exploit their power of veto on the proposed purchaser of a home.

Other proposals welcomed by my hon. Friend were the deletion of the age criterion to justify the ending of agreements between residents and park owners and the setting up of formal residents associations with statutory rights to receive information from, and to be consulted by, park owners and local authorities. The working party also recommended changes to the rules on the sales of utilities, such as liquefied petroleum gas, about which a couple of hon. Members expressed concern.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre said, the working party proposed that there should be a new statutory requirement on local authorities to impose and monitor conditions for mobile home site licences and to consult residents on those conditions. That would require authorities to carry out their responsibilities for site licensing more methodically and consistently.

My hon. Friend referred to the harassment of residents, and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) described a particularly shocking case, which perhaps calls for naming and shaming—it is for him to investigate the matter and deal with it in his own way. The report proposes changes to the legislation to bring the provisions on harassment of residents into line with those that apply to tenants in the private rented sector so that the same level of protection applies across both tenures.

My hon. Friend mentioned the possibility of involving rent officers in disputes about pitch fees. Voluntary arbitration arrangements run by the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators operate in respect of such disputes, and the independent housing ombudsman makes his services available in some cases, given the agreement of residents and park owners. Working party members were in favour of developing properly independent arbitration agreements, but did not make any recommendation about the involvement of rent officers in resolving disputes. However, we are prepared to consider that possibility.

The proposals requiring amendments to legislation must be further developed and their impact properly assessed. A legislative opportunity must then be found to implement them. All hon. Members will be aware of the tremendous pressure that the legislative programme is under. We are therefore anxious to make progress as quickly as possible on aspects that do not require legislation, while bearing in mind the fact that it may be required in due course. We are also anxious to have a consistent and thorough approach to the issues.

My hon. Friend suggested that mobile homes should be subject to housing legislation, and referred to The Big Issue campaign. I share his concern about providing residents with adequate protection against exploitative treatment, but the proposal in his early-day motion did not find agreement among the members of the working party. Nevertheless, we are willing to consider a wide range of suggestions in the interests of developing an appropriate control regime for mobile homes.

In addition to legislative changes, the report suggests the provision of good practice guidance to local authorities on the way in which they carry out their statutory responsibilities on harassment and site licensing. I accept the working party's view that there are wide variations between authorities in that respect, and we shall issue good practice guidance following the findings of recent Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions research. Our aim in disseminating good practice is to improve the quality and consistency of the service that authorities provide to residents and site owners on harassment and site licensing. The working party identified a willingness on the part of residents and park owners' bodies to consider further provisions, which are included in the industry's voluntary agreement between the parties. I commend the parties for that.

The parties were unable to reach an agreement on pitch fees and sales commission payable by the resident to the park owner—the most controversial aspect considered by the working party. Several hon. Members referred to the proposal that research should be carried out into the economics of the industry, and we are not waiting until the end of the consultation period to deal with that. Talks are already under way to discuss the basis for such a study.

We are willing to consider action across a broad front—in the form of the good practice guide and, when the opportunity arises, legislation—following the publication of the working party's recommendations. At this stage, I cannot rule anything in or out. The matter is in the hands of my solicitors, as we say. I am especially keen to take forward those issues with clear support from the working party and other consultees.

A couple of hon. Members referred to a possible revision of the council tax band—

Order. Time is up. The matter may be in the hands of your solicitors, Mr. Mullin, but you are now in the hands of the Chair.

We now move to the debate initiated by the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw). Before I call him, I advise hon. Members that a number of other Kent Members have the hon. Gentleman's permission to participate in the debate. They have sought the sanction not only of the Chair but of the Minister, and that has been granted. As long as they stick religiously to the commitment that they have entered into, I hope to be able to call them all.

I shall present the case for the north Kent economy, and the principal purpose of this debate is to spell out the opportunities that lie within the area, not only for north Kent and the south-east region, but for the United Kingdom economy as a whole.

North Kent is characterised by traditional industries—heavy industries that have been in decline for a long time. That was particularly the case during the two Tory recessions, under which we suffered greatly, and nowhere more than on my own patch. When Chatham dockyard closed in 1984, 3,000 jobs were lost at a stroke. In the dark days of the mid-1980s, unemployment in the Medway towns rose to nearly 20 per cent.

Fortunately, those days are behind us. Unemployment in my constituency is now down to 3.9 per cent.—a fall of nearly 50 per cent. since 1997. However, north Kent Members of Parliament know that the headline unemployment rate sometimes places a shadow over pockets of deprivation in our communities where need is still very great. We are determined to play our part in relieving that deprivation, and if we can unlock the development potential of the area, it would be a sizeable contribution towards that end.

In this short debate we shall highlight the achievements of the Thames gateway in Kent, and spell out how, with the right investment and Government assistance, we can secure the economic regeneration that we all desire. In an Adjournment debate just over a year ago, I and my hon. Friends who represent the north Kent constituencies from Dartford down to Swale, called for assisted area status for the Thames gateway area of Kent. I am pleased to see my hon. Friends here in Westminster Hall today. As you have said, Mr. Deputy Speaker, they hope to catch your eye later.

Since that earlier debate, we have experienced the rollercoaster of celebration and disappointment. There was celebration when the Government responded to our calls and recommended to the European Commission that north Kent be included on the new map of assisted areas. That was followed by disappointment when the Commission turned down the Government's recommendation.

Last year, we made the case for north Kent with confidence. That confidence remains as strong today as it was then, because we, the north Kent Members of Parliament, are united in a common approach, as are our local authorities and the business community. We recognise that, throughout the gateway, we are interdependent, and that interdependence will bring success. Investment that brings jobs to Gravesham means job opportunities for people in Dartford and the Medway towns. The second Swale crossing—a key piece of infrastructure that my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) has fought hard to secure—benefits not only his constituents but all of us, throughout the gateway.

Many years ago, we woke up to the fact that people do not live their lives according to district council boundaries. Therefore, all our economic plans have a north Kent focus. If there is any doubt about that in Medway, we need only to remind ourselves that, in a population of 250,000, 50 per cent. of the work force work outside the Medway towns. Success for one means success for all. There are key development sites, but the right investment in the area can fulfil all the expectations that the previous Government and the present one have had for it, to relieve west London from the heat of over-development, and bring to north Kent the prosperity to which we have all referred.

However, we should also make it clear that there has not been stagnation. We in north Kent have not sat back and wrung our hands, waiting for Government assistance. It has not been simply all talk; we have made great efforts to lay the foundation stones for regeneration. However, we need financial assistance to complete our key projects, and the Government have recognised that. Principally, they recommended assisted area status so that we can unlock that potential, but they also recognised our track record of delivery, and I should like to point out a couple of success stories.

First, there is the Rochester and Chatham riverside development of 80 acres of brownfield land in the heart of the Medway towns. Plans for a high quality mixed-use development are now well advanced. New housing, which is essential to our prosperity, will be developed alongside businesses and leisure outlets. That is the essence of the recommendations in Lord Rogers' report "Towards an Urban Renaissance". Such projects do not appear overnight. Six years ago, Rochester city council, of which I was a member, decided to transform that derelict wasteland on the River Medway. We brought together finance and landowners, and in time created a sufficiently large area to enable development on a waterfront that is a stone's throw from the finest castle and cathedral in Britain.

The partnership has been formed, we have chosen a developer and the community.is about to be consulted. This weekend, the community will participate in a planning conference that will shape one of the most exciting developments in the south-east. We have brought together the brownfield site and the landowners, and, where necessary, used compulsory purchase orders to buy land. There was a tendering process, through which developers put forward proposals, and we are involving the community in shaping that development. However, behind any project there is always an initial driving force—someone who is determined to get things started. That person was my former colleague, the late Tim Robson, who, before his untimely death in 1995, was chairman of the planning committee and a prospective parliamentary candidate for Chatham and Aylesford. He would have had great pride in seeing the community discuss the implementation of his vision.

Secondly, we in Medway are bringing together learning and economic development. The Medway innovation centre, in partnership with the council, the South East England development agency, the universities of Greenwich and Kent, and the Kent institute of art and design, will provide much needed research and development in advanced engineering, creative industries and electronics. Medway council has already invested £500,000 in the project, yet a further £3.5 million is needed to complete the necessary capital works.

Here I come to my final point. The Medway innovation centre is typical of many key projects in that, although the project is almost within our grasp, we need help to make it a success. There is massive potential for growth in north Kent. Brownfield sites in Dartford and Gravesham could generate some 50,000 jobs, and the Isle of Grain has the largest brownfield site in the south-east. Adjacent to the rail-head is the second largest container port in the United Kingdom, yet the infrastructure is woefully inadequate, particularly the A228, which is put to uses entirely different from those that were originally envisaged. There have been many fatalities and serious accidents along a stretch of that road.

Rail investment is a source of frustration in Medway. In particular, we want the Hoo junction to be developed. We have one of the best rail links to London, but we need faster delivery of improved rolling stock. It is vital that Railtrack and the train operators listen to local authorities and, importantly, user groups. The north Kent user group has an important role to play in the development of rail infrastructure.

We know that the Government recognise our area's potential, and we welcome yesterday's announcements in the comprehensive spending review, especially those involving transport investment. In this debate, north Kent Labour Members of Parliament have set out our case for the area. If the Minister provides the means, we shall continue to do what we do best, namely, to deliver for the people of north Kent.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing the debate.

My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions is well aware that, during the past six months, all local authorities, including Kent county council, have invested much work in the area, as have private and voluntary sector groups, and others, and they have sought to deliver a partnership. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford said that what is delivered in one area is important to the rest of the Thames gateway corridor, which is a sub-regional part of Kent. My colleagues and I, and those who work to realise the opportunities in the Medway towns, welcome the Government's initiatives and the creation of the new ministerial-led strategic partnership.

The Minister expressed slight doubts when my hon. Friend referred to our having the best castle and cathedral in Rochester—

In Britain.

Sorry—in Britain. I extend to you an invitation to visit the north Kent Thames gateway as soon as possible so that we can show you some of its gems, including the finest castle and cathedral.

All local authorities and the private sector want to deliver the agenda that we believe in—it involves jobs, environmental issues and combating social exclusion. However, gap funding is involved. My hon. Friends referred to the Isle of Grain, and we hope that tomorrow a major Railfreight initiative will be announced which will help in that regard.

We welcome yesterday's comprehensive spending review announcement on regeneration budgets, the strengthening of the Regional Development Agency's role, the neighbourhood renewal fund and a national centre for neighbourhood renewal. We want to deliver the objectives that will benefit the Thames gateway in north Kent.

The hon. Member for Gillingham (Mr. Clark) spoke for a little longer than he said he would in the commitment that he gave earlier. He also extended an invitation to me, rather than to the Minister, to visit his constituency and the Medway towns. I am sure that he meant to invite the Minister, but I should be delighted to accept.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) on securing the debate.

We have fortunately recently received the go-ahead for a second crossing of the Swale. The current bridge is called Kingsferry, and I wonder whether we shall be allowed to call the second bridge Queensferry. I have been in correspondence with the Minister about that. It would be a welcome way to twin the bridges.

Yesterday's announcement contained fantastic news about science—I am a great science supporter. We have a huge research centre, which is nearly full although it was empty four years ago. That shows how the north Kent economy has changed.

We do not hear too much about tourism and the north Kent coast, although earlier we discussed castles and cathedrals. At the end of a Remembrance Sunday memorial service, a constituent told me that HMS Cavalier, a destroyer in the second world war, would not be located at Chatham. However, through the good hands of a great Select Committee, we managed to persuade the lottery to give us £800,000. It will be fantastic to see the Cavalier at Chatham.

I want to discuss what will happen during the next 10 years, when the Labour party win the next election and the one after that. We shall make a cultural capital bid—a north Kent culture bid, where we have hardly any decent culture—for Rochester and Canterbury. We have no practice rooms, conference centres and little theatre, which was mentioned in yesterday's spending review. I also bring to the Minister's attention the east London-north Kent bid to host the Olympics in 2012—we are beginning to group together to make a bid.

On regeneration, we are missing a rail link to Ashford. Because the Canterbury stations are about half a mile apart we need a nodal point, but we have been in conversation with Railtrack about it until we are blue in the face. The cost would be £30 million, but it would link the docks at Sheerness to Ashford and on to Europe. The question is not whether it would make any money; it would provide the infrastructure to secure the regeneration of the whole area.

I join the general paean of praise to my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) for initiating this important debate. I want to use the opportunity to bring two matters to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, both of which have been touched upon.

The first is higher education. Much has been done by an exemplary Labour-controlled council during the past two years to improve higher education in the Medway towns, but we remain the largest conurbation in Europe without its own university. My right hon. Friend will accept that it is impossible to unlock the full potential of the Medway towns until we have such a foundation, but I know that that is not specifically her responsibility. I have brought the matter to the attention of many other Ministers, but I mention it now to bang another marker into the ground. I hope that if enough markers are banged into the ground, there will be a seismic shift.

That brings me conveniently to the Strood tunnel. As my right hon. Friend knows, it has been closed or mainly closed for the past six months, which has caused immense aggravation and distress to my constituents. Railtrack cannot be blamed for that—I say that rather unwillingly—because the problem has been 150 years coming. However, it draws attention to the second matter that I want to bring to my right hon. Friend's attention.

The infrastructure serving the Medway towns remains lamentable. The outskirts of the Medway towns and the Isle of Grain have the largest potential inward investment site in the whole of the south of England. We need the key to unlock that because it would extend the prosperity not just of north Kent but of the whole south-east region. What we require from Government is the funding for that infrastructure. We also require pressure on the new utilities, specifically British Gas which owns the site, to make it available.

I hope that my brevity will earn me your accolade, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I shall trust the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Pond) to speak very briefly.

I shall speak briefly and quickly at 78 rpm.

I want to extend an invitation to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions. My hon. Friend the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting recommended in the House last week that every hon. Member should visit Gravesham. I described Gravesend as the latest tourist hotspot, but that applies to the whole of north Kent where our cultural heritage is an important part of the regeneration potential, as are the available brownfield development sites and the transport links. In particular, the rivers Medway and Thames have enormous potential for regeneration and development.

Local authorities and other agencies in north Kent, as well as hon. Members who represent the area in Parliament, are committed to ensuring that we achieve regeneration to allow all the communities in the area to share in the growing prosperity and employment in a way that provides a driving force for prosperity and social justice. The Minister will agree that yesterday's announcement, particularly with regard to the 15 per cent. increase in regeneration budgets, brownfield sites and transport, will help. As other hon. Members have said, we have the commitment, determination and energy to make it work. What we need from the Government is the means to achieve that.

I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and those hon. Members who represent north Kent constituencies for the debate. I am delighted to be here, although, coming from Durham, I will need a lot of persuading that any cathedral is better than Durham cathedral. I want to thank hon. Members not just for the debate, but for their work to ensure that we make progress in the Thames gateway and that we work together effectively at central and local government level and with the other partners who want to ensure that the Thames gateway is developed. We especially want the north Kent area within the Thames gateway to be developed in a way that really does enhance the opportunities of local people to achieve a better quality of life in all senses.

Hon. Members have outlined their particular aspirations. People and organisations in the public, private and voluntary sectors of north Kent have done much to respond to the vision of long-term regeneration strategy in the Thames gateway. They have worked hard to put good ideas into practice. Increasingly, that is being done in partnership, which is essential to identify and co-ordinate action on local priorities and ensure that regeneration does not exclude the needs of the existing community. A reflection of that approach is the decision to set up the new north Kent Thames gateway partnership on which the private and voluntary sectors are represented, together with the leaders of all the local authorities in the area. I welcome the efforts that have been made, and are continuing to be made, by all north Kent partners to deliver regeneration in the area.

The South East England development agency is also a member of the partnership. As hon. Members will know, the RDAs were set up to develop strategies to drive forward sustainable economic development in the regions. I was pleased to see and happy to endorse the high priority given in SEEDA's strategy to the Thames gateway in Kent. In part, that will be about bringing brownfield sites back into use, but it will also be about social regeneration, which local authorities, the Government office for the south east, SEEDA and, above all, local communities are tackling.

I recognise that the decline of traditional industries has left significant pockets of deprivation in which the community is excluded from opportunity. Five strategic single regeneration budget schemes are helping to address that problem. They are directing significant funding to local projects, helping to provide disadvantaged and unemployed people—especially young people and those from ethnic communities—with the skills required in the modern north Kent economy. Some projects include day care centres with facilities and support for young people with addiction problems. The people that such schemes are helping are some of the most excluded from our society. The ultimate aim is to offer them direct help, so that they can play a positive role in the north Kent community. A good example of that is the role that the Kent Learning and Business Link Company has played in community economic development and lifelong learning initiatives.

I know that my hon. Friends welcome as much as I do yesterday's announcement of the outcome of the comprehensive spending review. That includes a major strengthening of the role of RDAs, giving them the flexibility that they have asked for to play a strategic role in delivering regeneration. The spending review will give RDAs nationally an extra £500 million by 2003–04 to deliver economic regeneration and growth. The settlement will allow the RDAs to provide an effective input, including via direct development where necessary. The spending review settlement also sets out substantial increases for housing and transport, tackling crime and the health service. It will lead to improvements in public services that we all want to see.

I cannot explain in detail today what that will mean for north Kent. However, the Government are committed to sustainable regeneration in the Thames gateway, an area of regional and national importance for regeneration and growth. As the 10-year transport plan is developed and local authorities do their part by producing local transport plans, I am confident that transport issues will be addressed. The same is true for other areas, such as regeneration and housing. That is why the area has been identified as a priority for public and private investment in the draft regional planning guidance for the south-east, and that it is why, to help delivery across the Thames gateway, we are setting up the new Minister-led strategic partnership to provide a focus for the whole of the Thames gateway area. That will bring together Government, regional and local bodies, and local partnerships including representations from the public, private and voluntary sectors, across the Thames gateway in Kent, London and Essex. It will also ensure that the area's economic and housing potential are married to its infrastructure needs.

I am particularly keen to see good progress in Kent. As has been said, Kent Thamesside offers huge potential for sustainable urban development, as set out in planning policy guidance note 3. New communities can be created, with integrated public transport provision, quality homes, jobs and supporting facilities, such as GP surgeries and schools, and the other cultural and educational opportunities, to which reference has been made, to meet local and regional demand for affordable homes and improved public services.

On business investment, continuing progress is being made on the construction of the channel tunnel rail link, which will give an enormous boost to the north Kent economy. In the borough of Swale, we have recently given the go-ahead to the second crossing of the Swale river, which will bring opportunities for inward investment and jobs for the islanders.

In Medway itself, in and around the constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), much good progress has been made. It is an area well placed to make the most of business opportunities that provide the right environment to attract inward investment. Thousands of jobs have been secured by the merger of Medway's largest employer, Marconi Avionics, and British Aerospace, creating BAe Systems, a company of world-class status.

Medway council's positive approach is illustrated by the development of the partners for growth scheme, a project that is closely linked to the development of the small business service. The scheme offers financial assistance to small and medium enterprises of up to £25,000 per company in key sectors such as advanced engineering and high technology industries. That is an excellent example of what can be achieved when the public and private sectors work in partnership. Medway council is also considering the potential to develop financial services and supply clusters to focus inward investment on the flagship site at Chatham maritime development, and the proposed mixed-use regeneration at Rochester riverside. The urban task force report recognised the good work that the council is doing there.

Other plans include the development of a business incubator centre, focusing on the advanced engineering and design sectors and the "learning city" concept, referred to by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Medway, which involves the establishment of a university for industry, a university for Medway, and a European business school. All those factors, allied with the remarkable built and environmental heritage of the area, make Medway a prime area for a successful urban renaissance. I know that the decision on the assisted area map review in north Kent was disappointing for partners in several areas, but enterprise grant is available to assist small and medium firms to undertake investment projects.

In summary, there is every reason for continued confidence in north Kent. There is the on-going process of the channel tunnel rail link and the regeneration benefits that that will bring, and the establishment of the new Kent partnership, which will provide a coordinated approach to support and complement delivery by local authorities. There is also the new Minister-led strategic partnership, which will play an important role in ensuring co-ordinated action in Kent and across the gateway. As a Minister, I am determined that we shall play a full part in ensuring that that partnership works. In addition, the generous spending review will give the RDA, local authorities and other key players the tools for the job.

Time is up, Minister. We move to the next debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien).

I am glad to have secured, through Madam Speaker's office, the opportunity to introduce a debate on an application being made in my constituency for the dumping of toxic waste into part of the worked-out areas of the famous Winsford rock salt mine in Cheshire. On 18 May and 6 July, I asked the Leader of the House to make time on the Floor of the House for a debate on the Government's "Waste Strategy 2000 for England and Wales", which was, interestingly, published a week after my first request. However, although it is such a critical issue for the country, a debate in Government time was rebuffed on both occasions. Therefore, I am doubly glad to have the opportunity to raise issues relating to that application, which is of deep concern to a vast number of my constituents.

Those constituents are here in force today, in the form of RAMP—Residents Against Mine Pollution. I pay tribute to them for their energy and tenacity in highlighting the issues for the local residents of north Winsford and the villages most directly affected, Moulton and Davenham, and the representatives of local newspapers and the regional and national media, who are all taking a keen interest. I welcome to the debate my neighbouring Cheshire Members, my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). The proposed waste disposal site would extend under their constituencies, as well as mine, traversing the constituency borders, the River Dane and Cheshire Ring canal in a subterranean manner. In advance of what I hope will be a helpful response from the Government in fully acknowledging and acting upon the concerns that I shall outline, I also thank the Minister in what I know is, for him, a week full of adjournment debates.

The site is unique, as it is the only dedicated rock salt mine in Britain. The rock salt is mined 560 ft below the surface of the Cheshire plain for use in de-icing on roads the length and breadth of the country. Anyone who has been down the mine, as I was with representatives of the applicants last November, cannot fail to be impressed by the extent and scale of the caverns. Some 110 miles of underground roadways, around 75 ft wide and 23 ft high, have been created at Winsford since mining began over 150 years ago. They are being added to each year as rock salt extraction continues. The temperature in the mines is a constant 12 to 13 deg C throughout the year, regardless of climate above ground. Humidity remains steady at 70 per cent.

It is a combination of those conditions, the vast size of the caverns and the fact that every part of the worked-out area underground remains open and accessible, that makes the mine available for other uses. For example, the underground environment has prompted a leading chemical firm and a major pharmaceuticals manufacturer to use one area as a document storage facility. Because radio waves are unable to penetrate so far underground, an international computer company has found the mine an ideal place in which to test electronic equipment. In the area, in addition to farmed grassland and a network of busy roadways, lie the villages of Moulton and Davenham and the northern part of the town of Winsford, which has by far the largest population density in my constituency, numbering nearly 30,000 out of a constituency population of approximately 90,000 people.

The applicant is Minosus Ltd., a joint venture between Namsco (UK) Ltd. and SARP Industries SA. Namsco is the parent of Salt Union Ltd., the mine operator, and is itself part of the United States-based IMC Global Inc. SARP is a European waste management company and a subsidiary of France-based Vivendi, which was formerly known as Compagnie Generale Des Eaux. I have maintained an open dialogue with the applicants and met them again yesterday evening. They have sought to discharge their consultation obligations in a professional manner, which has also characterised the approach that they have taken to the presentation of their application.

The application was submitted on 1 April 1999—I do not draw any jovial conclusions from that date, Mr. Deputy Speaker, especially as it is also my birthday—and seeks consent for the disposal of industrial waste in a specified 75 hectare area of the mine. That waste includes fly ash resulting from flue gas cleaning at municipal incinerators, slag from smelting operations and the output from waste solidification plants. It is submitted that the facility could reach its anticipated 100,000 tonnes-a-year capacity about five years after the start of the operation. That operation would be based at the mine's No. 4 shaft in Jack lane, near Winsford, now a cul-de-sac since the opening of the bypass. All deliveries, offloading, sampling and mine access will be concentrated there. It is a commercial application aimed to take toxic waste from Cheshire and the north-west. However, the issues raised reach far beyond north-west England.

As it has become better known and understood, the application has engaged widespread interest and has caused monumental anxiety and a vast range of fears and concerns among local people. My predecessor, Sir Alastair Goodlad, registered his objection to the proposals, and I became aware of the issue on my first day as a candidate in the Eddisbury by-election campaign last year. Having met with RAMP, and having studied the wide-ranging and complex issues, I called for a full, public, independent inquiry in the early days of my campaign. That call was subsequently made by the Labour and Liberal candidates in that campaign.

Since being elected on 22 July last year—almost a year ago to the day—by far the greatest number of the thousands of letters, faxes and e-mails that I have received have been from local people objecting to the Minosus application. Not one—apart from my correspondence with the applicant, naturally—was infavour. I have brought my files to this Chamber, and they include exchanges with the Minister. A host of public meetings have taken place, and the issue raised most frequently by constituents in my weekly surgeries has been the application and their objections to it.

One of the two local newspapers, the Winsford Chronicle, has mounted a stop the dump campaign, which has been backed by the Vale Royal environment network, whose president is the hon. Member for Tatton. I was recently presented with a petition of 1,400 signatures, which was gathered in response to a tear-off slip in that newspaper. I shall refrain from handing it to the Minister now, as I have requested a meeting with the Secretary of State so that I may lead a delegation of my constituents to press him to call the application in and establish a full public inquiry. I have yet to receive confirmation of his willingness to meet me and an offer of a date, but I live in great hope that the Secretary of State will accede soon to such a crucial component of our democratic process.

Before I set out the reasons for the concern and what it is that my constituents so fear and distrust, I shall quickly outline the progress of the application so far. Following Minosus' submission of a planning application, and the accompanying environmental statement to Cheshire county council in April last year, Minosus submitted a site licence application to the Environment Agency in October 1999. After requesting a more detailed list of the types of waste that were proposed to be brought to Minosus for disposal, the Environment Agency reported. In May 2000 the Cheshire county council environmental planning and operations sub-committee decided, on a majority of Labour and Liberal Democrat county councillors—who are politically indistinguishable on Cheshire county council as they operate a formal pact—that it was minded to grant planning permission. Conservative councillors voted against granting permission. The documents were sent to officials in the Government office for the north west on the grounds that the proposals were considered to be a departure from the adopted Vale Royal borough plan, because the area is one of significant local environmental value and because the proposed surface development is contrary to the employment policies in the adopted and emerging local plans, and to the new natural environment policy in the emerging local plan.

Sadly, that was the first time that the all-party approach had been breached. Primarily, it had been on the pusillanimous grounds that the county council would have faced substantial costs. One might well ask those councillors, "What price representation in our democracy?" All of that was admitted by the Liberal Democrat deputy leader of the council in a letter to the Winsford Chronicle on 21 June. In fairness to the applicant, Minosus never publicly stated that it would have pursued any such action against the council. The council apparently did not ask Minosus. In my meeting with Minosus yesterday I was assured that it had never indicated or manifested any such intention privately, let alone publicly. We are therefore bound to ask why the Labour and Liberal Democrat county councillors were so craven when their primary duty is to represent the people who elected them. I find it impossible to believe that their postbags have contained a series of representations from local people supporting the application. It was my contention, and still is, that the county council should have deferred the decision until a full and conclusive debate had taken place on the Government's national waste strategy. The application could therefore have been put in a proper context.

Furthermore, the ruling Labour and Liberal Democrat group had the cheek to spin, as reported in the press—I beg the Minister's forgiveness, but those in the Labour party are the spinning tops of politics—that, being mindful of local residents' concerns, they had called for a public inquiry. They did no such thing, more is the pity. It was a cop-out by the ruling Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition on the county council.

In June, the Government office for the north west indicated that it had a number of questions—not surprisingly, given the scale and complexity of short and long-term implications of the application—and required more time than the standard initial three weeks before reporting to the Secretary of State, and, to quote the letter of 11 July from the Minister for Housing and Planning,

to provide the Secretary of State with an opportunity to consider whether it should be called in for his own determination.

Although the application is a county matter, the planning committee on the local borough council, Vale Royal, discussed the application on 11 April. To its credit, it resolved that Cheshire county council be told

That in view of the significant public concern…the application be referred to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for a public inquiry so that the following issues can receive full and open consideration: Access to the site…The impact of the proposed new surface buildings on the character and appearance of the open countryside…The long term implications of the underground storage of the proposed waste material.

I congratulate my hon. Friend on his initiative in securing the debate on a matter which is important not only to his constituents, but to mine, especially those living in Middlewich, where the major part of the proposed subterranean waste disposal facility would lie. Is he aware that my constituents and I support him in his call for a full independent inquiry for the reasons that he has given? Also, does he know of the concerns of residents from the surrounding area? He has access and egress to the site at Davenham in his constituency, but rural roads already have tremendous local traffic problems. That issue ought to be considered thoroughly.

That was a very long intervention. I do not like such things.

I shall pass over that and thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. My constituents and I are most grateful for her support and that of her constituents. We share the grave concern about the traffic congestion issues that arise as a result of this application and many other such waste disposal facilities, a subject on which I might touch later.

As I was talking about the current climate of political objection, I should add that the relevant parish councils and Winsford town council have expressed objections and concerns. The application is now with the Secretary of State and the debate is timely.

I have looked in vain for guidance on the application in the Government's waste strategy. In essence, the strategy rightly asserts that we are all responsible for waste. It encourages a change in culture and practice to recycle and compost more, and to encourage industries to design out hazardous waste over time. It acknowledges the continuing need for landfill, but nowhere does it consider or tackle the subject of a deep mine waste management facility. That application is unique in this country. The only parallel, which is prayed in aid by the applicants, is German experience of the disposal of industrial waste in a salt mine in Heilbronn. However, all mines, by definition and geology, are unique. I advocate great caution to those who, without the exposure, rigour, independence and depth of examination of a public inquiry, say that something will be all right in Winsford if it is happening in Germany.

There is reasonable doubt about the application and reach of the landfill legislation in this country to a deep mine. It has not been tested because there is no precedent. Many of the protections regarding waste disposal, especially of special wastes, derive from that landfill legislation. Is special legislation required to cover waste disposal in a deep mine as opposed to surface landfill?

With the cessation by 2004 of co-disposal of domestic and hazardous waste required under the European Community landfill directive, the Winsford application is predicated on the need for sites exclusively for the disposal of special wastes. By that, I mean hazardous and difficult wastes such as fly ash, metal slag and dross, contaminated soils and resin wastes. Disposal of such material is a continuing need, as it cannot be recycled, treated or incinerated using today's technologies.

The list of Minosus that names permitted wastes is voluminous, coming to 10 pages in length. I am no expert, and cannot judge it, but I am informed that it includes poisons, carcinogenic neurotoxins, skin irritants, items that contain mercury in a toxic form and products that may emit vapours and hydrocarbon gases at standard temperatures and pressures. The proper forum for those wastes to be assessed and understood is a public inquiry, in which extensive evidence and a full range of qualified experts could assist all those involved, including, above all, the Secretary of State, with whom the buck ultimately stops.

The application is restricted to solid, non-flammable, non-explosive, non-volatile, non-reactive, suitably packaged wastes, and it is proposed to exclude waste that is radioactive, liquid, explosive, flammable, vaporising, fuming, biodegradable or odorous. That may be fine, but the control is a self-regulatory, sampling-only regime by Minosus of the lorry samples at the surface head of the mine shaft, with the test lab to be only initially independent of Minosus. That means that samples are no guarantee that a non-permitted waste could not slip through the net, which would mean that rejected wastes would have to be stored, albeit temporarily, at the surface before being transported back through the local area whence they came. Is that a fair safety hazard to impose on local residents? Does it amount to an "acceptable risk", to use the infamous words of the county engineer?

Although the industrial and commercial special wastes involved are intended to come from a local and wider north-western catchment area, is there not a risk that a Winsford deep mine waste dump could grow to become the national dumping ground? How can we be sure that we bind future generations, in a commercial operation that is close to deep water ports, international airports and the motorway network and, under future laws that we cannot predict, not to accept toxic wastes from other countries whose controls and integrity may not conform to our standards and procedures? The cost of transportation is no deterrent over time, as the value-to-weight ratio and fuel costs of the future cannot be predicted against the changing economics of the value of sites for dumping special wastes.

Why are my constituents so desperately worried? Why do they fear and distrust this application so palpably? I make no apology for listing their anxieties. Anxieties about matters above ground include the increase to 25 lorry deliveries, which will mean 50 lorry movements a day. That will increase noise levels, especially from exiting empty lorries with load-weight, high-pressure tyres moving along a narrow, unlit lane and on to the bypass via a junction with fast traffic. Residual dusts may be open to the atmosphere as a result of uncovered hoppers or flatbeds. Paragraph 9.23 of the draft regional planning guidance for the north-west, which was issued only on Monday, states:

The traffic generated by waste management facilities have a significant effect on the highway network—

as my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton mentioned—

in the vicinity of the site and for some distance away and it will be important to include an assessment of this likely impact when considering the facilities.

Other anxieties relating to above ground matters include the erection of buildings in a designated open space near residential areas; the health and environmental risk arising from accidents; the storage of non-permitted wastes prior to return to sender, and the impact on house prices. There is already anecdotal evidence that blight has taken root as a result of the application.

Anxieties about below ground matters include the health and safety of mine workers; the risk of fire; the consequential environmental risk of land heave, water penetration and mine flooding, leading to contamination; accidents from transportation underground, and the cumulative build-up of particulate emissions.

Alternative uses are available in addition to those already identified, such as those that appeared in The Sunday Times last weekend for the treatment of asthma sufferers in the allergen-free atmosphere of such a mine, known as speleotherapy, which is being used in Romania and Austria today.

Especially when quality of life and genuine fears are involved, and given our responsibility as a generation for the generations that follow us, we have a duty to ensure that we subject risk to the utmost possible scrutiny. That is integral to our democratic system. I submit with all the force at my command that the only full, fair, transparent, open and democratically legitimate way to scrutinise an application for the unique use of a unique asset is an independent public inquiry with terms of reference to consider the application in the context of both local and national interests.

We are in uncharted territory. This is a pioneering proposal. It is a unique application for a unique site with unique characteristics that raises unique issues and anxieties. It would be an extremely courageous Secretary of State who approved such an application without the scrutiny of a public inquiry and bore the responsibility for the fact that, contrary to the Government's laudable aims in updating and demanding an overarching national waste strategy, approval at this stage would smack of a piecemeal, unintegrated approach. I take the Secretary of State at his word when he says that he wants an integrated approach to waste management. Only a public inquiry will provide the opportunity, information and judgment to enable the Secretary of State to assess the application in an integrated manner.

The planning process in this case has to date not proved up to the task of demonstrably satisfying the democratic principles demanded by the residents of Moulton, Davenham and north Winsford. The burden of proof must lie with the applicant.

It is not my task today to prejudge a public inquiry. I believe in the democratic process. However, in the absence of such an inquiry, I confirm my objection on behalf of my constituents to the application on the grounds of lack of due process in the absence of a public and independent inquiry, and on the basis of the anxieties that I share with my constituents about the nature of the application itself. As their elected Westminster representative, I urge the Government to prove to my constituents that the Government have their democratic rights and interests both at heart and as an over-riding priority by the Secretary of State calling in the application and establishing a full, public and independent inquiry.

We meet again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for the last time today, I am sorry to say.

The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) raises an issue that is obviously a matter of great anxiety to his constituents. The application to which he refers also raises wider issues. Almost all plans for waste disposal are controversial. Everyone wants waste to be disposed of in someone else's back yard. It is a simple fact of life, which local and national politicians should try to deal with in a mature and responsible manner.

The general principle followed by all Governments is that it is desirable, as far as possible, for decisions to be taken locally by people who are accountable locally. A Conservative Government would face the same difficult decisions, on this and many other applications, as we do.

As the hon. Gentleman explained, the planning application submitted by Minosus Ltd. relates to proposals for the disposal of industrial waste at Winsford rock salt mine. The specific waste title is a matter for the Environment Agency when determining an application for the waste management licence, which is required in addition to planning permission. I understand that the applicant has entered into a legal agreement under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to provide that, should planning permission be granted, the facility will not be used for the deposit of radioactive waste.

In support of the planning application, the company also submitted an environmental statement. The main aim of the procedure is to ensure that the public and the local planning authority properly understand the predicted effects and the scope for reducing them. The hon. Gentleman mentioned that Cheshire county council has responsibility for the development and control of waste sites in the area, has examined the proposal closely and is minded to grant planning permission. The council believes, however, that the development is a departure from the provisions of the Vale Royal local plan and, in line with established procedures, it referred the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who has to decide whether it would be appropriate to use his reserve powers to call in the application for his own determination. He is currently in the process of doing so.

The hon. Gentleman said that he hoped to take a delegation to my right hon. Friend to discuss the issue. The Secretary of State will take into account the representations that he and others have made in writing, and the powerful points that have been made in the debate today. It is unusual, however, for Secretaries of State to receive delegations at this stage in this sort of inquiry.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. Gentleman has several concerns about the proposal, particularly about the number of lorry movements, the geology of the area, the effects on residential amenities, the unique nature of the proposals and the catchment area on which the facility would draw. That broadly summarises the points in his speech. He will appreciate that I cannot comment on the merits of the proposals or on those specific issues, because the matter is currently before my Department. I can, however, make some comments that might be helpful.

The general approach of the Secretary of State on the use of his call-in power is not to interfere with the jurisdiction of local planning authorities unless it is necessary to do so. Parliament has entrusted those authorities with the responsibility for day-to-day planning control in their areas, so it is right that they should generally be free to carry out their duties with the minimum of interference from the centre.

The Secretary of State's policy is to be selective about calling in planning applications. He will, in general, take that step only if planning issues of more than local importance are relevant. Each case will continue to be considered on its individual merits and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend will give his most careful consideration to all the issues raised by this application before deciding whether to exercise his call-in power and to hold a public inquiry. He will also have heard the points made today.

It may also be helpful if I explain some of the key principles of national planning policy on waste, against which planning applications for waste disposal facilities need to be considered. Guidance to planners taking waste management decisions is provided in planning policy guidance note 10. The strategy, which was published in May, highlights three important principles that must be taken into consideration with regard to waste planning applications.

The overarching principle is that of the "best practicable environmental option" which weighs the benefits and disbenefits of each individual case. All options have benefits and disbenefits. There are no perfect solutions in this tricky territory. The procedure establishes the most beneficial, or least damaging, environmental option, taking into account costs and long and short-term time scales. Secondly, the regional self-sufficiency principle advises that most waste should be treated or disposed of within the region in which it is produced. Thirdly, the proximity principle suggests that waste should generally be disposed of as near to its place of origin as possible. It serves as a means of raising awareness in local communities that the waste that they produce is a problem with which they must deal. That also helps to control the environmental impacts of transporting waste.

As I have already mentioned, in addition to the requirement for the applicant to obtain planning permission, there is an entirely separate requirement to obtain a waste management licence. The planning function and the waste management licensing function complement each other, rather than duplicating controls. There are, of course, stringent controls in place to ensure that waste is dealt with properly. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, it is unlawful to deposit, recover or dispose of waste without a waste management licence, contrary to the conditions of a licence exemption, or in a way that causes pollution of the environment or harm to human health. The Environment Agency is responsible for administering and enforcing the waste management system and has the power to take action against anyone who contravenes the controls, and the penalties are potentially severe.

I understand that an application for a licence was submitted to the agency last October and that it is currently under consideration. I am advised that the agency intends to carry out an extensive consultation process before reaching its decision. The agency is aware of the use of mines for this purpose in Germany and France, and will use that in its determination of the licence application. A waste management licence is granted with conditions that the agency considers necessary to prevent pollution of the environment and harm to human health, including provisions for safety monitoring, aftercare and restoration of the site. Conditions must also cover the types and quantities of waste to be disposed of at the site.

The licensing process enables the agency to give full consideration to safety issues and any potential pollution risks, to ensure that there is no pollution of the environment or harm to human health. In addition, under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the agency must be satisfied that an applicant for a waste management licence is a "fit and proper person" before granting the licence. The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that I cannot comment on these matters in detail, because of the Secretary of State's quasi-judicial role in relation to waste management licensing appeals.

Under the 1990 Act, the applicant or holder of a waste management licence has a right of appeal to the Secretary of State under certain circumstances. The details of that licence application are subject to proper consideration by the agency. With regard to concerns about whether waste would be imported from abroad, I should add that the current UK exports/imports plan allows imports for disposal by landfill only in exceptional circumstances.

I should also explain that the Government consider this form of disposal of waste to be, alongside landfill, at the bottom of the waste hierarchy, and such operations will be required to obtain a permit under the landfill directive, once it comes into force in 2001.

Will the Minister give way?

I can do so only at the expense of not concluding.

The most important point is to persuade the Secretary of State that this has more than local importance. The Minister was just touching on that and I wanted to reinforce the point.

The landfill directive introduces additional requirements over and above existing waste management licensing controls. Those include ceasing to dispose of hazardous waste mixed with nonhazardous waste; a requirement to treat waste prior to disposal; and a ban on certain waste in landfill.

I appreciate that I could not deal with the matter in the detail that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents would like, but he in turn will appreciate the constraints on my Department, which has to act in a quasi-judicial role. I assure him, however, that his representations and those of other hon. Members will be taken seriously.

I am extremely grateful for the opportunity to raise the issue of dialysis services required by United Kingdom citizens on holiday in this country.

I requested the debate because my constituent Mr. Robert Huson, who was infected with hepatitis C through no fault of his own a few years ago, came to see me about it. Like many other sufferers, he wants to live as full and as normal a life as possible, which includes taking holidays. He has taken holidays abroad in Majorca, Malta and other sunny climes. Because of his condition, prior to booking a holiday, he has to ensure that dialysis facilities are available at his chosen destination.

My constituent tells me that he had little difficulty in securing dialysis services in Majorca and other places in Europe and no doubt his holidays do him the world of good. However, he cannot take such holidays unless he is sure that he can use a dialysis machine two or three times a week when he is away.

Mr. Huson wanted to book a holiday in the United Kingdom and he tried the Isle of Wight, south Wales, north Wales and the west country, but he was unable to secure the necessary dialysis services. That raises serious issues, to which I hope for a positive response from the Minister. First, why cannot the national health service provide those vital services to people who want to lead as normal a life as possible? Secondly, why can my constituent make arrangements for dialysis abroad, but not in this country? Mr. Huson was awarded a British Empire Medal for services to the community, but when he needs help it is not available.

Why can places such as Majorca provide the service? Is it because those places depend heavily on tourism and therefore recognise that dialysis must be provided for tourists who might need it? It appears that in areas of the United Kingdom that also depend heavily on tourism the NHS closes the door to people who need dialysis facilities.

During my representations on this issue, I met my noble Friend Lord Hunt, the Under-Secretary of State for Health. He understood the issues entirely and was very sympathetic and patient. However, the responses that I have received from him leave me dissatisfied. They revolve around two fundamental issues. In his letter to me dated 25 October 1999, my noble Friend openly took the view that although my constituent might feel that he was subject to discrimination because he had hepatitis C, which is a nasty blood-borne infection, he should not be. The letter stated that Mr. Huson

should not be refused simply because of this and units do dialyse patients with hepatitis C.

Mr. Huson is determined to fend for himself and to live as full a life as possible despite his infection. He takes care of himself and is determined to take on his full responsibilities. He wanted to take a holiday on the Isle of Wight, so he made inquiries at St. Mary's hospital in Newport, which was a responsible thing to do. The patient applied personally to the unit in early 1999 and was accepted—so far, so good. However, only a little later, when the unit found out that he had hepatitis C, it was decided that it could not treat him. My noble Friend Lord Hunt's assertion that Mr. Huson should not be refused dialysis because of hepatitis C does not appear to be backed up by experience.

The second reason given to me by my noble Friend for the unavailability of the services in question is a potentially significant cost element. In a letter of 9 May he said:

The dialysis of patients infected with a blood-borne virus such as hepatitis C requires significant extra resources, not only in terms of equipment but also of staff. Unfortunately there is a serious shortage of renal nurses in many areas.

I am prepared to accept that there are shortages of experienced staff, but the notion that the procedure requires significant additional resources and staff does not seem to be borne out by the experiences of my constituent when he is dialysed at the North Staffordshire hospital.

I know the North Staffordshire hospital well, and you, Mr. Winterton, may know it too. Its staff are highly professional and efficient and I have nothing but praise for them. What do the professionals say about the issue of significant additional staffing, additional costs and other procedures to prevent infection of other people as a result of dialysis? A letter from the clinical nurse specialist in the hospital's renal directorate states:

The only precaution other than the universal precautions that are applied to all dialysis patients, is that his machine goes through a full clean after his treatment session. He has dialysed in this manner for more than 2 years without any spread of infection.

It seems that the point made by my noble Friend Lord Hunt about significant extra resources, staff and equipment is not borne out by the professionals who treat Mr. Huson two or three times a week at North Staffordshire hospital. Are we to ponder the notion that the treatment offered at North Staffordshire hospital, a highly professional first-class unit, is of a lower standard than that which is acceptable to the Department of Health? I doubt that very much indeed. The record shows that the staff at that hospital are highly professional and would not take any risks, yet they say that they can carry out the treatment without any additional, unnecessary or unacceptable burdens being placed on their resources and staff. If that is the case at North Staffordshire hospital, which has the highest possible standards, why is it not the case elsewhere?

This week, I read an interesting report that suggested that hepatitis C is on the increase, so the issue is not just one of current concern but will grow in significance and importance. Why is it, therefore, that the flexibility that is necessary to deal with the issue, not only in relation to my constituent but potentially in relation to hundreds or thousands of other hepatitis C sufferers, is not being shown elsewhere? Why is it that the highly professional staff at North Staffordshire hospital can provide that service, yet we are told by my noble Friend Lord Hunt that it cannot be provided elsewhere because that would require significant extra resources?

There was a ray of hope following my meetings with my noble Friend, which is evident in his correspondence to me. I refer again to his letter dated 25 October 1999 in which he says:

We are addressing the need to increase the provision of dialysis services. Centrally used guidance on specialised commissioning and the National Priorities Guidance have both emphasised the need for Health Authorities and NHS Trusts to review the existing provision of renal services and to plan for increased provision.

Therefore, my question to my hon. Friend the Minister is when is that increased provisin likely to see the light of day. When will people such as my constituent, Mr. Huson, have the opportunity at least to take a holiday in the United Kingdom without being effectively debarred because of an illness?

My noble Friend Lord Hunt went on to say:

Further guidance to be issued shortly—

the letter is dated 25 October 1999—

will provide specific information to assist with this process. In addition, the pressures on renal services are identified and taken into account during the Comprehensive Spending Review process.

So there is every sign that my noble Friend realises that the situation is unacceptable and realises that people such as my constituent, Mr. Huson, find it incomprehensible. Although people have no problem receiving such services when they go abroad, they are effectively debarred from going on holiday in the United Kingdom.

I hope that I have demonstrated the significant issues that need to be addressed without undue delay. I and many other hon. Members enthusiastically welcome the Government's determination to resource and modernise the national health service to make it fit for the 21st century. The Government are taking a realistic approach. They have repeatedly said that much has been achieved, but that a great deal more remains to be done. Unless the issues that affect people directly in their daily lives are effectively and urgently addressed by the Government, I fear that we shall have a long journey in convincing my constituents and the general public that the NHS is there for them. I hope that I will be able to reassure my constituent on this important matter.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) on raising the issue of kidney dialysis treatment for patients who want to travel to other areas of the United Kingdom. As he said, he took his constituent's case to my noble Friend Lord Hunt. The problem affects the quality of life of perhaps 10,000 patients and their families in England. They are in end-stage renal failure and need constant high-quality treatment with haemodialysis.

There are three modes of treatment for end-stage renal failure. The first is haemodialysis, the second is peritoneal dialysis, and the optimum treatment is transplantation. Unfortunately, for familiar reasons, transplants are not available on request, so the majority of patients continue to be treated by dialysis to remove the waste products from their blood. Dialysis allows waste products to diffuse across a membrane into dialysis fluid, which is then disposed of. Haemodialysis means that the patient is connected to a dialysis machine for four to five hours three times a week. That process usually takes place in a hospital unit although some patients have an appropriate machine at home.

The alternative to haemodialysis is peritoneal dialysis. A fluid is introduced into the peritoneal cavity, or abdomen, where dialysis occurs. That takes 30 to 40 minutes, three or four times a day, every day. The patient is not connected to a machine. Patients on peritoneal dialysis have more flexibility about where they carry out their treatment and therefore find it easier to organise holidays. Once a holiday destination has been decided, patients can ask their renal unit to arrange for their supplies of dialysis fluids to be delivered to their holiday address. They can continue their treatment in the same way as they do at home.

My hon. Friend referred to patients who wish to travel to other areas of the UK. As in the case of his constituent, the most common reason is to take a holiday, but there are other reasons, not least to deal with family and business matters. I am grateful for this chance to contribute to a practical debate on issues that affect everyone who requires haemodialysis. It is a lifesaving treatment. Patients are completely dependent on it and cannot take a holiday from it, much as they may wish to do so. We are very conscious of that. They have a right to a quality of life that includes everyday pleasures that most of us take for granted and expect. Patients with end-stage renal failure are no different from the rest of us in that they expect to be able to participate in such activities with the minimum of fuss.

Holidays for patients on haemodialysis are complex to organise. Once a patient has decided on a UK holiday destination, his or her hospital trust will usually arrange holiday dialysis. The arrangements are made through hospital trusts because they can provide the clinical information required by the host trust for the patient's visit. There is no obligation on health authorities or trusts to provide holiday dialysis for their patients. People who care for patients with kidney failure are sympathetic to their need for a holiday and will do their best to make the necessary arrangements, but treatment of their own local patients must come first when facilities are limited.

Will my hon. Friend comment on the fact that my constituent was accepted when his arrangements for the Isle of Wight were made through the North Staffordshire hospital? It was only later, when it was discovered that he had hepatitis C, that the door was closed.

I shall deal with that point in a moment.

In April 1999, we introduced the system of out-of area treatments to replace extra-contractual referrals. In that system, a patient's usual NHS trust will make arrangements for holiday dialysis with the chosen holiday trust and will also agree the funding. Service agreements between patients' health authorities and their home trusts will reflect those other agreements. There is a cost to the home trust in that patients pay for the holiday dialysis, but the saving is only minimal as patients' usual dialysis slots cannot be used during the holiday period.

In the past, some renal units have run an exchange system for patients so that they swap dialysis slots for the period of the holiday. That practice has been diminishing because renal patients are more susceptible to illness and may have to cancel their holiday at short notice. If that happens, one unit will find that it has an extra patient to accommodate and, with the growing pressure on services, it will not always be able to provide that care.

Hospital trusts may find it more difficult to arrange holiday dialysis for patients who have blood-borne infections such as hepatitis. Such patients create extra demands on nursing care and special equipment. For example, patients with hepatitis B should be cared for on dedicated machines by different staff from those who care for non-infected patients. Furthermore, dialysis machines that are used by patients with hepatitis C should not be used by patients who do not have that infection. Those standards have been accepted as those towards which the NHS should be working. They were drawn up by the Renal Association and the Royal College of Physicians and were set out in a document entitled "Treatment of Adult Patients with Renal Failure".

As I said, it is recommended that machines used for patients with hepatitis C should not be used for uninfected patients. Some people believe that each patient should have a dedicated machine, but that is not usually possible. It is recommended that carriers of hepatitis C should be dialysed where possible in separate or single shifts and that, whenever possible, staff should care only for infected or uninfected patients during one shift. If that is not practicable, the more experienced staff should be assigned the task of caring for a mixed group of patients.

My hon. Friend asked about North Staffordshire hospital. I cannot respond to the matters to which he referred in this debate, but I shall look into them. The procedures in place in English units to control the transmission of such viruses make them among the safest in the world. Renal units that do not have their own patients with blood-borne infections will be unlikely to be able to accept infected patients, as that can restrict the service that they can offer to their own patients. Likewise, if their facilities for infected patients are under pressure they may not be able to accommodate holiday dialysis at a particular time. That goes to the heart of the issue raised by my hon. Friend. Bearing in mind the guidance on best practice, I believe that it is practical constraints that have caused particular problems with constituents, such as the one to whom my hon. Friend referred, who are infected with hepatitis C.

I was asked to comment on the provision of facilities overseas, but I do not feel able to do so now, certainly in respect to any particular country. I have set out the standards that are being sought and which we are trying to achieve in this country. As I understand it, in most holiday destinations, dialysis is purchased under private medical arrangements. Understandably, my hon. Friend's constituent seeks a service under the national health service as a citizen of this country.

Is my hon. Friend saying that the Department will consider private provision if the NHS is not prepared to provide such treatment in such cases?

I was referring to the arrangement between the patient and the service provider, which is a private one. The Government have recently made it clear that we do not wish to be dogmatic about provision, but I should not like to be drawn further on the specific point raised by my hon. Friend.

I come now to wider issues affecting holiday travel. Some NHS trusts have dedicated hospital facilities for patients able to arrange for dialysis unassisted by medical staff. That is obviously not suitable for all patients. Apart from NHS trusts there are private hospitals that provide general renal services, and there are some private facilities for dialysis, many in holiday destinations in the UK. We know that some NHS patients have already been able to utilise such services, such as the dialysis service offered by a private hospital in St. Ives. The Dialysis Travel Company Ltd. provides dialysis at the Butlins resorts of Bognor Regis, Skegness and Minehead. The resorts can dialyse six patients a day, and another such unit has recently opened at Warner's Lakeside centre, near Portsmouth.

I commend the National Kidney Federation, the major voluntary organisation for kidney patients, which is currently constructing a website on holiday dialysis in the UK and abroad. Unfortunately, private facilities do not usually accept patients with blood-borne viruses such as hepatitis. As with the arrangements between NHS trusts, there is no obligation for the home renal unit to pay for patients to attend private holiday facilities.

I acknowledge that the existing renal services are under immense pressure to accommodate the growing number of patients with end-stage renal failure. Holiday dialysis can really be made more available only by expanding dialysis provision generally. We have taken several steps to ensure that patients will have access to high-quality services. I have spoken about the recommended standards for the treatment of patients with renal failure. We identified renal services as a priority in the new arrangements for regional commissioning of specialised services, which came into force last year. The arrangements will facilitate planning on a wider and more long-term basis. The first reports of the regional commissioners will be available in August and we will have the opportunity to reflect on what has been achieved so far and to identify the areas to be addressed in the next year.

Later this year we will also have the results of the updated national renal survey and the renal chapter of the health care needs assessment. Both documents will be important in helping us to model renal services. They will enable us to see how far we have progressed, how steep the growth rate is and how far there is to go. All evaluations will be based on best available knowledge and will be fed into the work of the regional commissioners.

Renal services have benefited from the Government's overall increase in NHS funding. In the Budget we announced significant increases in NHS funding for the next four years, which were confirmed yesterday. In addition, we have made £10 million available this year from the capital resources allocations specifically for haemodialysis services. That will provide facilities for at least 500 more patients to be treated. Each region will be able to demonstrate an increase of at least 15 dialysis units or capacity for at least 60 additional patients. We announced approval of the regions' plans on 12 July and renal services and provision will expand in the next 12 months. Regions have added to the centrally allocated capital so that £18 million capital investment in total will be spent, supported locally by the revenue consequences. That money will be spent on 53 schemes in 42 trusts.

My honourable Friend has asked about holiday facilities in Portsmouth, the Isle of Wight and Plymouth. All three of those health authorities have benefited from the allocation of new money, and a total of 20 new dialysis stations will be provided in their units, which in turn will improve the possibility of holiday dialysis. However, I am afraid that I cannot make a firm commitment with regard to Mr. Huson, my hon. Friend's constituent, on the information that I have.

There is a real issue concerning the shortage of nurses, which constrains several aspects of the development of the NHS, and renal services are no exception. I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware of the strenuous efforts that the Government have made to increase the number of nurse training places, to encourage former nurses to return to the national health service and to encourage wider take-up of nurse training courses. It is good news that applications for nursing and midwifery diploma courses rose by 73 per cent. last year. Several thousand nurses have already rejoined the NHS, and that will help us to meet needs in renal care and in other parts of the health service.

In conclusion, the issues raised by my hon. Friend on behalf of his constituent are important. At root, they do not reflect a discrimination against hepatitis C sufferers; they reflect the fact that we need to expand our renal services so that we can offer the best possible care to patients, whether they seek it at home or on holiday. The Government have embarked on that programme of work, although I accept that there is still a considerable way to go.