I am extremely grateful to have secured time for a debate on a matter of great importance to many of my constituents. I should, perhaps, particularly thank the previous Speaker, Betty Boothroyd, who allocated this time as one of her last acts in the Chair.

The flooding that hit Lewes on 12 October will have been seen on television news bulletins by many Members. The flood water came suddenly and rose quickly, submerging whole areas of Lewes and making the town unrecognisable. Within hours, 400 homes had to be evacuated and the main commercial area of the town had been wrecked. Some streets, such as Morris road in the Cliffe area and Spences lane in Malling, still look like warzones. In those places, contaminated water ran up to 12 ft deep, submerging not only the ground floors of dwellings but penetrating the upper floors as well.

I pay tribute to the work of the emergency services, especially the fire service, which was superb, as was the Royal National Lifeboat Institution. Members may have seen footage of institution workers rescuing people from their homes in boats. It is a tribute to the emergency services that no one died in the floods and very few were injured.

I thank and express my admiration for Lewes district council, which has, in football vernacular, played a blinder. Within a couple of hours, emergency rest centres were established so that no one from the 400 evacuated houses went without food or shelter. In the hours and days that followed, the council issued regular updates to local residents, which were posted through every door in the town, arranged for mass clearances of flood-damaged goods, handed out mops, buckets and detergents and even provided disposable cameras to help residents with insurance claims. It also arranged for a free bus to the supermarket in Newhaven, given that the two in Lewes were unavoidably closed. I also acknowledge the sound contribution made by county council social services staff in helping victims of the floods when they were at their most vulnerable. The coordination with the district council's housing team was both impressive and reassuring.

The people of Lewes have also responded with real community spirit. Within a day, the number of bed spaces offered by Lewes residents to those temporarily made homeless was greater than the number of homeless people. I could mention many individuals, but I shall pick out three names. First, Superintendent Simon Parr masterminded police operations on the ground with a commitment and professionalism that inspired confidence in others. Secondly, Lewes district council's Chief executive, John Crawford, handled the immediate aftermath with great efficiency. Thirdly, my Liberal Democrat colleague, Maureen Messer, chairman of the council, single-handedly fed and secured shelter for dozens of people in the Malling area when it was cut off from the rest of Lewes on that first night.

The response of the authorities and the people of Lewes made a real difference and kept up morale. The floods have brought people together; I am told that neighbours who have not talked to each other for years have been seen helping each other out, and I hope that that will continue. That is the good news. However, none of that can compensate for the fact that a terrible disaster has hit Lewes. Indeed, such is the scale of damage and devastation that I believe it is right to call the flooding a national disaster.

I am grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, for taking the trouble to visit the town so soon after the floods occurred. In fact, I am surprised that he got through the traffic and the water. Perhaps he knows a secret way into Lewes of which I am unaware. His visit was very welcome. I was also pleased to receive his letter of 17 October, letting me know that, rightly, he had asked the Environment Agency for a full report of the incident, and promising me a copy of it. I was grateful, too, for Prince Edward's visit to the town on Tuesday last week. The visits underline the fact that what happened was a national disaster. Under such circumstances, it will not surprise the Minister to learn that I am here today to ask for national help to put Lewes back on its feet.

I referred to the superb local work of the public authorities; they could not have done more. However, the fact remains that the district council in particular is running up a huge bill because it has to house hundreds of homeless people, some of whom might be in that position for six months. Their houses will have to be completely stripped and replastered. The massive clearance work is also costing the council a great deal of money, and many other calls are being made on it besides that. I therefore unshamedly ask the Minister for some cash to help my town.

First, will the Minister give me an assurance that the district council will qualify for significant financial help under the Bellwin scheme? I know that he is sympathetic to the case, but I should be grateful if he confirmed that for the record and said how much money will be forthcoming. I hope that the Bellwin scheme will enable the majority of extra costs that will be incurred to be met, although there is some doubt about that. For example, I understand that the county council's insurance policy stipulates an excess of £105,000 per building. A number of its buildings have been damaged significantly. One building, in particular—the Phoenix centre—might cost more than £500,000 to put right, so it is clearly inadequate that the Bellwin scheme offers compensation of only £100 Per building will the Minister comment on that point and, if my information is correct, ensure that the figure is updated in order to deal with the situation in Lewes? Otherwise, the public authority will be hundreds of thousands of pounds out of pocket simply because of what has happened to its buildings.

Secondly, the Minister will be aware that Lewes is a beautiful historic town—although he may not have thought so when he last visited it. It is recognised as one of the 50 towns in the country that deserves special protection. I regret that there has been significant damage to its historic core and the listed buildings therein. Will the Minister press his colleagues in the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to identify what funding could assist the problem? Perhaps such funding could come from English Heritage.

Thirdly, I shall refer to insurance claims. The Minister might say that that is a matter for individuals, but I shall try to melt his heart a little. Sadly, many people affected were uninsured. Such people are often the poorest in the community—pensioners who are living on nothing but the basic state pension and cannot afford the insurance premiums. All that they had was wiped out in a matter of hours or, in some cases, minutes. They left their houses in the morning to go the shops and returned to find them wrecked. That is difficult for any individual, let alone those who might be vulnerable. Some people have been left with only a shell of an uninhabitable building, and without a home for six months. It is bad enough when people aged 75 or 80 lose everything they have, but when they have no idea whether their homes can be replaced, the situation is even worse. The flooding is not only a tragedy for the town, but has resulted in a series of individual tragedies. People have been adversely affected and they need help.

I applaud the action of the mayor, Jim Daly, and the chairman of the district council, Maureen Messer, who have set up a fund to help the people who have been hit so badly. I am pleased to say that contributions are already flowing in from the public. Will the Minister pledge that the Government will either contribute to that fund or find a creative way in which to raise funds to help those people?

I do not represent a Sussex constituency, but my constituency suffered flooding on 15 September when 65 mm of rain fell in fewer than eight hours. It was interesting that my hon. Friend did not mention the actions of Southern Water when he thanked people for their help. What will the Minister do about Southern Water's attitude? Several people in my constituency were either underinsured or not insured. If the Minister is considering contributions to hardship funds, will he look sympathetically at the fund that has been set up in Portsmouth?

Is my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) pleased with the reaction of Southern Water? I am far from pleased with its reaction to what happened in Portsmouth. It is failing to honour the Office of Water Services' guaranteed standard scheme for people affected by sewage flooding. It is not even honouring that basic commitment. I wish also to ask my hon. Friend—

Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has been too long.

There are legitimate questions about Southern Water, on which I will touch later. To pick up my hon. Friend's point about compensation, it is not enough for the Minister to tell me that people can apply to the social fund, because applicants sometimes have to demonstrate that they can pay back the money. Some people now have no money at all with which to pay anything back and the problem requires a different solution than might normally be offered.

The fourth matter that I draw to the Minister's attention is the catastrophic impact of the floods on business. Some businesses have told me that they have lost seven-figure sums; that is not an exaggeration. A great number are still far from being able to trade. There were only two shops open on Cliffe high street in Lewes on Monday, which is the last time that I checked. That is terrible. Sussex Enterprise tells me that it estimates that the loss to business in Lewes may be as high as £3 million per day.

The district council has responded positively to that unprecedented situation by announcing what is called a business-rate holiday for affected businesses. Will the Minister undertake to lobby his Treasury colleagues to give businesses a respite—not in terms of money, because businesses must be insured, but by extending the deadlines for both VAT and tax returns? Many businesses lost all their paperwork in the floods, which came upon them very suddenly, and it will take a long time to reconstruct that work. It will add insult to injury if the Inland Revenue then penalises them for not returning their tax returns on time. Perhaps the Minister will write to me on that if he cannot give me an answer today.

Fifthly, I need to draw to the Minister's attention the plight of the local farming community. He will know only too well from his role at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the problems that farmers everywhere face. Local farmers needed a flood like they needed an aperture in the cranium. Many fields in my constituency are still under water and crop loss is not insurable.

It is interesting that the south-east regional chairman of the National Farmers Union, John Robinson, who happens to be one of my constituents at Iford, wrote to the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), two days before the floods, warning of the impact that rain had had, even at that time, on production levels and hence productivity. Sadly, the post-flood position for Mr. Robinson and many farmers in my constituency is much worse. What will the Government do to help farmers in my constituency whose fields are still covered with water?

The Minister will be pleased that I have no further requests for money, but I wish to raise other issues, which I hope he will agree are legitimate. The first is on the state of flood defences in the area. I make a serious accusation in that regard. The Government were told about the inadequacies of flood defences in East Sussex but did not do much about it. The Environment Agency told them two years ago. The Agriculture Committee told them shortly afterwards—I believe that the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), who has a neighbouring constituency, will pick up that point.

I told the Government about the inadequacies in two separate debates on flooding: on 24 February 1999 and in a debate that I opened on 16 June 1999. In the February debate, I told the House:

I am…concerned about the banks of the Ouse in Lewes. According to the Environment Agency, there is a real danger that the banks will collapse, with all sorts of consequences for properties, business and tourism in the county town. —[Official Report, 24 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 341.]

In the June debate, I told the House:

The Environment Agency has identified work which needs to be undertaken urgently and has warned that if it is not done the river walls are at risk of collapsing. —[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 535.]

I shall show the Minister the front page of my local paper, the Sussex Express, on 30 January 1998. The headline reads, "No cash to hold back the Ouse". The first paragraph of that story, written two years before the floods, states:

Shocked Environment Agency officials have been told that there is no money in the kitty to carry out desperately needed work in Lewes to shore up the brick walls holding back the River Ouse as it passes through the town. The Agency was planning to start vital flood protection work, costing £2.5m, this year. But…cuts in funding means the scheme has had to be dropped for the time being.

I do not blame the Government for the terrible floods that we have had. The rainfall in the hours prior to the flooding was extraordinary. I am also not suggesting that, had the identified flood protection works been carried out, there would not have been considerable damage to the county town. There would have been damage—but there would have been less. Climate change is doubtless partly to blame; I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) will refer to that. By and large, the river walls in Lewes held good, so although the works identified would have had an effect, they would not have stopped the floods entirely.

In spite of the warnings that the Government have received, flood defence moneys have been cut from £320 million five years ago to £301 million this year. Those figures are quoted from The Sunday Times.

Not always reliable.

No, the papers are not always reliable, but I would be pleased to hear the Minister correct those figures if he wants to.

The Environment Agency maintains that flood defence work in Sussex alone is underfunded by £4 million a year. However, a more serious issue is legislation relating to flood defence responsibilities. The Minister may recall that I raised the subject on the Floor of the House in the two debates to which I referred, and the Agriculture Committee reported on it at length. The problem is that there are many bodies with powers, but none with responsibilities. Such passive legislation does not work. In Lewes, a flooding problem could be a matter for the Environment Agency, Southern Water, the county council, the district council, the Crown Estates, the riparian owner or a combination of them all. That is a recipe for inaction and buck-passing.

To make matters worse, the Environment Agency identifies works that need to be undertaken and it is then up to flood defence committees to authorise them—or, all too frequently, not to do so. Those committees have the budget but they do not have the expertise, and many county councils want to spend the money on other matters. That mix—a professional body identifying the work but not having a budget, and people without the professional expertise or commitment to the work having the budget—must be changed.

We need two changes. The Government need to bite the bullet and increase significantly the money earmarked for flood defence work, irrespective of the figures of which I am sure the Minister will inform me. The climate is changing and the increasing incidence of floods will heighten, so the Government's increase for that aspect of their expenditure must be above inflation if they are to keep even the present situation at bay.

Responsibilities must be clarified. A lead body, probably the Environment Agency, should have a duty, not a power, to ensure that flood defences are adequate. We need to ensure that the body responsible for identifying problems and their solutions has the responsibility to fund them. That means either that flood defence committees should be abolished and their budgets handed to the Environment Agency, or that the Environment Agency should become a direct agency of those committees for flood defence purposes. The present hotch-potch cannot be allowed to continue any longer. It is intolerable that the Environment Agency should identify works in my town as essential but that they should go unfunded for years. Will the Government sort out the mess, or must we wait for another flood before they do so?

So far as strategic issues are concerned, it is clear that there must be an overall assessment of the river structure, from the Uck in the constituency of the right hon. Member for Wealden, through Lewes and to Newhaven. I have seen no evidence of such consideration of the rivers. I hope that the Minister can tell me that it will happen, and that the works identified will be properly funded and carried out.

Finally, some planning issues must be tackled. In 1960, there was a serious flood in Lewes. It was not as bad as the recent one, but bad enough to flood large areas of the town. Why were houses built shortly afterwards in areas known to be vulnerable to flooding, with predictable consequences? Does the Minister share my alarm at the fact that two of the first buildings to be knocked out of operation in Lewes were the headquarters of the fire brigade and the ambulance service? Clearly, they were not built in appropriate locations.

The district council's excellent director of planning, Lindsay Frost, is struggling to meet a Government target of 4,600 new homes in the district between 1991 and 2011. Given the restrictions that apply, whether natural, such as hills, or man-made, such as designated areas of outstanding natural beauty, it is almost inevitable that some of those homes will be earmarked for flood-plain areas. Those areas are often in line with Government guidance—they are often brown-field sites or on the edge of town, for example. I understand that the Environment Agency has made no objection to the specific sites identified in flood-plain areas, subject to measures such as increased floor levels that would not have prevented houses in those areas from flooding. Five planning applications are pending in the Lewes district for new buildings on the flood plain. What does the Minister suggest that the council should do with them?

This subject has arisen suddenly. I do not want to pretend that, with a crystal ball, we could all have foreseen such planning problems. However, building on the flood plain is a serious issue. The countryside will be under pressure if homes are not built on the flood plain. The Government need to make a clear statement on the issue.

To summarise, I have two main points. First, the scale of the disaster to hit Lewes is such that it needs financial and other help from central Government. The town is doing a great deal itself, but it cannot do everything. Will such help be forthcoming? Secondly, the Government need to acknowledge that legislation relating to flood defence responsibilities is in a mess and needs to be sorted out, and that more money needs to be found for flood defences. Does the Minister accept that?

I thank hon. Members for allowing me the time to raise this issue, which is of major importance to my constituents, and I look forward to the Minister's reply.

I commend the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on the timeliness of this debate, so soon after the House has returned after the recess. His comments, to which I am sure the Minister listened with care, about the need for funding in the devastated communities will receive widespread support.

As the hon. Gentleman said, the floods that occurred the week before last in East Sussex and parts of Kent, such as Lamberhurst, had a devastating effect on many local communities. In my constituency, the River Rother overflowed its banks at Bodiam, submerging the National Trust shop and tea room, while further upstream at Etchingham, the railway station, the church and at least three homes were flooded. However, the damage at Robertsbridge, which lies between those two villages, was by far the most severe and extensive. Almost 100 properties in Robertsbridge—on Northbridge street and Rutley close, part of the high street and Station road, including the nearby, newish village hall—were deluged. The water rose to more than 3 ft deep in some houses, and occupants were helpless to do more than move what belongings they could upstairs.

Last week I visited two such constituents, Alan and Sue Winspear, who had been away during the flood itself, but whose home, Quaker house in Northbridge street, is one of several whose back gardens follow the course of a stream that, in normal circumstances, is little more than a large, overgrown ditch containing a trickle of water. Last Christmas, the Winspears, like many other people in Robertsbridge, saw that stream become a torrent that advanced across their back gardens, and there were floods again in May, but none of the previous water havoc compared with the disaster of the week before last. Parked cars were ruined; as the hon. Member for Lewes said, business premises were engulfed; and homes were contaminated by the dark slime and sludge that the floodwaters left behind as they receded.

Afterwards, the sand bags and the skips full of ruined carpets and wrecked household goods told only part of the story. Inside many people's homes, floors, skirting, walls, curtains, kitchen equipment and heavy furniture were irreparably damaged. Afterwards, the clean-up got under way, as residents showed their resilience after the worst flood in living memory. Insurance claims are being processed for those who had insurance cover, but, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, many people, especially poorer people, do not have insurance cover, and they face terrible problems. The cost of the floods will be enormous.

There has been widespread praise, to which I add my congratulations and thanks, for the efforts of the police, fire crews and medical and other emergency services, including many local authority staff and volunteers who rescued the stranded, helped the elderly and set up evacuation centres. However, in spite of the exemplary behaviour of many people in the face of adversity, the Environment Agency urgently needs to answer many questions. It has been asked to produce a report for the Minister, and the House will be grateful for the Minister's prompt reaction to the disaster. The people of Robertsbridge and, I am sure, many others in East Sussex and Kent want answers, too, as the House will appreciate.

The area flood defence manager, who is based at Addington in Kent, has said that the level of the floods was so far in excess of what existing flood maps show—in some cases several metres above previous highest recorded levels—that it will take some time before a complete picture can be constructed. The area flood defence manager acknowledges the need to hold a public meeting in Robertsbridge, but anxious residents are in no mood to be left waiting for the answers that they want without delay. They want much more than the list of flood warnings issued in the Robertsbridge area and a recital of the common-sense flood advice guide that was on offer, which was the gist of the information faxed to me from Addington in reply to my first inquiries.

Many local residents are convinced that the opening and closing of the tidal sluice gates near Rye affected water levels upstream on the Rother, at Robertsbridge. Last Christmas, when those gates were opened, the water levels at Robertsbridge subsided rapidly and noticeably. What effect did those gates have on this occasion? Other residents are understandably suspicious that the Robertsbridge bypass, which was constructed over the nearby flood plain outside the village, now acts as a dam, diverting the flow of floodwater. The residents of Northbridge street are angry that a plan to erect a flood defence wall and divert the stream behind their houses, which was first proposed five or six years ago, was dropped, apparently because it was too expensive.

The Environment Agency should convene a public meeting in Robertsbridge at the earliest opportunity—I hope that the Minister will encourage officials in the agency to do so—so that they can answer these and other key questions fully and openly. The agency must demonstrate to worried local residents, who are reeling from the recent damage to their properties, that, as far as possible, the forces of nature will be matched and contained in the most effective way possible before floods again hit East Sussex.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on seizing the opportunity for this debate. We consulted each other in order to take a joint initiative, and as the people of Lewes have suffered more than those in other areas, I am pleased that he has succeeded in obtaining the prime position and that we now have more time to discuss the matter. I shall concentrate my comments on Uckfield, which has suffered flooding on several occasions, although I do not want to minimise the impact of the heavy rains that affected many homes, roads and businesses in rural areas but did not receive the same publicity.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) made it clear that the flooding of the town was serious for many homes, but owing to the topography much of the damage occurred in the villages. To the north of Uckfield is the high Weald, which rises to 700 or 800 ft. It receives heavy rainfall, which causes little streams, some of which flow into the River Medway, which stretches towards Maidstone. The River Rother to the east and other streams running south affect Uckfield and continue downhill all the way to Lewes. Topography plays an important part in the problem.

The storm that hit us recently cannot be described as a freak because we might have other, similar ones. Recent rainfall seems to have been heavier than we are used to. The recent attack was particularly savage because the rain clouds seemed to remain above us instead of moving on. Normally, they move on and after a few hours the weather improves, but that was not so during the few hours of the recent burst, when some 80 mm of rain fell. No authority could anticipate such a storm or have remedies to minimise the effect—and we understand that.

Before I consider in detail some difficulties associated with the problem, I want to pay my own tribute to the men and women of the public services, who arrived quickly, dealt with the flooding and cleared up the mess so effectively. However, although few homes in Uckfield itself were flooded, the downtown area of the high street and the industrial estate were badly affected. Many small businesses were flooded—some for the second time in a matter of months. In retrospect, one might argue that the flood plain that existed before the industrial estate was built might have coped with the overflow from the River Uck, but I doubt it. In any case, we must accept that the industrial estate has created a great deal of wealth and many jobs, and has attracted a number of well known international companies. It would be the height of folly to assume that the problem cannot be solved; it can, and I shall deal with the matter later.

The problem of farms was mentioned by the hon. Member for Lewes. On my travels, I noticed that some crops still needed harvesting. Crops that were drilled prior to the floods are either under water or have been washed away. Other crops were harvested, and the land is waiting to be drilled. If land set aside for corn, for example, is not drilled now, the corn either cannot be planted at all or will be planted late, and crop quality will prove insufficient. In addition, cattle have been marooned. The impact of the flooding on dairy farming is bad enough without farmers having to cope with that as well. Many fields of spring rape, linseed and flax have gone. A constituent of mine has lost some 40 acres of flax, and stands to lose £11,000 to £12,000. Another farmer has lost 10,000 chickens.

Such problems have badly affected farmers at a particularly serious time for the British farming industry, and we must return to the question of compensation. I do not want to dwell on the subject, but there is a need for compensation and we must tackle it. As one farmer said, losses are extensive and damaging. It is not a question of insurance: one simply cannot insure against some of the problems that farmers face. If insurance companies will not deal with those problems, are we to leave farmers to face the consequences of such a storm? I hope that we can agree that a positive view must be taken on the extent of compensation.

The National Farmers Union has argued that there is a strong case for applying for outstanding agrimoney, and I believe that such payments commence from 16 October. I should be grateful if the Minister responded to that request. I pay tribute to him for his prompt appearance on the scene in Lewes and in my constituency. It is clear that he understands the seriousness of the problem.

Not only farmers were affected. As has been pointed out, given that the situation is clearly exceptional, communities themselves should do something, and the mayor of Uckfield has set up a fund to which we can subscribe. It is tragic that small businesses have had their stock destroyed by floods for a second time. It is quite pathetic to see such debris and mess on those premises. Will the Minister take into account the plight of small businesses that are uninsurable or cannot afford insurance?

The traumatic effect is profound. I should not like people to assume that we must admit defeat and that nothing can be done. Extending our sympathy to those who have suffered is simply not good enough. Sympathy will neither help deal with the flooding nor address the circumstances that gave rise to it in the first place. A fatalistic shrug of the shoulders will not ensure safety. If nothing is done, there will be more devastation and we will find ourselves debating the same problem again. We cannot and should not walk away from that problem. We are proud of our community in Uckfield. It is a prosperous town; we want to keep it that way, and we can.

I have touched on the issue of compensation, which the hon. Member for Lewes covered in some detail. We must grasp that nettle; it will not go away. Clearly, Government funds are not inexhaustible, but I hope that the Minister will confirm that compensation is not ruled out. The NFU estimates damage of some £3 million.

I should like to focus on the extent to which we can protect the community in my constituency from such serious effects in future. As the Minister will recall, there is a mill about 100 yds from one side of the high street, in front of which is the usual mill pond. It fills up too easily, the water rises and the outlet to take the water downriver is insufficient. That problem must be tackled; it is not necessarily too expensive to do so.

Water under the high street bridge rises quickly and can disappear quickly—it caused the damage in the high street and to the industrial estate to which I referred. To those of us who have studied the matter, it seems that the flow of the water under the bridge is held up too much, so it backs up. That situation, together with that of the mill pond, alerts us to the fact that, if the risk of further serious flooding is to be reduced, we should consider the gradual removal of the ineffective ways in which water is conducted downstream—for example, by improving the flow under the high street bridge and the other bridge by the bypass. We should also consider replacing the old-fashioned, hard-engineered constraints in some of our rivers—the Uck, for example, has several—with environmentally sustainable alternatives. That matter was raised in the Agriculture Committee's report.

The rains were so heavy prior to the final downpour and flooding that the flood plains were already saturated. However, that should not lead us to believe that the flood plains will be of no use in future. We could make better use of them if they were better drained. I live nowhere near a flood plain, but on the morning when the flood was at its height after 88 mm of rain had fallen, my lawn—which is about 100 ft above sea level—looked as though it had turned into a lake. That is because the storm had been preceded by two or three weeks of heavy rainfall. We should not automatically assume that that will happen next time; we are often concerned with flash floods. The flood plains need to be properly managed, which I believe is possible. They were already wide open to flooding—having being saturated by rain before the heavy downpour during the few days before the flooding—and therefore unable to carry out their role.

I come to the question of housing. A few houses in Uckfield were built further and further down the slope towards the flood plain, and some were badly affected. We must face the fact that, in the light of the demand to build more houses, Wealden district council is seriously worried about where to site such dwellings. If one went south of Uckfield, one would probably face a greater flooding risk, yet we are told that we must address the need to build more homes. East Sussex had a programme to build up to 33,000 homes by 2016. The ill-fated Crowe report said that we could do better than that, and that we should have 45,000. The Government have split the difference. Anyone in East Sussex knows that it would be fatal to try to develop housing on that scale.

Of course, there are wider problems than that of flooding: there is the transport question, and the fact that more and more people are now drifting into the south-east. I do not want to introduce a suggestion of NIMBY-ism. The issue has nothing to do with "Not in my back yard". It has to do with the fact that we are seriously overcrowded, which puts enormous pressure on our resources—financial and otherwise—and our hospitals, roads and so on. We must examine the problem of where to build the houses if we are to play our role as responsible people and not put them in areas that we know will flood.

Several points were made in the Agriculture Committee report, some of which have already been raised by the hon. Member for Lewes. I could quote from many pages in it, but will not. However, there is no doubt in my mind after reading it that we need to reorganise the system or take some initiatives—not necessarily leading to a fundamental reorganisation—to clarify who is responsible for what. The report states:

We are firmly convinced that the functions of Local Flood Defence Committees and Internal Drainage Boards would be more appropriately discharged by Regional Flood Defence Committees, which should be responsible for the delivery of all inland flood defence policy nationally working under the guidance and supervision of the Environment Agency.

I should like to know to what extent that view is accepted by the Ministry, and what action is being taken.

There is also the question of funding. It is often said that if we cannot manage locally, we always look to the Government as Father Christmas to sort us out. The Select Committee report clearly states:

We believe a higher proportion of—

regional—

funding should be provided from central Government, which need not necessarily involve higher expenditure: indeed, it might provide some savings though reducing the convoluted bureaucracy of the current financing system.

The hon. Member for Lewes referred to that system, so I shall not explore the matter further. That leads me to several further recommendations, but, looking at the clock, I know that it will not please hon. Members if I go into too much detail on those points.

The report goes on to recommend that

a clear presumption should be made against future development in flood plain land where the flooding risk attached to a particular development, as determined by the Environment Agency, is deemed to outweigh the benefits. In such cases, the Agency should intervene at all stages of the planning process in such a way as to deter inappropriate development, including, where necessary, referring the matter to the Secretary of State for his or her determination.

I will not dwell on that any further as I have already referred to the problems of the flood plains.

The report goes on to deal with the dissemination of information to the public and acceptance of flood and erosion risk. There is little doubt that if people were made more aware of the risk to either their businesses or homes they could take some responsibility for their actions. The report also refers to reducing long-term downstream flooding and erosion risk. It is perfectly true that we could get the water flowing through much more quickly, but if it flows through too quickly it only makes things much more difficult down river and for the people of Lewes. That is why the management of streams is so important before pressure can be applied downstream where the river widens. Does the Minister agree with another recommendation that, in addition to the funding mechanism, which should be reviewed, guidance should be given on the question of flood-plains and the other issues that I have raised?

One could continue, but I should just like to thank the Minister for the close attention that he has paid to the problem. I have not covered everything in the report and there is no question of trying to apportion blame in any way, but we need to know to what extent progress has been made, not only in accepting the recommendations on paper, but putting them into action. If we do not, I am afraid that, as the hon. Member for Lewes said, we shall be back in a couple of years' time going over this ground again.

The coastal area of my constituency was flooded a couple of years ago, and the experience of Lewes is not dissimilar to the experience of Chichester in 1994. The question now is not whether Chichester will again have an experience similar to Lewes, but when. I am concerned that we will face a repetition of the 1994 experience unless the Chichester flood relief scheme that was developed after those events is rapidly implemented. This year, the water levels are very high, and Peter Midgley, the Sussex area manager for the development agency, has said that the situation is worrying. We are at trigger flood levels now, and we may be on a knife edge for much of this winter.

I discussed the matter with the Minister in August. He is always extremely courteous and approachable and he always makes himself available. I am grateful to him for that—I only hope that his gentle, kind and friendly manner is not too much in evidence behind the scenes, in the corridors of power where decisions are made on how much money is to be made available. I notice a slight firming of his physiognomy as I say that, which suggests that there is grit behind the openness and friendliness that I encountered when I came to discuss these issues with him.

The need to address a short-term problem is not the sole issue: as hon. Members have pointed out, the whole system of funding flood relief needs urgent review. An extraordinary mix of responsibilities are held by district councils, county councils and the flood defence committee, which embodies three authorities—East Sussex, West Sussex and Brighton; the Environment Agency plays a crucial role; several Government Departments also have important roles to play; and all that interacts with the planning process. It is a hugely complicated and cumbersome set of arrangements. I strongly agree with the Agriculture Committee, which concluded:

We therefore urge the Government after proper consultation with operating authorities radically to simplify the existing funding procedures for flood and coastal defence activities, with the aim of achieving measurable improvements in policy efficiency through cutting out unnecessary bureaucracy and administration.

That is the nub of the matter. We have all experienced the complications. We would like the Government to act as soon as possible, and a much-needed review is already under way.

I conclude by asking the Minister four questions. First, can he give my constituents an assurance that, if it is needed, central Government funding will be available to ensure that there is no delay in the implementation of the Chichester flood relief scheme, which is due in time to protect us next winter? I sincerely hope that this winter will be the last in which Chichester occupies the precarious position wherein it could all too easily face the same events as Lewes has experienced.

Secondly, will the Minister give urgent attention to the need for extra funding to deal with sea flood defences? We will have a repetition of the flooding in Selsey if we are not careful. We must move on from arrangements to keep up a shingle bank as emergency and temporary provision to a more permanent scheme. The current arrangements are burning up Environment Agency money that could be used in Lewes and all over Sussex. We are in a catch 22 situation: unless the Government take action, money that could be used will never become available, because that stock of capital is being used as current expenditure. According to Environment Agency estimates, Sussex as a whole is underfunded by up to £4 million per annum. There is a money problem and the shortfall has to be made up by central Government.

My third question has also been touched on, but perhaps I can put it more directly. The plain fact is that our constituencies have all been asked to absorb large extra quantities of housing, and they cannot cope. That is a major problem in itself, but it becomes even bigger when it interacts with the flooding danger. Can the Minister say anything about planning policy guidance note 25? I understand that it will give guidance on the construction of housing in areas that are vulnerable to flooding, so can we have that soon?

Fourthly, will the Minister give us some information about the progress of the review of the current funding system, so that we can get something more sensible in place for the future?

I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on initiating this debate. I join him and other hon. Members in thanking everyone who was involved in ensuring that the crisis was rapidly brought under control. He outlined the impact of the floods locally in great detail, and he asked the Minister a number of pertinent questions that I hope will be answered in detail. First, there is the question of funding for flood defences and financial assistance for Lewes and neighbouring communities. Secondly there is the question of the clarification of responsibilities in relation to flood defences.

I should like to focus on the wider picture. When something happens on our doorsteps it grabs our attention—the fuel crisis, for example. It is difficult to ignore it when we cannot find an open garage or have to queue for hours at the last place in town with petrol. But when the problem is far away, as, for example, with floods in Mozambique, India or Japan, it is easy to feel sympathy, and even to do what one can to help, but there is not such an urge to solve the root cause of the problem. It is not so immediate. We are not the ones who must pay for the clear-up. However, it is our problem. We must face the truth that what happens in other parts of the world affects us, and what we do affects others.

I am pleased that my constituency was affected only in a limited way by heavy rainfall. One group of houses was affected, and one of Thames Water's sewage plants overflowed as, regrettably, it tends to do when there is heavy rainfall. Several houses in Buckhurst avenue were contaminated. I am pleased that Thames Water responded fairly quickly and cleared up the mess rapidly. However, I hope that the appearance of distant floods on our doorsteps will serve as a timely counterpoint to the clamour surrounding the fuel crisis, just in case any politicians are more worried about the election next year than about those to come in 20 or 30 years' time.

The fuel crisis and the recent floods in south-east England bring to our doorsteps the contrasting sides of the most important problem facing the world: climate change. We must balance economic competitiveness, social justice and environmental needs. We need to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Encouraging people to switch to more fuel-efficient cars by applying the fuel duty escalator seems to be a logical way to do that, but people must live their day-to-day lives, and when someone must work out how to pay the next bill, the future can seem a long way off.

For that reason, two things must be made clear and become central considerations in policy-making. First, to save people money on fuel now could prove a false economy in the long run. Fuel costs are significant for some rural dwellers—although the majority of the rural poor do not own a car—and for hauliers. However, the recent floods in Sussex caused damage estimated at £40 million. If that is combined with the costs of the other serious floods in the United Kingdom this year—in the west country, Wales, Scotland, Yorkshire and Belfast—the price of using fossil fuels begins to climb. We will all be paying for that additional cost, in higher insurance premiums, for example. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes outlined, some people in Lewes and neighbouring communities will pay the full cost of the damage to their property, because they were without insurance.

Climate change is not solely responsible for the floods. Inadequate flood defences and the building of houses on flood plains have not helped, but climate change is a significant factor. There is a clear link between climate change and floods across the world and in the United Kingdom. World temperatures and natural disasters are on the increase; 1998 was the hottest year since records began and encompassed the highest number of natural disasters on record. A report by the World Health Organisation earlier this year stated:

"The cost of weather related disasters in the year 1998 alone exceeded the costs of all such disasters during the 1980s."

That is a worrying trend. Another report produced this year, by Christian Aid, stated that in the next 20 years, 245 climate-related disasters could happen, at an estimated cost of £6,500 billion. Very significant sums of money are involved. If the Government feel that they are being held to ransom by the fuel protesters, perhaps they should think about how much bigger a ransom they are being held to by global warming.

The second consideration is fairness. We must reduce our greenhouse gas emissions through several means, including cutting the amount of petrol used, although as I have said, people need to live their lives. It is worth noting that the British public support the environment over tax cuts, even after the fuel crisis. Last week an ICM poll showed that the public still support treating the environment as a priority, by 54 per cent. to 30 per cent., even if that means car drivers having to pay a price. However, taxation needs to be fair, with a clear purpose, instead of the money raised just disappearing into the Chancellor's legendary war chest. The Government need to be open and socially just, providing alternatives for travel and being sure to tax those who can afford it.

Protecting the environment means taxing differently, not more, which is something that my party has called for. The Government should not be scared into reducing fuel duty without proper consideration. A small cut in fuel duty is a wonderful gimmick, but it would save the average car user only a small amount. It would fail to tackle the varying needs of different types of car user and would result in no environmental gain. If there is to be a reduction, alternative environmental measures must be taken to offset the environmental damage that that will cause. We have seen the effect of such environmental damage in Lewes, Uckfield and other communities in the past few weeks.

Dealing with climate change goes beyond the immediate crisis. Short-sighted and opportunistic policies demonstrate that a comprehensive approach is needed to climate change in the United Kingdom and globally. The number of severe floods and humanitarian disasters this year goes far beyond what I described earlier. The floods in Sussex cost £40 million, which is regrettable, but 400 lives were lost in the flooding in India in August. If those were British lives, how would we react? This is our responsibility. Developed countries such as Britain generate 62 times more carbon dioxide pollution per person than the least developed countries. Arguably, people are dying because of what we do here. If we are beginning to suffer some of the same effects, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

As a nation we are beginning to take our responsibilities seriously. The problem affects us locally and globally and we must act at both levels. As to acting locally, the Government have so far failed to live up to the environmental promises that they made in opposition, although, to their credit, we compare well with other countries. I welcome the fact that the United Kingdom has at least set a target of a 12.5 per cent. reduction in CO₂ emissions, even if that is substantially lower than the target of 20 per cent. that was a manifesto commitment. I am pleased that the draft climate change programme that the Government have put forward has identified 17.5 per cent. cuts in CO₂, I hope that that will make it possible to reach the 20 per cent. goal, which cannot be compromised. The royal commission on environmental pollution has recommended that a 60 per cent. cut on carbon dioxide emissions will be needed by 2050. The Prime Minister recognised that fact in his speech yesterday.

Even if that ambitious target is achieved, there is a desperate need for preventive measures until climate change is stabilised. That means spending more money on flood defences in such places as Lewes and Uckfield. For that reason, the Government need to put the environment at the heart of their policy making, and not just to pay lip service to the fact that people care about the issue and might vote on it. Local action must be matched with global action. As one of the industrialised nations that have contributed so much to the problem of climate change, we have a moral obligation to take a lead in solving it. Britain's commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions, above and beyond what is required by Kyoto, is an important message to the rest of the world. However, we need to be even further ahead.

At the COP 6 summit at The Hague in November, where the Kyoto protocol will be finalised, it is likely that some countries, including Canada, Australia and, most disturbingly, the United States, will push for it to be watered down. Of the EU countries, only Britain and Germany are coming close to achieving their targets for reducing emissions. Although it is welcome news that the Deputy Prime Minister is going to the COP 6 summit, it is regrettable that the Prime Minister will not be there, to push the agenda and lead from the front. He should be there to show other countries how serious the issue is and that it cannot be fudged. If the countries of the world do not work together on the project, we can expect many more floods in Mozambique, India and our own front yards in years to come. Members may be tired of hearing the Liberal Democrats say that the freedom of this generation should not be bought at the expense of the next, but it is true.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on obtaining this debate, which is prompted by the terrible events in his constituency. He has used the occasion to raise some important issues of a more general nature, which apply to all hon. Members who have spoken today who have constituencies with a serious flood defence risk. I represent North-East Cambridgeshire, which was the Isle of Ely many years ago. From the map reproduced in The Sunday Times recently, one can see that hundreds of square miles in the fens are liable to flood. The risk there is probably as high as anywhere else in the country.

It is easy enough to be demoralised by the events that are the subject of the debate, but I would point to the other side of the coin. In the main, we have had a good track record for many years. If it were not for the flood defence schemes in place in the fens, whole areas of this country would be under water. We can achieve results when dealing with the problem, but it is a question of resolve, funding and, as many hon. Members have said, of organisation.

The debate has raised a number of key issues, on which I will touch briefly to give the Minister plenty of time to respond. The Government's record on the funding of flood defence in the past few years has been challenged. Planning guidance for development on flood plains has also been an important ingredient of the debate. The ramifications for insurers, individuals and companies and the question of compensation have rightly been referred to, especially by hon. Members whose constituents were affected by recent events. On compensation, perhaps the Minister can confirm that, under section 155 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, local authorities can apply for emergency funding under what is known as the Bellwin scheme. That may be a course of action open to the local authority in the constituency of the hon. Member for Lewes.

The Minister needs to clarify whether the spending levels that were recently published by a newspaper are accurate. Those figures suggested that we were spending £320 million on flood defence about five years ago and that that dropped to £301 million last year. The Minister needs to confirm what the actual figures are, if those figures are not accurate, and give assurances to the Committee that the Government are treating that key matter responsibly.

The hon. Member for Lewes said that some years ago he and the Environment Agency's director of water management warned the Minister and his Ministry about the seriousness of the situation in Lewes and Uckfield. They also said that, in terms of the global figure, flood defences in this country were underfunded by about £40 million a year. The Minister should tell the Committee whether those warnings were given and received.

Order. I fear that there may be some misunderstanding. This is not a Committee but a sitting of the House. Furthermore, it might be for the benefit of all hon. Members present if we recall that the proceedings in this Chamber are normally presided over by a Deputy Speaker, unless sufficient Deputy Speakers are not available, in which case the name of a Chairman would be displayed to illustrate that fact.

I apologise for calling our proceedings a Committee.

Mention has been made of the recommendations of the Select Committee to revise the 50-year-old funding system through cash-strapped local authorities. It has been suggested that those ideas were put on hold at the time by both the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Treasury because of cost implications. We understand now that they have been resurrected and that a review is to be held in the near future.

I shall comment on the current scheme. It has been said that lack of funding was to blame for the flood events and that that was due to the present method of funding whereby flood defence committees receive a substantial majority of their income through a precept on the county council. It was suggested that the committees do not raise sufficient money, hence flood warning systems and defences cannot be put in place. While there has always been a problem—it would be surprising if there were not any problems with financial matters—the system has worked well for many years. The flood defence infrastructure is testimony to that.

The major sea and tidal defences in my area, particularly following the 1978 flooding in Wisbech and parts of the fens, were all funded through the current mechanism. The biggest scheme in the fens was the barrier bank on the Ouse washes, which cost between £20 million and £25 million. That substantial scheme was funded through such a measure. It is not a question of saying that such a system cannot be undertaken now; it can be done, provided that the right mechanisms are in place.

A change that has been made—one that can clearly cause difficulties—is that the Environment Agency, unlike its predecessors, can no longer borrow from the Public Works Loan Board to finance major schemes. Consequently, schemes that cost £20 million with an estimated life of 50 years are funded from revenue, which places enormous demands on the funding base. In the past, when flood defence was considered to be a long-term business, loans were taken out as part of financial management. That approach has the benefit that, ultimately, the beneficiaries of the works pay for them.

Borrowing powers are available to the Environment Agency in legislation, but it is believed that the Treasury does not favour their use. To date, the agency has not therefore sought to borrow for flood defence works. In my view, any funding problems would be removed or at least seriously reduced if prudent borrowing were pursued for flood defences providing long-term protection. It is often argued that borrowing powers are to be made use of only in emergencies. However, most people would view an inability to pay for immediately available funds as an emergency. It would be helpful if the Minister could clarify that point and say if renewed borrowing powers are being considered in the Government's review.

The Environment Agency was so unhappy with the Government's inaction on planning guidelines that it decided to publish flood risk maps on the internet, so that individuals could access them and determine whether they were at risk. A recent report from the agency showed that in the six months to April this year it had advised local authorities to refuse 190 planning applications because of the risk of flooding. In 83 of those cases—44 per cent.—the local authorities granted permission regardless of that advice.

It is not only the recent flooding that has raised the question of building new homes on flood plains. As recently as 14 October, the Minister said that new policy guidance was being drawn up; it would be helpful if he could elaborate on that. When he said:

We cannot say there should never be any development on flood plains but such development must be appropriate

he left hanging in the air the big question of what is appropriate.

The Opposition call for an urgent public inquiry into the effects of the floods on house-building plans in the south of England. The Government want to build nearly a million new homes in the south-east, although local councils want a much lower figure. The devastation caused by the floods shows that a number of questions need answering. How many homes have been built in dangerous areas? How many more will have to be built on flood plains if the Government insist on sticking to their target? How much extra will have to be spent on providing defences against flooding if we continue building houses in the wrong places?

Only an independent public inquiry can tackle those questions with credibility. That view is supported by the director general of the Association of British Insurers, who said recently:

The insurance industry recognises that natural perils, such as flooding, are becoming a more costly problem. Of particular concern is the need to identify sufficient land to support the Government's target of building 3 million new homes by 2016.

Those are important issues, some of which the Minister needs to tackle today.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on securing the debate, which is very timely following the floods that have affected Sussex. He has raised several issues that I will try to address. Other hon. Members made excellent contributions on pertinent points about flood defence strategy.

As hon. Members know, the flooding in Kent and Sussex was the worst for more than 30 years. The situation was exceptional, and that needs to be stressed. About a month's rainfall fell in 24 hours. The scale of flooding overwhelmed the defences, even where they had been uprated. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, it is likely that the identified defences in Lewes would have been overwhelmed by such extreme rainfall. I place on record my sympathy for all those who have been affected. I visited the area and talked to members of the community, including business owners and residents. The floods have caused great inconvenience and loss.

I congratulate the emergency services, which responded superbly. It was fortunate that they carried out emergency exercises over the summer—as one of the high-level targets that I set, as the Minister responsible—with the Environment Agency following the Northampton floods and the Agriculture Committee inquiry. It is good to see such an exercise delivering the results that people need.

The automatic voice-messaging system, which is available to people in flood-risk areas, also works well. I have talked to people who have the facility and who received the warnings. The upgraded national warning system also appears to have worked well: people were given warnings and the floodline emergency number was broadcast on the national news and the weather forecast. The Environment Agency's floodline dealt with approximately 40,000 calls from the public between 8 and 18 October, so awareness is increasing.

The Environment Agency has also produced flood-risk maps, which have been helpful to local authorities in predicting flood risk. The Sunday Times article claimed, in one of its many inaccuracies, that the agency had introduced flood-risk maps out of a sense of frustration with the Government, but they were in fact another high-level target that I set as the Minister responsible, working in conjunction with the agency. I shall return to other inaccuracies in that article.

I shall now deal with points made by hon. Members. It is true that local authorities—including that of the hon. Member for Lewes—can make applications to central Government for exceptional spending under the Bellwin scheme. All local authorities are expected to have contingency reserves to deal with emergencies, but there will clearly be additional expenditure when there is an emergency of the scale of the floods in Sussex and Kent. There is a formula for the matter, which involves thresholds. Once an authority has spent beyond the threshold, it can apply to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions for additional funding for the problems.

Following my discussions with local authority members in Lewes and other areas, I wrote to my colleagues in the DETR to say that, although the Bellwin formula was appreciated, the process had been felt to be slow. Local authorities need applications to be dealt with as quickly as possible so that funds are released. I asked my colleagues to see that applications are dealt with as speedily and sympathetically as possible, so that required help can be given.

The point about insurance is difficult. As has always been the case, the Government cannot provide compensation for insurable risks. Some historic properties may qualify for support from English Heritage, but that depends on the details and merits of individual properties. I am happy about the fund that has been set up by the mayor for people who have no insurance. Such floods have happened in other parts of the country, resulting in people without insurance needing help. The issue is complicated, but it has been dealt with successfully elsewhere. I might assist the hon. Member for Lewes by putting him in touch with people with experience of handling such matters, so that he can learn from them.

I accept the hon. Gentleman's point about value added tax. As a constituency Member of Parliament, I have found the Inland Revenue understanding and sympathetic in such emergencies. I am sure that that will be so in this case, so he should draw matters to its attention.

Several hon. Members raised the subject of agriculture, which is difficult as there is no Government facility to deal with compensation for extreme weather conditions. If memory serves me, I am right to say that there are sometimes problems with re-sowing and arable-area payments, so we may have to make some representations to the European Commission about flexibility for those who have to re-sow due to losing crops as a result of flood damage. I give hon. Members an undertaking that I shall consider the issue with colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to see whether we can assist on it.

The hon. Member for Lewes was right to say that he raised the subject of flood walls in previous debates. Disputes about ownership and liability have been a problem, but are now on the way to a resolution. Grant aid from the Ministry is available for such schemes, so they must be resolved locally.

I want to deal robustly with the allegations in the article in The Sunday Times. There has been no cut in the Ministry's flood defence expenditure, but a significant increase year on year. I am not sure where the figures in the article have come from. I can give hon. Members the budget figures as they stand. The Environment Agency's total flood defence expenditure, which is derived from levy income and MAFF grant, was £261.8 million in 1998–99. In 1999–2000, that rose to £276.1 million. The budget for 2000–01 is £283.1 million, although planned expenditure for 2001–02 is —290.1 million. There is a rising spend on flood and coastal defence in this country; there has not been a cut. There might be some regional differences owing to regional flood defence committees not passing on the full standard spending assessment levy. That has been a problem in some parts of the country. I have drawn that to the attention of the relevant committees and will do so again if necessary.

Several hon. Members mentioned institutional funding. How funds are raised and the different bodies that are involved, such as local and regional flood defence committees, are subject to a review that is due to report in September 2001. Hon. Members will have an opportunity to read that report.

I understand that the catchment plan for Lewes is being considered in order to examine how to deal with flood defence. As hon. Members know, I have asked the Environment Agency to examine the causes and effects of the recent flooding in Sussex and Kent; the accuracy of weather forecasting; how the response was managed, including the operation of emergency plans and flood-warning arrangements; and the lessons that can be learned from the floods.

No Government, including ours, can guarantee that floods will not happen in this country. Sometimes there is no obvious engineering solution. Defences can be overwhelmed, and defences put in one place can have detrimental effects in others. The problem is not simple. However, we can try to improve, and have improved, the national flood-warning system. In addition, we can try to ensure that people receive warnings and that people who are at risk are aware of them.

Several hon. Members mentioned planning guidance, which is important. My colleagues in the DETR are introducing PPG25, which will include strengthened planning guidance for planning authorities on flood plain development and will strengthen the Environment Agency's role in advising planning authorities about what is suitable.

Will the Minister give way?

I have only four minutes left, and I want to cover as much as possible.

Development on flood plains is not precluded, but its effects must be considered. Development must be appropriate, and mitigation measures might have to be implemented, which developers may have to fund. All those issues must be taken into account.

To respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), I am sure that the Environment Agency's evaluation will examine the issues of the sluice gates at Rye and of flood plain development. As the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) said, development issues are involved. He mentioned agrimonetary compensation. As a result of the small print in the Fontainebleu agreement—the rebate agreement negotiated by Baroness Thatcher—no money is available in Europe for which we may apply. The £91 million requested will have to be found out of Treasury funds, from United Kingdom taxpayers, and, given the extra £221 million package that was announced recently, there is pressure on finances. Difficulties are being experienced, but all aspects are being examined.

Following my correspondence with the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) after we met, I understand that £800,000 is being committed this financial year to start the scheme to which he referred, and that it is proposed that it will be finished in Chichester in 2002. Some compulsory purchase issues are being resolved. Capital grants from the Ministry for Chichester and Selsey are ready and waiting. It is merely a question of devising the schemes and submitting them to the Ministry. We are waiting for the preferred option for Selsey following the Environment Agency's consultation.

The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) is right about global warming. A case can be made for environmental taxes, and the Government have introduced the climate change levy. We have made more progress than many countries in meeting our carbon dioxide targets. It is too early to say whether we are experiencing a pattern of extreme weather, but there is no doubt that the issues of climate change and carbon dioxide are serious. In contemplating environmental taxes, people must examine what happened in Sussex and Kent and appreciate the end result and implications of climate change.

I agree with the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) that, considering that this country is surrounded by sea, and has heavy rainfall and many river systems, our flood defence record is very good. Of course, that does not mean that it cannot be improved. We should not be complacent, and we are considering the lessons that can be learned. We want to improve schemes, and we are increasing our budget year on year.

I am delighted to have obtained this debate and I feel particularly fortunate in securing parliamentary time to discuss what are extremely important matters. I am well aware that many hon. Members have tried for some time to secure such a debate. Clearly, hon. Members of all parties are concerned about the issues that will be raised today.

I should say at the outset that I totally support the registration process for complementary therapies. I doubt whether any hon. Member would object to that process, provided that it is fair, transparent, rigorous, and designed to ensure consistent standards, excellence and quality in all such therapies. We support registration for a number of reasons. For example, it provides consistency and quality for members of the public, who are entitled to know that the people to whom they seek recourse are qualified, safe, competent and excellent practitioners.

I am sure that we all support the registration process in principle and I am particularly pleased that it is taking place in a number of therapeutic areas. Registration, if it does not give a seal of approval, recognises the value of complementary therapies that the health service has undervalued for far too long, although it is true that recognition has increased in the past few years—not simply because of a failure of conventional medicine, but because complementary therapies can often work hand in hand with it to treat the whole person, treating symptoms that are not always susceptible to a conventional approach.

We support registration, whether it be for psychotherapists, physiotherapists, chiropractors or anyone involved in therapeutic practice. Proper regulation is vital to maintaining standards and public confidence and safety. I have no doubt that the overwhelming majority of practitioners support registration as well. They want the public to know that they can rely on the service offered by registered practitioners. Registration helps them to promote their practice and is in everyone's best interest.

That is registration in principle and, where it is rigorous, transparent and fair, all parties would of course sign up to it. However, Mr. Chairman, it is becoming increasingly clear—

Order. It might be helpful if I remind all hon. Members that proceedings in Westminster Hall are overseen by a Deputy Speaker unless a name is displayed on the Table here in front of me, which may happen today from 12 noon onwards. In such a case, proceedings are overseen by a Chairman. Those are the requirements of the House and I am obliged to bring them to hon. Members' attention.

My apologies, Mr. Deputy Speaker; I sought clarification, although clearly in the wrong direction. I shall bear your comments in mind and I hope that we will abide by the noon hour and change our procedure as the clock strikes 12.

Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear to me and many other hon. Members that the registration process has not proceeded smoothly. Trust and confidence between many practitioners and those responsible for the registration process is on the verge of breaking down. The process was brought about by the Osteopaths Act 1993, which seems a long time ago. I should have hoped for the smoothing out of initial difficulties in the subsequent seven years, but that seems not to have happened. In 1993, around 4,300 osteopaths were practising with no regulation. There were nine voluntary registers and 11 colleges offered courses in osteopathy. All branches of the profession decided that it would be right to bring osteopaths together under one umbrella organisation with a proper education committee, proper standards and proper qualifications. The profession was approaching recognition and its members entered the process with enthusiasm, putting behind them their difficulties, professional cliques and factions. They found harmony and consensus in the bright new world of 1993 and osteopaths were united.

Unfortunately, since the legislation was enacted, just over 2,000 osteopaths have registered and many hundreds are boycotting the registration process because they have lost faith and confidence in it. Approximately 100 of those who have continued to apply have been refused registration, although many of them have practised for many years with a clear record and no complaints. Seven years after the passing of the Act and after the expiry of the two-year transitional period in May, they have still not achieved registration. My concern is that, since May, they have faced the possibility of criminal prosecution and a fine of up to £5,000 for continuing to advertise themselves as osteopaths if they are not registered, although they may have been in practice for 25 years and have great professional respect. It is sad that the profession should find itself in that position.

Information that I have received from practitioners has caused me deep concern about the process. The Department of Health should treat the matter seriously because the allegations that have been made to me, if they prove to be based on fact, go to the heart of the registration process and its integrity. It is worrying that long-term practitioners are boycotting the process or submitting applications and then withdrawing them because of their experience of it.

A couple of cases have been brought to my attention by my constituents. The first concerns Dr. Kalman, who is a holistic practitioner of many years' standing. He has been an osteopath since 1981 and has a background in European and Chinese therapies. He is a renowned practitioner not only in Salford but far beyond. He has a regular radio programme, writes a newspaper column and his advice is widely acknowledged. He makes no bones about being a holistic practitioner, although that may be the wrong choice of words. When people come to him with a pain in the back, headache, nausea, migraine and other problems, he looks not only at the symptoms but at the causes of the condition. He tries to explore their lifestyle, the pressures that they suffer and their posture and to discover whether the problem arises from a physical, emotional or mental health problem. He does not profess to be a doctor in all those areas, but he is a therapist and explores the underlying, deep structural causes of people's ill health, instead of treating them mechanically and manipulatively. He is committed to that approach. He has held a recognised qualification since 1981, has been in practice, has never had a complaint made against him and is, in the terms of the Act, a man of "good health" and "good character", which is a requirement for registration.

The registration process also requires a professional profile and portfolio, which includes an extensive self-evaluation of the applicant's practice. Situations are suggested, people's problems are described and the applicant must decide how to respond as a practitioner: what to recommend, what approach to take, what questions to ask and what information to seek. The applicant must show the General Osteopathic Council how patients would be treated and decisions would be made and what criteria would be considered when someone came with a problem.

The professional profile and portfolio contains a host of such questions. It is a complex process, which—practitioners have told me—takes several weeks to complete and must give an in-depth analysis of the approach that is to be taken. Dr. Kalman, full of enthusiasm for the registration process, filled in his PPP and was called for a clinical interview by the General Osteopathic Council. During that interview, there was no examination of his practice, competence or safety, which are the requirements of the Act. What took place was an esoteric, philosophical discussion about his holistic approach and whether it accorded with the standards and criteria—or, perhaps, views—of the members of the council.

The crux of the matter is this. Does the process judge whether someone is safe, competent and lawful in carrying out the practice of an osteopath, or does it impose a subjective set of views—those of a particular section of the profession—of what it is to be an osteopath? Practitioners who adopt a holistic approach to their patients are finding that they do not meet the narrow paradigm that is set by the General Osteopathic Council for qualification to become registered. That is a serious matter. Registration processes are designed to ensure quality and excellence, but should not be a straitjacket that leads to conformity and reduces the diversity of excellent practice that can be performed. In any profession there are different ways of doing things—one approach is not necessarily better than the others, provided that they are all safe, lawful and competently applied.

A huge debate is taking place in the medical profession in general about the holistic model and the purely medical model. The jury is still out, and I am sure that it will be out for a long time—difficult matters of balance are involved. However, it is wrong to interview someone with a tremendously respected practice in such a way that he loses faith in the process because he feels that he is being questioned on his philosophical approach, not his competence. Dr. Kalman has now withdrawn his application and wants nothing more to do with the process. That is a great loss to the profession.

Even more worrying is the fact that therapists such as Dr. Kalman are talking about setting up an alternative register. That would take us back to the situation of 10, 20 or 30 years ago, when there were first-class osteopaths, second-class osteopaths and a variety of different organisations. An umbrella organisation should bring people together, leading to consensus, harmony and unity within the profession, and thereby to public trust. If we end up with different registers because of an internal dispute, the public will be the losers.

Another important issue is the way in which the process has been carried out. Dr. Kalman has brought several worrying cases to my attention. For example, seven osteopathic practitioners in Lancashire got together—almost like students cheating at an exam—to look at a PPP application. Having considered the questions on their clinical practices, they completed and submitted identical papers giving the same answers. Of that group of seven, one received full registration, two received conditional registration and four were failed completely. That gives rise to great concern about the consistency and fairness of the way in which the process is implemented. The Department of Health should investigate on that basis alone.

I was also told about a group of about 35 practitioners who followed the answers to a PPP application that had been worked out by a certain doctor and submitted all 35 applications together. Instead of being refused registration because they had colluded, they were all granted conditional registration for a year on the basis that, provided that they behaved themselves during that year, they would go on to receive full registration. When people who have been excluded from registration see that sort of operation, they understandably form the opinion that one is more likely to receive registration if one's views fit the picture than if one takes a different, perhaps controversial, approach. The purpose of registration is to be fair and transparent—if it is not, an investigation is merited.

Support for young people and students is another concern. Many young people have embarked on expensive, long-term courses in osteopathy. A young man in my constituency has undertaken a three-year course with the Faculty of Osteopaths, but has now discovered that that is no longer one of the recognised organisations. This is not someone who has done a few weekend courses. He has done a three-year course, and was about to embark on his MSc when he found out that his course would not be recognised. He was forced to abandon his practice, his livelihood has suffered, as has his personal health, and he is in dire personal circumstances. He submitted his application for registration and it was refused in September last year. The board promised that it would provide pathways of support and advice about further courses that he could take to ensure that he fulfilled the conditions. It promised to provide him with a mentor to guide him towards being able to practise fully.

I should like to tell hon. Members a little about this young man's experiences with the General Osteopathic Council. His application was rejected in September last year. He was told that until the deadline for registration—May this year—no college could be recommended to him because colleges had not been accredited. He therefore had nowhere to go to obtain his top-up course, to fulfil the conditions for registration. His own clinic was closed in December last year and he subsequently contacted the General Osteopathic Council to ask for support, guidance and mentors on 22 May, 14 June, 22 June, 27 June—twice—4 August, 11 September, 16 September and 21 September. He made telephone contact, left messages, and asked the director of education to get in touch with him. This young man is desperate to fulfil the conditions: he wants to be an osteopath. However, he is receiving no support, and no guidance as to how to deal with the situation. One can imagine the effect that that is having on him.

Such a lack of efficiency in implementation must lead practitioners to the view that they are being discriminated against in the registration process. This all serves to destroy confidence in the system, and to fragment the profession yet again. These extremely serious matters merit an investigation. I have written to Department of Health Ministers on two occasions. On the first, I received a letter saying that the process was new, that there would be teething problems and that matters would settle down. Having received further information, I wrote again in March this year asking for an investigation. Unfortunately, that request has not been taken up and the Minister's reply again suggests that it is inevitable that some people will be refused and that the process is in its early days. The Minister finishes her letter, if I may remind her, by saying that registration is important—with which I agree—and that

a profession to be proud of does not take short cuts to high standards and osteopathy is no exception.

I agree entirely. A profession to be proud of should provide a fair, rigorous, transparent registration process, in which practitioners and the public can have faith and confidence. At present, I do not believe that practitioners or the public can have faith in the procedures adopted by the General Osteopathic Council. I should like the Minister to agree to an independent inquiry into the criteria adopted by the council—to ascertain whether there is a dispute between the holistic and the medical models—and into their implementation, because a bureaucratic nightmare exists and people are not receiving the support that they need to become proud members of the profession.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on securing a debate on a subject of considerable interest to many hon. Members' constituents. As you will appreciate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it is a sad fact that, due to the parliamentary recess and the nature of the ballot for these debates, hon. Members were given very little notice that this debate had been allocated to the hon. Lady. Many hon. Members, who have written both to her and to me, would have liked to be here today but are unable to attend. The hon. Lady and I will endeavour to represent their interests as well as those of our own constituents—in my case, my constituent, Mr. Tony Matthews—as best we can.

I share with the Minister and the hon. Lady the thesis that the thrust of the Osteopaths Act 1993 was to provide a framework for registration and for what the hon. Lady described as consistency and quality within the profession. I do not know of any Member of Parliament who has written to me on behalf of a constituent who takes anything other than that view. Our difficulty is not the Act itself, but that its interpretation and implementation have not led to consistency and quality. In fact, they have led to the reverse.

On the balance of views held within the osteopathic professions, there is grave concern about the manner in which the General Osteopathic Council, as it chooses to call itself, has been constructed. Specific worry has been expressed about its chairmanship and whether that is lawful. Detailed concerns exist about the professional personal profile that the council has chosen to impose on many of its longstanding and professional members and the manner in which the approved colleges that teach osteopathy have been accredited.

First, I thank and pay tribute to Mr. Amadée Turner who was a distinguished Member of the European Parliament for 15 years prior to 1994. He telephoned me on behalf of Mr. John Wernham, who runs the John Wernham college and who has been practising classical osteopathy since the early 1900s. He is now 94 years old and his college has not been accredited. Mr Turner rightly pointed out to me that there is a difference of views between those who support modern osteopathy and those who prefer classical osteopathy, as the hon. Member for Salford said. The modernists control the General Osteopathic Council and they have chosen, almost arbitrarily, to reject traditional classical views. As a result, those schools teaching the classical method, such as the John Wernham school, have been left outside the net together with their students, and there are four such schools.

Mr. Turner believes that the schools have been wrongly excluded from training. There is no demand for such an exclusion within the Act. The manner in which the council has imposed its standards gives no clue as to proficiency. It simply determines that people can fill in a form or, as I shall demonstrate in a moment, that someone can get someone else to fill in the form for him. There is an in-built bias in the assessment of schools that teach osteopathy. Too much emphasis is placed on modern osteopathy, while not enough is placed on classical. The fault lies within the implementation and interpretation of the Act, not within the Act itself. It is the manner in which the General Osteopathic Council has chosen to implement the Act that caused the first problem.

The construction of the council is a cause for grave concern. I shall quote from a letter that I received from David Dyer, a registered osteopath, on behalf of the British and European Osteopaths Association. He was heavily involved, as were several others, in the original discussions that set up the council and said:

as chairperson of one of the voluntary associations (BEOA), I participated in the discussions which preceded the formation of GOsC.

The last consensus meetings, held at the Gay Hussar restaurant in London, were attended by the chairpersons of all the existing osteopathic associations—

that is, the 11 to which the hon. Member for Salford referred—

and therefore represented the entire profession. We unanimously agreed to amalgamate, as the Government had requested, to form one umbrella register. The registration process was to be all-inclusive, in that every osteopath on the database held by the Osteopathic Information Service (OIS) would be registered. In a private conversation, Simon Fielding further assured me that no bona fide osteopath would be excluded from the Register and only envisaged that two or three applicants would fail to achieve registration. When I asked what he meant by this statement, he replied that GOsC might receive applications from bogus practitioners who purported to have an osteopathic qualification. As for conditional registrants, we agreed that if there had been no claims against them after one year of practice they would automatically achieve full registration. We were all led to believe that this would happen.

During these meetings there was no mention of the Professional Profile and Portfolio (PPP) or mentoring. Had either of these been proposed, I know for a fact that my association and also the Guild of Osteopaths, under the leadership of Ian Swash, would have withdrawn our support from the negotiations. Since the combined BEOA and Guild became the second largest osteopathic association, we represented approximately 40 per cent. of the profession.

The membership of the new Council was shrouded in a veil of secrecy probably because the Council members were, with two exceptions, drawn from a single association (the General Council and Register of Osteopaths). I was only informed of the new Council the night before it was announced at the Department of Health.

Ian Swash, the leader of the Guild of Osteopaths, has written to confirm that what David Dyer says is absolutely correct. He writes:

I can confirm that Mr. Dyer's account of the consensus meetings held at the Gay Hussar is entirely accurate…in my case the first intimation I had as to the composition of the General Osteopathic Council was at a breakfast meeting (to which I had been invited at very short notice) on the day of the official announcement. Mr. Dyer was also present at that meeting. Prior to announcing his own appointment as the General Osteopathic Council's chairman, Mr. Fielding said in the presence of Mr. Dyer and others: "I'm afraid, Ian, this is going to come as a shock to you".

Having just learned that 10 out of the 12 osteopath members of the GOsC had been appointed from the association of which Mr. Fielding himself was the Chairman, this came as no shock to me at all.

You may be able to understand from those two letters, Mr. Deputy Speaker, why there is grave concern about the manner in which the members of the council, from which all else has flowed since, were appointed.

There is also concern about the appointment of the chairman. The Osteopaths Act 1993 states clearly that the chairman of the General Osteopathic Council should be a layman. I have before me a list of the members of the working party on osteopathy, which, under the chairmanship of Sir Thomas Bingham, led to the establishment of the Act. The fourth name on that list is Mr. S. Fielding and, under note 4 at the foot of that list, it states that Mr. Fielding is a

practising osteopath and Vice-Registrar General Council and Register of Osteopaths.

I fail to see how even the meanest intelligence can interpret that appointment as one of a layman. In that respect, the General Osteopathic Council is in clear breach of the Act that it seeks to implement.

I raised all those concerns with members of the General Osteopathic Council, meeting with them here in the House, and we have had a fairly copious correspondence since. A letter to one osteopath from Miss Madeleine Craggs, the chief executive and registrar of the council, states:

We have gone to great pains to be fair by maintaining consistency.

Let us examine that consistency for a moment. Mr. Anthony Baird, director of the Institute for Complementary Medicine, writes:

The actions of the newly formed General Osteopathic Council have alienated osteopaths who support self-regulation and registration and, such are its powers, there is a fear that it will attempt to "take over" the whole of Complementary medicine… The ICM supports regulation but not in this way.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) passed me a letter this mornig from his constituent Mr. John Scott-Cameron of the Probro Clinic for Natural Therapeutics. Mr. Scott-Cameron writes:

I feel that I have been excluded from the profession I love by the intransigent attitude of the GOsC in failing to exercise discretion for practitioners of long and safe service under a "Grandfather Clause".

He also states:

It is my deeply held conviction that all practising Osteopaths should have been admitted to the Register as in the formation of all other Professions and that steps to improve professional competence be initiated through the most excellent programme of CPD.

Andrew Sims, an osteopath, of the Oakspring natural health centre, says that

there are many disgruntled osteopaths fearing for their livelihoods as a result of the disgraceful way the register has been formulated.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Sir A. Hamilton) has passed me a letter from Christopher Bell, another osteopath, who says:

I graduated from the British School of Osteopathy in 1987 and have been practising as an osteopath until May this year and since as an independent practitioner.

I could not bring myself to join the General Osteopathic Council…

—for reasons outlined in a letter that he attached—

ultimately there is little point in the continuance of the profession with such compromising of academic standards, dubious ethical standards shown by the officers of the GOsC and undemocratic leanings.

He comments in some depth—because of lack of time, I will not quote it—about those administering the PPP and the way in which they have shown intolerance to osteopaths who were trained at establishments other than the British School of Osteopathy.

On 11 September, I wrote to Madeleine Craggs and asked her the questions that have been raised with me: whether the PPP was regarded as a questionnaire, as everybody thought, or an examination. I asked why, as I had been led to believe, special, exceptional provision had been made for GP osteopaths seeking to join the register. I asked what action the council has taken to discipline those who appear to have taken advantage of what I described as assistance with the completion of their applications. On 26 September, Miss Craggs replied:

The PPP is described in the Rules as "the questionnaire"… There is no exceptional provision made for GP or doctor osteopaths… Those who are found to have achieved registration fraudulently will be removed from the Register.

Let us take a look at the efficiency of the PPP. I will offer only one example. On 3 April, Mr. Derrick Edwards, the council's director of education, wrote to Mr. Andrew Mackay of Worthing:

I am writing to you on behalf of the Registrar to invite you to submit some additional information concerning an aspect of your Modified Professional Profile and Portfolio.

The information you have supplied so far has been very helpful. We feel however, that your claim for registration should be strengthened by the addition of further evidence.

Brilliant—the recipient of that letter requesting further information had not even submitted an application for registration: so much for the council's record-keeping. A rejected applicant, Anne Neal, of Solihull in the west midlands, sought to appeal against rejection because she had treated the PPP as a questionnaire—which is precisely what Miss Craggs described it as in her letter to me—not an examination paper. In desperation, Anne Neal wrote on 3 April to Miss Craggs saying,

I now understand that it is not really an Appeal at all but merely a legal exercise to ensure that you have followed correctly the procedures laid down by the General Osteopathic Council—

We must bear in mind that those procedures are laid down by the council, not by the 1993 Act. Ms Neal also says:

I have an Honours Degree in Chemistry from the University of London, and a Masters Degree in Clinical Biochemistry as well as my Diploma in Osteopathy. It is not that I do not understand contraindications to Manipulative therapy.

I studied for five years at the College of Osteopaths and spent one thousand hours gaining clinical experience.

I can offer no better summary of the argument than that sent me by the Association of Osteomyologists, commenting on the attitude taken by Mr. Fielding and Miss Craggs. It reads:

We all know re: the original members of the founding committees, that the PPP was put forward as a questionnaire for the reference as to each Osteopaths way of working for the GOsC data base. If it had been known that this document was to be used as a basis of safety and competence, the founding committees would never have agreed. Having gone through the process, and filled out the PPP, resulting in my full registration, I can quite honestly state that, with all my reference books etc. and concentrated work, that the PPP as a written document could not possibly be taken as the measure of somebody's safety and competence.

We should remember that there is no special provision for general practitioners or doctor osteopaths. The letter continues:

In regards to the provisions made for G.P.s or Doctor/ Osteopaths, the GOsC is already allowing them to state on their own exclusive website that Doctor Osteopaths are superior to other Osteopaths, this of course, has no merit whatsoever as an Osteopath is an Osteopath, no matter what other training he/she has had. We ourselves were told by Doctor Members of the LCOM (London College of Osteopathic Medicine) having found one of their members PPP acceptable, the rest simply copied this document and submitted. It was quite a while before the GOsC realised the duplicity, and then stopped them in their tracks. They were also told that their members would be put on a year's provisional registration, which they accepted, but told GOsC that they were not prepared to go for reviews or mentoring. Apparently GOsC assured them that after the one year provisional, they would be allowed on the register as full members.

Finally, Mr. Melvin Jessup, a registered osteopath, writes:

If GOsC having nothing to fear and can prove that all aspects of the process were fairly and competently implemented in accordance with Act. Then they should welcome an early review instead…of a Court challenge made under Human Rights Act, at a latter date.

I hope that, in the brief time that I have had available and with the tolerance of all hon. Members, I have set out the background to the concern felt by so many people. They feel that, as qualified people, they have been and are being excluded by a cabal set up to administer the implementation of an Act. In the light of the overwhelming evidence, I ask the Minister to instigate a full and public inquiry into the implementation and working of the Act.

Catherine Hamilton-Plant, the president of the British Osteopathic Association, wrote to me saying:

The Association fully supports the standard of proficiency adopted by the GOsC and believes the GOsC has acted properly and in accordance with the legislation in administering the initial registration process.

It will not surprise anyone to know that the BOA is, in effect if not literally, a wholly owned subsidiary of the General Osteopathic Council, so she would say that.

The positions of Simon Fielding, Madeleine Craggs and Catherine Hamilton-Plant are untenable. I urge the Minister to implement an inquiry that many hon. Members—not only those present, but many others on both sides of the House—feel must be held.

I echo the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on obtaining this Adjournment debate.

The constituents of mine at whose behest I participate in the debate warmly welcomed the Osteopaths Act 1993, which, through its provisions of unification and registration, purported to assure the public that those who put "Osteopath" on their shingle were qualified to treat patients safely. Both the constituents who made representations to me had practised osteopathy for a considerable time, to the great benefit of their patients and to the quality of the profession. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and the hon. Member for North Thanet, they are concerned about the allegation that the General Osteopathic Council is a cabal that has not abided by the spirit or the facts of the Osteopaths Act 1993.

As we have heard, fewer than 2,000 osteopaths out of a total of 4,500 registered in the transitional period, which ended on 9 May this year. My constituents have made it abundantly clear to me that there is wide agreement within the profession on the requirements for qualifying standards of treatment, probity and best practice in the field. My constituents allege that, far from the general council reflecting the entire profession, it is merely a reworking of the old General Council and Register of Osteopaths. I understand that the general council has 15 members; a constituent tells me that 13 of those members of the council are drawn from that one previously defining body for osteopathy, whereas representation drawn from the eight other previous bodies is limited to one member from just two of those bodies. As the hon. Member for North Thanet said, what we understood to be a requirement in the Act—that the chairman of the council should be a lay member—is far from being met.

A constituent was offered a place on the new register after having completed the professional profile portfolio, which, it is claimed,

can identify practitioners who are not safe and competent

without taking any account of training or years in practice. He wrote to me alleging that the process is open to collusion and cheating, which are extremely serious allegations. My constituent goes on to say that the conditions attached to the offer of a place on the new register have required him to employ a firm of solicitors with expertise in administrative law to require the general council to explain the reasoning behind its action.

That appears to conflict with the intention behind the 1993 Act. No hon. Member present, none of my constituents and no practising osteopath would deny that the essential foundation of all such legislation must be the protection of the public. However, my constituent is worried that that has become a mantra that the general council is using to deflect and delay questioning and answers.

Anxiety has also been expressed about the fees charged for registration. I have been told that the level of fees has an especially heavy impact on osteopaths who engage in their professional activities part time. It is a reflection, not of sexual bias on my part, but of the evidence presented to me by my constituents, to point out that part-time practitioners are mainly women.

According to the evidence that has been presented to me, and according to my constituents who have been practising osteopaths for a considerable period of time, having been trained at relevant colleges before they began practising, an Act that should have heightened the reputation and unified the professional practices of osteopaths is being used to safeguard the interests of a small proportion of that profession. The result might be that a split forms in the profession: as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford said, some practitioners are already arguing that an entirely separate register should be set up.

The overarching and most important facet of our discussion is that, unless they are properly answered and examined, these criticisms can lead the public to believe only that an honourable profession that can bring enormous improvement in people's lives is essentially not to be trusted. I have no doubt that the Minister and the Department of Health will take those considerations into account and examine the issue in detail, to ensure that not only the letter but the spirit of the 1993 Act is implemented throughout the profession.

If an inquiry is needed into the membership of and the creation of the present general council, it should take place at the earliest opportunity. Patients can suffer enormous and long-term damage if osteopathic treatment is not carried out properly, and that is not what my constituents want. The care and treatment of patients is central to their arguments, and I find it distressing that the General Osteopathic Council does not appear to share those concerns.

I urge the Minister and the Department to call in the council at the earliest opportunity. They should put to it the questions that have been raised this morning, which represent a mere fraction of the questions that have been put to me. They warrant answers. A measure that should have been of benefit to the general public, but appears to have become the antithesis of that, can thus be set back on the proper course—a course that the profession as a whole welcomed and the House endorsed in 1993.

I have not been lobbied by any osteopaths and I approach the matter from a slightly different angle. Originally, I had a lot of information from the Association of Osteomyology and I had a number of concerns about some of its statements; I balanced that by approaching the General Osteopathic Council. It is fair to say that, 20 to 25 years ago, osteopathy was regarded as a form of alternative medicine—not by its practitioners or the many who benefited from it, but by the traditional medical profession. That is no longer the case. Osteopathy is now highly regarded and it is therefore right and proper that it should seek to regulate itself.

In many ways, osteopathy can be regarded as the first alternative therapy to have come of age. It faces some adult decisions, but it is probably safe to say that it suffers from the lack of a suitable role model. We have heard about the introduction of the Osteopaths Act 1993, since when the various provisions of which have been commenced in stages. The General Osteopathic Council was set up by approaching the many relevant groups, but someone somewhere made a decision on how to select its membership from those groups, and I should be interested to hear how that decision was reached. It has been put to me that the predominant group was probably dominant in the profession anyway, but an unfair balance appears to have been struck.

The statutory register was then opened and the registration process began, and since 9 May the title osteopath may be used only by those on the register. So far, so good—it is right that the public now have some protection and reassurance. They know that someone calling himself an osteopath will be a safe and competent practitioner, or at least that he is deemed to be so by the profession; that he will be covered by professional indemnity insurance; and that he is bound by a strict and enforceable code of practice. As with the traditional medical professions, a practitioner can be struck off the register for malpractice and then cannot legally continue to practice.

It all sounds very good, but, as is so often the case, the devil is in the detail. How does one regulate more than 4,000 osteopaths with nine different voluntary registers and with different colleges providing different qualifications? With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that whatever was done, someone was bound to be upset. The GOC had to try to devise a fair and equitable way of dealing with the diversity of practitioners, but whether that has been achieved is open to debate.

Practitioners had to be given a chance to show that they could fulfil the criteria of safe and competent practice, and I question why any confident and competent professional would refuse to undergo that process. The hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) used a good example. Dr. Kalman is an holistic practitioner—the description given is not that of an osteopathic practitioner per se. I should probably quite happily visit Dr. Kalman, but not necessarily if I specifically wanted an osteopath; I would visit Dr. Kalman if I wanted to visit a holistic practitioner.

In this day and age, it is not right that a certain number of years in practice should result in automatic qualification. Some people who previously called themselves osteopaths have less medical knowledge than others and take a different approach. Although that is not to say that their approach is not right, the fundamental question must be asked whether it is, strictly speaking, osteopathy.

The General Osteopathic Council came up with the idea of using the professional profile and portfolio— PPP, as it is affectionately, or perhaps not affectionately, known. Osteopaths had to provide details of experience, how they kept up to date, the number and type of patients treated, and details of good character. They also had to work through the case studies: those are 47 pages long and it is claimed that they take 40 hours to complete, but I did a straw poll of local osteopaths who all said that they took much longer. If an application was deemed insufficient, further written evidence was requested, or the osteopath was called for a further interview. Twenty per cent. of applicants were interviewed, a result that could be viewed in two ways: it could be thought either that the General Osteopathic Council was taking its job seriously or that it was conducting a witch hunt. I believe that it was trying to do its best in difficult circumstances.

How is the process scrutinised? Some of the examples that I have heard today of people sending in copied applications, each of which was treated differently, give rise to concern. The basic idea behind the process was good, but it has become soured by what appears to an outsider to be infighting. The fact that there used to be nine voluntary registers gives a clue to the diversity of practices that had to be included in a single entity. As usual, minority views lost, and it seems that a subset of "would-be" osteopaths—I use the term "would-be" in inverted commas, since clearly they regard themselves as being osteopaths already—feels that it is being marginalised because the ways of its members are not those of the majority.

In many ways the issue is one of branding. A brand name is used to give an identity so that consumers know what they are getting. In this case, the General Osteopathic Council had, in effect, to decide what the brand "osteopath" should mean and to regulate accordingly. Therein lies the problem. Four to 5 per cent. of applicants were denied registration. That might appear to be a high figure, but I suspect that if any other medical profession were to be regulated from scratch, a similar proportion of practitioners would not be up to date and would not conform to current accepted safe practice. Those denied registration are able to carry on practising, as long as they do not call themselves osteopaths. I understand that some are calling themselves osteomyologists. That is fine, because the public know that in those cases they are getting something different from the brand "osteopath".

One aspect of the regulation concerns me greatly: the way in which the accreditation of the schools of osteopathy and the courses has been organised. The schools of osteopathy knew about the changes dating from 1993, and by September 1997 all schools had become involved in the process of developing a standard of proficiency. However, late in the day, some of the schools have been refused accreditation. My sympathies lie with the students, some of whom have completed two or three years of study, only to find that their hoped-for qualification is useless.

It could be argued that the schools should bear some of the responsibility, because they did not warn students of the potential pitfalls, but why should they, when they thought that they were doing a good job? An 18 or 19-year-old student would not be aware of the General Osteopathic Council's internal politics and would not think to ask whether the course would exist in two or three years. My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) says that some osteopathic students at Nescot college have approached him because accreditation of their course has been opposed and badly handled. I suspect that that issue affects more than just the osteopaths who are fighting the system at the moment.

I ask the Minister thoroughly to investigate the matter. I should like to know how the students will be compensated for having been the victims of false pretences. Some have paid many thousands of pounds for their courses and are severely in debt with no qualifications and nowhere to go. I have no doubt that other professional bodies will face the same process. The issues must be considered so that we can learn from any mistakes, whoever made them.

In summary, the General Osteopathic Council has tried to do a good job. I am reassured that the public can consult an osteopath in the knowledge that he or she will be a professional who has passed the scrutiny of the profession and is practising according to the standards laid down by that professional body. There is a clear distinction. I am not saying that those who have not been accepted for accreditation are not excellent practitioners in their own right.

Does the hon. Lady accept that many practitioners, including some who have been quoted this morning, are eminent and reputable and have stated clearly that they do not consider that the processes are a sensible measure of efficacy or safety?

No process could cover that fully and there would have been problems whatever process had been implemented. Years of practice do not mean that someone is fit to continue—we often see instances in the medical profession of people who were accredited years ago and are subsequently struck off, so it is only right and proper that everyone is considered afresh. Any professional who wants to continue being a member of a professional body should willingly submit to the required process. None the less, I am willing to acknowledge the concerns about the way in which the matter has been handled, because I believe that the Minister will address the matter.

I end by quoting an immortal line from "Star Trek": Bones said to Jim, "Captain, we mustn't leave him at the mercy of 20th century medicine". With safeguards now in place, 21st century osteopathy is trying to go forward. Whether it has succeeded is for others to decide.

Perhaps you would put me right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, on how you should be addressed. Did I understand correctly that we should change to using your name at 12 noon?

At 12 noon, I shall concede the Chair to Mrs. Ray Michie, who is hovering ready to displace me. She should then be addressed as Madam Chairman or Mrs. Michie.

Thank you for your clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I sought it because this is a traditional place and one wishes to abide by the procedures.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on securing the debate. I know that other hon. Members had tried hard to obtain a debate on osteopathy, so it has come not a moment too soon. In fact, it comes too late for many osteopaths, who are now unable to practise without incurring penalties, as the hon. Lady rightly said.

I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who revealed a veritable clutch of examples from other hon. Members who had been approached by their constituents, illustrating how widespread the concern is and how much hon. Members have sought to have this debate.

The difficulty was revealed in the line taken by the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), because it depends a little on whom one talks to. The problem for us as Members of Parliament—who are, with the best will in the world, jacks of all trades—is to try to get to the bottom of the matter. However, one does not have to be a rocket scientist to work out that there is a problem if there are about 4,500 osteopaths and only 2,500 of them are registered. The General Osteopathic Council said in a briefing document that there is no smoke without fire, so I think that even it would acknowledge that there is a problem.

The difficulty for us is to ascertain the scale of the problem. The General Osteopathic Council told me that there were only a few disgruntled osteopaths. However, when one speaks to some of those few, one realises that their number may be up in the thousands. We do not know. I urge the Minister to try to establish—as part of the review that is essential to how the profession is regulated—how many people have been rejected from registration and to estimate how many have failed to register, however difficult that might be.

My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet referred to the high degree of consensus and to consensus meetings taking place when the profession was examining implementation of the Act. Something must now be seriously wrong, however, as that consensus has obviously broken down. Otherwise, why would qualified practitioners fail to apply for registration? Something must be wrong and, when our constituents turn to us for help, it is our responsibility to try to get to the bottom of the process.

I endorse the argument that there is nothing wrong with the Osteopaths Act. Indeed, I pay tribute to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who was responsible for its introduction as a private Member's Bill. However, a careful reading of the Act and of the statutory instruments that followed it, leads even a lay person to see a divergence from where the spirit of the Act started to where the statutory instruments have taken it.

The Act shows an inclusive approach consistent with the consensual meetings that took place at the time of its introduction. However, the raft of statutory instruments that have followed it seem to get further and further away from that inclusive approach. Indeed, one of the latest statutory instruments—SI 251, which was introduced on 13 April this year—is severe in its final say over someone's ability to practise. On the transitional arrangements for registration—nothing to do with a person's conduct subsequent to registration—it is very harsh. It states:

Where an applicant has exhausted his rights of appeal and accordingly no further appeal against an appeal decision or a decision refusing permission to appeal is possible,

this will be the final decision disallowing appeal. No door is open, under the statutory instruments, if an applicant is unsuccessful in the registration procedure.

In the first instance, there is a right of appeal to the General Osteopathic Council, but we have heard enough today to place a question mark over how well that appeals process is working and how much confidence potential applicants have in it. If that appeal is unsuccessful, under the statutory instruments a failed applicant can go to the High Court. However, that is expensive. We have heard about the cost of training as an osteopath and about the situation of someone whose application has been refused, who cannot practise and therefore has no income. Such a person might think twice about a High Court action, but there is nowhere else for them to go. That is not in the inclusive spirit of the 1993 Act, which is why I support calls for a public inquiry into what has gone wrong.

As hon. Members pointed out, osteopathy is the first of a series of professions that are allied to medicine that is taking the path of self-regulation. Therefore, it is important that grandfathering should be seen to work, but the grandfathering process is not working very well in osteopathy. That is likely to become an issue as other professions take a similar approach, wishing to protect their titles and to allow a period of time during which practitioners can gain registration. In some other disciplines of alternative medicine or complementary therapies, there may be two schools of thought between classicists and modernists. This is a test case for getting the process right so that the public can see that it works properly and confidence can be restored to practitioners, who feel aggrieved at present. For that reason alone, this debate has important implications for the way in which the Government's work goes forward.

I urgently appeal to the Government for a review and inquiry. Since May, a large number of people have not been in a position to practise in the profession for which they trained and have therefore been unable to obtain an income stream based on their qualifications and experience. For their sakes, it is important for the Government to act promptly to review what is going on.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears) on her success in securing a debate on this subject. I listened with great care to the points that were made. It has been an interesting debate, which has highlighted one of the strengths of Westminster Hall— that hon. Members are able to discuss such matters in considerable detail and raise their concerns with the Government. I will reflect on and investigate the matters that were raised; in many cases I would not wish to give a hasty response.

Before I deal with those concerns, I shall set out some of the principles behind the operation of the Osteopaths Act 1993 and why the Government strongly support them. Although all hon. Members who contributed to the debate clearly endorsed the principle of statutory self-regulation, their views about the importance of the underlying issues appear to vary.

We strongly support the principle of statutory self-regulation—not only for osteopaths, but for other health professionals—and wish it to be extended, if possible, to other areas of complementary and alternative medicine, as the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) suggested. The key principle is that of protection for patients—in terms not only of safety and competence, but of patients' understanding of what they are getting, of the standards that the professional who is treating them has achieved and of what the regulatory framework should be.

The purpose of statutory self-regulation is to have nationwide, specially-set independent standards— where the profession itself sets the standards because it is best placed to establish what those standards are—and to ensure both that there is a proper mechanism for enforcing those standards and that people are up to the standards that the profession has set. The public will then know exactly what they are getting when they seek treatment.

We have said that we want to improve statutory self-regulation across the board. That is why, last November, the Government issued a consultation paper, "Supporting Doctors, Protecting Patients", which sets out our desire to help the small minority of doctors whose performance gave cause for concern. However, it also contains proposals to improve the regulation of all health professions and makes clear our belief that regulatory bodies should put patients firmly at the centre of their activities. That includes involving more lay members in their governance and focusing on patient interests above professional interests. It means establishing transparent disciplinary and complaints procedures and clear and effective accountability mechanisms and setting high standards to ensure the ongoing clinical competence of practitioners. It also means being demonstrably objective in administering those standards and responding to change.

The national health service plan reiterates the Government's determination to protect patients by strengthening and modernising professional self-regulation across the entire field. We have set out the need to make such improvements, including the establishment of the UK council of health regulators, which will provide better co-ordination and a framework for improving regulation across the board. Against that backdrop, I will reflect on the points that were made this morning.

I am interested in what the Minister is saying about the importance of lay membership. According to the consultation document, the envisaged membership split of the new health professions council is 12 practitioners to 11 lay members. How does that compare with the General Osteopathic Council, which will have similar status?

It is exactly those areas that we will need to look at in greater detail. We have talked about the importance of increasing lay membership in respect of regulation and improving the focus on patients. As those fields develop and as discussions on improving regulation take place across the board—rather than for a particular health profession—we must consider such factors.

I doubt whether all those who object to what is happening would necessarily sign up to some of the important principles embodied in statutory self-regulation. We need to recognise that, as the hon. Member for Romsey said, it is not easy for a health profession to move from voluntary to statutory regulation. Inevitably, some will be unhappy with the entire concept of statutory self-regulation. They will see it as a form of interference and scrutiny by a statutory body that they have never experienced in their practising lives. There will be some whose practice does not match the standards that the profession has set and others whose practice may be excellent but does not match standards in osteopathy.

During the transition—before new procedures for establishing the council are in place and when the council members remain those appointed by the previous Government, rather than the profession itself—some will question the council's legitimacy. The important question arises of the matters with which statutory self-regulation should be concerned. The hon. Member for Salford asked whether it should be concerned with safety and competence or the philosophy of osteopathy. Clearly, it must deal with safety and competence, but existing measures contained in consumer protection, trades description and health and safety legislation provide protection for consumers and patients. However, it must also deal with standards in osteopathy.

Under statutory self-regulation, it must also be the case that it is for the profession to determine what those standards should be. This is about protecting the title of osteopath; it is not about preventing people from offering therapy. Clearly, it is far better if the profession can achieve complete consensus about what it means to practise osteopathy and to produce core standards in osteopathy to which everyone should sign up.

I entirely accept that there will be standards as well as competence and safety. Competence and safety act as a safety net and above that there will be standards to be reached. The Minister also said that the profession should be seen to be demonstrably objective in implementing those standards. From what she has heard in the debate, would she agree that whether there is demonstrable objectivity in implementing those standards causes us great concern?

I certainly want to look into the questions that my hon. Friend raised about people sending in identical forms and getting different responses. However, I disagree with some of the arguments, in particular that of the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). I do not accept that everyone who practises or uses a particular title should be able to continue to do so, even if they have been practising under that title for many years.

I did not make that point; it is being made very forcefully indeed by senior members of the osteopathic profession following the meetings at the Gay Hussar. It was upon that agreed basis that the General Osteopathic Council was established. Had it not been on that basis, they would not have agreed to it and they represent 40 per cent. of the profession.

Whoever is making the point, be they members of the profession or Members of Parliament, we do not agree that it is an essential principle behind statutory self-regulation that everyone who has been practising under a title should continue to do so, even if they have been serving for a long time. We are moving towards increased revalidation of all health professionals. That means that health professionals should not simply be judged on the basis of qualifications achieved a long time ago or on the basis of how they define themselves. We judge all our health professionals on the basis of continuing competence to practise. Those are the principles behind the use of a PPP. Those are the principles behind judging people on the basis of competence to practise and not simply on the basis of qualifications achieved a long time ago.

I understand that there is opposition to that principle. I accept that but I back those principles strongly because the principle of revalidation is important. It will affect some people who have perhaps studied for many years or who have practised for many years or who may have been popular with patients or who have never received any complaints against them and have never had any questions raised about their safety. However, it would be inappropriate for Ministers to say whether those individuals met the core standards for osteopathy. That must be a matter for a proper regulatory framework and for the GOsC to consider. Individuals should not simply decide themselves whether they meet those standards; otherwise we might as well not have a statutory self-regulation framework at all. It is clearly appropriate for the Government to take a view on the overall approach to regulation. It is in that context that I want to reflect further on many of the points that have been made.

Considerable consultation took place before the 1993 Act was introduced. The approach was first to establish the new General Osteopathic Council. From next year, members of the GOsC will be elected. The previous Government made the appointments and the transitional arrangements. The hon. Member for Romsey asked about the process for appointing those members. Because it was done under the previous Government I will go back and look at the procedures that were in place. I am assured that they were in line with the Osteopaths Act and with the public appointments procedures of the day, but I will investigate that further.

The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) made it clear during the passage of the Osteopaths Bill that the initial members of the GOsC should be chosen, not to represent particular osteopathic organisations or schools, but on the basis of individual merit and their ability to act as ambassadors for the profession as well. The then Government's criteria for selecting the most suitable candidates did not include the need to represent particular osteopathic bodies.

The statutory rules that the GOsC has drafted at each stage to govern its functions were carefully scrutinised by Government solicitors to ensure that they had legal propriety and were compliant with the Osteopaths Act before the Privy Council approved them. As the House will be aware, all statutory instruments are also scrutinised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. It has not identified any significant problems with the rules that the GOsC has prepared.

The GOsC is obliged to publish core standards as part of the Osteopaths Act, which again must be the right thing to do. The core standards proposed were the standard of proficiency based on the statement of minimum standards given in the King's Fund report and also on the subsequent 1993 document "Competences Required for Osteopathic Practice", which had been commended by the British Medical Association. I am not clear from the debate whether hon. Members are concerned about the content of that standard of proficiency, the definition of the core standards and the process that the GOsC has gone through to define them, or about the implementation of those standards. Unless any hon. Member corrects me, I shall assume that the concern surrounds the implementation of those standards rather than their definition.

The purpose of setting those core standards is to have a framework to decide who can practise as an osteopath and how to set up a register for osteopathy. The statutory register for osteopaths was formally opened in May 1998, which marked the beginning of a two-year transitional period during which existing osteopaths could apply for registration. Although the Osteopaths Act gave the GOsC the power retrospectively to recognise osteopathic qualifications for the purpose of registration during that period, it chose not to do so. I am informed that that was because it thought it would be difficult, if not impossible, for qualifications that were granted many years before, by institutions that in many cases had ceased to exist, to be properly verified. I understand that it also felt that it would not allow consideration to be given to those who had not undertaken formal qualifications at an early stage, but had gone through apprenticeship or other routes and other forms of personal and professional development. It certainly seems valid to set up a process that allows different routes in.

The GOsC chose to use the professional profile and portfolio as the basis of applications and in some cases that was supplemented by an interview and test of clinical competence. The Government were not involved in that decision and the principle of the PPP is in keeping with the approach to increasing revalidation. I will take up the points that have been made about the interpretation of this and about many people submitting identical forms. I will write to my hon. Friend the Member for Salford and other hon. Members who have raised specific points about this issue.

Clearly, to prove to the public and to patients that people have gone through appropriate statutory regulation, a proper framework must be in place. We should not simply accept the judgment and the self-description that people have used in the past.

Within the statutory scheme, transitional arrangements to register existing practitioners have come to an end. The Osteopaths Act 1993 established a transitional period ending on the second anniversary of the opening of the statutory register. Since 9 May, no one has been able to make a new application for registration using the transitional provisions.

Hon. Members have asked about transparency and an appeals process. There is a right of appeal through the courts after the right of appeal to the General Osteopathic Council has been exercised. Proper procedure involving transparency and accountability is necessary, but a proper regulatory framework requires a final decision to be taken. It is important for the credibility of the profession that the General Osteopathic Council can demonstrate that it is responding and that its processes are transparent and accountable. I am glad that it has been willing to meet hon. Members who have raised concerns. I hope that that will continue. It is important that the council should respond directly to concerns raised by Members of Parliament.

Some hon. Members referred to the number of people who do or do not apply for registration. The latest figures that I have show that of the 4,247 practitioners on the GOsC's database who could have made a claim that they were osteopaths, 2,442 have now been registered and a further 749 are having their applications assessed. That means that 75 per cent. of those claiming to be osteopaths have either registered or applied for registration. In addition, I am informed that 142 are likely to have been denied registration by the end of the process and 591 have chosen not to register. I am informed that many of those are due to retire from practice or are practising overseas and are not required to register. I thought it important to put those numbers on the record.

The Minister has pointed out several times that the previous Government approved the body, but she is incorrect. It was approved by the Privy Council, which is non partisan. That is relevant, because she spoke of its being re-elected in a year's time. She is right, it will be. However, it will be re-elected only by registered osteopaths, which means that, according to her figures, 25 per cent. of members of the profession, who by implication will not be registered will not have the right to vote. The GOsC will then become, in its present form, self-perpetuating.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the process ultimately goes through the Privy Council, but the appointments procedure took place under the previous Government. He is also right to say that the election will be by registered osteopaths. I take the comments that have been made about the appointments process seriously, which is why I responded to the hon. Member for Romsey by saying that I would look into it.

Hon. Members also mentioned education and qualifications and those people who, having gone through the education process, are not likely—in the short term at least—to receive a qualification because their organisation has not yet been recognised by the GOsC. Colleges have a contractual responsibility to their students and a responsibility not to mislead them. I understand that the GOsC has no statutory responsibility for students in colleges where the qualifications are not recognised, but I am also informed that it is working with those colleges to try to find a way forward with respect to the validating process.

I shall further consider the matters that were raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford about obtaining information and support from the GOsC about alternative places at which to gain qualifications, should those initially obtained be turned down. I take the points that have been raised very seriously. I will look into them further, but the fundamental principle that statutory regulation is right, and that it must be achieved by a rigorous process rather than self-definition, is important.

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate economic development in Sunderland, the city that I am proud to represent. Economic development spearheaded by local authorities is the cornerstone of the strategies that the United Kingdom needs to develop. Without an effective strategy for economic development, we are disadvantaged and unable to do the things that are necessary to build sustainable futures for our communities.

The demise of our shipbuilding and mining industries means that the economic base of the area I represent has undergone a more dramatic transformation than has been seen anywhere else in the United Kingdom. Those industries provided employment for the vast majority of people in the area, not just for the past few decades, but for centuries. If people 20 or 30 years ago had been asked what future they envisaged for the city of Sunderland without mining or shipbuilding, the response would have been bleak.

It is a tribute to people's talent and ingenuity that Sunderland has not become an economic wasteland. In the 20 or 30 years in which we have lost our core, primary industries, not only have we have attracted new industries to the area, but we have developed our indigenous manufacturing industries. With much work and effort, we have not only responded to the change, but managed and embraced it. We have been ahead of the game, looking to the future of new industries that are developing in the United Kingdom. In recent years, Sunderland city council and its economic development team have been consistent winners of various awards for the area, including the best economic development area in the United Kingdom, top location in the United Kingdom for sites and premises, and the United Kingdom's most successful regeneration city. Those awards, which have been achieved in difficult circumstances, serve as a tribute to the local authority and the people who work with it.

A report issued a few weeks ago by Business Strategies described Sunderland as one of the few cities that are genuinely bucking the trend with respect to manufacturing industries. That message is hammered home by the fact that my constituency contains the most successful car plant in Europe: the Nissan car plant is the most efficient in Europe in terms of production per worker per car. Regrettably, the task of getting that message across was not helped by a press release that I saw yesterday. Under the heading, "Conservative News", the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) announced:

The news that Nissan will not invest for the new Micra at Sunderland is another body blow for the British motor industry.

If that were true, there would be a problem, but it is not: Nissan has not yet made a decision on whether to build the new Micra in Sunderland. Nevertheless, the statement gave cause for concern.

Any right hon. or hon. Member who issues a press statement about another hon. Member's constituency should check with that Member, or at least with the company concerned. That press release has caused great anxiety to tens of thousands of people and their families. Yesterday, I spoke to the managing director of Nissan, who confirmed that no final decision had been made. It is regrettable that people are willing to jump on any bandwagon to promote bad news, even when it does not really exist. The issue of such a press release throughout the region caused much pain and anxiety to those who work at the car plant. The right hon. Member for Wokingham would be better employed working with the rest of us to try to secure jobs at Nissan in the production of the new Micra, and supporting the Department of Trade and Industry's award of £40 million to Nissan, which is currently being examined by the European Commissioner for Competition. We expect an announcement from him at the end of the year. The right hon. Gentleman should support the retention of jobs in the north-east, not condemn job losses that have not even happened.

Although much has been achieved in recent years, I am not complacent. I realise that we cannot ease off. We live in a global environment and in a changing world, so it is important to maintain the pace of change. We must respond not only to the situation as it stands, but be ahead of the game and identify the new industries that areas such as the north-east can attract. My constituency is predominantly made up of former coal mining areas and we must recognise the deprivation and lack of opportunity that persists within such areas.

Many schemes have been undertaken. A few weeks ago, we were successful in respect of a multimillion-pound bid called Urban II, which is designed to increase opportunities for people who live in former coal mining areas in respect of training, literacy and child care. That offers the chance to take a big step forward. We must not forget those communities. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has carried out much work and the Government have given help through coalfield regeneration programmes, such as the Coalfields Trust, but we must keep up the momentum. One of the big moral judgments that the Government will face at the end of their current term of office and the next will be whether they have made a material difference to people who live in former coalmining areas.

I ask the Minister to use her good offices to chase up one or two matters, the first of which is the reclamation of the Lambton cokeworks, which date from the beginning of the 18th century. The area the works occupy has been heavily contaminated by the process of making coke, one product of which is cyanide. The land is badly polluted and it is important that we look for ways in which it can be reclaimed. Reclamation would allow a new road to be built across the land, which would open up both existing industrial estates and others that are planned. It would provide a link between the A1M and the A19 and open up a whole range of opportunities, not only in my constituency, but in neighbouring former coal mining constituencies. There would be a considerable effect on the whole area.

One NorthEast, through the English Partnerships coalfield programme, currently has consultants looking at that issue, but we would like a decision to be reached as soon as possible and funds to be made available. The site was purchased by the local authority some time ago, with a view to reclaiming the cokeworks. Incidentally, during work on the site, Britain's oldest wooden wagonway, dating from 1730, was unearthed. It would be of great advantage to receive news of any action that is to be taken.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is considering proposals relating to the Sunderland area regeneration compact, commonly known as the ARC, which the local authority is keen to see expedited. The project covers the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Sunderland, North (Mr. Etherington) and for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions. It is one of the largest projects of its kind in Europe—a joint public-private partnership initiative that would develop the corridor surrounding the River Wear. The project has the full support of One NorthEast, English Partnerships, the local authority and everybody in Wearside. Anything we can do to get a decision on the proposals would be helpful, because the project would provide opportunities and jobs, not only in Sunderland, North and South, but in Houghton and Washington, East.

I would like the Minister to bear the points I have made in mind. My area has suffered blows in the past, but it is fighting back effectively, and I have said how successful local manufacturing has been. There are many important initiatives taking place: for example, a couple of Fridays ago, I visited a project called G-Tel, which gives young people opportunities through the new deal; of the 70 trainees in the Washington Galleries—part of the G-Tel project—30 are now in full-time employment. That project was put together and developed by the Department for Education and Employment, the Galleries training centre and the Prudential, and has been very successful.

A lot of effort has been put into giving people the necessary training, but we have to provide the infrastructure for jobs, so the city council's work to develop sites and build factories is crucial. If we can develop in that way—and we can—we need never witness the waste of human talent that we saw in the reign of the previous Government, during the 1980s and early 1990s, when the people in our constituencies had little hope and few opportunities. The situation is beginning to improve and my message today is that we must keep the momentum going.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East (Mr. Kemp) on securing the debate. He knows the north-east region and the city of Sunderland well, and has clearly outlined for us the issues that that area of the country has faced over the past two decades and still faces to some extent.

Since 1997, we have tried to provide new opportunities for a regionally focused approach to tackling some of those problems. The organisations, communities, individuals and authorities in the north-east have already responded positively to the challenge of taking an increased part in the approach to the economic and social progress of the region, and of Sunderland in particular. Business people, local authorities and voluntary sector groups are all involved to various extents in plans and activities and the Government's regionalisation programme.

My hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East and other hon. Friends, some of whom are in the Chamber today, have played an important role in supporting and taking forward all those efforts. However, he is also right to celebrate the strength of the city of Sunderland and the north-east. I understand the feelings that he expressed clearly about the behaviour of some Members, who are apparently prepared to sacrifice the concerns and expectations for the future of local people by pursuing a soundbite with no substance in the context of what Nissan has said. He has outlined the work that the Government are doing to secure, through the Commission, a satisfactory outcome to the decision by Nissan. We are confident that the Commission is dealing with that in a timely way and we look forward to its results.

Before I come to the issues that my hon. Friend wants me to address, I shall refer to several initiatives that we have introduced and in which the partners in the region, particularly in Sunderland, have been involved. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, who has had to leave the Chamber, took part in the launch of the regional economic strategy developed on behalf of the region by One NorthEast. My right hon. Friend is working closely with One NorthEast and its partners. That strategy outlines the issues, and the opportunities, faced by the north-east. The long-term strategy of One NorthEast is ambitious but achievable.

The region has a new assisted area map, providing various forms of grants, which covers about 97 per cent. of the region's population. The Government have made a bid for a new programme of European objective 2 structural funds up to 2006, which will be worth more than £460 million to the area and will support spending of around £1 billion. Several sub-regional partnerships will bring together local authorities, businesses, learning and skills councils, small business services and so on, all trying to work together to make sure—the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East—that those opportunities and resources are translated in ways that make a real difference for people. My hon. Friend is right that the final test is not the money that goes in but what we make that money, and other resources and efforts, achieve; that depends largely on local partners.

My hon. Friend will know that the neighbourhood renewal fund was launched with a consultation paper earlier in October. The city of Sunderland is one of 14 authorities in the north-east that will be eligible for assistance and, provided that it complies with the conditions for that funding, it stands to receive an extra £14.3 million over the next three financial years. I know that my hon. Friend will be pleased with that. The neighbourhood renewal fund in particular will assist local authorities and others working together to bridge the gap between the poorest communities and those that have had higher standards of services and economic well-being.

The single regeneration budget has also played a crucial role in Sunderland and the region. In its work to develop economic activity and regeneration in Sunderland, One NorthEast is funding five single regeneration partnerships from the first five rounds. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that after the announcement of round six in August this year, a new partnership to regenerate Thorney Close will receive more than £10 million over the next six years. Again, those are important strands that need to be brought together to assist the various forms of regeneration, not just economic but social and environmental.

My hon. Friend mentioned two issues on which I would like to comment. The first was the area regeneration compact, or the ARC as it is known locally. As he said, that initiative was launched in June last year in response to job losses and closures in Sunderland at Grove's Cranes and the brewery. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry recently considered the development strategy for ARC and earlier this week responded to Dr. John Bridge, the chairperson of One NorthEast, welcoming the strategy and encouraging ARC to press ahead with its economic and financial appraisal work. I say clearly to my hon. Friend that the Government believe that the proposals in the compact document are in line with the regional strategy of One NorthEast and with the forthcoming urban White Paper.

The Secretary of State has asked the task group to press ahead with the important necessary economic and financial appraisal work. It is important that the compact should provide the basis for the kind of public-private partnership that we know to be the most effective way to achieve sustainable regeneration, and, as my hon. Friend said, that would place Sunderland ahead of the game. That is the critical task. He will be reassured to know that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing—I do not want to compromise her—is now leading on the development of ARC, in agreement with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

I know that my hon. Friend has worked extremely hard liasing with One NorthEast and others to try to ensure funding for reclamation of the Lambton cokeworks. It is an important scheme that he knows will cost £12 million or more, and it will see productive reuse of brownfield land. Clearly, that would hit one of the Government's priorities. Studies have to be undertaken to validate the proposals and there must be separate economic assessments to justify what is, as he would agree, significant expenditure. One NorthEast wants those to proceed as rapidly as possible. It is committed to try to finish them in the next four to six months, after which time it should be possible to confirm the source of funding and a programme for reclamation of the site. I cannot give my hon. Friend an absolute guarantee today, but I hope that I have been as reassuring as possible and that he will take some encouragement from that.

I should also like to comment on the city of Sunderland partnership. Of all the issues that my hon. Friend raised, partnership is the most crucial to getting the maximum from the resources available and ensuring that they are translated into changes that make a difference to local people. The Government can do only so much. Since I have been a Minister it has been clear that, although the Government's job is to make resources, structures and mechanisms available, local people have to translate money and opportunities into economic and social progress, with our support.

I congratulate the council on its forward thinking and approach to partnership working, which are critical. The city of Sunderland partnership, which has brought together key players in the city, was established in 1994 and has operated a strategic planning process that includes a city strategy. The partnership clearly provides a solid base for the Government's modernisation agenda, and is placed to become the local strategic partnership that will finalise the preparation of the city's community strategy and the priorities for utilising, for example, the neighbourhood renewal fund. It will also drive forward economic regeneration for the city.

On the question of former coal-mining areas, I want to make one plea. We often hear about such areas, and there is rightly talk of Yorkshire and Durham, but it is not often remembered that there is a substantial coal-mining area, formerly the north Durham field, in the city of Sunderland.

I want to mention a collegiate approach, using joined-up government, to the issues facing former coal-mining areas. Does my hon. Friend the Minister agree that in some sense we have to look broadly in terms of social provision, education, transport facilities and equipping people with basic skills? Is that not one of the great benefits of the Urban II project, for which we have funding in mining areas? For example, it will provide child care, which will help women to find work again. We must see matters in terms of not only the factory unit, but providing a social infrastructure around people to give them chances and opportunities.

I agree that that is critical. Change is unsustainable unless we pay attention to the development of that infrastructure and to other issues such as how to raise the skills and capacities of local people. That is the distinctive contribution that the Government have made, which local partners such as Sunderland have understood and are taking forward. If we do not pay attention to all the issues mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East, including training, child care, housing and transport, change may die away when the initiative ends. We will not have created a change that lasts and makes a difference to people—the difference will last only as long as the initiative.

My hon. Friend referred to transport. The Government recognise, as does the city of Sunderland, that local economists depend on good strategic links to markets in the United Kingdom and Europe. Transport infrastructure is especially important in the north-east. Construction of the Metro extension is under way and will offer improved transport links within Sunderland and with the rest of the Tyne and Wear conurbation. The £100 million extension will help to provide employment opportunities and access to those opportunities as well as to social, leisure and educational facilities. In addition to the Metro, a local transport plan is being developed that will use a proportion of the £50 billion that we are making available nationally to support some local priorities in partnership.

The Government have applied a range of tools and opportunities to enable people at the regional and local levels to begin to tackle some of the problems in the north-east and Sunderland. Some of those schemes are active and producing results, while others are in the process of development. The aim must be to tackle some of the long-term and deep-seated economic and social issues that exist largely as a consequence of the fact that little attention was paid to them in previous decades when, as my hon. Friend rightly says, a changing economic situation faced the north-east. Those issues cannot be addressed with quick fixes.

It is important that local players can see that the resources and opportunities that we are providing will be continued long enough to make real change possible. I have been encouraged by the response of regional and local players; I have commented on the ARC and on the positive approach of the city of Sunderland partnership, which provides a basis for making the most of those opportunities. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton and Washington, East was right to say that the critical test lies in ensuring that as much value as possible comes from the money and opportunities provided and that a real difference is made over the next few years for the people of Sunderland and the north-east. I am sure that he will play his part in that. The extent to which regional and local players have grasped those opportunities and are trying to make that difference is encouraging.

Thank you. We may now go on to the next debate.

I am glad to be able to raise an issue that has recently caused considerable concern to my constituents.

I acknowledge that the Central Railway problem is not new: since 1995, when the original route was proposed, many hon. Members have had to deal with the problem of the Central Railway proposal. In July 1996, an application made under the Transport and Works Act 1992 was overwhelmingly defeated in the House, which put paid to the original project proposal for a route alignment through London. In July 2000, the company announced a new proposed route that would go around London, following the M25 in the south-western quadrant. My interest and that of several of my colleagues who, unfortunately, cannot be present today has been awakened by the proposal to route the project through our constituencies.

I should like to place on record anxieties that are shared by my hon. Friends the Members for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth), for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), who could not be present today. I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe), the chairman of the all-party group on blight, who has shown a great interest in the matter, for his guidance and assistance in formulating my response to the proposals affecting my constituency. I suspect that he might try to catch your eye later in the debate, Mrs. Michie.

A measure of the anxiety about the effect that the proposal will have on my constituency can be derived from the fact that, shortly after the project was announced in July 2000, a local lobby group—which, ironically, was originally set up to fight the proposed link roads alongside the M25—called a meeting of those who would be affected by the proposal, who were almost precisely the same people who would have been blighted for a decade or so by the link road proposals; the meeting was so well attended that not all the people who came along could fit in the hall, and some had to listen to a loudspeaker outside the hall. Hundreds of people displayed genuine anxiety.

The announcement of the project and the new route around the south-western quadrant of the M25 gives rise to several serious questions, many of which have been asked before, during the debate on the previous proposals. They relate to the engineering viability of the railway project proposed, the financial strength of the promoter of the project and the financial viability of the project itself—in short, the merits and demerits. Valid and important questions also arise about how compensation is calculated and when it becomes payable to people affected by such a project, if it proceeds. However, my purpose today is not to explore those aspects. I shall focus on the iniquity of a system that allows thousands of homes to be blighted without compensation, with no timetable for resolution and no apparent means of redress for those affected. I am glad to say that I do not perceive the debate as party political. I hope that I shall be able to appeal to notions of common sense and the sense of natural justice that is shared throughout the House.

I do not pretend to be an expert on the operation of the Transport and Works Act. However, I understand—I am sure that the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that a company that makes a formal application under the Act is vulnerable from that point in time to being required to purchase properties and pay compensation to those who are blighted by the application. However, there is no requirement to proceed to a formal application: a project can be announced, producing an effective blight, without there being any requirement to proceed. The draft Transport and Works Act procedures, which the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions has out for consultation, put great store in the need for prior consultation between the promoter and those who will be affected. That is fine, but those involved need to be sensitive about the cost faced by people who are blighted during an extended pre-application period.

In the case of Central Railway's current proposal, there is little to consult on and nothing worthy of the name "consultation" is happening. Few details of the project have been made known, which leaves people whose properties are affected guessing, for example, the height of the railway and whether it will go over or under different existing transport infrastructures. The existing system disincentivises a speculative promoter of a scheme to proceed with a Transport and Works Act application, because from the date of doing so the promoter is liable to make compensation payments.

Currently, a private company can announce a major infrastructure project, imposing an instant blight on the homes in its path; there is no evaluation of the merits of the project, no evaluation of the company's financial capability, no procedure for forcing the project to be submitted to proper scrutiny within any time scale, and no accountability because, unlike a public body making such proposals, a private company is accountable to no one but its own shareholders. Meanwhile, in their responses to local searches, local authorities through whose area the proposed project will run have to reveal to potential purchasers of property the existence of the proposals—thus making the sale of property difficult, or possible only at a discount to its true market value.

At best, the procedure can mean a protracted blight with no access to compensation; at worst, it can be abused. I do not suggest that that is what is happening in the case of the Central Railway proposal, but the present procedures contain nothing that would prevent an unscrupulous promoter from blighting an area with a view to purchasing property cheaply while the blight prevails. It is clear to me that the system is inadequate to deal with large-scale projects, especially linear projects such as a railway, which are promoted on a speculative basis by a private company.

I want to place on the record that I am not against big infrastructure projects in principle, nor am I against their being promoted by private companies. However, the lack of accountability and any form of redress for the victims of the blight that an announcement of such a project inevitably produces, and the inability of anyone other than the promoter to ensure that a scheme is subjected within a reasonable time scale to a proper analysis of its merits by a proper process in a proper forum offends my sense of natural justice and, I hope, that of others, too.

The timetable for the Central Railway proposal is not yet clear, but common sense and a little analysis suggests that, after what happened to the previous Transport and Works Act application in 1996, it is highly unlikely that the company intends to proceed with a formal application before the next general election. Only the Prime Minister knows precisely when that will be, but there is a significant possibility that a further 12 months or so will pass before there is any likelihood of a formal application being made by the company.

There is obviously a problem when the law allows a small, loss-making private company to announce a scheme that will blight thousands of homes and then, if it so wishes, to do absolutely nothing at all—perhaps for years. From private discussions, I know that several Labour Members—indeed, several Ministers—sympathise with my constituents' concerns, but sympathy, while much appreciated, will not solve the problem. We urgently need a change in the law. It would be a minor and uncontroversial change that could be dealt with in a private Member's Bill, but we cannot rely on a Member concerned about the issue being fortunate in the ballot. I hope that the Minister will assure us today that he will give due consideration to early legislative intervention in Government time to resolve the problem.

How might the law be changed? How might we deal with the problems that my constituents face? The Government clearly have more expert resources than I have to consider those questions, but I should like to mention some suggestions that have either been made to me or have sprung to my mind. One option would be that a promoter should face an obligation to pay compensation from the time of a project's announcement, but I do not favour that proposal because I do not want to stifle innovative infrastructure projects, which I fear that the introduction of compensation from the first announcement would do.

Fixed timetables for applications under the Transport and Works Act 1992 could be introduced, but that would risk over-rigidity. The simplest, fairest and most flexible approach would be to give individuals affected by blight, including local authorities in which projects would run, the right to apply to the court for a timetabling order, following the announcement but before a formal application. That would give the courts the power to require either the submission of an application under the 1992 Act within a certain period, which would vary, or the withdrawal of the proposal followed by a lockout period in which it could not be re-announced. The court would consider the harm suffered by those blighted, the degree of active consultation and the prima facie viability of the scheme and the promoter, and seek to produce a fair timetable that balanced all interests. It would be a tough job, but it would be the proper role of the courts in such matters.

That is merely a suggestion. I do not pretend to have researched the subject exhaustively. Whichever way we proceed, I look to the Minister for a commitment to tackle the scandal of the current system, which can leave anyone at the mercy of any half-baked, under-capitalised, ill-thought-out scheme, however dubious its economics and however unlikely it is to materialise in reality. The system allows a promoter to blight thousands of properties without any individual evaluation of the merits of his proposal, and then allows him to sit back and do nothing if he wants, perhaps for years, without requiring him to pay a penny in compensation. That cannot be right. It would offend anyone's sense of natural justice. I urge the Minister to give an unambiguous commitment to deal with the issue as a matter of the highest priority.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) for allowing me a moment to speak in the debate, and to the Minister for being courteous enough to permit it.

The purpose of the debate is to provide relief to a large number of people suffering from an ill that affects an even larger group. We will benefit them more if we listen to what the Government have to say than if I speak at length, so I should simply like to take the opportunity to say clearly how strongly I support my hon. Friend. I once described the situation as "burglar blight", marching across the country robbing all sorts of people of the value of their capital. It is a scandal that requires urgent redress.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has raised an issue that is of great concern not only to his constituents, but to many other people who live alongside major proposed infrastructure projects.

I should say at the outset that encouraging more rail freight is at the heart of the Government's integrated transport policy and we are committed to working in partnership with the rail industry to achieve that. I am pleased that, after many years of decline, rail freight is on the way up again: rail freight volume has risen by 22 per cent. since April 1997, and by 42 per cent. since privatisation. We look forward to the day, not too far off, when the percentage of freight carried by rail returns to double figures.

The Government have for some time been aware of Central Railway's proposals to build and operate a freight railway between Liverpool and Lille. Although Ministers have received representations from the company and seen some of its publicity material, Central Railway has not formally submitted details of its proposals, as the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge said. For reasons that I will make clear, it would be wrong of me to comment substantively on the scheme at this stage. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that; he did not comment much on the scheme himself.

Before Central Railway could implement any of its proposals, it would need to obtain a wide range of statutory powers and planning permissions. It could obtain these powers and permissions by obtaining an order from the Secretary of State under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Central Railway says that it is preparing to make an application next spring, which is a little sooner than the hon. Gentleman stated. The statutory procedures under the 1992 Act offer all interested persons a full and fair opportunity to have their say. I hope to illustrate that and reassure those who are worried about how Central Railway's scheme will affect them by describing the steps that must be taken in respect of an application.

Procedures under the Act are designed to ensure that all those who should know about an application have reasonable opportunity to find out about it; I presume that most of those who should know about the Central Railway proposal already do so. Applicants are required to publish notice of their application locally and on the site of the proposed works, while those affected by proposals must be individually notified. Furthermore, copies of the application documents must be served on local authorities and other statutory bodies and be made available for public inspection for a minimum of six weeks. Within that period, individuals may make representations to the Secretary of State about the application. When an application is made, the Secretary of State has eight weeks to consider whether the scheme is of national significance. If he decides that it is, the application must be referred to Parliament. The hon. Gentleman is aware that that is what happened with the 1996 proposals.

Where such a decision is taken, a further minimum period must elapse before Parliament can debate the application, to allow time for hon. Members to familiarise themselves with the proposals and allow a chance for lobbying. The process is designed to give both Houses of Parliament the opportunity to debate the principles and policies relating to a scheme before it proceeds to more detailed consideration at a public inquiry. A motion approving the proposals has to be passed by both Houses before an application can proceed to consideration at a public local inquiry. If either House rejects the proposals in principle, the application cannot proceed. The hon. Gentleman will know that rejection of the 1996 proposals led to that application being withdrawn.

If any application made by Central Railway succeeded in securing approval from both Houses, a public inquiry would follow. The aim would be to provide an accessible forum for anyone with an interest in the proposals to present written or oral evidence to an inspector. After the inquiry, the inspector would submit a report to the Secretary of State, including a recommendation on whether the proposal should be approved. However, the final decision rests with the Secretary of State and, in making his decision, he must have regard to all the evidence presented to him. He is not bound to approve a scheme simply because Parliament has previously endorsed it in principle. I cannot comment at this stage on the merits or otherwise of Central Railway's proposals.

One of the peculiarly obnoxious features of the proposal is that it is almost avowed by Central Railway itself that it is managed by men of straw. Do the Government not believe that proposals of such magnitude should at least be backed by some kind of public statement of asset?

I respect the hon. Gentleman's great experience in such matters arising from a project in his area. We shall certainly consider any positive suggestions offered by him or the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, whose suggestions I will touch on at the end of my remarks.

I hope that I have made it clear that, before any decisions are made about the scheme, it will be subjected to thorough and effective examination. No doubt part of that examination will be the financial standing of the backers. Moreover, we would expect a promoter of an order—especially a promoter of such a major scheme—to carry out full and extensive consultations before a formal application was made. My Department's guidance emphasises the importance of thorough pre-application consultation. Such consultation, if carried out constructively and with an open mind, can help promoters to prepare and refine their proposals and may also help to allay unnecessary fears and suspicions that understandably arise when people feel that they are being kept in the dark.

On the issue of property blight, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge will probably be aware that compensatory measures are available to property owners through the Transport and Works Act application procedures.

I did not, I hope, at any time raise the question of what happens after a Transport and Works Act application is made. The Minister suggests that the application under discussion will be made next spring, but I think that it might be much delayed. Will he acknowledge that there is nothing to require an application to be brought forward next spring and can he deal with the problem that will face my constituents in the interim until an application is made?

I intend to address that point. It would be helpful to the hon. Gentleman's constituents to know the procedures, and I hope that, by explaining them today, I shall assist them. I fully understand that the hon. Gentleman has been describing the blight that inevitably arises when such a scheme is even mooted, rather than when a formal application has been made.

Compensation for disturbance and home loss may be payable, while home owners may be entitled to compensation for depreciation in their property values due to physical factors caused by the use of the works, such as noise, fumes, artificial lighting and discharges on to their property. The Government are aware that in the early stages of development and before an application is made, major infrastructure schemes can generate uncertainties that are often regarded as the cause of depreciation in property values. That type of blight, which is not covered by the statutory compensation provisions, is commonly referred to as a generalised or perceived blight. As part of my Department's fundamental review into laws and procedures relating to compulsory purchase and compensation, the Government published a code of practice on the dissemination of information during major infrastructure developments in October 1999. That emanated from a recommendation of the interdepartmental working group on blight, whose approach is commended to private sector promoters of major infrastructure developments. Its aim is to minimise blight.

As part of the same review, an independent advisory group into compulsory purchase and blight compensation was established. It published its final report on 27 July. Comments on the report will be taken into account when preparing the Government's policy paper, which we hope to publish in the new year. My Department will then consult formally on the proposals and I imagine that the hon. Members for Runnymede and Weybridge and for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) will both want to take part in that process.

A further recommendation arising from the blight review was for a property purchase guarantee and compensation scheme, which would offer guarantees of future value for a property, coupled with guarantees in respect of compensation. The purpose would be to help to maintain stability in the local property market. The advisory group endorsed that proposal in its final report, but saw it as a complement to, rather than a substitute for, the statutory blight notice procedure.

The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge calls for a change in the law, saying that it would be a simple change. In my limited experience, changes in the law never prove to be as simple as they appear when one is sitting on the Back Benches. However, the hon. Gentleman made a very reasonable suggestion. He will appreciate that I cannot give him an answer off the top of my head, but I shall ensure that the matter is passed to those who are in a position to review it.

The issues that the hon. Gentleman identified must first be considered by Central Railway and its partners in the proposed scheme as part of the consultation process. Meanwhile, I would encourage all who have an interest in the proposals to make their views known to the company, so that it can have regard to them when preparing its submission. It will be in the interests of all concerned to ensure that the company's application goes ahead as soon as possible, so that it can be given proper consideration. I hope that that is helpful to the hon. Gentleman.

The Minister mentioned a few moments ago the concept of a property compensation scheme that operates prior to the application being made. Central Railway is operating such a scheme, and my local authority is taking advice on it. Will the Minister tell us whether he is aware of any work done to support the notion that the scheme that is in place underpins the market in an area that would otherwise be blighted? I have been able to find no evidence that it is genuinely effective.

I cannot respond to that point off the top of my head, but I undertake to come back to the hon. Gentleman on the matter.

Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that the Central Railway property protection scheme was considered by the interdepartmental working group on blight in December 1997 and was received very favourably by the Department? In my view, it addresses many of the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond).

That is obviously something that we shall have to look at, possibly in the company of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, but it is not something that we can sort out in the final 30 seconds of the debate.

Thank you, Minister. We can now move on to the next debate.

Mrs. Michie, I congratulate you on your appointment. I consider myself fortunate to speak while you are in the Chair.

I am pleased to have secured a debate on free mining in the Forest of Dean because it enables me, not only to further the case, but to put the argument on public record. Before setting out their case in this long dispute, I pay tribute to the free miners—the Davids standing against the might of the Goliaths of the Coal Authority and the Government—especially Ray Wright, their secretary, Don Johns, their chairman, Eric Morris, their president, Harold Powell, a fifth-generation free miner, Mike Howells, Gerald Haynes and Mike Jones.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe both for being here today to listen—and, I hope, to give some encouraging news on the issue—and for the time and commitment that she has already given. At my invitation, she kindly visited the Forest of Dean in July to see the Hayners Bailey colliery, where she met the free miners and gave a commitment to look at the issue afresh.

It goes without saying that the Forest of Dean is a unique area. It has its own rich heritage, with its own customs and privileges making up the personality of the community. Mine must be the only constituency that has free miners, verderers and sheep badgers—who are not animals, but men. There has been a history of mining in the area since ancient times, originally for ochres, then for iron, and, in the 19th and 20th centuries, coal. Our area is a recognised coalfields community, with moneys now flowing from Government to assist us in building up our poor infrastructure.

Free mining is different. Free mining rights are custom originating from time out of mind. They were first conferred by Edward I and were incorporated into modern law by Parliament in 1838. They are extended to males born within the hundred of St. Briavels who, when they have reached the age of 21 and have worked a year and a day in a coal or iron mine, become free miners. Those rights can now be inherited and are held by some females.

The Dean Forest (Mines) Act 1838 was the first in a series that culminated in the Forest of Dean (Mines) Act 1904, which series is now referred to collectively as the Dean Forest Mines Enactments. They preserve and recognise, not only the ancient rights, but the special exclusive relationship with the governor and his deputy. The governor grants a gale, which is a Crown award to mine a specific mineral in a specific, recognised area, in a specific, seam at a specific location, on terms.

All subsequent legislation recognised the special status and antiquity of free mining until the Coal Industry Act 1994. When plans for that legislation were announced, free miners were assured by the deputy governor that their situation would not be affected and that special provisions would be made in the usual way to protect their rights—in short, the deputy governor, who controls and regulates free miners, made it clear that their rights would be protected. There was a precedent in previous legislation: free miners were expressly exempt from nationalisation in the Coal Act 1938 and the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. They felt secure that a precedent had been set and that their rights would be protected.

In 1994, my predecessor, the then hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, Paul Marland, took his eye off the ball and did not scrutinise the Bill carefully as it passed through both Houses of Parliament. He made no representations to Ministers that the Bill should refer to the Forest of Dean or free miners and their rights. Consequently, the free miners discovered too late that they had lost their rights. There was no consultation with the free miners before or during the passage of the Bill and its enactment.

On Monday, during the nominations for Speaker, the point was made that because parliamentarians make legislation that affects the lives of our constituents, we must scrutinise it carefully so that the implications of our actions are fully recognised and evaluated. That was not done in 1994 by the free miners' then Member of Parliament. I have checked with the Library and at no stage during any debates on the Bill or during its Committee stage was any explicit mention made of the Forest of Dean and free mining.

The 1994 Act gave specific powers to the Coal Authority. It imposed licensing requirements on all coal mining operations, except those performed by or on behalf of the Crown. It also conferred responsibilities concerning health, safety and subsidence. I understand that it expressly excluded the Coal Authority from responsibility for subsidence within the hundred of St. Briavels, but not from imposing a licence on the same area. The Forestry Commission concluded from its legal advice that the gales did not require a Coal Authority licence, but, after intervention and pressure from the Department of Trade and Industry, it changed its stance and acquiesced to a non-conventional policy with the Coal Authority.

In the 1946 Act, licences were also deemed necessary, and gales in the Forest of Dean that were not under the licence of the National Coal Board had to obtain a licence, but one that was simplified and called a bare licence. During the build-up to the 1994 Act, it was agreed that the Forest of Dean free miners would be permitted to continue to operate on the simplified licence, even though that licence was often poorly and laxly administered.

It was clear that coal in the Forest of Dean was seen to be vested in the state under the aegis of the Coal Authority under the 1994 Act. However, the position of the free miners, their heirs and assigns is fully set out in the unrepealed Dean Forest Mines Enactments. Apart from an exclusive right of the grant of a gale licence, the heirs and assigns have all other rights. After the passage of the 1994 Act, free miners rightly felt that not only did they face dual regulation—because they were already regulated by the deputy gaveller—but they were subject to additional licensing, which had to be paid for, from the Coal Authority. That would effectively take away their ancient right.

There followed extensive negotiations with the free miners and the Forestry Commission on behalf of the deputy gaveller. The Coal Authority put into place a cheap, simple licensing arrangement—as they described it—which was finally agreed to in spring 1997; the timing will not pass anyone's notice, as it was just before the general election. Under the arrangement, free miners would have to pay a £50 licence. The licensing of other coal mining areas involves considerably higher amounts. It is important that the free miners were given a special licence in recognition of the fact that they were unique and different.

Some free miners agreed to the arrangement, but some did not. After the May 1997 election, they brought their case to me as their new Member of Parliament. They felt that the compromise of the reduced £50 licence—to which not all had agreed—was not good enough. Their principle had been lost, and so had their ancient right. My part in their campaign started from there. After extensive correspondence with the Department of Trade and Industry, I managed to secure time from the then Minister to meet me and a delegation. Although the Minister was sympathetic and wanted to assist, we could not make progress: it seemed that only primary legislation could alter the facts, and the Government could not at that time consider putting it on their agenda.

After considerable further representations, my right hon. Friend the Minister came to see for herself, for which I am most grateful. Does she now, like me, support the ancient customs of the free miners and does she believe that that the Coal Authority licensing threatens them? Does not she agree that the Dean Forest Mines Enactments are still statutes in force? Cannot we find a solution? Is it possible to open up fresh negotiations with the Coal Authority to reduce the April 1997 agreement of the £50 licence to zero, so that the miners can become free miners again? Is it possible to introduce a suitably worded ministerial direction under section 6 of the 1994 Act? I know that the Coal Authority has questioned whether that would be possible. Section 6(2) provides:

It shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with such specific directions as may be given to it by the Secretary of State with respect to—

(a) whether or not it exercises any of its powers and the manner in which any of its powers is to be exercised

The free miners suggested a suitable wording on page 12 of their submission to the Minister.

Section 1(5)(a) of the 1994 Act contains an exemption for the requirement of a licence for those operations that are performed by or on behalf of the Crown. Is not the Forest of Dean held by the Forestry Commission on behalf of the Crown, and are not the minerals therefore subject by statute solely to the rights of the Crown? I should be interested to hear, either today or later, my right hon. Friend's views on that point. Does she accept that free miners, by virtue of a gale, hold from the Crown a statutory licence to work the minerals appertaining to the gale and in return pay a share of their profits in the form of a royalty—known locally as the Queen's penny; that they are therefore partners with the Crown; and that, consequently, a second licence from the Coal Authority is contrary to the existing legislation and discriminatory and unfair to free miners?

At the meeting in July, my right hon. Friend the Minister made certain commitments. Further to that, has her Department researched the intentions relating to the free miners when the 1994 Act was prepared? Has the Department studied the excellent report that was prepared by the free miners, and will my right hon. Friend respond to the specific points that it makes?

This case, like the Forest of Dean, is unique. Testimony to that is the fact that there is no other Member of Parliament in the Chamber—no other Back-Bench Member, that is. It affects no other Member of Parliament. Free miners exist only in the Forest of Dean, so their case has no repercussions for other coalfields and cannot be used by other miners as a precedent. Currently, free mining is at an historical low point: world market prices are low and commercial output from the forest is exceedingly small. The issue directly affects only a handful of individuals, but it is nevertheless causing them distress. Some are facing pressure and enforcement action from the Coal Authority, or choosing not to work their gales to win the coal to which they have a right, because they refuse to pay the £50 licence.

However, there is a wider issue. Free mining is part of the entire Forest of Dean community. It is an integral aspect of and crucial to the forest and it is fundamental to the identity of a forester. It is a vital part of our tourist industry, providing a considerable attraction for visitors. It is not environmentally unfriendly—indeed, the present scale of operation is such that entire surface gear does not exceed more than a few hectares.

My right hon. Friend said in July that she would look at the issue afresh and draw a line under the past, so that we could move forward. I thank her for that; the free miners and I are aware of her commitment. I hope that she will be able to report on any progress made and answer the questions that I have raised today. The free miners, who have enjoyed their ancient rights for many centuries, have made it clear that they are not concerned with hurrying this issue. However, they want to get the principle right. They are prepared to fight on and campaign until they achieve some success, and I am with them.

I associate myself with the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ). You and I go back a long way, Mrs. Michie, and it is a pleasure to appear before you. We both know parts of the country that are extremely beautiful and have rich and varied traditions and histories. However, I must put up my hands and say that, until I discussed the matter with my hon. Friend, I was unaware of the history of the Forest of Dean and the free miners. It was my pleasure to visit the forest and see great beauty, albeit beauty that differs greatly from the sort that you and I are used to, Mrs. Michie.

I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. This is without doubt one of the more fascinating matters that I have had to deal with as a Minister. It is also one of the most complex. Only a few hours after I became Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe, she raised with me the issue of the free miners of the forest of Dean, so her dedication to their cause cannot in any way be questioned.

I have enormous sympathy for the free miners. Having met them, I know that they are men—I met no lady free miners—of huge integrity and dedication, who are conscious of their history. They mine not only coal, but ochre—I had not realised that ochre is mined in this country—and ironstone. Despite my sympathy for their cause and my great respect for them, there are differences between us, but they are differences in interpretation of law, not of commitment. The Government have no wish to see these ancient customs disappear and we accept that the Dean Forest Mines Enactments remain in force, but we must also accept that they are subject to provisions in later legislation.

When I visited the forest and met the delegation of free miners, I listened to their concerns and learned how strongly they feel about their licensing by the Coal Authority. My hon. Friend has referred to the submission that they have prepared as a consequence of my request that we draw a line under the past and try to assemble the arguments and take a fresh look at the issue. I received their submission at the beginning of September: it is impressive, comprehensive, and contains a clear expression of their contention and reasoning, and I am grateful for the work that went into it. My Department has studied it very carefully.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her final remark that the primary desire was not to speed matters along, because the complexity of some of the issues is such that the research will take some time to come to a conclusion. When I met the free miners, I promised that my officials would comb carefully through the Department's files relating to the preparation and passage of the Coal Industry Act 1994 to examine the consideration given at the time to the position of the free miners. My hon. Friend will be aware that I am not privileged to have access to the advice given to the previous Ministers; however, my officials assure me that consideration was given to the free miners.

Today's debate gives me an opportunity to explain some of the responses that have been given to the key points, not only in connection with the exercise that we are conducting, which is by no means complete, but with the general issues raised by my hon. Friend and by the free miners themselves. As soon as the research is completed, I will write to my hon. Friend and to the free miners; in the meantime, she knows that my door is always open and that I am willing to discuss these matters. However, I draw to my hon. Friend's attention the fact that some issues fall within the remit of the Coal Authority and therefore have to be discussed directly with that authority.

My hon. Friend asked me about my powers of direction over the Coal Authority. I have sought advice on that question and I am assured that I cannot direct the authority to do something that falls outside its statutory duties. The view of the authority and the Department has been that it is in accordance with the statutory framework for the Coal Authority to issue licences to free miners. That is a substantive point of difference between us and, although I have not been able to find a way forward, I pledge to continue to consider the issue.

The key issue relates to who owns the coal under the Forest of Dean. The Coal Authority owns the coal in the remainder of the country, but the free miners, as my hon. Friend said, assert that the Crown still owns the coal under the forest. The free miners point out, rightly, that the Coal Authority is not the Crown, and cite provisions relevant to the forest in the Coal Act 1938 and the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. They have put forward new arguments relating to those provisions which we are seriously considering.

I must tell my hon. Friend, however, that the prevailing view in the past and now, which is also the view of the Coal Authority, is that ownership of the coal under the Forest of Dean lies with the authority. We consider that section 43 of the 1938 Act transferred the Forestry Commission's interest in the coal to the Coal Commission, but made that transfer subject to the Dean Forest Mines Enactments; the provision allowed free mining to continue, but ownership of the coal passed across. Similarly, section 63 of the 1946 Act exempted free mining operations from being swept up in the nationalisation of the coal industry, thus allowing important traditions to continue. However, it did not affect the ownership of the coal, which passed to the National Coal Board, later renamed the British Coal Corporation, and finally, in 1994, to the Coal Authority. There is no question that the Crown owns the surface of the forest and the other minerals contained beneath it, but ownership of the coal rests with the Coal Authority.

The power of the Coal Authority to issue licences to mine the coal stems from the Coal Industry Act 1994. My officials have examined papers relating to the preparation and passage of the legislation and they say that the papers clearly show that the unusual arrangements in the Forest of Dean were recognised at an early stage by those who developed the licensing policy. It is clear that they were aware of the system of gales and the simple, bare licences that British Coal issued to free miners under section 36 of the 1946 Act. The agreed policy for the forest was that it should follow that pattern and that the Coal Authority should issue simplified licences to free miners. That was made clear in an explanatory note issued by the Department in January 1994, and was explained in correspondence with Forestry Commission headquarters in May 1994. It is true that there was no direct contact with the free miners and, with hindsight, that is regrettable, but their position in relation to the new regime was anticipated and the legislation prepared accordingly.

On the issue of Crown exemption, in their meeting with me and in their submission, the free miners stated forcefully that they consider that they operate on behalf of the Crown and that, accordingly, they should enjoy exemption from licensing for the Crown under section 66 of the 1994 Act. The free miners' links with the Crown go back many centuries and legislation relating to them encapsulates traditions and procedures that have developed in that time. Examination of the 1994 Act reveals that the Crown exemptions were created with the interests of the royal estate and organisations such as Government Departments in mind. It appears that the intention was always that, under the legislation, the Forest of Dean would fall within the licensing remit. The view traditionally held by my Department is that the free miners do not mine on the Crown's behalf, as ownership of the coal rests with the Coal Authority. That is the substance of our debate. In their submission, the free miners made new and detailed arguments on that issue and I assure my hon. Friend that we are still examining them.

On the question of dual regulation, the free miners contend that they are regulated by two systems, which is unfair. My hon. Friend explained that the gale grants a statutory licence to work the minerals through section 1 of the Dean Forest Act 1861. I shall try to show that the free miners face a situation no different from that faced by any other coal mining operation in the United Kingdom.

Following the 1994 Act, any operator who wanted to mine coal had to secure both a licence from the Coal Authority under the 1994 Act and, in almost every case, a lease. The lease gives the operator the property interest in the coal and the licence grants permission to exploit it. The lease is usually obtained from the Coal Authority, but in the case of the Forest of Dean the necessary property interest originates in the gale granted by the deputy gaveller. Both a lease and a gale contain rental provisions, although, ironically, the rent from both returns to the Coal Authority. In turn, the authority has to pay the Forestry Commissioners the cost of managing their interest. That is where matters get complicated.

The lease—or gale, as the case may be—and the licence are different and it is vital to appreciate that difference. The two systems of gales and licences sit side by side—they do not replace one another. They fall under separate regimes, but both are necessary for coal mining in the forest in the same way as two documents are needed from the Coal Authority elsewhere in the country. Because of the distinct traditions of the Forest of Dean, the simple and cheap licences to which my hon. Friend referred have been devised for the benefit of the free miners. Therefore, far from free miners facing unfair hardship, they may have some advantage—I know that that will be difficult for my hon. Friend to accept. The free miners are spot on in saying that the 1994 Act does not replace other legislation; it sits side by side with it.

In 1997, the Forestry Commission and the Coal Authority reached an agreement on the terms of a simple, cheap licence for small-scale, traditional underground mining. That reconciled the characteristics of the free miners with the Coal Authority's statutory duties. It also made provisions on safety, subsidence and mining records, which are equally important in the Forest of Dean or anywhere else to safeguard the public. The arrangements provided an enhanced role for the deputy gaveller. The fee, at £50, is substantially less than the several thousands of pounds that a conventional mining operation pays and, at the time, it was regarded as a nominal sum. My hon. Friend asked for it to be cut and I am sure that she will raise the issue with the Coal Authority, although the authority might fear that other licensees would complain about such a reduction. I understand her anxieties, and I want to be of assistance, but I must say to my hon. Friend that compromise and understanding are required on both sides.

I hope that I have answered most of the points raised by my hon. Friend, with whom I shall certainly maintain contact on these issues. I must also ask the miners to recognise the changes that have taken place over the years. I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate on an important issue. I hope that she will take my good wishes to the free miners of the Forest of Dean.

I thank my right hon. Friend the Minister for her very clear answers, which provide some avenues for us to pursue, especially those relating to the Crown. In some areas, we now know that there are new arguments for us to marshal. We shall have to look at her answers and be aware that, in some cases, we are going to win and in others, we are not—

Order. Is this an intervention? If so, it should be brief.

May I just say many thanks to the Minister? I shall pass on her good wishes to the free miners in the Forest of Dean.

We have come to the end of a very interesting debate, and I thank both participants.