in the Chair]

It is a great personal pleasure to introduce the debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who also requested an allocation of time to consider this important matter. The Adjournment debate is most timely, and I congratulate everyone who has been able to attend. I hope that we shall have a good debate. I intend to give the widest consideration to this important part of national life. I shall try to keep my comments brief to allow as many hon. Members as possible to participate.

I shall focus on the national perspective of the national parks movement, but I would be failing in my duty to my constituents, who enjoy the privilege of living in what is probably the most beautiful part of the country—the north Yorkshire coast—if I did not talk about how the movement affects their daily lives.

I was fortunate enough to be born in Carlisle in the north of England, on the edge of what is probably England's most famous national park. My two younger brothers and I lived on an out-of-town council estate and our lives were brightened by school trips to the national delights of the Lake District national park and the English lakes. My eyes and those of my brothers were opened by that introduction to an aspect of life that was different from the grey houses in which my family and others lived. It stimulated an early interest in the geology of the Lake district and a personal fascination with the natural wonders of glaciation, which led me to study geo-technical sciences and ultimately to become a civil engineer. National parks have formed an important part of my personal development, making almost as great a contribution as my parents and teachers. I challenge anyone in this place to disagree with my contention that our national parks are very special places.

Our national parks cover our most treasured countryside, comprising a unique blend of stunning landscape, extensive and diverse wildlife habitat, a rich cultural heritage and a distinctive pattern of land use and settlement. The environmental quality of national parks depends on the nature of human interaction with them, which goes back about 5,000 years. The parks attract more than 76 million visitors annually and are home to more than 250,000 people. It is 50 years since the first national park in England was designated and there are now 11 national parks in England and Wales. They will soon be joined by the New Forest, South Downs and, across the border, by Scottish landscapes. We hope that that will happen in the near future. National parks constitute 10 per cent. of the landscape across England and Wales and are managed by the national park authorities.

Following a detailed appraisal of our national parks a decade ago and the Edwards report "Fit for the Future", the Environment Act 1995 revised the purpose of the national park movement. I believe that national parks are constituted to conserve and embrace the natural beauty of wildlife and the cultural heritage of areas and to promote opportunities for the public to understand and enjoy their special qualities. That has been my family's experience.

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the cultural as well as the environmental heritage of the areas, and the substantial number of visitors. Does he feel that, under the present structures, a balance can be maintained between the interests of those who live and work in the park and those who come to enjoy it? Is he satisfied that the legislation he mentioned gives adequate background to ensure that there is a proper balance.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that important contribution. Indeed, the central purpose of the debate is to focus on that aspect. My constituents will have sympathy with his comments, and if he will allow me to proceed with my speech, I hope to develop that point later.

The 1995 Act gives the authorities a duty to seek to foster the economic and social well-being of local communities in the national parks. Indeed, in my area and that of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley), those are fundamental aspects of everyday life. We need to see a living and working community in all the national parks. If national parks do not support and sustain those communities they fail in their raison d'être. The parks' special assets need to be managed sensitively if future generations are to appreciate them. Future sustainability also depends on healthy economic circumstances and thriving communities.

Communities in these areas share many disadvantages and the problems that affect all rural communities are, if anything, accentuated in national parks. Their special environmental and cultural assets provide many opportunities for enhancement of the economy and consequently their communities' future prosperity. With the increasing recognition that environment, community and economy are linked, the parks are trying to deliver an integrated, joined-up approach to projects that meet the several objectives at once and demonstrate sustainability in practice. That can be brought about only if there is a true sense of partnership across the communities and working relationships with other authorities.

I happen to be a native of the Brecon Beacons national park. I was born and brought up there. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the agreement that has been struck in the National Assembly for Wales between the Liberal Democrats and the Labour Administration provides for the direct elections of members of national park authorities from within their communities and thus makes it a far better joined-up and democratic process?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that important contribution. I am not sure whether hon.

Members have somehow got advance notice of my speech this morning. Indeed that point of view will resonate throughout the debate. As I look around I see that all the hon. Members present this morning have much experience of these communities. Again, I will come to that point later.

"Partnership" is a key word, but it remains just a word unless it is delivered in practice. At the moment the parks authorities work extensively with other public agencies, local communities and the private sector such as, for example, the many land agents and managers who manage private land within the parks area. This is all about trying to manage change effectively and deliver the sustainable future to which we all aspire. Examples from all the national parks show the commitment and the ability of parks authorities to work with others for the benefit of the environment, the economy and the communities. It would be remiss of me if I did not focus on my national park, the North York Moors national park.

The key point about the work that is done on the nation's behalf in national parks is the tremendous value for money that is achieved. The grant from the public purse for all our national parks across England and Wales is a mere £26 million a year. I shall return to that important issue and I hope that it will be the culmination of my speech this morning. At the recent conference of the Association of National Parks Authorities, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), announced that there would be a policy review of national parks and their governance. I welcome that. The North York Moors national park will be able to demonstrate how good practice in governance can be helpfully used elsewhere. I hope that the Minister will examine the examples provided by that park and that we can learn from the review not only permanently to raise the quality of services but to reinforce the connection with people who live in the park area.

Demonstrating a high quality of service to local people is one of the most important activities taking place in the national parks. A debate is continuing in the rural economy about the need for diversification, particularly in agriculture. I have many letters about national parks issues, the bulk of which are really about planning. We need to consider the planning regime carefully and to consider how we might develop a working national park that would permit us to harmonise the local population's aspirations with sustaining the environment there.

The outlook is not all bleak. The main cause of correspondence between me and the authority in the North York Moors national park area has been planning. I did some research on the park authority's attitude to planning applications. In 1998–99, 87.5 per cent. of applications relating to the North York Moors area were approved. In 1999–2000, 86.3 per cent. of applications have been approved so far. Up to the end of March, of 96 applications submitted for developments relating to economic activity, 87 per cent. were approved. A sea change in the attitude of park officers has taken place. There is some realisation of the need for diversification in the rural community, away from the agricultural and tourism opportunities that have been traditional in the national park.

It would be remiss of me not to comment on the forthcoming rural White Paper. I hope that it will set out a clear vision and commitment to all rural areas, but I believe that the national parks should take a key role in carrying out the overall vision that I hope will emerge. The areas that we are considering this morning are sparsely populated, leading to social and economic underachievement, with a low level of services, and poor access to them across the board. The isolation of many of my constituents makes the services in question expensive.

We need to reconnect the most isolated communities in England and Wales to services. Investment in information technology infrastructure could provide opportunities for the parks' rural communities to gain access to information, services and training. Like many people, I shall observe with interest the development of rural post offices. However, we must not leave matters at that. We must recognise that national parks officers and the skills available in the national parks movement could make a vital contribution to the development of this important area.

In north Yorkshire a major new initiative has begun, in an attempt to make remote access a reality. It has been co-ordinated in conjunction with North Yorkshire county council and a wide range of partners, as well as the park authority. The project will enhance the local rural economy and give it a competitive advantage. It is attempting to build a shared base for capacity—an empowerment of local communities—and to maximise access to the full range of services for individuals, businesses and local organisations. The national authority is attempting to encourage tourism and to develop viable and improved access to local facilities. For example, the North York Moors national park has information points in village shops to encourage visitors to spend more time there. We want to see the brokering of integrated ticketing on public transport services within national parks.

Our authority is attempting also to engage with wider society with projects designed to mitigate the effects of social exclusion and to give better access to our wonderful landscapes to those in less favoured parts of the country. That is being done by the proactive management of the countryside and by promoting a better understanding of the parks. The North York Moors has a partnership of local disability action groups. That wonderful voluntary scheme allows local communities and the national park to work together to make footpaths and bridleways barrier free so as to allow greater access to the national parks for all, irrespective of people's physical ability.

The national park education service is developing links with urban schools in nearby Teesside and Hull. In-depth research, co-ordinated by Durham university, is being undertaken to examine how ethnic minority communities can be better linked to the national park service so that they can benefit from the recreational and other opportunities available in that wonderful part of Yorkshire.

Access to affordable housing within our national park is a tremendous problem for local residents. Parts of the park attract inward migration; people are tempted to retire to that marvellous environment or to buy second homes there and commute to nearby urban centres. Many of my constituents cannot afford to enter the local housing market, so I am pleased that the park authorities are now working with rural housing trusts, housing associations and other local organisations to provide new, affordable housing. However, lack of affordable housing remains a significant problem for my rural community.

The average asking price for houses in June 2000 was £128,000, and only 12 properties were on the market for less than £50,000. For those agricultural workers and skilled estate workers who earn less than £200 a week, those properties are simply out of reach. Time and again, people come to my surgery and ask how our young people can get started on the housing ladder. There are 90 villages in the North York Moors national park. Social housing schemes to provide for local housing needs are being developed at a rate of less than one a year. A proactive and accelerated approach is needed to deal with that problem. I referred earlier to the performance of planning authorities, so I am pleased that the North York Moors national park and other national parks have pioneered local policies to help provide housing for local communities and that the new North York Moors local plan seeks to develop that approach.

Another key problem in rural communities is transport. Although car ownership seems to be high, I shall repeat a phrase that I have used many times before—I note that the right hon. Member for Kensington and Chelsea (Mr. Portillo) used a similar phrase this morning—which is that the private road vehicle is now a necessity of life and not a luxury. It is worth putting that on the record; I have being saying it for five years.

Car ownership in rural areas—and national parks, in particular—is a necessity of life for many people. We all look forward to finding out whether my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer deals with that important point tomorrow. As I said, a significant proportion of the community—particularly the young and the elderly—do not have access to a car. Some villages in my constituency are lucky if they have one bus service to Whitby per week. The put down and collection point is right outside my office in Whitby. People from remote parts of the community have limited access to the cosmopolitan delights of Whitby—in the 21st century, that is not good enough.

Increased traffic levels, stimulated by the many visitors who visit the national parks area, is another problem. People who watch television will know of "Heartbeat", the 1960s police drama featuring the mythical village of Aidensfield. It is, in fact, Goathland and receives 2 million visitors every year. On the horizon is the filming of a Harry Potter story on the north Yorkshire moors railway. In terms of the possibilities for global tourism, the Minister and his colleagues should be aware that "we ain't seen nothing yet" in our part of the world.

The national parks have attempted to provide innovative solutions to traffic congestion. The North York Moors national park has co-ordinated the establishment of the Esk valley rail partnership. It is intended to secure the future of the Middlesbrough to Whitby rail link through increased patronage and to promote the future of environmental, economic and community benefits: it has made a vital contribution to local life.

The Minister should also note the nationally acclaimed moors bus service, which has been successful in encouraging visitors to leave their cars behind. It provides recreational access for nearby local communities with low levels of car ownership and could be an important springboard for the development of park-and-ride and park-and-tour solutions. We want to encourage people to leave their cars behind and enjoy the feeling of being out there, communing with nature, rather than experiencing a bank holiday traffic jam around the parks area. Many people would recognise the importance of that.

I urge the Minister and his ministerial colleagues with responsibility for the development of transport policy to consider my plea for a multi-modal transport study on the A64 transport corridor, which will directly affect the North York Moors national park. I have already mentioned the "Heartbeat" phenomenon and Harry Potter, but we also want more sustainable tourism in our part of the world.

I have much to say, and feel passionately about my subject, but I also want my many colleagues present today to talk about their areas. I have one final point for the Minister—about financing and the national contribution to the national parks areas. We hope that the review will result in the empowerment of local communities, but it will not be successful if we rely solely on the good will of the local community; we rely on a contribution from the national purse.

I understand that an announcement on the national parks grant will be made shortly. The national parks do not expect anything dramatic but, as a Member of Parliament, it is my job to highlight important issues. That is why I want to put firmly on record my belief that the success of the national parks service over the past 50 years is due to the development of efficient systems by some of the most enthusiastic staff I have encountered in public service in my part of north Yorkshire. Members of the park authorities are especially good at connecting to local communities' aspirations. The Association of National Parks Authorities spends public money well; it has developed the ability to work in partnership with private sector organisations as well as with other public sector bodies. It has a good record of bringing external funding to the parks areas, but it has lost objective 5b money. Although the national parks are willing, able and keen to assist in developing the Government's agenda for the environment, they will need financial assistance to do so.

As I said earlier, at present, the national parks get about £26 million a year from the national purse to sustain their work. That is a contribution of a few pence a week from every person in the land to the wonderful service offered by the national parks. I hope that the opportunities afforded by future rural development regulations will provide the Treasury with a good route to help mitigate the lack of growth in the contribution from the national purse.

I hope that the national parks will be able to gain access to that important potential source of money and that the Minister will contact his colleagues in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food urging co-operation with the national parks movement, at least to prove that there is a genuine attempt to bring about an integrated public service across the board. That would mean best value for the taxpayer and enhance the future potential for this vital part of the rural economy.

The Minister is welcome to join those who are passionate about the future of our national parks at a reception in the Jubilee Room this evening, where there will be further debate on the subject. You would also be most welcome, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

rose—

Order. Many hon. Members want to take part in the debate on this interesting subject. If contributions are reasonably brief, it will allow as many Members to speak as possible.

I shall try to abide by your strictures to be brief, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on securing this important debate on a subject that is close to the hearts of millions of people who visit the national parks.

I represent a large area of the Peak District national park; we estimate on good authority that we have about 22 million visitors a year, attendance levels about which the dome would be proud to be able to brag. If we could have a small proportion of the money that has been spent on that project, we would be very pleased.

I must take this opportunity to mention my constituents who are suffering as a result of the flooding, especially those in Rowsley, Bakewell and the appropriately named Ashford in the Water.

The Peak District national park is surrounded by three motorways the MI, the M6 and the M62, and by the A50, which has been upgraded almost to motorway standard. It is within an hour's drive of 50 per cent. of the population, and on some bank holidays it feels as if they are all there. That creates some special problems. The Peak district has a resident population of 38,000, second only to the Lake district's 42,000, which means that there is a tremendous amount of work for the national park to undertake. I examined the planning application figures in the annual report of the national parks authorities. In the Peak district in 1999–2000, there were some 900 planning applications and 800 approvals. As the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby rightly said, that often brings problems that have to be balanced and resolved.

Even if the Minister cannot respond in detail today, will he consider the problems caused by the large number of quarry applications in the Peak district? Naturally, those planning applications are detailed and complex. To consider only overall numbers of planning applications in deciding how a national park works does not reflect the amount of work involved. In normal circumstances, a quarry application takes three to four times longer to deal with than an ordinary application, creating a tremendous amount of work for the officers of the authority.

In discussing quarrying, it is important to note that a balance must be struck between residents, visitors who want to enjoy a park's beauty and, sometimes, the need to extract stone. I am not one of the fortunate few who have an office in Portcullis House, but those who have will have noticed its stone, which came from the Twyford quarry at Birchover in Derbyshire. The minerals used in some of our best buildings are extracted in the Peak district. A number of quarry applications before the national park authority are causing local residents a great deal of anxiety. It is important to strike a balance between them and other residents who are employed by the quarrying industry.

I was interested in the description of joined-up government provided by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. Joined-up government is not practicable when it means that the Peak district has to work with four different regions. The Minister looks puzzled, but it must be the only national park covered by four different Government regions: the east midlands, the west midlands, the north-west and Yorkshire. My experience of corresponding and negotiating with four different Government regions has not led me to believe in joined-up government in relation to the national parks.

There are 125 parish and town councils in the Peak District national park, and in considering the governance of national parks—I had not realised that the Minister had made this point about governance—I believe that a balance has now been struck. For many years, there was great local animosity because there were no local people directly on the national park authority. During the passage of the Environment Act 1995, I was pleased that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was then Secretary of State for the Environment, advanced proposals to enable parish councils to be automatically represented. That introduced an element of locally elected representation, but was attacked as not being the right way forward.

Whatever the results of the Minister's review of the governance of the national parks, I hope that that element of elected representation remains. Derbyshire county council once appointed eight people to govern the Peak District national park, only one of whom lived within the park area. It is important to get a balance of local representation. It is good to appoint people because they bring a national viewpoint to the debate, but we should not underestimate the need for local representation. It is important to understand that the national parks are not simply giant theme areas, but places where people have to live, work and earn their living. I believe that the right balance can be struck and that the competing arguments for and against development can be dealt with by having an element of local representation.

Will the Minister deal with transport, which the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned? When I was fortunate enough to be drawn quite high in the ballot for private Members' Bills, I pushed for a measure to give community transport the same kind of relief received by commercial operators. I was pleased that the Government announced such a measure in their transport plan, but so far we have heard no more about it. Will the Minister let us know what is happening to that proposal and when the community transport organisations can look forward to the fuel relief, which was announced before the House rose for the summer recess some four months ago?

The number of visitors to national parks, and the enjoyment that people get out of visiting them, should not be underestimated but neither should the problems of having so many visitors. One problem is that, despite their large numbers, they do not spend much, and so do not bring much wealth into the area. They come to the national parks and enjoy them, but they do not spend as much as we would like them to.

As the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby said, housing is a problem that must be addressed. There is a huge development at Carver Mill in my constituency, where Gleesons has restored a mill, which is being converted into homes. However, the cost of those homes is way beyond what locally employed people could afford. In addition, planning authorities may not allow planning applications for four-bedroom houses. That would restrict people whose families are growing. They might want to move around the area but face a blanket ban on such development.

The Peak district's attractive countryside undoubtedly contributes to surrounding areas, and I welcome this debate. That countryside exists not only because of the natural form of the land that we have inherited, but because of the way in which farmers have looked after it for generations. I fear for its future as I fear for that of agriculture in those tough areas, and I hope that the Minister will address some of those matters.

The Minister and I are perhaps the only Members present who do not represent national parks, although we share a great interest in them. We have almost adjoining constituencies and I often see him in one of the two northern national parks to which we are both frequent visitors. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on taking the initiative by raising the issue. I have the honour of chairing the all-party national parks group, and we will want to contribute to the review of the national parks that we understand is to be conducted in due course both as a group and as individuals.

Like the Minister, my hon. Friend and I both represent the north-east of England and we are lucky that, with a drive of an hour and a half, we can be in three of the national parks: Northumberland, Lake District and North York Moors. I know them reasonably well and spent a happy day in the summer accompanying my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby to the North York Moors national park, where I met the new national park officer, Andy Wilson, who, I am sure, will add to the excellence of the work there.

All the national parks do a great deal of good work, but I want to talk about national issues because the parks are national. Equally, we must recognise the duty of all national parks to foster the economic and social well-being of the local communities within them.

Therefore, I agree with the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that it is a question of balance.

Myhon. Friend referred to the national role of the national parks. Does he agree that, following devolution, there is a danger that the national parks, as a family, may be threatened? Does he agree that we must urge the United Kingdom Government and the National Assembly for Wales to recognise the common interests, aims and purposes of national parks, and to pursue a family approach?

It is desirable that the national parks work closely together. Indeed, all those in England and Wales do so under the Association of National Park Authorities, and we hope that those in Scotland will do so in due course. However, the devolution of power to the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament has brought about a new problem and we must ensure that the right balance is struck.

I would like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his courageous and, in my view, correct decision to uphold his own inspector's plan to introduce a 10 mph limit on Lake Windermere, where there are more than 6,500 registered motorboats. Life has become intolerable for those who do not use motorised boats, and the overwhelming majority of locals have applauded that decision. He should not be taken in by the vociferous group of people who are campaigning against that move, especially as I believe that the main objector is the man who has the sole concession to import the powerboats, the majority of which come from the United States.

The national parks must be national. They must also retain a responsibility for planning. We welcome the possible addition of national parks in Sussex and the New Forest, and I hope that the Government will stand firm and include planning in the remit of the national parks. Like the hon. Member for West Derbyshire, I have looked at the figures.

Myright hon. Friend has reached an apposite point. Land management is a crucial issue in relation to the forthcoming South Downs national park. Most of the destruction to the landscape that has occurred until now has been caused by common agricultural practice, which is bad practice; the deep ploughing of delicate downland soil is very destructive, not only to rare species, but to people. My constituents are suffering from run-off, which happens on ground that has been ploughed for winter cereals.

Order.

I will be one moment, Mrs. Michie.

Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please sit down? This is becoming a speech. Only short interventions are permissible.

Thank you, Mrs. Michie. I was trying to avoid a speech by making an intervention.

Does my right hon. Friend agree that one vital issue that the national parks can address is proper land management, which not only preserves the landscape but protects those people who are exposed to the dangers of bad practice? They pay for farmers' profits.

Obviously, I do not want to follow that route, but I understand the point. Planning is clearly the key aspect.

I want to make two points, the first of which concerns social exclusion. The national parks have an important role because of their infrastructure. The North York Moors national park runs 13,000 bus services a year. If the Government want to encourage social inclusion, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider the infrastructure within the auspices of the national park authorities, which can deliver services on time and at a price.

My final point concerns finance. We are all pleased that, following the comprehensive spending review, there will be a 10 per cent. increase in real terms in spending on the countryside and rural matters during each of the next three years and we look forward to the rural White Paper. However, I saw a letter from the head of the Wildlife and Countryside Directorate and was concerned that very little of that 10 per cent. increase is to be given to the national parks. I refer to a letter of 21 July from Miss Lambert suggesting that most of the money will go on wildlife management and laudable schemes, but if money is put into the national parks, it can provide excellent value for money and I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consider that.

I shall draw my comments to a close and allow hon. Members with constituency interests to speak.

Icongratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on initiating this important debate. It is a great pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) because he knows the national park to which I shall refer, as does the Minister, and I concur with his comments.

The purpose of my brief comments is to ask the Minister in his review of national parks to resolve the conflict between the demands of military training and the statutory obligations given to national park authorities. The Minister knows that the Northumberland and Brecon Beacons national parks have extensive military training areas and a considerable military presence. More than 20 per cent. of the Northumberland national park is owned by the Ministry of Defence. The demands of both bodies have been a recipe for conflict, which has caused considerable trouble and disquiet and has made the national park authority unpopular among local people.

When the military authorities submitted an application for substantial improvements to the infrastructure on the Otterburn training ranges, the Northumberland national park authority wanted to object, but could not for technical reasons, because the objections had to come from Northumberland county council. The duty of the national park authority is to preserve the area from such development, but the Ministry of Defence in Otterburn is the largest employer in the Rede and Coquet valleys and puts around £3 million into the local economy. That national park's stated objective is to look after the needs of local people and the conflict arises because it is opposing an essential development to maintain military training on the Otterburn ranges, which brings great economic benefit to local people.

The saga of the infrastructure improvements on Otterburn date from April 1996 when the plan was first submitted to allow the AS90 automatic mobile gun to be used in training on the ranges. The AS90 is effectively a large tank with a large gun mounted on it, and it needs special roads and infrastructure to operate on the Otterburn ranges.

The planning inquiry opened in April 1997, following the refusal of the county council to grant planning permission. A second inquiry was then deemed necessary by the Government. That ended in March 1999, when the inspector reported to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, who has been sitting on the planning application since May 1999. In the meantime, the Army has experienced serious difficulty in training troops on the AS90. Were it not for the fact that some AS90s are now deployed in Bosnia, where training is allowed to take place, the military would face a real crisis in bringing the crews operating the AS90s up to the standard required. That has led to huge uncertainty among people who work for or benefit from the Army in the national park area.

The MOD has an enviable record in maintaining the environment of military ranges. Anyone who knows those ranges—as I am sure that the Minister does—will be aware that the Army has an excellent conservation record. If military training had not taken place in this part of the national parks since 1910, I have no doubt that the whole area would have been afforested along with the neighbouring forests of Kielder and Wark. The conservation of the area can be well and safely looked after by the MOD.

A solution to the conflict between the military and the national park would be to take the military training areas out of the national park. I have favoured and recommended that solution for some time. However, that would remove 22 per cent. of the national park area and would make Northumberland national park, which is one of the smallest national parks—consisting of only some 400 square miles—unviable as a national park. The problem could be solved by including the Kielder forest, an area that was deliberately excluded when the national park was formed. When the Kielder forest—the largest man-made forest in Europe—was planted, it was deemed to be unsuitable for national park purposes because it was man-made.

That situation has changed because of the way in which the Forestry Commission is remodelling commercial forestry to make it vastly more environmentally friendly and much more attractive. The growth in tourism to the Kielder dam and the forest means that the area could happily be put into the national park to compensate for the park losing considerable powers over the Otterburn training ranges. I urge the Minister to consider that solution to resolve the conflict between the two bodies.

Icongratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on having secured this important debate. Its importance for those of us who do not yet have national parks in our areas is shown by the fact that four Members who represent Sussex constituencies covering different parts of the South Downs are hoping to take part in the debate—although I suspect that we have different views about the national park.

I welcome the decision by the Minister and his Government colleagues to listen and respond to the campaign that has taken place over several years to secure a national park for the South Downs, which, in 1947, was one of the areas suggested by the Hobhouse report for the first tranche of national parks and was the only area not included in the family of national parks that was created in 1949.

The history of the campaign predates that. In 1934, there was pressure for what we would now call a national park to be established for the South Downs by the landowners and the majority of the local authorities in the area, with one exception—Brighton borough council—which effectively prevented matters from going further. That was a twist of history, because Brighton and Hove council is the only local authority in the area that took the trouble to consult local residents on whether they wished to have a national park. The residents voted in favour of the proposal, which Brighton and Hove council is supporting in the face of opposition from other parts of the region.

Iam sure that the hon. Gentleman was not expecting to avoid the point that, of the 15 local authorities that cover the proposed national park area, only one—his own—is in favour of national park status. All the others, which are accountable to their democratically elected councils, oppose it.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for falling into the trap of making that intervention. He is right, but Brighton and Hove council is the only council that consulted its local residents. In many other local authorities, the decision to support the proposed national park was taken by council officers and rubber-stamped by a small committee of councillors. Indeed, in every case where a local authority held a public meeting concerning the proposed national park, the majority of those in attendance supported the proposal.

Why should the South Downs become a national park? There can be no doubt that the landscape is unique and needs protection. From Winchester to Eastbourne, the landscape is subject to all kinds of pressures, and needs the protection that only national park status can provide. The area is popular with visitors, and much more needs to be done to create a balance between the needs of conservation and recreation and of those who work there.

Thehon. Gentleman will be aware that some 32 million people a year currently visit the South Downs. Does he think that national park status will increase or reduce the number of visitors?

I think that we will have better management of recreation for the South Downs, which will affect the visitors. For example, thanks to good management, the number of visitors to the Norfolk Broads has in some respects declined since national park status was recently conferred on it. The creation of a national park does not necessarily lead, therefore, to an increase in the number of visitors.

Those who oppose a national park for the South Downs have built up certain myths about the way in which national parks are run. One such myth concerns local involvement in a national parks authority. It is suggested that such an authority is a form of quango that is run from Whitehall, but nothing could be further from the truth. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) expressed his support for the inclusion of parish council representatives as a move towards greater democracy in the management of national park authorities. Fifty per cent. plus one of the membership of such an authority consists of local, county and district councillors, and 25 per cent. minus one consists of parish council representatives. It is true that the remaining 25 per cent. are appointed, but as I understand it the chairman—or woman—of a national park authority is appointed by the authority itself, rather than Whitehall. Therefore, there is a degree of real local representation in national park authorities.

Another myth is that there will be a move away from local councils' involvement in the planning process. All who care about national parks regard the ability to form a strategic plan, through which the various conflicting interests of district councils and planning authorities are resolved, as one of their strengths. As I understand it, the situation that existed in the national parks until the 1995 Act was that the majority of planning decisions were devolved back to the individual local authorities. Following the 1995 legislation, the majority of local authorities decided to move in the opposite direction and to give greater decision making powers over strategic planning to the national park authority for their area. On both those counts, therefore, the opponents of a national park for the South Downs are creating myths that cannot be sustained by fact.

My final point is about funding. We have heard about the Government's contribution to funding, and I share the concerns that have been expressed about the need for that to be increased. However, it is often overlooked, especially in the important area of conservation, that a national park has access to lottery funding—or the ability to apply for it—and funding from the European Union, whereas bodies such as the South Downs Conservation Board do not. On the South Downs, therefore, conservation work would be enhanced by the possibility of attracting additional funding, not only from central Government but from sources from which the Sussex Downs conservation board is currently denied funds.

I pay tribute to the Sussex Downs conservation board for the work that it has done in the years since it was set up. It has done a lot, but its powers are limited, especially in relation to planning. It can be listened to, but it has no remit for decision making in terms of planning. A national park authority would have such a remit. That is why the campaign for a national park for the south downs is supported not only by my area's council, but by the Council for the Protection of Rural England, Friends of the Earth, the Ramblers Association, the wildlife trusts, the Youth Hostels Association, the Open Spaces Society, the Society of Sussex Downsmen, the Sussex Archaeological Society, the Sussex Wildlife Trust, and a host of other local and national organisations. I am glad that the Government have listened to those people.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on securing this debate, which has been a very level-headed one.

The debate takes place against the background of increasing building pressure on greenfield sites, an increasing demand for access to national parks as well as country and urban parks, an increasing threat to biodiversity both onshore and offshore, and increasing demands for safe food and the sustainable management of natural resources. All that points to the need for an increase in the number of national parks or—to put it a different way—for areas to be granted the degree of protection afforded to national parks. Greater investment is also required in the less prestigious local parks relied on by many people in urban areas such as mine. That has been well documented in the Select Committee's report on country and urban parks.

I shall focus first on national marine parks, to which other hon. Members have not referred. That is one of the major omissions in the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill. I am not suggesting that direct comparisons can be made between a species that is being fished commercially, such as cod, and other species worthy of protection. However, if cod is in such decline that whole sea areas might have to be closed to fishing, I dread to think what is happening to the less well known species. That is why action needs to be taken on national marine parks. I know that the Government have identified that as an issue, and that a working party was set up to examine it. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made on this important matter?

With regard to onshore national parks, the South Downs has been referred to, and there is also the question of the New Forest national park. The extension of protected landscapes and habitats will be welcomed, but only if local communities feel that their interests are also being safeguarded. I have some questions to which I hope the Minister will respond. Does he support proposals for the South Downs and the New Forest to become national parks? If so, what time scale does he envisage? Has he considered the funding implications for local authorities? What local community involvement would he envisage and has he made any attempt to assess the impact on access arrangements for existing and future visitors?

On the question of reforms to the way that national parks are structured, a number of hon. Members mentioned planning. How can more consultation be carried out with local communities? How can we ensure that the planning officers who carry out the work are more highly qualified? How can planning help to provide more affordable housing in these areas? There is also the question of national park rangers. I understand that they have no powers of enforcement. Do rangers demand or require additional powers of enforcement to protect wildlife in national parks? Is the Minister reviewing that issue?

One of the concerns that has been raised by various organisations in relation to national parks is bureaucracy. Leaving land in a will is an expensive, complex and lengthy process, which is a key problem when a possible extension to a national park is being considered. Do the Government have any plans to review that legal quagmire?

The public are increasingly concerned about the environment, biodiversity and also the quality of the food that is produced. Could national parks develop a campaigning role in promoting high-squality, possibly organic food that is grown in those areas on sustainably managed farms.

What encouragement will the Minister give to sustainable resource development in those areas, and what can be done to sustain rural employment? My hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Livsey), who has had to leave the Chamber, wanted me to make that point in relation to Wales, because he is concerned about a net outward migration, particularly of younger people. What can be done to help to promote skills that can be used in national parks, such as stone wall building?

The hon. Gentleman referred to his hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire, who was very pleased that the Welsh Assembly was to move to direct elections for national parks. Would the Liberal Democratic party welcome direct elections for all national parks?

I am happy for my Welsh colleague to pursue his agenda through the Welsh Assembly. That is what devolution is about. I will let him deal with that and I will concentrate on English matters.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

I am attempting to finish to allow time for other speakers and I shall not give way. I am drawing my comments to a close.

Another area to which hon. Members have referred is funding. I understand that Wales has received a significant boost to its national parks funding. Does the Minister expect similar action to be taken here? All hon. Members enjoy our national parks. The Minister must reassure us today that he will ensure that existing and future national parks, whether onshore or offshore, are adequately funded and sustainably managed, and that local communities thrive so that our children and grandchildren can enjoy them as much as we do.

Icongratulate the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) on securing this important debate. I was interested by the comments of the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) about offshore national parks, an idea that may well commend itself to the former Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson).

The debate has been very interesting and a veritable tour of the country. We have heard powerful contributions, and I am particularly pleased that Sussex is so well represented today. I can claim particular knowledge of two relevant areas. One is the North York Moors national park. I grew up in Yorkshire and, like the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby, have enjoyed visiting that national park. The other is the South Downs. My home in my constituency is on the very edge of the downs at Wannock and I get enormous pleasure, as I am sure other hon. Members in the Sussex area do, from walking regularly on the downs.

Today we have an excellent opportunity to celebrate the success of national parks. In particular I acknowledge the Council for National Parks, as it is now called—in 1936, when it began campaigning for national parks, it was the Standing Committee on National Parks. Its major contributions over the years are too many to mention, but they include lobbying for the extension of national parks and playing a role in the establishment of the 10 mph speed limit on Windermere in the Lake district.

The problem is that some national parks have become victims of their success, which has brought problems and challenges. The recent history of some national parks contains a message about the need for flexibility in the 21st century. We should tailor the excellent brand name of national parks to local needs and circumstances, as has happened in recent years in the broads, for example. A very different approach has been adopted there from that used in other national parks, exactly as one would expect given the special circumstances.

I attended a meeting with the hon. Members for Kemptown (Dr. Turner) and for Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) a year or so ago in this very building. It was addressed by Sir Chris Bonington, a distinguished supporter of national parks. He extolled the virtues of the new national park in the South Downs. It was a few days after his appointment by the Deputy Prime Minister to lead a task force to examine the problems in existing national parks, such as too many visitors, too much traffic, erosion, congestion and pollution. Those are the problems of success. It would have been pointless to set up the national parks without encouraging visitors.

I want to talk about the proposals for a South Downs national park, for three reasons. First, I know the area well and represent part of it. Secondly, it is the current live issue in the national parks context, along with the parallel proposals for the New Forest. Thirdly, perhaps the whole debate about the South Downs national park will inform a broader, and very important, debate about the future role and status of national parks. As I have explained, national parks are a concept that needs to develop and change in the light of new circumstances, not least, as the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby has said, the explosion in the ownership of private motor cars.

The issue that I have identified is not a new one. Originally, as the hon. Member for Pavilion pointed out, the South Downs was rejected when areas were being considered for national park status. The Countryside Agency's predecessors considered the issue twice, in 1956 and 1998. In 1992, of course, the Countryside Commission decided to establish the Sussex Downs conservation board, to which I join other hon. Members in paying tribute. It does an excellent job and shows tremendous commitment.

In 1998, the Countryside Commission again considered whether national park status would be appropriate for the South Downs, and concluded that designation was not especially desirable to ensure conservation and enhancement of the natural beauty of the area or to implement the necessary measures in respect of recreation and so on. It advised Ministers against designation as a national park. The new Government did not take that advice, and the process is thus on-going.

It is important, however, as the Countryside Agency stated recently, to focus on the factors that might make the area a proper place for a national park. They boil down to two criteria. The first is whether the area contains qualities

that might merit the provision of a markedly superior recreational experience.

No hon. Member who represents part of the area, or who has visited it, could argue that it does not. It is a wonderful area of recreational opportunities already enjoyed by many thousands, if not millions, of people every year.

The second criterion stated by the agency is that

designation will lead to a markedly better managed recreational experience than can be achieved by local authorities alone.

That is the key issue in this context. The document also states, rather in passing, that

some regard must be had to public opinion.

It continues that

designation as a national park for better protection, should be seen as carrying low priority.

It says that because national parks and areas of outstanding national beauty have similar protection under the existing rules.

It has rightly been said that planning issues are at the heart of the debate; that is the key to the future of the South Downs and other national parks. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) said that all the local authorities in the area, with the exception of Brighton and Hove, believe that they should continue to have a strong role in the planning process. That is not just because of democratic accountability, although that is important, but because they know the area and feel that they are best placed to take planning decisions.

The average figure for planning applications is roughly the same for national parks as for anywhereelse—about 80 per cent. That point was powerfully made by the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby. That is a double-edged sword. In the present circumstances, there will not be a major shift in the approach to planning. West Sussex county council, for example, made a strong case for joint local planning arrangements between a national park authority and the district authorities, possibly under section 62(2) of the Environment Act 1995. I should be interested to hear the Minister's views about that proposal.

The area in question is different from that of existing national parks. It is not a wilderness; it is heavily farmed and close to large centres of population. I am puzzled by the alleged advantages of national park status for recreation and access. We already have an estimated 32 million visitors a year, which is more than any of the existing national parks. The hon. Member for Pavilion seemed to think that we might end up with fewer visitors if the area was a national park, although I am not clear whether he thought that that was a good thing or a bad thing.

I advise the Government and others involved to be cautious about divining public support or opposition. There are some vociferous minority groups who are in favour of the proposal, and there have been some so-called public meetings that have not been representative of a cross-section of opinion. In my constituency, mainstream opinion is not in favour of a national park—almost every local authority in the area is against the idea.

We want a working and living community, not a theme park. Shakespeare said, "What is in a name?", which may be a wise approach. The need for national parks in the South Downs and the New Forest will be reviewed under the next Conservative Government.

Today is a time for celebration to mark the farsightedness and high ideals of those who started national parks; to congratulate existing national parks on their success; and to look to the future to establish whether, under the brand name "national park", we can produce a more democratic, more local and more workable system for the 21st century.

Ithank my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Quinn) for raising this important issue. He made an interesting speech and other hon. Members also raised important points. I shall attempt to address as many as possible in the available time, but if I cannot deal with all of them, I shall write to hon. Members.

Responsibility for national parks is one of the better elements of my diverse brief, as hon. Members have noticed. I am familiar with the North York Moors park because I holiday there from time to time. It is about an hour's drive from my home. I am in the process of walking in four stages from Holy island to the Lake district—a distance of about 250 miles. Thus far I have reached Shap, and the walk has taken me through three national parks, so I have some familiarity with the territory.

As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Waterson) said, the decision taken 50 years ago to ensure the conservation of our most precious areas of countryside was indeed far sighted and it is worth celebrating. Modern pressures make the conservation of these fine areas even more important—not only on account of their great beauty but because they provide people with somewhere to go away from the hurly burly where they can truly enjoy their leisure time.

As hon. Members have argued today, we must recognise that national parks are also places where people live and work, and the benefits of increasing the number of visitors must be reconciled with the interests of people living and working there. They are not incompatible, but we are all on a learning curve and as we go along we should try to achieve that balance.

National parks are a vital part of our heritage. Each is different from the others, and between them they offer beautiful countryside and a great range of experience in recreational pursuits. It may be that no single ideological model can be imposed on all of them. I acknowledge that in respect of the proposals for the South Downs and New Forest national parks. I have received a delegation and am taking careful account of all the different representations on the subject. I have made it clear that our minds remain open about what model will be adopted.

The Minister will be aware from some hon. Members' contributions that the National Assembly for Wales is, for the same reason that he proposed, considering possible variations in the model. If primary legislation is forthcoming, will the Minister bear in mind the need of the National Assembly for Wales for flexibility through order-making procedures? We want to ensure that we achieve a formula that is responsive to our area's needs.

I shall certainly bear that in mind, but many of my superiors would be annoyed if I made any commitments about future legislation.

In view of the Government's current initiatives, today's debate is timely. The initiatives include the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, the introduction of rural development plans for England and Wales, the forthcoming rural White Paper and the policy review of national park authorities, which I recently announced. The review will be similar to other Government sponsored policy reviews. I expect it to cover a range of issues, including the parks' governing structures, overall policy relating to legislation that affects the parks, and the future distribution of funding. We want to ensure that the national park authorities remain forward looking, dynamic, open and innovative.

National parks contribute much to the social and economic fabric of rural areas. Tourism is just one example; it is an industry that is becoming increasingly important in rural areas. It supports about 380,000 jobs compared with just over 500,000 in agriculture, and it makes a vital contribution to the local economies of all the national parks and to the rural economy in general. In accordance with their statutory purpose, the national parks are keen to promote greater enjoyment of all their special qualities by everyone, in a responsible fashion. I hope that they will be seen as models in promoting sustainable tourism.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sorry, I have very little time.

Public transport projects are a key factor in tourism. My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby mentioned the North York Moors bus scheme and the leading role taken by the Esk valley rail partnership.

Several hon. Members mentioned the need for social inclusion. That operates two ways: first, it means making the parks available to people from all backgrounds and in all income groups; secondly it means taking account of the interests of those on low incomes who live in the parks, including their need for decent local transport and affordable housing. It is imperative that we send out the clear message that the national parks are for everyone. Efforts are being made to make the parks more accessible to all by public transport, particularly disabled visitors. We are also keen to encourage greater involvement by minority ethnic communities. The Government are playing their part in that by broadening the membership of national park authorities to make them more representative of the social and cultural mix of the countryside at large.

There has been some talk about the use of cars. These days the Conservative party is posturing as the party of the motor car, but that is rather irresponsible. We need to make more sensible use of the car. Everyone recognises that cars are essential, especially for those who live in rural areas, but we can do much to make more sensible use of them.

There have long been stricter planning controls in the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, particularly in respect of major development. There are also tighter controls over permitted development rights in the parks. Those additional controls are needed to reflect the special features and qualities of protected landscape areas, and they have proved their worth. I know that concern is often expressed locally about the national park authorities' interpretation of planning controls, but it is a difficult balance to strike. Well over 80 per cent. of planning applications in national parks are granted. The Countryside Agency offers special training seminars for authority members on planning matters, so that the national experience can be more widely shared.

The new national parks have been mentioned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper) said, a number of myths exist about national parks. I agree with the hon. Member for Eastbourne that parks are living communities, not theme parks. The Government are considering the possible designation of two new national parks, and the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) asked about the timetable for that. We intend the designation order for the New Forest to be produced in late 2001 and that for the South Downs to be published in the spring of 2002. It will then be for the Secretary of State to consider the orders, with any representations that may have been made, and to decide whether public inquiries are needed before final decisions are taken.

The national parks have received a real terms increase of about £5 million in funding over the past 10 years, and further increases will be announced shortly. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark) said that extra money will be available—about 10 per cent. a year—but we must bear in mind the fact that some of that will be consumed by the extra responsibilities that will arise under the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill, particularly the access provisions of which he is a strong supporter. Everyone expects us to fund authorities properly and not just impose extra responsibilities on them. In any case, the parks benefit from many other aspects of Government policy. We are putting a lot of money into rural buses and, through the Housing Corporation, into affordable housing, which is an important issue not only in national parks, but in all parts of the country. It is not true—

Order. I am sorry to stop the Minister in full flight, but we must now move to the next debate.

Iam grateful for the opportunity to debate this issue, which is causing great concern against a background of unprecedented conditions as a result of persistent slow-moving rain. About 30 mm fell in a 12-hour period between the afternoon of Thursday 2 November and the early hours of Friday 3 November, and 50 mm fell on the northern Pennines and the North Yorkshire moors. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) regrets that he cannot be with us. He has suffered similar flooding to that in the Vale of York.

I congratulate the Environment Agency, the police and other emergency services, 38 Royal Engineers based at Ripon, local radio stations and others on all the assistance that they gave in last weekend's emergency, which is on-going. My heart goes out to all those affected: the flooding of one's home and possessions must be one of the greatest disasters that can affect an individual or a family. I accept that the Environment Agency has worked extremely hard and provided 24-hour coverage to improve flood warnings. However, that is no consolation to my constituents in the Vale of York who have been flooded.

There was a flood awareness campaign during September and a number of meetings were held during flood awareness week beginning on 11 September. Regrettably, no meeting was held anywhere in the Vale of York, but plastic cards that float have been issued. My constituents must be reassured that, if their houses are flooded, the cards will be there on their return. However, improving flood warnings is no substitute for better flood defences.

The system seemed to break down in one respect: Rawcliffe was completely overlooked and constituents there feel neglected. The flood defences were breached in the late hours of Friday night and the early hours of Saturday morning, 4 November. A request went out for sandbags to be provided, but it fell on deaf ears. For a number of understandable reasons, priority was given to the city of York, but no clear warning was given to Rawcliffe residents.

I am delighted that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is present, because I would like him to clarify his comments in Hansard yesterday. Referring to me, he said:

Much of her constituency is a flood plain and its flooding has taken a great deal of pressure off urban areas.—[Official Report, 6 November 2000: Vol. 356, c. 31.]

I would like an assurance that it is not all right to flood the Vale of York to save the city of York. That is causing a great deal of distress, particularly in Rawcliffe.

As I said, no sandbags were provided and no adequate warning was given. Social services were not involved on either Saturday or Sunday: they intervened only at a very late stage. Rawcliffe parish council could not have done more to help the evacuees. I went to a centre in St. Mark's grove in Rawcliffe, which is where the police were told to direct evacuees. However, I had to intervene in the case of a couple that had nowhere to go because social services were not present. I gather that people from social services did not explain why they had not been present until late yesterday. In future, there should be greater communication between the services involved.

An array of bodies has responsibility for flood defences, including the Environment Agency, local authorities and internal drainage boards. The Library research note that was prepared for me on 3 November states:

Provision of flood defences relies on a partnership between Government and local operating authorities.

The involvement of that array of bodies with varying responsibilities makes for a complicated system and a confusing funding mechanism.

The funding arrangement that I would particularly like the Minister to consider is the revenue support grant. In the 1997–98 financial year, the flood and coastal defence element of the revenue support grant totalled £225.4 million. When the Local Government Association recently gave evidence to the Select Committee on Agriculture, it agreed that, although it is reasonable to maintain the existing standard spending assessment methodology, additional safeguards are needed to reflect within-year changes in local authorities' spending on their flood defence systems in SSAs for subsequent years. The association believes that that would allow for consistency and certainty under the SSA procedure in strategic planning and flood defences.

The flood defence income and expenditure figures for the accounting year that ended on 31 March 2000 show that a loss was incurred in Yorkshire. Total expenditure as a percentage of the total was 22.8 per cent., whereas income was only 21.6 per cent. I am worried because the £51 million that the Government have provided, although welcome, is to be spread over four years, and £51 million is substantially less than a quarter of the total spending on flood defences in any one year, and will probably be insufficient for the unprecedented flooding crisis that we have faced.

The Minister said yesterday that the Vale of York is substantially within a flood plain area. That is apparent from the most recent indicative flood plains map, prepared by the Environment Agency in 1999, a copy of which I received in August this year. The breaching at Rawcliffe of Blue beck, causing the flooding into Rawcliffe grove, Shipton road and other areas, was apparently aggravated by the large number of houses that have been built in recent years. Will the Government consider imposing an immediate moratorium on the building of new homes on flood plains such as the Vale of York until an estimate can be made of the damage incurred?

I am sure that the Minister is aware of the impact of the flooding on the farming community—which is already in the depths of a crisis. As we have seen in the Vale of York, protecting towns often means that rural areas are flooded, including highly productive agricultural land. For example, a total of 1,000 acres across five farms on the Crown estate at Boroughbridge have been flooded. That area is not a flood plain, but prime land on which is grown potatoes, sugar beet and cereals. Many crops will not be harvested, and tenants and landowners in those areas face huge losses. Everyone agrees that it is vital to protect homes from flooding—it is the most personal disaster that can affect a constituent. However, some form of compensation must be paid—not necessarily from the flood defence budget; perhaps from the rural development fund—to those whose incomes and livelihoods have been sacrificed in this way.

The new money that the Government have announced is appreciated. However, will the Minister confirm that it is not merely a levy on the existing county council SSA, that it will be paid directly to the flood defence committee of the Environment Agency, and that part of it will be paid to the highway authorities?

Floods have damaged many roads and bridges in the Vale of York, which was cut in two. Aldwark bridge is being repaired, Cundall bridge was flooded and impassable, and the A68 has been impassable for the best part of a week. Will emergency funds be made available not just to the Environment Agency's flood defence committees but to the highway authorities, so that they can quickly repair flood damage to roads and bridges?

New defences in Boroughbridge have been put severely to the test, although as I speak they seem to be holding. However, most of the flooded properties in Langthorpe, which is slightly lower than the adjacent defences, could probably have been saved if the Aldborough Ings scheme had been put into operation. Can the new money be made available to compensate landowners and tenants on the Ings for the inconvenience caused by temporary flooding?

There are problems in Boroughbridge. The floodline warning has proved inadequate in certain respects. The quality of information has not been sufficiently or frequently upgraded, and that has caused alarm. Flood information was often six hours old. 1 phoned the floodline on Friday evening, but Boroughbridge was not mentioned—Milby was referred to, but that is an appreciable distance away. In the past, information was given on the height of water passing under a bridge, but since the flood warning was changed that has no longer been provided. Regrettably, portable road signs were not available in Boroughbridge, so when the bridge was closed local people had to use hand signals to divert traffic, thereby incurring abuse from passing motorists.

Is the Minister aware that the Boroughbridge pumping station is controlled by a computer that is located in York? Recently, the computer failed and manual intervention was required, which led to various operational defects. Moreover, does the Minister realise that the recently installed barrage, which prevents debris passing under the bridge, could cause a sudden rush of water and lead to flooding further down the river?

As of yesterday, 50 residential properties in the Hambleton district had been evacuated, and their occupants rehoused or cared for in other sites. More than 250 other homes in Hambleton have experienced flooding, but as yet it has not been necessary to evacuate the owner-occupiers. According to Broadacres housing association, many homes that were affected by the flood had no house contents insurance, so it will be impossible to make any claim. That is a particularly worrying problem, which doubtless is not unique to the Vale of York. As the Minister will know, if an act of God—such as flood or fire—is deemed to have occurred, many of the losses are uninsurable. That has a substantial financial impact on people who can ill afford it.

I urge the Minister to discover whether, for example, dredging still takes place on rivers such as the Ouse, which used to be dredged frequently. Are local drains being cleared as often as in the past? I make a special plea for the strengthening of flood defences at Aldborough Ings and Clifton Ings, which would protect Rawcliffe. I hope that the Minister, the local authorities and all the relevant services will pay particular attention to rural areas and city outskirts such as Rawcliffe and Clifton. If possible, nowhere should be flooded, and when unprecedented conditions occur in future, sandbags must be made available to all who are affected, come hell or high water. Will the Minister consider a temporary moratorium on house building on flood plains, until we have the opportunity to assess what damage has been caused to constituencies such as the Vale of York?

On the subject of rehousing the evacuees as soon as is physically possible, can we be assured that there will be no health risk? Will the local authority, the Environment Agency or Yorkshire Water be responsible for particles of sewage being removed from people's homes? The water level is about to peak this afternoon. If the sewerage works at Rawcliffe were to burst its banks, the damage to the houses in Shipton road and to other neighbouring facilities would not bear thinking about. Help must obviously be sought, and we seek guidance from the Minister this morning.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on securing this debate. It is very timely, given the present circumstances in her constituency and nationally.

As the hon. Lady rightly said, these extreme conditions have been caused by some of the most severe floods that this country has experienced in half a century. Moreover, they are affecting areas right across the country. They have put local authorities, the emergency services, the Environment Agency and voluntary groups under severe pressure. The latest position, reported to me this morning by the Environment Agency, is that 4,725 properties have been flooded in England and Wales. There are 45 severe flood warnings and 231 flood warnings in force. That shows the scale of the flooding and of the demands that it is making on the agency.

Yorkshire has been especially badly affected by the recent floods. The county experienced exceptionally heavy rainfall in October, and that has continued into November with the present rain belts. Nearly all Yorkshire is on flood watch, and flood warnings or severe flood warnings are in force on many rivers. The situation is changing constantly as the rivers respond to the recent rainfall, and I am afraid that more rainfall is expected in the next few days.

As the hon. Lady may know, I visited York last Friday, and I was in Selby last Saturday. The surrounding area was also visited by my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister. We have seen the effects of the flooding first hand, and the misery that it has caused those people who have been affected.

The one bright side to the situation is that the flooding would have been a lot worse but for the improvements that have been made to flood defences in recent years. The defences constructed in York after the serious floods of 1982 have been seriously tested, but they have managed to operate beyond their design capacity, and they continue to protect about 1,000 houses. As the hon. Lady said, substantial protection has also been given to Boroughbridge in her constituency, where I am glad to say the defences have held. However, as she also pointed out, about 50 properties in Rawcliffe and about 20 in Milby have been flooded. Flood warnings were issued in those locations, but I would like to extend my personal sympathy to all those people who have been affected. I appreciate the impact that this has had on them.

I shall deal with some of the specific points that the hon. Lady raised. The Environment Agency has issued warnings to people who live in flood risk areas, and those cards were important because they explained exactly what the warnings and the symbols meant, and what action should be taken in case of a flood. They also had the flood watch number on them. That service has been very successful, because it has allowed people to ring and obtain the information to which the hon. Lady referred. People want information: they want to know what is going on in their area, what the risks are and what the local river is doing. The agency has done a very good job in that respect.

The hon. Lady asked about the availability of much wider information on road closures and so on, and I am not saying that we cannot consider such issues when the circumstances have calmed down and returned to normal. We may be able to improve on those provisions in future, and there may be areas in which we could do better. The agency will review the situation, when it has returned to normality, and I shall ensure that the hon. Lady and all other hon. Members in affected areas receive a copy of the conclusions.

The hon. Lady mentioned the flood plain in the Vale of York. I do not want her and her constituents to get the impression that it is acceptable for them to be flooded to save the city of York or other people. That is not what the Government or the Environment Agency believe, but flood plains are part of our natural defences in flood management. Flood meadows and plains will flood as they have always done and may have flooded more in the past than now. They are a natural feature of the environment and many farmers use cropping and grazing regimes that work in harmony with annual winter flooding, although there have been huge changes over the years with intensification and a move to arable farming. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has played a role in that over the years by providing grants for draining fields or for switching from winter grazing to arable crops. The Ministry has played its part over the decades, but we must think more about sustainability and its impact.

Does the Minister accept that there is a case for grants to be made available to farmers on this occasion, and will he agree to press for a moratorium on house building on flood plains until we can assess the damage?

I shall come to what we can do to help farmers in the current situation and the arrangements for flood defences.

Our prime concern is to protect lives and property. Farmers may suffer loss, but the degree of loss depends on how long floodwater remains and the strength of the flood. The strength of the present floods will have a great impact on farmers wherever land has flooded.

We have given some thought to the funding arrangements and to the standard spending assessment in relation to regional flood defence committees and levies, and we have considered whether that is the most efficient method. The methods of funding flood defences will be reviewed and we shall produce a report. The present methods work well, and local people are involved through their local representatives and local authorities, which decide local priorities. That is a strength of the system, but I am not saying that there have not been problems. One is that local authorities are sometimes reluctant, for a variety of reasons, to pass the increase in the levies—it was above inflation in the previous standard spending assessment—to regional flood defence committees. That can cause problems.

I confirm that the £51 million over four years is new money from the Government's reserves and will not come from county council or local authority allocations. It will be predominantly for capital programmes for flood defence work and some will be used for whole catchment area planning. It is not destined for highway authorities for road or bridge replacement or repair, for which there are separate budgets. That £51 million, on top of increases already announced for the flood and coastal defence budget, means that we shall be able to grant-aid more flood defence schemes, and we shall want to give priority to river systems.

The hon. Lady referred to schemes in her constituency. It is for local and regional flood defence committees to decide their local priorities, work out schemes in conjunction with the Environment Agency and submit them to the Ministry for grant aid according to the criteria that we apply—engineering standards, cost benefit analysis and other criteria with which they are familiar. I am sure that they will consider those matters in their areas and take action accordingly.

The £51 million and the Ministry's budget for flood control are not intended to compensate people who have been affected by floods. The Government do not have the facility to help with insurable risks. No Government have ever done that, and we cannot do so. However, we can help local authorities with the exceptional expenditure that many of them will face as a result of the floods. Bringing out emergency work teams, rehousing people and dealing with storm and flood damage involve exceptional costs. The hon. Lady will be aware that I announced yesterday that the Bellwin formula is to be boosted. The Government will now accept 100 per cent. of exceptional spending over the Bellwin threshold. Moreover, there will be the possibility of advance payments to help local authorities, and their claims will be dealt with as speedily as possible in future. That point was put to me by local authorities on my travels.

Information on road signs is a matter for local authorities. I note her point about the barrage holding back debris. The agency is keen to get that debris out of the water. I saw the Foss barrier when I visited York.

Three members of staff were working around the clock in the rain removing tonnes of debris, including dead cattle, sheep and trees. Debris must be removed from the water; it must not be allowed to go down the rivers to jam under bridges, turning them into dams. The agency is well aware of that and is working very hard. Keeping the drains clear is a matter for local authorities. Dredging is a matter for the Environment Agency and the drainage authorities, which give it careful consideration. However, dredging channels would make only a marginal difference given the scale of these floods.

The Government recognise that in the recent flooding farmers may have lost crops that they intend to include in a claim under the arable area payments scheme in 2001. If they intend to re-sow the crops and if there is exceptional rainfall throughout the winter and into the spring, we shall seek any necessary extension of the latest sowing date after 31 May. If farmers want to put the flooded land into set-aside and need flexibility on the requirement to have green cover, which is one of the rules of set-aside as the hon. Lady will know, they should contact their local regional service centre. Exceptionally, because of the situation, we are prepared to allow flooded land to be set aside up to 100 per cent. of the area claimed. Any farmers in that position should contact their regional service centre. We are using our national discretion to deal with the situation. I think that farmers will find that helpful. The National Farmers Union has asked us to implement those measures, and I shall issue a press release so that farmers are aware of the changes that we will make.

I join the hon. Lady in paying tribute to local agencies and local authorities, which have informed people about what has been happening. Local radio stations have also played a great role. On sandbagging, if the Environment Agency has spare capacity and time, it is only too happy to help out, but given the extent of these floods, the priority had to be to shore up defences that were under threat of collapsing. It is not the Environment Agency's responsibility to give sandbags to local houses; it is the responsibility of the local authority. I am quite sure that the hon. Lady will take that matter up with her local authority.

I have realised from my travels that the facility to get sandbags is important to local people. It is something tangible that gives them some security. Local authorities need to make sandbags available. However, to be fair, filling them is time consuming, and when flooding occurs local authority staff are obviously doing other things. In some parts of the country the Environment Agency has machines to fill sandbags and is only too pleased to co-operate with local authorities. The same applies to the provision of social services and facilities such as help with rehousing. The environmental health authorities, insurance companies and sewerage companies will help with cleaning up sewage pollution. If floorboards need to be replaced, that is a matter for insurance companies.

The conditions that have come about are exceptional and the response, by and large, has been good. We shall think about what lessons we can learn, what we have done well and what could be improved.

I am delighted that I have been fortunate enough to be able to raise this important issue for my constituents.

Charlie Chaplin said:

The story of the cinema is not simply entertainment for the ordinary men and women in Britain's towns and villages, it is as much the history of the 20th century.

In Reading, history shows that the cinema now known as the ABC was built in 1927. It was built for silent movies, perhaps rather late in the silent movie era, and the equipment for talkies was fitted later. The building contained, and still contains, a ballroom with a sprung floor and a cafe at the end. In the 1950s the building was one of nine cinemas in Reading, comprising 13,000 seats and showing more than 30 films every week. At that time the ABC was the home of the MGM musicals, which have had an enduring appeal, and of films such as "Casablanca", originally devised as a propaganda film for the second world war but now rightly regarded as a classic. The ABC cinema later became the Reading home of Rank films.

I am indebted to Mr. Roy Smith, known in Reading as "Mr. Cinema", for the information that I have used. Mr. Smith worked as a projectionist in most of Reading's cinemas and elsewhere. I pay tribute to his tireless efforts to preserve some of Reading's cinematic heritage. Mr. Smith attributes the decline in cinema in Reading that was going on until a few years ago to the entertainment tax introduced in the late 1950s. That added between 17 and 24 per cent. to the price of a cinema ticket at a time when competition from television was starting to be felt.

Leaving the history of the 20th century and moving to the 21st century, cinema patronage has increased in Reading, as elsewhere in the country. It was thought in the 1980s that the rise in video rentals and home video ownership would kill off cinema, but the opposite is true. Video has cross-fertilised with mainstream cinema and more and more good British and international films are being made.

Reading now has one multiplex cinema, in the centre of the city—I use the word "city" advisedly—with 10 screens and 2,000 seats. The ABC closed as a cinema in early 1998 when it became clear that the multiplex was coming. The ABC site has received planning permission to become a private health club, and stories that I believe to be well founded are circulating in Reading that it is also being eyed for development into flats. That fate befell the other town centre cinema in Reading, the Odeon, which also closed recently.

I began with a quotation from Charlie Chaplin, a key figure in cinema, about history, and have tried to give a brief history of cinema, particularly that of the ABC in Reading. However, the point of the debate is not history but the future. I do not want to be seen as promoting a luddite wish to turn back the clock. I am not someone who refuses to see the advantage of change. The multiplex is a fine place to see films. I do not think that I have ever sat in a more comfortable cinema seat. I remember the cinemas of my youth, which were far from comfortable or clean. Going to the cinema these days is quite different, and so much better.

However, even though there are 10-screen multiplex cinemas, many films do not get the showing that they deserve. Although they probably would not attract several hundred people several nights a week, they have a great influence on subsequent and more popular film making. The audience for art films is smaller than that for mainstream films, and people have to travel a long way to see them.

A recent example of such a film, although it would not necessarily be called an art film, was "Love's Labours Lost", made by Kenneth Branagh, who grew up in Reading. The film was shown at Reading university's film theatre but not at the multiplex and it did not have a general release, which is a great pity. It is a pity, too, that the film could not have a premiere in Reading, which is what Kenneth Branagh wanted, as he said when he came to Reading and spoke about it at an event that was held at Reading university's film theatre. Kenneth Branagh expressed his firm support for people who wanted to save the ABC as an arts or community cinema.

Similarly, there are other audiences that are are not catered for by the multiplex and mainstream cinemas. Reading has a sizeable Asian population, which has almost no opportunity to see "Bollywood" films at the cinema, as there is no longer a screen that shows them. Although there is a flourishing video market in such films for home viewing, Asian families enjoy going out together to the cinema to see the films that they enjoy, which they cannot do at present. The sizeable Asian population in other nearby towns would also appreciate a cinema showing the films that they want.

Both Reading university and the Reading college and school of arts and design have media and film studies courses, where students learn about making films. I declare an interest, as my son directs and acts in some of those films. However, those aspirant film makers have no venue where their work can be shown and where they can get feedback from the public. That is important for young film makers and artists who feel passionately that they have a message to get across to the public. It is a pity that they can show their films only to each other or to half a dozen friends, and then only when they can get hold of what is often primitive projection equipment.

We do not know what Steven Spielbergs, Francis Ford Coppolas and Francois Truffauts of the next generation might be lost to cinema by being disheartened at the lack of opportunity for showing their work. What new Kenneth Branagh or Kate Winslet, who also grew up in Reading, will be lost because they did not have the chance to practise their craft along with student film makers?

Film and cinema are not only about artists; as I said, it is a matter of record and of history. Reading is also home to the community film makers Real Time, who record their community, and involve people from all walks of life in making films. This weekend, I shall join them to be interviewed by Reading's gay and lesbian youth group, Reachout, for a film funded by Reading borough council about what it is like to be young in Reading. Reading, East is one of the youngest constituencies in the country; films like those that I have mentioned deserve to be seen, but at present there is nowhere for them to be shown.

The ABC is more than a cinema; as I said, it also has a ballroom with a sprung floor, which was well used in the 1930s. Many of my constituents have fond memories of dancing there in their young days, and of meeting their future husbands and wives on the dance floor. The ballroom could now house all kinds of dance, from tea dances to salsa, the current dance craze. It could provide hanging space for local artists and it already has a cafe. Reading has many public houses, but people tell me that we should have more cafes—more places where we can spend the evening drinking coffee. The dance floor could also provide rehearsal space for dance artistes, young and old. Reading has a thriving amateur and youth theatre scene, but those people have nowhere to put on their plays. The ABC could offer that. Again, I declare an interest, as my son is active in Reading Youth Theatre.

I know that I have expanded a little beyond the title of the debate, which is on arts cinemas in Reading. I have shown that the ABC cinema could provide a venue for art cinema there, but I have also shown that it could provide so much more; as well as providing a venue for community cinema and an outlet for student and community films, it could be a general arts centre.

I know that my hon. Friend the Minister knows of the ABC building, because it was assessed by English Heritage in April 1999. We hoped that the building would be listed, as people in Reading felt strongly that it had merit. English Heritage made several favourable comments about the building, describing the front elevation as "stylish"—although it was somewhat altered in the 1970s to create the three-screen cinemas that were popular at the time. It described the cafe stairs as a good 1920s piece of design—a style pleasing to the eye that we do not see often enough nowadays. However, although it was acknowledged that the ABC cinema has merit, it seems that it will not be listed and, therefore, may not be preserved.

I hope that other innovative ways may be found not only to preserve the building for arts and community use but to allow various groups to work together to let the building continue to contribute to Reading's cultural life, as it has done throughout most of the 20th century. Some of those who are interested in saving the cinema have formed a committee, which has already approached various bodies in search of support and funding. I hope that, as a result of any publicity generated by this debate, more people will come forward. Since it was reported in Reading's Evening Post that I had secured the debate, I have been contacted by many constituents who support the move, and I have forwarded their details to the committee.

The first part of the debate's title on the Order Paper is the dreaded phrase—it will certainly be dreaded by the Treasury—"Government support". I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to say now whether funding or other support will be made available to rescue the ABC building for use as a centre for arts excellence. Instead, I hope that she will be able to say who else could be approached for funding. I hope, too, that she will give us the Government's view on community and art film making and on how young student film makers could be supported.

I have written to my hon. Friend requesting a briefing on the matter, and I hope that some preliminary information will be made available—soon, if not today—that will allow the campaigners to make a start on raising the necessary funding. However, not only money is needed. Other advice will be needed to put together a business plan. For instance, a surveyor will need to inspect the cinema to determine the building's condition, and legal and financial advice will be required, so any information on where such assistance could be found would help.

I mentioned earlier that Reading, East has many young constituents. One reason is that Reading university is located mostly within the constituency's boundaries, and almost all the 12,000 students live in the area. That is why the club scene, the music scene and the arts scene flourish in Reading. However, it is not the only reason. I said also that two stars of film, Kenneth Branagh and Kate Winslet, both grew up in Reading. There is considerable talent—and not only young talent—in Reading. People involved in creative work are always looking for venues. A prosperous place such as Reading brings in people all the time—to work, to study and to enjoy their leisure. That puts pressure on various spaces—housing, and particularly cultural space. The demand for housing leads developers to view a cinema as a potential space for building flats that could be sold at a higher price.

I hope that I may continue to work with my friends in the constituency, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can provide some helpful advice today.

I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) for initiating this debate. She has highlighted the importance to local communities of venues such as the ABC in Friar street. I want to reassure her that the Government support such venues and want to ensure that that specific venue continues to be available to her constituents for a wide variety of activities.

My hon. Friend wrote to me in October, following a meeting with Margaret Schreiber who was leading a group to examine the future prospects of the ABC in Friar street. My hon. Friend also paid tribute to Roy Smith's efforts to preserve the cinematic heritage of Reading. It was interesting to hear that Kate Winslet and Kenneth Branagh grew up in Reading, which obviously has a long history of achievement in the film world. It was also interesting to hear that the ABC in Friar street has a ballroom with a sprung floor. I have one in my constituency for tea dances, and it is very popular. I wish my hon. Friend good luck.

It may help if I briefly set out the Government's position. The Government are keen to promote arthouse cinema, both as a means of encouraging new ideas and innovative approaches in the film industry, and as an opportunity for dedicated cinemagoers to enjoy a wider choice of film. Before today, I acquired details of some of the films that have been shown since the beginning of October, which clearly demonstrates the wide range of films shown and made available to people in my hon. Friend's constituency.

My hon. Friend referred to "Love's Labours Lost", which was shown at the ABC. I share her concern about such films' not being on general release. She also mentioned the need of her Asian constituents to view films from what is now described as "Bollywood"—a huge sector of film making. The Bollywood awards took place earlier this year at the dome in Greenwich.

Because of our concern about such matters, my Department produced a strategy for film. Let me assure my hon. Friend that that strategy incorporates a strong regional commitment because we want to ensure increasing public access to cinema throughout the UK. One aspect of our strategy is to establish the Film Council under the chairmanship of the highly able British film director, Alan Parker. I can think of no one better for that role. One of the Film Council's tasks, under Alan's chairmanship, is to take account of the cultural as well as the commercial film industry. The ABC in Friar street is achieving precisely that.

One aspect of the Film Council's regional strategy is to provide a more effective network between the film bodies in each of the English regions. The council has been allotted £6 million a year, for three years starting from April 2001, for a new regional investment fund. It will facilitate new film structures in each region with the capacity to determine their own industrial and cultural priorities for cinema exhibitions and film education.

The council will expect regional agencies to produce business plans so that there is a firm structure for the future development of film in the English regions. Funds currently distributed to the regions by the British Film Institute for investment in archives, education and cinema exhibition will in future come under the Film Council, which will prioritise the areas of need. It aims to provide a broader audience with access to a wider range of films, which the organisation that runs ABC certainly seems to be doing.

In addition to regional funding, the new cinema fund with a budget of £5 million was launched in October by the Film Council to support and nurture new talent and to encourage cutting-edge and experimental film making. I hope that my hon. Friend can get some assistance from it and I shall write to her with details of how that may be done. I sympathise with her, because I also have a son who is an aspirant film maker. The more opportunities our young people have, the better. The new cinema fund, which will help young people, will operate highly collaboratively, with partners drawn from right across the private and public sectors. That seems to be the sort of partnership that is developing in my hon. Friend's constituency.

I turn to the all-important subject of funding. My hon. Friend has written to me about the possibility of converting the ABC cinema in Friar street into a combined arthouse cinema and arts centre, as she outlined in her speech. The Film Council is keen to support arthouse cinema as an art form, but does not currently provide funding for capital projects. Therefore, when my hon. Friend secured this debate, I took it on myself to investigate areas or bodies from which we might be able to find the funding that she and her constituents seek.

The Arts Council's regional arts lottery programme provides support for organisations requiring funding of less than £100,000 for capital projects, including building work. I shall write to my hon. Friend with details of that programme. In any case, it might be helpful for my hon. Friend and the group in her constituency to discuss the proposal with the Southern Arts Board, because it is working with other media agencies in the south-east to develop a single business plan for film media in the region and to make recommendations for the delivery of a single regional film strategy, including the all-important area of exhibition.

For capital projects in excess of £100,000, the Arts Council of England's capital programme has £176 million to spend on arts buildings, equipment purchase and public art commissions up to a maximum of £5 million per individual award. The current application round closes on 22 January 2001.

The Film Council is working with the Arts Council to ensure that those funds are used effectively for film and that, in making awards from the arts capital programme for cinema exhibition—essentially bricks and mortar—the Arts Council works hand in hand with the Film Council.

My hon. Friend referred to the need for practical advice on developing business plans and so on. I shall write to her with details of how such assistance may be provided. She mentioned the request to list the old ABC building in Friar street. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts first received such a request in December 1998 from Reading borough council. In April 1999 the cinema was assessed by English Heritage, which is the Department's statutory adviser on the historical environment. However, English Heritage concluded that the cinema had been altered too much, particularly with the loss of the proscenium, and did not therefore possess sufficient architectural or historic interest to merit listing.

On 5 October, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts announced his decision to list a number of cinemas around the country. However, after careful consideration, he decided that the ABC in Friar street did not meet the criteria. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East is disappointed and I am sorry that it was not possible to help in that way. Nevertheless, there are many other ways in which we can help to develop that facility in her constituency. The decision not to list the building does not in any way ignore or overlook the considerable strength of feeling among my hon. Friend's constituents, who feel that the building has a future and should respond to their needs in Reading, East.

The magic of the cinema touches all those who go to the movies. My hon. Friend referred to the advent of television, and then the video, which it was thought would destroy the cinema. The reverse has been the case, and cinema audience figures are on the increase throughout the country.

I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the matter to my attention. I wish her and her constituents luck with the venture, and I shall write to her with the further details that she needs.

Order. We can now move on to the next debate, because both hon. Members are present.

I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise this issue, and to the Minister of State for being here to respond not only to my concerns but to those of many who are involved with the adult placement scheme throughout the country.

There may be people who are unaware of what the adult placement scheme does. In Oxfordshire, and in counties and local authorities across the country, there are a number of adults who need to be looked after but for whom traditional social services are not the answer. It has been found that the best way to provide them with the care that they require is to offer them the chance to live or stay in someone's home. That scheme is called adult placement.

The scheme gives those people many of the important things that only a real home can offer, such as help with day-to-day living, their own personal space, emotional as well as physical support, and a sense of belonging to and being part of the community. Those who need such care have a variety of needs. Some are physically handicapped, some have learning disabilities, some have suffered mental health problems and some are frail and elderly.

The adult placement scheme relies for its success on people who are happy to open their home to those who need help and care, either on a long-term or a short-term basis. Carers in Oxfordshire come from all kinds of background, but they have in common the lasting contribution that they make, not only to the life of an individual adult, but to the whole community. The people being helped by the adult placement schemes have a range of challenges, from handicaps and learning disabilities to mental health problems and problems relating to the frail and elderly. Those tend to be conditions that benefit from emotional as much as physical support, and many of the people concerned want company, apart from anything else, and understandably prefer a more personal environment.

Adult placement carers are committed to ensuring that the care that they provide is given in the most professional way. One of those carers has written to me, and says simply:

We are Adult Placement Carers recruited by the Oxfordshire Adult Placement Scheme…to support and care for people who have disabilities or are vulnerable. The scheme in Oxfordshire is well monitored by the Scheme managers through Social Services. There is a close working relationship with the local Registration Inspection Office which advises both carers and managers when necessary. The approval procedure for recruiting carers devised by the Oxfordshire scheme is extensive and together with references and police checks enforces the high expectations of good care standards. We believe we offer a very professional and valuable service. However we are encouraged not to be complacent and strive to extend our skills through training and continually looking for ways to improve what we do.

The sort of people whom such carers help have a wide variety of backgrounds and needs. For the benefit of hon. Members, I shall give four examples of constituents of mine who are being helped through the adult placement scheme. For obvious reasons, which I am sure that hon. Members will understand, I shall refer to people by letters rather than by name. Mr. X is a comparatively young man with learning disabilities and physical disabilities. He is a wheelchair user, has challenging behaviour and is occasionally violent. He was brought up by foster carers who are now elderly and can no longer care for him. Mr. X was placed in residential care in a staffed group home, which did not work due to his high level of support needs and disruptive behaviour. He was then placed in an emergency bed of a larger residential home while a more permanent placement was found. The care package was extremely expensive; extra staff had to be brought in to deal with the challenges that he presented to the service.

A couple of years ago, Mr. X was referred for adult placement, and a family with suitable ground-floor accommodation and the necessary skills to support him was identified. A carefully planned introduction programme to the family took place, with overnight stays increasing until Oxfordshire county council felt that the time had come when the placement could succeed.

Earlier this year, Mr. X moved into his new adult placement home. Since then, his behaviour has improved considerably. He has learned more socially useful behaviour from the family, which has, in turn, improved the responses that he gets from the general public when he is out in the community. That makes him feel happy and builds up his self-esteem and confidence, giving him the clear message that what he is doing is right. He says that he is very happy with the adult placement scheme—among other things, he likes the cooking.

Another constituent of mine, Mrs. Y, is a lady in her mid 60s with paranoid psychosis and serious alcohol problems who has taken overdoses of medication and has had recurrent suicidal tendencies. She was sectioned under section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 and placed in a hospital for older people with mental health problems. Earlier this year, Mrs. Y was introduced to an adult placement carer, who visited her in hospital and gradually gained her trust. Mrs. Y had a trial period staying with the carer, who has a nursing qualification, and a couple of months later moved in full time.

During the first few weeks, Mrs. Y tested the adult placement carer's patience and commitment to the limit, but everyone persevered and Mrs. Y's mental health has improved greatly since moving in. Her drinking has reduced dramatically and she takes pride in her appearance, mixes socially with the adult placement carer and the family and has started to access local community facilities such as day centres and clubs for older people. She now has someone to talk to who genuinely cares for her and sees her through the bad spells, and there has been no further talk of suicide since she moved in.

is a middle-aged gentleman who had an accident in 1993 that caused severe head injuries. After major surgery on his brain and a long stay in hospital, he returned home to his wife and young daughter. He had been left with poor memory, poor concentration, little insight and extremely high levels of fear and anxiety. He forgets things that have been said to him a few minutes earlier.

About five years ago, Mr. Z was referred to adult placement because his young daughter was having great difficulty in coming to terms with the fact that her father was behaving like a small child and could not be left alone. She was having behavioural problems herself, both at school and at home. Mr. Z's wife was trying to cope with her own grief at the loss of the husband she knew, as well as with his care needs, and the family was in crisis.

was given an introduction, over a long period, to an adult placement family. He had a great fear of leaving his wife and home to go into respite care, and forgot who the adult placement carers were after each visit. The whole process was traumatising for him, his wife and his daughter. Mr. Z has been going into respite care every month since 1995, which has enabled Mrs. Z to have time with her daughter and to support her through this difficult time. The daughter's behaviour improved as time went on, and she is now coping again at school. Mrs. Z's knowledge that she has access to respite care enables her to carry on caring for her husband at home.

This is a matter not only of full-time placements, but of respite care, and even, in the case of my fourth and last example, of occasional nightly care. Miss B has learning disabilities. She attended a large day centre five days a week, which gave her carers a break. She started to become depressed, her behaviour deteriorated and she refused to go to her day centre. That put her carers under great strain, and they talked of no longer being able to care for her at home. Miss B was therefore introduced to two different adult placement carers—one to provide regular respite care and one to provide care for two days a week. The smaller, quieter environment of the adult placement carers' homes, and the one-to-one attention, has proved to be what Miss B needed. She has attended those placements for more than five years and is still at home with her carers. The adult placement carers are paid £33 a night for respite care and £23 for day care. Hon. Members will agree that that cost is small, compared with that of the residential care that would have been required if her carers had not been given that support.

Adult placement carers are also available at times of particular need, and have great flexibility. For example, last Christmas the care management team of Banbury's Redlands centre, which looks after adults with learning difficulties, wrote to the leader of the adult placement team to express gratitude for its work and flexibility in the Christmas-new year period, and for finding suitable placements at very short notice and in difficult circumstances. Care managers said that the work was done well and helped to create a supportive environment at a difficult time.

I think that everyone would agree that the service is extremely impressive. It provides personal care for some very vulnerable people in a flexible, dedicated, committed and targeted way, and at no particular financial cost to the community. Certainly, it represents good value, so why are there concerns? According to Oxfordshire's social services department, the adult placement service

has grown up over the years in an ad hoc manner and at different times has been sucked into other developments such as the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act which has produced an uneasy fit between Adult Placement and the present small homes regulatory framework.

Oxfordshire county council's carers are registered with the local authority, and the council works with the county's inspection unit to ensure high standards. Potential difficulties arise for adult placement schemes because of the regulation proposed by the National Care Standards Commission, brought into being by the Care Standards Act 2000. If adult placement carers continue to be regulated in the same way as small care homes, the future of an adult placement scheme such as the successful schemes in Oxfordshire will be under threat. That is the crunch issue.

If carers who take people into their private homes are treated and regulated as though they were small, residential care homes, the future of this scheme will look pretty bleak. First, the standards and requirements set for small care homes will be inappropriate for normal family homes. Oxfordshire county council is worried that it will lose, and be unable to recruit, carers who cannot adapt their normal domestic accommodation to meet the levels set for small care homes. Even where accommodation can be adapted, the social services are concerned that the domesticity and normality that is so important in adult placements will be lost.

Secondly—and, I suspect, even more importantly—charges for registration of small care homes will not be on a scale that normal families or individuals can afford. Nor will it be easy for social services to meet those charges. I understand that the new National Care Standards Commission will be self-funding. According to a recent paper that was published by the university of Kent's personal social services research institute, the cost of registration for small homes could rise from £252 to £1,960 a year, while annual inspection costs could rise from £42 to £1,100 a year. As Oxfordshire county council currently has around 100 carers, the annual cost of inspection alone could exceed £1 million. The figures are ludicrous and would threaten the viability of the scheme not only in Oxfordshire, but throughout the country. Oxfordshire and other local authorities would be unlikely to recruit carers if they were expected to meet those costs, which, if we cannot find an alternative, would undermine a useful scheme.

Oxfordshire county council favours effective regulation and protection for service users, but believes that that could be achieved more appropriately by regulation of the adult placement schemes. I hope that the Minister and his Department will consider that option. The Department would have to be satisfied that Oxfordshire county council was implementing the adult placement scheme in a fit and proper way, inspecting individual homes and taking care to ensure that carers were delivering a high standard of care. There has not been a scintilla of a suggestion that the council is doing anything other than that at present, or that adult carers are not delivering the most gentle and worthwhile personal care for anyone in need in their homes. If the Department were minded to regulate the adult placement schemes instead of individual carers, we might have an effective and proportionate system of regulation.

I wrote to the Minister of State enclosing a copy of a letter from Oxfordshire social services, and I expected to receive a reply stating that my fears were misplaced, that the Department understood the concerns about adult placement care schemes and that proportionate regulation would be introduced. However, the Minister did not state that. Instead, he stated:

The development of national minimum standards is part of the reforms that this Government is putting in place to modernise the current regulatory system for social services and nursing homes.

My argument is that the homes are not nursing homes but private homes offering care. The Minister continued:

The Care Standards Act…will bring about these reforms, including the establishment of a National Care Standards Commission to regulate social services and private healthcare. National standards, which will apply to all providers across the country, will mean that providers will be clear about the standards they will have to meet to gain and maintain registration. Users and their carers will know what they can expect as a minimum. Homes, which provide good quality care, should have nothing to fear from the introduction of national standards.

I suggest that the word "homes" is confusing in that context. The homes covered by the Care Standards Act 2000 are residential care homes, which usually have a number of residents and are usually run for profit. The homes that I am discussing in the adult placement scheme are not homes in the institutional sense, but those in which individual carers provide individual care in their own home and often to a single person.

The Minister's reply continued:

National standards are currently being developed for a range of services to be regulated by the Commission including…care homes for adults with disabilities.

Again, those care homes are not institutional homes, but may be individual homes in which adults with disabilities are looked after. The Minister continued:

Regarding the latter, a reference group has been set up which inputs to the development process and the National Association of Adult Placement Services (NAAPS) is represented on that group. I trust that you will be reassured to know that consideration is currently being given to having a separate sub-set of standards for adult placement carers.

I think that I understand that. However, I would welcome it if the Minister said that it did not mean that the bureaucracy and associated cost of registration would continue; that the Department recognised that adult placement schemes were different from residential care homes and that it was dealing with a group of people whose care could perfectly well be monitored, inspected and regulated by social service authorities such as that in Oxfordshire; and that the Government would introduce a scheme that was not over-bureaucratic or over-costly. Those schemes should be encouraged to develop and grow, and should not be threatened.

The Minister of State continued:

As a separate exercise, the Department of Health also plans to issue guidance to local authorities and the independent sector on the running of adult placement schemes.

I understand that Oxfordshire county council already has fairly rigorous guidance; over the years, it has developed its own practice standards, which are good.

The issue turns on a narrow but important point. We have some excellent adult placement carer schemes in Oxfordshire, and others are in place throughout the country. They involve hundreds of committed carers giving invaluable care to some of the most vulnerable members of the community. Perhaps unwittingly, that care and those schemes may now be threatened by over-regulation under the Care Standards Act 2000. I hope that the Minister can say today, clearly and without reservation, that the Government recognise that that is a potential problem and that they will be able to respond in such a way that adult placement carer schemes are not put in jeopardy.

I thank the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) for giving us the opportunity to discuss the future of adult placement schemes. We agree that they are important. I am particularly grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the careful and sensitive way in which he set out his arguments, and I shall try to give some of the reassurances that he and the Oxfordshire service seek.

As the hon. Gentleman said, Oxfordshire social services has operated a successful adult placement scheme for many years. It provides flexible, practical and emotional support for vulnerable adults. Carers offer long-term, respite and short-term care, and emergency or day care, either in the adult placement carer's home or the home of the service users.

I understand that service users are charged according to the type of service that they receive. Those who are placed in homes classified as small are charged according the national regulations set out in "Charging for Residential Care". Those who are supported in the community are charged under Oxfordshire's charging policy for people with a disability and, therefore, according to their own financial needs.

Recently, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the scheme was the subject of a social services committee report which resulted in members' wisely agreeing to increase the number of people employed in order to match service users to carers—the adult placement scheme workers themselves—and the formation of an approved panel of carers. Those were sensible and prudent decisions. The Oxfordshire adult placement scheme is one important part of the range of social services that are provided by many authorities.

We estimate that about 10,000 people may now be using adult placement services in about 6,000 homes. However, not all those homes require registration, but only those that provide personal care. About 85 per cent. of the schemes are run by local authorities, 60 per cent. of service users have learning disabilities and about 15 per cent. are elderly, and the services are used also by people with a wide range of needs. The services enable people to enjoy a better quality of life than would otherwise be possible, and the Government fully recognise their valuable contribution. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we certainly will not be taking action that might jeopardise their viability.

The Government are committed to promoting people's independence, improving protection and raising standards. In recent years, social services have become more responsive to individual needs, but there are failings in the present system that must be tackled. That is why the Government introduced the Bill that became the Care Standards Act 2000, which received Royal Assent in July, to put in place key building blocks of our programme for modernising health and social care, and especially for improving the quality of protection in those services. There are many well-run, good-quality services but some have fallen short of acceptable standards, as several inquiries into abuse of vulnerable service users have testified. Providers of services therefore need to know what standard they should meet and service users also need clarity about the standards that they may expect.

The new National Care Standards Commission, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, which will be set up under the Act, will be an independent body with the welfare and safety of vulnerable people at its heart. It will regulate children's homes and care homes for elderly and disabled people; it will also regulate other care services for the first time, including care to people in their own homes and fostering agencies, and in time it will also regulate day centres. It will advise the Government and inform the public about care services generally and about monitoring trends and national quality.

The deficiencies of the present regulatory system have been well documented and exposed by scandals such as those at Longcare in Buckinghamshire. Such abuse cannot be tolerated and we are determined to improve the protection of people who use these services. The homes where standards are shoddy and the quality of life poor do not hit the headlines, but we are equally determined to improve those services. However, in doing so we will not impose unreasonable burdens on those who provide that type of family-based service. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that it is not the Government's intention to make life unnecessarily difficulty for local authorities or for adult placement carers. It would be counter-productive to strangle these valuable schemes with red tape and we will not do so. We shall ensure that the new regulatory regime is flexible and proportionate to the type of services being regulated.

The hon. Gentleman quoted several figures for the cost of registration and inspection to small homes, which have been circulating for some time. I reassure him and the interests that he articulated that no decisions have been taken about the final level of fees. Although it is our policy intention that ultimately the system of regulation and inspection should be self-financing—the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a member, was also committed to that policy—let me reassure him that recognition will be given to the particular nature of adult placement carers when we set the appropriate fee structure. I hope that he is also reassured that we will consult fully on the issue before final decisions on fees are taken.

All adult placement carers are required to be registered if they are providing accommodation, board and personal care; that has been the position since the Registered Homes (Amendment) Act 1991, introduced by the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Mr. Butterfill), which had wide cross-party support. You were a Member of the House at that time, Mrs. Michie, but I was not. I reassure the hon. Member for Banbury that the Care Standards Act 2000 has carried forward the position outlined in that measure, and that we have not changed the basic requirement of registration in that regard. However, we anticipate that adult placement carers and their homes, which need to be registered, will be treated as a separate category under the new regulations. We shall be able to tailor the regulatory demands to ensure that those placed on adult placement carers are kept to a minimum. The standards to be applied to adult placement schemes will therefore be different in nature from those applied to registered care homes—that point was raised, sensibly, by the hon. Member for Banbury—and will in future recognise the special characteristics of the schemes. The hon. Gentleman described many of them as being the small, private homes of individuals and we shall take that into account.

National standards are being developed for a range of services to be regulated by the National Care Standards Commission, including care homes for adults with disabilities. We have been anxious to ensure that the standards take account of the needs of the various client groups who use the services and of the nature of the services that are being provided. We have an advisory group helping us on the development of the standards for care homes and, as the hon. Gentleman said, the National Association of Adult Placement Services is represented on that group. As part of that work, a separate set of standards specifically for adult placement carers is being drafted. We intend that a consultation document on the national standards for residential services for adults should be published later this year, together with those for adult placement carers. We are trying to fix the appropriate level of regulation in this area in a fully open and consultative manner. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can lend his support to that approach.

Given the breadth of the Oxfordshire scheme, which includes services provided in people's homes, it is worth mentioning that under the Care Standards Act 2000, Ministers have a new power to issue statutory guidance on charges for non-residential care provided by local authorities. That measure was necessary because of the unacceptable degree of variation in the way in which local authorities operate their charging regimes at present. We have been consulting a wide range of groups, including representatives of service users, and we intend to consult formally on new statutory draft guidance this autumn and issue final guidance by April 2001.

I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman that adult placement schemes are a valuable resource. When they work well they can provide good-quality individual care. However, we must recognise that when they are not properly regulated or supported they carry similar risks for service users as do large care homes. Indeed, the potential for service users to be isolated and unable to voice complaints may be even greater in some cases. That is why regulation continues to be necessary, but it will be proportionate. Those who already provide good-quality services should not find it burdensome.

We are also taking a number of steps to raise the quality of services for individual client groups. Thus we have already introduced a national service framework for people with mental health needs and are currently developing a national service framework for older people, too. We are also developing a national strategy for people with learning disabilities—a client group that is frequently the major user of local adult placement schemes. Such placements are one way of enabling them to be included in the local community by receiving the support that they need.

It is worth pointing out that it is nearly 30 years since we took a comprehensive look at learning disability services, their rationale, relevance and effectiveness. Services have changed a great deal in that time, but the quality and quantity still vary considerably from area to area. That is unacceptable. The time is therefore right to modernise and improve our whole approach to supporting people with learning disabilities, both to reflect user concerns and to tackle some fundamental issues that we still clearly need to address. I hope that the hon. Gentleman can also lend his support to that process. We intend to publish the new learning disability strategy as a White Paper early next year.

People with learning disabilities are clearly among some of the most socially excluded and vulnerable groups in our society. We want to ensure that help and support are in place to foster independence, provide new opportunities and deliver high-quality services. I hope that the new strategy will seek to eliminate the current inconsistencies in the quality and quantity of services. As a Government, we are determined to ensure that services continue to improve and that those who use them may do so confidently and safely.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to clarify our intentions. I believe that the measures that we are taking will help to drive up standards. We need greater consistency in regulation, and the 2000 Act has given us new powers to root out abuse and unacceptable care standards. We need to use those powers appropriately and sensitively. I can assure hon. Members that the regulatory regime that we are in the process of setting up will be sensitive to the different needs of individual client groups as well as to the different type of provision that is being regulated. We shall therefore continue to involve a wide range of interested parties, including service users. We are particularly grateful to have had the expertise of NAAPS to assist us in that work, and we shall continue to involve it in future.

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has marshalled his arguments and put his case this afternoon. I hope that he has been reassured, at least in part, by what I have said. We do not intend to go about the business of ensuring that regulation is appropriate with a heavy hand or an iron boot. We intend to develop policy in this area carefully and sensitively. If the hon. Gentleman would find it helpful to see the draft minimum standards that we intend to consult on later in the year, I will arrange for him to have a copy so that he may give us his opinion of how we are going about that process. I hope that he will work with us to ensure that the new regulatory arrangements are sensitively introduced and do not have the unintended consequences to which he alluded, which would certainly not be in the interests of vulnerable people and would not address the wider concerns that we need to tackle if we are to improve quality standards in the country.