They say that timing is everything in politics, so it is just my luck that this debate should fall between yesterday's statement on the comprehensive spending review and the more detailed statement that the Deputy Prime Minister will be making on Thursday.

The debate is about the spatial development strategy for London, but I share with the Mayor of London the belief that those words are probably the biggest turn-off. I note that the Mayor calls it the London plan. I used all my endeavours to change the title of the debate. The draft London plan was published on 21 June, but it is subject to a three-month consultation, so this is the only opportunity we have to discuss it before the summer recess.

The plan has to rise to the considerable challenges that will face the capital. London is a city of great contrasts. It is a city of extreme wealth and great poverty. It is a city of divisions; it has areas of great opportunity in the centre but also areas of great poverty and blight. London is a world city—it compares with New York and Tokyo—which gives it a reach both global and European, but it is also national and regional. It is a dynamic city; it is changing continuously, perhaps faster than any other part of Britain, or even of Europe. Its population changes. The services that it provides to the country and internationally change, as do its employment structures. London is also a city of great diversity: a third of its population is now estimated to come from one or other of the ethnic minorities, and more than 300 languages are spoken in the capital.

The plan provides two things: an ambitious vision of the London of the future, and alongside that a much more practical land-use strategy, of which the document says:

"planning has to be realistic, responsive, enabling and work with the grain of the future".

Such planning is undoubtedly needed, mainly to guide the public and private investment that will be required during the 15 years of the plan. However, I believe that there is an inherent tension in the plan: whether the practical land-use strategy can deliver the plan's ambitious vision. I shall address that, first by considering the document itself, and secondly by considering what role the Government ought to play in the delivery of the strategy.

We must recognise that the Mayor and the Greater London Authority have few formal powers and even fewer resources to deliver the sort of infrastructure mentioned in the plan. It should therefore be recognised that there must be a partnership with Government; it is they who have the powers and who can provide the funding not only for the transport infrastructure, housing and regeneration that are the main objects of the plan, but for health and education and for public services generally.

The plan is based on a number of core assumptions, the first of which is population. Currently the population of London is about 7.4 million but if we project from recent population trends we may predict a population of 8.6 million at the end of the 15-year period. The Office for National Statistics carried out a study some years ago that suggested a much lower figure of 7.6 million. However, the most recent research, conducted by the GLA, puts the figure at 8.1 million. That seems a reasonable assumption, although we must be cautious about accepting that figure as time goes on. It would mean an additional population of some 700,000 people—or, as the Mayor likes to put it, a population approximating to that of Leeds.

The second assumption is about employment creation. It is expected that around 630,000 jobs will be created during that period, the vast majority of them—more than 450,000—in the finance and business sectors. Sadly, it is predicted that manufacturing employment will continue to fall from 320,000 to less than 200,000. However, there is some good news in that the high value-added sectors of manufacturing should be maintained.

The report draws on several experiences that have occurred in London over the past 20 years, when the growth in population and jobs was approximately what is expected during the period of the London plan. What happened in London during those 20 years is instructive. There was a dramatic increase in inequality in the capital, including a housing crisis—there was not only rampant house-price inflation such as we have now, but record levels of homelessness, which have continued to be a problem. There were severe capacity constraints in transport as major infrastructure projects stalled, which limited the capital's development potential.

If the plan is to achieve some of its joint objectives, to improve social inclusion and economic sustainability, specific areas must be considered.

The hon. Gentleman is making a thoughtful and useful speech. I agree that there is not enough affordable housing in London, but does he think that the Mayor's target of 50 per cent. affordable or low-cost housing is correct and that it will encourage developers to build all the necessary housing?

Yes, I do. I should point out that the 50 per cent. that is mentioned means 50 per cent. in some parts of London; it is 35 per cent. in others. A detailed study was conducted across London about the acceptability of that target as a standard. It concluded that in most parts of central London 50 per cent. would be a reasonable target, although in other parts, such as my own, a lesser target would be more practical. Later I shall ask whether the Mayor could introduce that target as early as possible.

The report is predicated on several points that address the problems of the past. There must be a radical improvement in the public transport infrastructure; that goes without saying. For example, crossrail 1 is the only way in which we can unlock the potential of the east end, and reduce social exclusion there. A focus must be put on brownfield developments—that is generally accepted—and every attempt will be made to resist the development of the green belt. There must be greater density of development and a more intensive use of those areas that have not been adequately used in the past. Although I accept those aims in principle, I have several concerns about whether the land-use strategy can adequately deliver the ambitious vision set out in the London plan. These are not objections. Planning issues are a question of balance, with no "yes" or "no" answer.

The obvious question is whether the plan can be achieved and whether it is feasible. We have witnessed population growth and the creation of new jobs, which I hope will result in new infrastructure. Those developments must be accommodated within London's boundaries without encroaching on the green belt. We shall therefore be talking almost exclusively about brownfield development, but we know that there are problems with assembling the land and with remediation strategies, and services must often be provided on such land. That reflects the concerns that the Opposition spokesman mentioned among developers. I suspect that they will also be concerned about greater density and intensity of use; although it is easy to talk about such things in the plan, it will be much harder to deliver them. The first thing that we must do, therefore, is to recognise that the plan must be flexible if we are to get anywhere near achieving its objectives.

The next issue that I want to consider is capacity constraints and, in particular, land availability. The plan predicts the need for 23,000 housing accommodation units each year, yet that figure reflects the constraints on land availability for new housing development. It is predicted that there will be an 8 per cent. increase in the number of pupils, and we shall require schools if we are to educate them. It is suggested that there will need to be about 500,000 sq m of additional office space each year, which must be accommodated. It is also suggested that there will be a 35 per cent. increase in space requirements for hotels and catering during the period of the plan, which must be accommodated. The question is whether the land is available in London to accommodate all those developments and to implement the plan. There are major land availability issues, which we urgently need to tackle.

There is also an imbalance in the economic development that the plan proposes for inner and outer London. If we closely examine what is suggested, we find that two thirds of the new jobs that will be created in the period of the plan will be in inner London, and I include Canary wharf in the definition of inner London. Additionally, most of the job losses in manufacturing will occur in outer London, which poses a difficult problem. Housing development will be concentrated in east London in the latter part of the plan, but it will generally occur across the whole of London. That will place additional pressures on the transport infrastructure, and the problems of moving people form outer to inner London will become intolerable without major infrastructure improvements. We need to reconsider the balance between the jobs that are created in inner and outer London.

Another concern is whether the plan can meet the capital's housing needs, and I come to the conundrum mentioned by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). At present, we have a combination of the largest house-price inflation since records began in the late 1980s and the lowest level of house building since 1924. Many reasons are given for that, and some people blame the developers. I do not want to get into a debate about that, but we must recognise that there are problems with site assembly and brownfield land development. Although the plan suggests that there should be 23,000 additional homes with 10,000 of those being affordable units, we need to recognise that that is probably an underestimate of the real need. The Association of London Government figures for what needs to be achieved, and those produced by the commission that the Mayor set up last year, are much higher.

In recognising that the figure of 23,000 is a minimum, we should also recognise the traditional tensions surrounding house building in London—the competition among different local authorities and the tensions between inner and outer London about where affordable housing should be built. All those traditional tensions still exist and if we are to achieve the plan's objective, we need two things. First, we need significant additional resources to build those houses—a statement was made yesterday in relation to that and there is another to come. Secondly, we need a streamlined planning process to deal with the structural difficulties in the London market.

I agree totally with the hon. Gentleman—housing is the key issue for London. Is he aware that the House Builders Federation has estimated that if all the brownfield sites within the M25 were developed, there would be enough land for London's housing needs for the next 10 years? Is not the reason why a lot of those sites are not being developed the fact that they require Government pump-priming to clean them up and remedy them? Is it not a tragedy that we have lost the gap funding from Europe that was so successful in doing just that?

I agree with the hon. Gentleman on gap funding and I hope that the new measures that I understand will be introduced in the near future will deal with the need for that type of Government support to ensure the development of sites that need remediation.

In relation to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, although I accept that there are real difficulties with brownfield development, the problem is much more complex. That is not the entire reason why those sites have not been developed. There are many more reasons, not least the unwillingness of the developers to develop what are, in their terms, difficult sites. They would much prefer to develop greenfield sites.

I bring the example closer to home. In the hon. Gentleman's own borough—the London borough of Enfield—there has been high-profile concern during the past half decade in relation to a brownfield development site at the Royal Small Arms factory. He referred earlier to the idea of the planning process being streamlined. How would he envisage. in practical terms, that type of development being streamlined? Presumably, the aim would be to avoid the long delays that occurred because a number of local residents felt aggrieved by the process.

I could go into the history of that factory site, its sale and the involvement of various agencies, but I shall not. The site lies not in my constituency but in that of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), so I defer to her. I say only that the existing planning process is clearly inadequate to develop a site as large as that of that factory, which has such a history, in the time scale necessary if we are to deal with the problems in London.

Another area that causes me concern is the low priority that is given in the plan to manufacturing in London. As I have already mentioned, it states that manufacturing employment will reduce from 320,000 to less than 200,000 during the period of the plan. I am concerned about that, not least because it would reduce the diversity of the London economy and make us even more dependent on the financial services sector than we already are. People should be worried about that.

However, my major concern about this document is that it does not seem to include a strategy to deal with the issue of manufacturing. Yes, overtures are made to the high-tech end of the market, and there are suggestions that that specific part of manufacturing can be maintained by a combination of clustering and proposals to train high-tech workers, but little is said about the rest of the manufacturing sector, which is still significant in some parts of London, including my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North. The document is light on tackling the need to find some strategy to sustain manufacturing in the capital.

The Mayor asks in the strategy for a partnership with Government to try to achieve his objectives. Given the level of powers and resources available to him, he needs that partnership, so I support his call for it. He highlights two major areas where concerted action is needed to achieve the objectives of the London plan, one of which is increased public investment. The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced considerable increases in almost every aspect of public investment yesterday in the comprehensive spending review, and I want to touch on a couple.

In relation to affordable housing, we have a target of 10,000 additional dwellings. The approved development programme to achieve that would cost about £500 million or £600 million a year, increasing by approximately 35 per cent. the existing sum spent on the programme. The announcement yesterday suggested that about £6 billion would be spent on housing. As I understand it, that suggests about £1 billion extra for new development, so we are beginning to address the need. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister's statement on Thursday will go into the matter in much greater detail.

We also need infrastructure investment, especially in schools to deal with increasing pupil population during the period of the plan. That matter was addressed in the comprehensive spending review. However, we are not dealing with the developing acute shortage of skilled labour in the building industry, and nor is the plan. That is a serious problem in the capital for two reasons. First, it inevitably has led and will lead to cost increases, so all the cost floors included for development in London will need to be thrown out of the window. It will cost us a great deal more to develop a hospital or new housing because of such restrictions. Secondly, the problem will undoubtedly lead to delays. If we want to stop the delays and cost increases, we need to tackle that severe shortage. As is always the case, the problem is much more severe in the capital than anywhere else.

Transport investment is critical. It is almost the crux of the development plan. We must recognise that there is a long lead-in time for such developments. I do not want to go into the subject of the London underground today, because we have done so on numerous occasions. Everyone has their own view of the public-private partnership, and the one issue in relation to it on which all hon. Members are united is the need to get the investment under way as soon as we can. It is two years overdue, and it is needed immediately.

We have discussed crossrail 1 for 10 years. It is vital for the future of the capital, yet we failed to get the relevant Bill through Parliament. As well as the Government, Parliament needs to give priority and its full backing to the development. The plan suggests that crossrail 1 should be completed by 2010. If we are to open up brownfield development in the east end of London, a substantial commitment from the Government is needed. I was pleased to see additional resources for the 10-year transport plan announced in the comprehensive spending review.

The Mayor said that change was needed in the mechanism used to implement development, not only in London but throughout the country. The existing system, with minor changes, has been in place since 1948 and is long overdue for reform. In December 2001, the Government issued a Green Paper, the objective of which was to streamline the planning process, and the subsequent consultation exercise went on until the end of March 2002. In the words of the London plan document, we need to "promote vigorous development." I was pleased to hear the Chancellor announce yesterday that the Deputy Prime Minister will introduce some reforms of the planning system. I suspect that the Minister will be unable to say anything about that today, but any early indications that he can give us would be welcome.

We should also consider whether we need a special sort of development body to deliver the plan. My impetus in securing the debate was that almost everyone recognises that local authorities have not proved to be the most effective bodies to get development under way. That is especially true where a development area covers more than one local authority area. At the same time, our experience of development corporations has not been that good. The word "remote" comes to mind when one thinks of the London Docklands development corporation, which almost totally ignored the population of the area in which it was carrying out development. If one reads the recent National Audit Office report on the Teesside development corporation, one sees that the chief executive ran the corporation as if it was his fiefdom, ignoring his board of trustees and everyone else. Ultimately, he did not deliver the strategy. Therefore, the development corporation model is not very good either.

I noticed that in his statement on the comprehensive spending review, the Chancellor announced the creation of business planning zones, which he said would

"ensure development and create jobs in high unemployment areas."—[Official Report, 15 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 21.]

Therefore, I ask the Minister whether he can tell us anything today about how the zones will operate and, more importantly, whether he would like to set up a pathfinder for those zones in some area or areas of London.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised that point. Surely that proposal goes in a different direction from the plan before us. As I understand it, the number of planning rules and guidance in those zones would be reduced, whereas the plan tries to set a raft of new guidance.

I am not sure that I can comment on that because I do not know how the business zones will operate. The hon. Gentleman is obviously privy to more information than I am. Of course we want to streamline the planning process, but that should not be done at the expense of the needs of the local community in the zone. While we speed up the process and change the planning regime, we must take account of the local community as part and parcel of the process.

The Mayor has suggested several changes to the planning regime that would increase his influence over development in greater London. Without going into all the issues about planning gain and affordable housing, I commend those changes as a mechanism by which we can help to achieve the plan's objectives.

This is a good plan. It is very ambitious—one could be critical and say that it is too ambitious but I am not sure that one can be too ambitious for a capital city. It is informed by London's city-wide government and the leadership of the Mayor, and is based on the statutory consultation process, which is welcome, giving a London-wide accountability that did not previously exist. Its vision is that of the partnership that we can offer the Mayor and the Greater London Authority, and I hope that it will deliver a successful and sustainable city that is much more socially inclusive. If we can achieve that, we shall have done a great deal not only for our capital city but for our constituents.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) not only on having secured the debate but on the rational way in which he delivered his thoughts. That was in distinct contrast to our previous London debate, which demonstrated the split between various factions of the Labour party.

The strategic development plan proposed by the Mayor reflects the fact that London is largely a victim of its success. It is a case of motherhood and apple pie; nobody can argue with the thrust of the points that are made. There is a need for sustainable management of the economy and its growth—London is growing rapidly—for regeneration, transport and schools. We need to tackle poverty and social exclusion and to improve the quality of the environment.

The only part of the report that refers to my constituency—if anybody in the Mayor's office ever reads such documents—mentions the need to develop the science park at Cane Hill and its being hampered by the lack of transport links. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) will know—she approved the link before she handed the matter to the Mayor—the only reason why the links are not being developed is that the Mayor is not doing it, so there is some inconsistency in parts of the report.

I should like to touch on three controversial areas, which are the test of the Greater London Authority Act 1999. They are development, the need for social housing and planning reforms, to which the hon. Member for Edmonton alluded.

I turn first to office space development. There is a need, as the report says, for some 600,000 new office spaces in London. It is proposed that they will largely be in high-rise blocks. The Canary wharf development and the way in which it is being integrated is a good thing; those who say that we shall have another 75 Canary wharfs are probably exaggerating, as politicians tend to do. Companies clearly like that type of block and, provided that we watch out for bad architecture—the skyline of London is something that everyone will be lumbered with and the vistas should be protected—I shall have no difficulty with more such developments.

One point that touches on the effectiveness of the Act is that much of the discussion between the Mayor and the developers has taken place in private. That is not acceptable. The Mayor's excuse is that, as he alone is the planning authority—to that extent he is right—why should he not conduct discussions in private? They should be conducted in public because then there could be no controversy about the link between the Mayor and the developer when he gives permission for large blocks. The Government should consider amending the Act or the regulations to reflect that point, otherwise questions of corruption can creep in, even if completely unfounded.

The hon. Member for Edmonton dwelt on the need for affordable housing. Discussion about the need in London tends to focus on public sector workers. There is a need for housing for the low paid, whether they are in the public or the private sector. There is a graduated scale of demand, depending on income. We all agree that there is a need for more land. So far, the Government's response has been weak. I suspect that that will change when the Deputy Prime Minister makes his statement—at least I hope so.

The Government's starter home initiative was inadequate and needs to be beefed up. We also need hundreds of thousands of more affordable houses. The difficulty is that the plan is not in the Mayor's brief. As the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate will know, it was made clear during consideration of the Bill that it was not envisaged that it would be. That is why the Bill did not give him the powers. He has half a power—a negative power: he can direct a local authority to refuse permission for a development that does not have adequate social housing, but he cannot do anything about it. What is happening now is what we always said would happen: the boroughs and the Mayor have different ideas. The question arises of who decides London's requirements: is it the Mayor, or the boroughs?

On Second Reading, the Deputy Prime Minister said:

"The strategic plan will be based on the boroughs' views".—[Official Report, 14 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 633.]

The position shifted slightly when the guidance came out, which stated:

"The Government expects the Mayor and the boroughs to work collaboratively in the development and review of UDPs".

Newham, which is in the east end of London where most of the development is happening, is resistant to social housing. It would rather have people on middle-class incomes bringing a lot of revenue into the borough. There is therefore a stalemate. The developers are resistant to having 50 per cent. social housing in a development, and will wait until the next Mayor or the next elections, as will the boroughs. The result is that nothing will happen.

My hon. Friend is making a good point. Will he contrast what is happening in London—the lack of any real action to tackle the severe problems that London faces with social housing and transport—with the powers of the Mayor of New York and with what Mayor Giuliani managed to achieve in New York to revitalise it?

My hon. Friend makes a good point. The difference between the governments of New York and London is that the Mayor of New York has more powers. However, that was a conscious decision by our Government. I suspect that they thought that Mr. Livingstone might end up as Mayor, and wanted to keep the ball and chain on his leg. I agree with them, which is where I must disagree with the hon. Member for Edmonton, who suggested that the Mayor be given more powers. In fact, the Mayor wants to have a say in section 106 agreements. I urge the Minister not to go down that road. If the Government went down that road, the Mayor of London would become the housing authority for London. That would emasculate the London boroughs, which is not what the people of London want. During consideration of the Bill, we were warned that that would happen. This sort of issue is a test of the legislation.

Does the hon. Gentleman believe that the Mayor is going down that route because his financial powers in other areas have been severely limited? Surely it would be more rational to allow more financial decentralisation and, as he says, to prevent the Mayor from getting his sticky fingers on greater planning powers?

I agree. That is why the Conservative party proposed during consideration of the Bill that the London Assembly comprise representatives of London boroughs, rather than being a bridge between the people and the Mayor, which it is at the moment. We are being proved right as the legislation is tested.

The hon. Member for Edmonton made the point that none of it will happen unless the infrastructure is put in place. We need more transport infrastructure, we need crossrail, and a variety of other projects. I detect signs that the Government are hesitating before announcing more transport infrastructure projects because London is working pretty well as it is. The economic prosperity being created by London is dramatic; it is fizzing at the moment. There is enough regional imbalance already. If more money is put into more projects in London and it becomes even wealthier there will be a greater imbalance. I suspect that the Government, as ever, will try to find something between the two positions and come up with a third way.

The comprehensive spending review statements will be the real test. There is an opportunity for the Government, but it is essential to resolve the conflict between the Mayor and the boroughs and the boroughs and the Government. If the Government make it clear exactly how the decisions are made—the process of doing so—the plan will be even more effective.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing the debate and on relieving the burden of delivering the undoubtedly necessary statistics in the Mayor's London plan from the shoulders of every other contributor to the debate. He made it interesting, too.

I question whether my hon. Friend was entirely right in averring that he had chosen the wrong time for the debate in the light of the Chancellor's statement yesterday and the statement from the Deputy Prime Minister on Thursday, which we await with bated breath. I have little doubt that the Minister will draw the Deputy Prime Minister's attention to this debate. A great deal in politics can happen in a day, as well as in a week.

I declare an interest inasmuch as I am a member of the Mayor's advisory cabinet on rough sleeping and homelessness. I want to touch briefly on the points made by the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway), who said that no one could argue with the London plan because it was essentially about motherhood and apple pie. I remind him that during the passage of the Greater London Authority Act, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues argued ferociously against a mayoralty even being instituted.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned issues relating to planning, housing, transport and more money for London. In the days of the Conservative Government, I distinctly remember that planning was completely outside the remit of local communities. It seemed that the Secretary of State with responsibility for planning under the Conservative Government simply rubber stamped every major development in the teeth of furious opposition—certainly in my constituency—on certain big developments. They did absolutely nothing to support social housing. They were the architects of many issues on which London now has to carry the burden: not only the lack of affordable housing but the destruction of communities.

In respect of money for transport infrastructure, the Conservative Government's response to the difficulties of creating a properly integrated public transport system for London was simply to sell it off, usually to the detriment of taxpayers, who until privatisation, certainly as far as surface rail is concerned, owned that infrastructure. The Conservative Government proposed to sell off London Underground, too. The argument is about how London can create sustainable development, based on one of the Labour Government's great pluses: giving the people of London a direct voice in who is democratically accountable for London as a whole.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton put his finger on the issue that must be clarified if the plan is to succeed. I agree with him that the plan, which is based on the most comprehensive consultation, not only of those directly elected to the Greater London Authority, but of the population of London as a whole, deserves Government support and partnership. Achieving the plan's targets will depend on partnership with central Government and with the London boroughs. My hon. Friend referred to a conflict between inner and outer London boroughs over employment prospects, but the borough structures themselves might be a problem for the sustainable development of London, which also depends on the economy of the United Kingdom plc.

People far more expert than I have demonstrated that the creation of a job in London is directly linked to the creation of two other jobs in the wider national hinterland. Apart from being the capital city of this great nation—and a great city by virtue of its variety and energy—London is the engine room for the sustainable development of the United Kingdom as a whole. It is vital not just for Londoners, but for everyone who lives and works in this country that the Mayor's plan works. However, it will not work without commitment and agreement to the plan's overriding essentials and to creating a desperately needed infrastructure. We now have the opportunity to see it happen through central and local government, the voluntary sector, the private sector and others working together.

The city cannot sustain itself if the people necessary to its sustainability find it impossible to rent or to buy a decent home. In fact, that is over-egging the pudding: nowadays it is increasingly difficult to find any home at all. We face the absurd paradox of the worst housing in the country being the most expensive—often for the public purse, which is a clear waste of money. We are doing nothing to maintain our national housing stock and nothing to broaden the aspirations of London's people. In the main, we are leaving them in unsuitable accommodation in unacceptable surroundings.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton pointed out, London's wealth, which is not exclusively financial, is not evenly spread throughout the city. My constituency, which comprises one of the two parliamentary seats in the borough of Camden, is invariably misrepresented in the popular press as being exclusively populated by millionaires living in leafy roads who do nothing except sip champagne and chatter. In fact, my constituency includes two of the most deprived wards in the United Kingdom and the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has two more. Pockets of severe deprivation can be found throughout the whole of greater London.

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that, although the Government have been successful across the country in tackling the crisis of child poverty, child poverty in London has not reduced? That must be tackled by using all the measures outlined in the plan. The housing crisis, the inability of families to enter employment because of the housing benefit trap, the high cost of child care and so forth have made it difficult for families to move out of child poverty at the same rate as elsewhere.

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who leads me neatly on to my next point. Undoubtedly, 40 per cent. of London's children live on or below the poverty line. We have heard much about the wealth of this great city. Indeed, I have contributed to that idea in my speech. However, the Association of London Government has issued interesting and detailed briefing papers highlighting its concern that London may lose out at the time of the next standard spending assessment review if the Government change the structures that they are examining in the desperate and entirely laudable attempt to make the process fairer. We may lose the finance that is necessary not only to move forward the Mayor's plan, but simply to keep London ticking over.

The streets of London are not paved with gold, but it is undoubtedly possible to increase the capacity of people who live in the city to make a larger contribution to its economy and the country. They will be only too willing to do that if the proper infrastructures are in place to enable them so to do. I urge the Government to approach seriously and across the range the partnership to which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton and I have referred.

The Mayor, the GLA and, indeed, the hon. Member for Croydon, South have pointed out that the Mayor has no direct responsibility for the delivery of housing, inasmuch as he has no powers or money to build. However, I argue strongly against any diminution of the Mayor's powers over the planning process with regard to the contribution of affordable social housing.

We know from the Mayor's housing commission that the city should be building simply to catch up and to take more than 50,000 families out of temporary housing and more than 8,000 out of bed-and-breakfast accommodation. We should also be building to tackle hidden homelessness in London, which is estimated to affect 106,000 to 160,000 people, many of whom are among the most frail and vulnerable of our citizens.

Simply to put those people in some form of decent housing, we should be building at the rate of 28,000 properties a year for the next decade. If we are to put some slack in the housing system, we should be building 46,000 properties a year. However, that will not be possible, given the scarcity of available land in London. The concentration will have to be on brownfield sites, unless the Mayor, working in partnership with the boroughs, has the power to insist that 50 per cent. of developments consist of affordable social housing.

The hon. Member for Croydon, South referred to the Government's approach to starter packs. There has been movement by Government to attempt to tackle the difficulties experienced by nurses, teachers and police officers in trying to find somewhere affordable to live in London. I can understand why the Government did what they did, but it achieves nothing. All it does is pour money into what is clearly a seller's market. We must put more properties into the equation or we will see ever greater inflation of rents and house prices, and an ever greater reduction in the number of people on whom the city depends day in, day out, because they cannot find somewhere to live.

That is one group of workers whom the Mayor and Government have defined as key workers, but other key workers in London do not feature in the starter packs. The people who sweep the streets, who push trolleys round our hospitals, who clean our hospitals, doctors' surgeries and schools, and the groundsmen in schools need to live in this city, too.

I hope that the Government will enter into the partnership that the Mayor has called for to deliver on his London plan. I hope that they will look kindly on the financial necessities for delivery of the plan, not least on housing, but also on the transport infrastructure. The Government have made a commitment to invest in transport over the next decade, but what is even more vital to London than the money, curiously, is the prioritisation of which scheme will start first. Otherwise, we will waste more years, and costs will inevitably increase before any project gets under way because of parochial arguments about what is necessary in certain parts of this capital city.

That brings me back to my central point. The Labour Government's great step forward in creating a mayoralty and the Greater London Authority was an acknowledgement that London, in certain basic essentials, must be viewed as one city. We had to move from the situation that had prevailed for too long in which borough was set against borough. I referred earlier to the mess in planning under the Conservative Government. It was acknowledged that because boroughs desperately needed money and work opportunities for their people, planners would hold them over a barrel and say that if they did not give them permission for a particular development, they would move five miles down the road where another local authority would. That situation had to stop. We are suffering from that inability to recognise the long-term planning and development needs of London.

The mayoral plan sets out a framework that can deliver a sustainable, developing and infinitely fairer, healthier and more equitable capital city. As I have said, the Mayor and the GLA cannot deliver the plan on their own and will need partnership from central Government. The boroughs will also need to work in partnership and be open minded, as will all other parts of London life that can make a positive contribution, including the public, private and voluntary sectors.

This is a great city, which can be infinitely greater. Its greatness has always depended on the energy, creativity and commitment of the people who live and work here. Far too many of them are still excluded from making their proper contribution, and we owe a duty to them to ensure that the Mayor's plan can and will deliver.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on securing this important debate. We go back some five or six years. Hon. Members may have wondered earlier how I could talk about the intricacies of the London borough of Enfield. The reason is not only that I am a bit of a political anorak, but that I was a candidate—sadly unsuccessful—in the 1997 election in Enfield, North.

I remember meeting the hon. Gentleman when he was a mere prospective parliamentary candidate. It struck me then how firmly he felt about the importance of housing and homelessness issues. During the year that I have been in the House, he has become a leading light in discussing the issues, although he is sometimes a thorn in the side of his own party. It was not a great surprise that a debate on a development strategy for London would concentrate on the issues in the draft London plan and effective housing.

The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said that London is a wonderful place in which to live, and I agree. All London Members recognise London's brilliance, history and vibrancy and the fact that it is a melting pot for people from different cultures and for the young and the old. Equally, it cannot be denied that London has deep-seated problems, and I hope that we can play our part in solving them. We must confess that the role of the 74 London Members is limited. A London Mayor is in place, and we must ensure that we do not obstruct what he is trying to do.

I welcome the publication of a visionary strategic plan for London. This might make me sound a little like my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) discussing the Maastricht treaty, but I must confess that I have not read the document throughout. I suspect that reading the draft plan in order to contribute to the consultation process will take up a disproportionate amount of my summer recess. Nevertheless, it makes important comments on the sustainability agenda and transport, in particular crossrail.

Will the hon. Gentleman take time during the summer recess to go through the Mayor's development strategy in detail and consider it in the light of a possible bid to host the Olympic games in 2012 or 2016, something that I have long believed London should do? In considering that will he recognise that one of the reasons for making such a bid is to help stimulate the investment in infrastructure and affordable housing that London so desperately needs and that were features of both the Commonwealth games bid in Manchester and the Sydney Olympic games bid?

I fully accept those comments. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will he talking to his constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner). Perhaps looking at these large-scale sporting complexes has not been the Government's greatest hour. An Olympic bid for London may be a bit further away than 2012 or 2016.

I shall keep my comments brief, as I know we have to move towards the winding-up speech. I want to make a few points about affordable housing. The policy of 50 per cent. affordable housing in central London, which has been calibrated on the basis of 35 per cent. affordable housing and 15 per cent. for key workers, may have unintended consequences. If we have a tightly prescriptive policy from the Mayor on affordable housing, developers may think that it is not financially viable to go ahead and build, particularly in central London. We will suffer because of a lack of flexibility on rules in that regard.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I am sorry, but I have to finish in a moment or two.

It is questionable whether this very ambitious agenda, or indeed any part of it, can be driven through by the current incumbent of the mayoralty. Like many other London Members I receive a positive blizzard of publications almost daily from the GLA and from Transport for London, the headcount of which has leapt from 2,257 to over 3,100 in the past year alone. Much of it is virtually irrelevant propaganda on an array of policy areas outside the work of the Mayor and the GLA and is produced by the Mayor's policy unit.

I hope that the Minister will have something to say about ensuring that there is no centralisation by Government on a number of the planning aspects that several hon. Members have dealt with today. We need to put our trust in Londoners. My concern is that if we have a regional government whose raison d'être is to have a large-scale planning power, the 33 London boroughs will suffer. Effectively, planning decisions will be made up on high and will not be responsive to the interests and needs of local people in all the villages that make up London as a whole.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on the main thrust of his speech, which highlighted the fact that the London plan is predicated on the idea that the land will be available for all the building, both office and residential, that it envisages. Scarcity of land goes to the heart of the debate. I will focus on that, but I should first like to welcome the Minister to his new position. Some of us were very disappointed that he spent such a long time in the Trappist world of the Whips Office. We look forward to his contributions to the parliamentary dictionary over the next few weeks and months.

I welcome the plan and the debate. It is important that we have such a plan for London. For far too long development in the capital has been chaotic and has had no overarching strategy. To that extent the plan is a welcome contribution to a debate that we have been unable to have for a decade or two. Hon. Members have not so far stressed the fact that this is now a legal document. When boroughs consider their planning applications and review their unitary development plans, the plan will be a material consideration. It will affect the lives of our constituents. It is very important that we and our boroughs debate it. Clearly, if it survives all the consultation and becomes a formal London plan, it will have a significant effect on planning across the capital.

As other hon. Members have said, the plan has many good aspects, such as the focus on affordable housing, which must be right and is in many ways the major challenge facing the capital. The focus on east London and development in the east in that regard is very important. That part of our great city has more land available and there is an urgent need to develop it. The Mayor adopts a cross-party belief that much development can take place there.

I welcome an innovative part of the plan, the blue ribbon network. During the proceedings of the Greater London Authority Bill, we debated the various strategies that the Mayor would be statutorily required to produce. The Liberal Democrats argued that he should be required to produce a strategy for the River Thames. Many of the thousand or so amendments that we tabled to that Bill were not successful but I am delighted that the Mayor has taken the kernel of that idea and expanded it to incorporate all the waterways and watercourses across the capital. That is very exciting.

However, I have some concerns about the plan. I am gravely concerned about its underlying assumptions, about some of the delivery mechanisms that the plan skates over and about some of the omissions, particularly the impact on the suburbs—areas such as my own—and the impact of orbital transport networks, which are becoming a theme of Transport for London. On behalf of hon. Members whose constituencies would be affected, I am also concerned that the plan does not state more clearly that a third runway at Heathrow is a bad idea.

I also worry that much of the research underpinning the document has not yet been published. I hope that the Mayor will publish it quickly so that it is available during the consulation period and the examination in public next year. Chapter one of the plan paints four scenarios. The Mayor has gone for what is described as the high-demand, high-supply scenario. I am concerned that the plan is predicated on that; other scenarios may turn out to be correct. We obviously hope that it will not be the case but, for example, growth in the capital may not be as strong as the plan suggests.

Those scenarios are built on the presumption that London is in equilibrium but it is not. We have much demand but insufficient supply, particularly in the infrastructure. We need supply to catch up with the demand. I am concerned about the general view from the Mayor's office that we will take as much growth as can be thrown at us, and about the idea that population growth can and should be absorbed. That is not a sensible way of planning. Some population growth may need to be encouraged in other parts of the country. The Mayor should take a leadership role in saying that he will work with other regions and areas to try to ensure that growth, particularly population growth, is more widely spread. Saying, "We will predict and provide" is not necessarily the right assumption on which to base the plan.

As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, the more optimistic plans for affordable housing do not relate to land availability. Interestingly, the plan uses target figures from a recent housing land capacity study, drawn up in close co-operation with the boroughs, which was more pessimistic than the plan. That raises serious questions. Much extra research, which has not yet been published, has been undertaken to try to work out whether more land can be used. In table 3A1, the plan suggests that my borough will be able to find another 6,710 homes by 2106. I know my constituency very well, and that will be enormously challenging, although it is a relatively modest target compared with those in other boroughs. It is worrying that some of the targets do not seem to be linked to where land is available.

I am concerned about the details of the plan. Norbiton is a deprived ward in my constituency, but from reading the plan, one would imagine that Kingston's needs were non-existent. It mentions one or two areas in the south sub-region that require regeneration, but, apparently, not one single area in Kingston requires regeneration. I invite the Mayor and his advisers to visit the Cambridge Road estate and Cambridge gardens, where he will see the need for regeneration. I hope that he will amend the plan so that Norbiton ward becomes a high priority for regeneration.

The plan does not clearly set out how it will deliver some of its aspirational objectives. It says too little about how the Mayor will work with boroughs, such as the royal borough of Kingston upon Thames. Such partnerships will be crucial because the Mayor does not have the money or power to achieve the plan's objectives by himself and he needs to engage more. That is a major omission. The Mayor should be working with borough planning departments, which are under-resourced, in spite of the excellent work carried out by officials in those departments. The Mayor could play a significant role in supporting and strengthening those departments.

In conclusion, I welcome the plan. There is much to be debated before its final adoption, and I hope that the House will have the opportunity to revisit the subject, perhaps for an even longer debate.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for introducing the debate in a calm and sensible way. In fact, all the speeches so far have been constructive. The problem is that this is such a big subject that we can only skirt around it in an hour and a half. We would all like to devote more time to the issue.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) made a good point. The Mayor's plan is visionary; the question is whether it can be implemented, given what powers he has. My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) made that point very clearly.

The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) slightly wrong; this is not a legal document, as yet. As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, the plan has been put out for consultation until 30 September, whereafter there will be a public examination until early 2003, followed by a recommendation to the Secretary of State in late 2003. Thereafter, hopefully, we shall begin to see some action.

It is vital to the future of the country to ensure that London retains its world status as a vibrant city, so it is important that we should think about these matters and slightly worrying that a survey by William Mercer for the BBC puts London 34th in its ranking of world countries. The top four cities were Vancouver, Zurich, Vienna and Bern. The reason given for placing London so far down the list was that quality of life there is deteriorating. In particular, the survey cited traffic and congestion, to which list I would add crime. Interestingly, the lowest ranked city was Brazzaville, in Congo, which Mr. Mercer perceptively says came bottom of the list because of the civil war in the region.

Some interesting statistics were quoted in the report, some of which were referred to by the hon. Member for Edmonton. When I first said that London's population would rise by 700,000 over the next two decades, the equivalent of the population of a city such as Leeds, hon. Members derided me. I am interested to hear that hon. Members now accept that there will be a huge growth in population in London in the next two decades. Contrary to what some hon. Members said, I think that it will be a good thing, as it will keep the city vibrant. About 516,000 people will be of working age. More importantly, more than 500,000 will be of school age. Unlike the populations of many countries and cities, the population of London is getting younger on average, which we must consider in the facilities that we provide and in planning the city.

As the hon. Member for Edmonton said, it is reckoned that the population will grow from 7.4 million to 8.1 million people. The economy supports a wider area with about 18 million people, so the city is extremely big in world terms. There is huge disparity in wealth, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda. Jackson) said, which is clearly in no one's interests. We aim to bring the level of some of the most deprived areas, such as parts of her constituency, up towards that of the best.

I was interested to see that the Mayor predicted in his plan that the highest levels of housing growth would be in deprived areas. For example, Tower Hamlets will have an extra 2,070 dwellings, Southwark 1,480 and Lambeth 1,450. However, as I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster is aware the City of London will have only 110. Richmond, which is near the constituency represented by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton, will have 270, and Bexley 280.

That may not be sufficient to meet London's severe housing problems. After crime and transport, housing may be the third biggest problem and challenge; all problems are challenges. I welcome the Mayor's statement that we will have an extra 23,000 homes in London, which is a 22 per cent. increase and a challenging target. However, as I said in my intervention on the hon. Member for Edmonton, I have questions about the Mayor's 50 per cent. target, because 50 per cent. of nothing is nothing. It would be far better to get the houses built with perhaps a lesser proportion of social housing. We all accept that we need social housing, but we need housing—full stop.

The hon. Member for Edmonton was right to refer to points that were made in an article in The Observer that I have previously quoted in this Chamber, which states that the 2000 figure of 161,000 homes is the lowest for house building since 1924, excluding the war years. It is too low. We need to work on some of the brownfield sites mentioned by the House Builders Federation. I repeat that it estimates that if we developed all the brownfield sites within the M25 corridor, there would be enough housing land provision in London for the next 10 years.

We are not making the progress in housing that we should. The hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate rightly drew attention to the appalling waste of human resources that is putting people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I think that the figure she gave was 8,000 people in London alone. It is a tragedy. and we should do something about it. We need to build good-quality housing in London in the right places.

The debate has skirted around the fact that we need to consider the planning system carefully. The Government have proposals to make on planning in the autumn. I hope that they have been properly thought out. The Mayor has proposed to aggregate all planning gain together. His desire for that power begins to worry me. Would it be used properly? The Government have made proposals on tariffs, which also concern me. If we are not careful, they will simply amount to a development land tax, yet another tax on developers.

I want the Government to go forward with inner-city regeneration. During the Conservatives' 18 years in government, we had some superb regeneration schemes. However, the Government's policy on urban regeneration seems fragmented, with many different schemes, many budgets underspent, and money not getting to the areas that it should. I want large enough parcels of land aggregated together so that we can have some really imaginative urban regeneration schemes.

There is not enough time in the debate to discuss all London's severe problems. It is an important world city, and it is vital to the success and continued growth of the economy that we ensure that all Government Departments use their powers to work in partnership with the Mayor. We have not discussed the fact that all Government Departments are involved in London's problems, which are not limited to crime, transport, housing or urban regeneration. The Department for Education and Skills and the Department of Health have a vital part to play in the future of London. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about finding solutions to the problems.

I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) on not only securing the debate but the manner in which he opened it. His comments were profound and thoughtful and showed a strong grasp of all the subjects in the plan. I hope that the Mayor takes his comments as seriously as they were intended, and as the first of many responses in the consultation process.

Without seeking in any way to add a partisan note to our deliberations, I heard more of substance from my hon. Friend in his half-hour speech than I heard in any of the speeches made by members of the official Opposition. That is a shame, given the significance of the plan and of London as a city—rather than a country, as the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) had it. I would be surprised if London came 34th in a list of countries.

My hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton bemoaned his sense of timing. He was right to do so, in light of the fact that there was a statement on the comprehensive spending review yesterday and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister will give his response on Thursday. We are about to respond to the consultation process for the Green Paper on planning, and we have a statutory duty to respond to the Mayor's plan by 30 September.

Sadly, my comments will be couched within my hon. Friend's distressingly bad sense of timing. I hope the debate is the first of many on the plan and its surrounding issues, but it may have an entirely different tenor by next week, let alone by October or November. However, he was right to draw attention to the issues.

We welcome the plan, although there seems to be some confusion in the Chamber about its status. Essentially, it is the successor document to the strategic planning advice for London. It is the strategic planning framework and, when it is adopted, all boroughs will have to use it as a touchstone for the development of their community development plans or local development frameworks. By definition, it is part of a hierarchy of plans. From the comments of some hon. Members, one might get the idea that the Mayor is planning a land grab and that he will be a monolithic superpower in terms of planning for London, but that is far from the case.

At the risk of entering the realm of semantics, the plan is not a legal document—the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) was wrong. From its publication, it represents a material consideration in the planning process. In that sense, whether it is legal is a significant point.

I do not have time to make the speech that I had intended to make or to reply to all hon. Members' remarks, but I shall throw out a few ditties. I take seriously the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton about the balance between outer and inner London in the document. For my sins, I served on the London planning advisory committee, which was the body responsible for strategic advice between the demise of the Greater London council and the rise of the Greater London Authority. There was an ongoing debate about not only north, south, east and west London but inner and outer London.

One thing underlay all hon. Members' comments. It is time for government from the boroughs upwards and for central Government downwards to treat London as one living, organic entity, a city in which what happens in one part has a profound impact on other parts. The notion—both simplistic and complacent—that if we utilise every single brownfield site inside the M25, London's housing problems will be solved has been repeated a couple of times. It is nonsense. It gives the impression that all that is inside the M25 ring, which in some places is 25 to 30 miles from the GLA's boundaries, is a land bank of pristine, clean brownfield sites just waiting to be turned into housing by nice, magnanimous developers. Even the developers recognise that that is profoundly wrong. It is equally wrong to cast doom and gloom by suggesting that every site is so poisonous and contaminated that the poor developers cannot do anything with it without Government assistance.

The hierarchy of land use that is the core of the plan has been at the core of planning since the 1980s and 1990s: brownfield, urban fringe, then greenfield, which itself has various degrees. Urban fringes and greenfield may be used, and it is misleading to suggest that there is a massive stock of brown field inside the M25 and that the problem will be solved if it is utilised. A recent report—I am not sure whether it was commissioned by the Government or by the GLA—said that to solve some, if not all, of our difficulties, we should look upwards. If the plan suggests anything it is that a portfolio of solutions to housing, planning and developmental issues in London is needed.

We should go to our local shopping centres and see how much single-storey, ground-level development there is. A recent report said that we could secure close to 25,000 units simply by building upwards—perhaps above railway stations, certainly above petrol stations. That has happened in the centre of London to some extent. At this stage in London's growth, single-level developments are a woefully inefficient use of the precious commodity of land. That is not the whole answer, but part of it.

I take the point of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton about manufacturing in general, rather than the specifics of the plan, but it is not enough; throughout London, despite the plan, a UDP, local development framework-led planning process remains. We should exhort each authority, whether it is in inner or outer London, to consider every single designation of land. Elected members must now say to the borough valuer who has been marketing a particular site for 25 years with B1 or B8 use—it may be the only bit of the precious manufacturing base left in his outer London borough—that he should take a step back and be creative. He could say that it should be given over either to mixed use or to housing. Every borough must review the land use of each of its sites during the consultation, using the plan as a touchstone. Residents deserve no less.

It has been a good debate, despite my earlier partisan comments. In part it has been a nice déjà vu. Many who are present lived and breathed with me and others in a dusky Committee on the Greater London Authority Bill. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) was there and he has not changed at all. It is still all doom and gloom and the GLA Act is nonsense. I shall look again at our proceedings for the exhaustive amendments tabled by the hon. Gentleman to develop a Rudy Giuliani figure for London—I suspect that there was none. In three months, Opposition Members were for the Mayor, against the Mayor, half for and half against. In the end they were not sure at all but would have preferred group leaders on a borough-wide basis, and then they were not sure about the Assembly either.

The important point is that the London plan is an important contribution to our deliberations. Whatever people think of its author or anything else, it matters for the future of London and it will inform the planning context. I look forward to being party to the Government's response, and I urge every London Member and every hon. Member who has London's interests at heart to read it thoroughly and to respond to it.

First, I thank Mr. Speaker for enabling me to raise this subject. I cannot say that I am an enthusiast for the present procedure, which is yet another way of conning the public, rather like early-day motions. It is rather depressing that we suggest that something will happen after such debates. By ensuring that more happens in the House of Commons, while taking less notice of it, the Government are doing great damage to our parliamentary democracy. These debates are another such con, but one must use what one has.

I am making use of the present procedure because my constituency has 74 miles of coastline. I am honoured to represent a large number of people, but my constituency also contains many rivers, such as the Blythe, the Alde, the Orr, the Orwell, the Deben and their numerous tributaries. I have therefore witnessed the problems of coastal erosion, rising sea levels and fluvial flooding. In one way or another, the constituency of Suffolk, Coastal is well named.

My personal interest in this issue does not cloud my mind to the fact that 10 per cent. of the population in England and Wales live in areas that are at risk from flooding. That affects 1.8 million properties.

Why should one be concerned about this issue now? The reason is that there is growing evidence that the threat is increasingly significantly. The distinguished Halcrow report suggests that the problems with our coastal defences are so serious that approximately one third of east coast defences, two thirds of south coast defences and half of west coast defences are expected to fail in a serious flooding incident. When one realises that about £207 billion worth of property and possessions—I am not even talking about the people—is threatened, one sees the seriousness of the matter.

In case anyone ever listens to what we say in this Chamber or, indeed, in any other, I should remind hon. Members that Hull is one of the key locations at risk. I hope that the Deputy Prime Minister recognises that his city is at risk, along with Blackpool, areas around Great Yarmouth, Bristol and Dungeness power station.

Some 47 densely populated locations face high risk, and about 397 sq km of urban areas are at risk in aggregate. Some 98 km of coastal defences were assessed as being likely to fail in the event of a relatively small incident, and they are mainly in the Anglian, north-west and southern regions. We are therefore in a pretty serious situation.

I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. He is right to raise this important subject, and I want to put his words in context. He will be aware of the 1953 flood that occurred at little way round the coast from his constituency, and 53 people from my constituency perished in it. Is he also aware of the great danger of high sea levels later this year and of the fact that global temperatures for the first three months of this year were the highest ever recorded?

My hon. Friend is right to raise that question. We may commiserate with those who still remember the deaths, but we should also remember that the cost of the damage done by the 1953 floods was the equivalent of 10 per cent. of the country's gross national product. That is in the region of £25 billion after inflation. Although those floods were serious, they were unexpected; this is an opportune moment for the debate because such incidents are becoming more regular, more likely and less unusual.

When I had the job now held by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), I made the first step in recognising the impact of climate change. It caused a good deal of controversy because people did not believe in climate change in those days, and it was extremely lucky that two members of the Government did believe in it—I was one; the other was the then Prime Minister. It was a useful combination because, without her, I would not have been able to do anything. I raised the specifications for coastal defences because flooding seemed a probability. That was a useful thing to do, but it is some 10 years since I had any connection with the issue, and I started on that course a good five or six years earlier. However, it was the beginning of a realisation, which is now much more widespread, of the impact of climate change.

That is the first reason why the situation has changed. The Government now accept the importance of climate change, and the science is universally accepted. The only argument is whether, and if so by how much, human beings have contributed to it. I believe that the case has been clearly demonstrated and that no Government have the excuse not to take into account at least the median line of what climate change may do.

The right hon. Gentleman has a credible and creditable track record on these matters and he is right to raise them. Does he agree that not only do we need protection from possible flooding, but we need to do more to prevent it? One serious problem is that the Environment Agency has no right to object to developments on flood plains, which could disrupt drainage and increase the likelihood of flooding.

I entirely agree. I hope to come to that point later. First, however, I want to explain why we need to move on to a new stage.

The first reason, which I have already mentioned, is climate change. The second reason is the huge change in agricultural practices over the past 10 to 15 years. There is now a great deal more drainage, so that when water rolls off the fields onto the roads it causes a huge build up of water in the drainage pipes. That causes floods in places that never had floods before.

One agricultural change that we have gone in for involves what are called welfare pigs. I have doubts about the principle of welfare pigs because, as I hope everyone knows, pigs do not sweat, and the last thing that we should do is put them out in open fields. Historically, pigs wandered about in oak forests and other woodland areas. That is how they should be kept, but the driving force behind pig welfare comes from people who live in towns and have never seen the animals, so they do not understand what happens. Nevertheless, welfare pigs is the great thing, so out in the open air they go. The trouble is that it creates circumstances that cause increased run-off. The village of Blythborough in my constituency is being tormented by the effects of run-off from open-air piggeries, and there are many like that around the country. However, that is not the only cause; there have been several significant changes in arable and husbandry practice over the past 15 years.

The third reason for needing to move on is our ageing sea defences. My hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) spoke about the floods in 1953. Much of the work that has been done as a result of those floods is coming to its end, and those sea defences need to be replaced.

The fourth reason that this is the moment to talk seriously about the issue was supplied by the Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), in the previous debate, when he was busy promoting the Government line that we should go back on the question of building on greenfield sites. Such references drop into every speech and are designed to change people's attitudes. We all know what the Government are about—building large numbers of houses out in the countryside. They are building up to it, turning their backs on 20 years of environmental battling and returning to a position that obtained before I—when I was a Minister—had the opportunity of stopping out-of-town shopping centres and the like.

That is what they will try to do, so into the Under-Secretary's little speech was dropped the sentence, "There really are not enough brownfield sites in London." There are enough brownfield sites in London to meet our needs if we spend time and money on preparing them and making them available. That is the fact of the matter.

In opposition, Labour Members said that the Conservative Government were mad to suggest that we needed 4.6 million homes during the next 25 years. We were told that that was all wrong, quite unacceptable and nothing to do with the facts. Now, of course, they have accepted it, but in order to hide that fact, they do not use the figure spread over 25 years, but the equivalent figure over 10 years, pretending that that makes it different.

The Government know very well that a huge number of new homes need to be built. If 40 per cent. of them are to be built on greenfield sites, as they have already accepted and which is far too high a proportion, that will cause even greater pressure to build on the flood plain and in areas threatened by floods, as the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said.

We know that flood-generating rainfall events, as they are called, are increasing. The nature of rainfall is changing. Scattered showers through the summer have been increasingly replaced not just by more rain, but by more continuous and driving rain, which is much closer to tropical rain. We know that that will increase and that its results will be very serious, as will those of river canalisation, which has created other problems in order to defeat particular ones in certain areas.

We know that it will happen, so we should examine what the Government have done about it. The Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who will reply to the debate, is one of the Ministers that I most admire in this Government. In many areas he has actually got things done. Having been a fisheries Minister myself, I honour him particularly for the brave position that he has taken on fishing. He is one of the first people to do that and therefore if I have some unkind things to say about the Government, he must not take them personally.

I will say one unkind thing about him, however: his position on hunting is wholly unacceptable and has damaged what would otherwise be a real power in the countryside. He is one of the few Ministers with some credibility in the countryside and I am sorry that he has adopted a ridiculous and totally urban view of hunting. Apart from that, I am pleased to be able to debate with him.

The risks of flooding are increasing considerably and the Government have admitted that. The consultation paper clearly states that

"because there may be many years between major floods, there is a risk of complacency setting in, and of flood defences being neglected."

The Government should bear those words in mind. The Prime Minister, who got himself rather caught up in the floods, went around saying,

"We used to consider these flood events as relatively rare occurrence, but over the next few years we can expect to see these types of situations."

I do not know what that means, but that is what he said. He went on to say:

"We have to put a lot more investment in."

I want to emphasise that the Prime Minister's only answer was more money. The trouble is that more money alone will not solve the problem.

The first difficulty is the incredible complexity of the way that we in England and Wales handle the matter. The Scots are much more sensible, and I will come to that later. The hon. Member for Gordon will be pleased to know that I am to make my first recorded statement in favour of devolved Government. It may be a moment worth waiting for. Let me tell the Committee what the steering group said. As we know, the steering group was a collection of middle-ranking apparatchiks from the Departments—God knows how many Departments there are—who are interested in flooding. Paragraph 20—a serious paragraph from the steering group's background paper for the consultation—stated:

"The steering group also concluded that evidence indicated"—

it did not give any evidence, by the way—

"that the combined use of the existing strategic framework (supported by the Agriculture Select Committee in its 1998 report) and High Level Targets (HLTs) backed up by ongoing reviews and research projects, was an appropriate means to implement and prioritise flood and coastal defence functions subject to refinement and extension in the light of the experience and the outcome of reviews and research."

That is the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and how it will be carried out. You may understand what that means for management, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I know that you are a remarkable man—but no one else does.

Can we imagine any business announcing to its shareholders that this is how it will deal with its most pressing risk? This "management of risk" is endangering property worth £207 billion, let alone human beings. We will have something that is backed up by ongoing "reviews and research". We can tell that the paper is new Labour: it has all the phrases. The steering group were civil servants, but they seem to have caught the phrases. Interestingly, they did not believe it either. Three lengthy paragraphs later they say:

"The Steering Group concluded that it would be of most value to consider a framework which would both support an integrated, strategic and streamlined approach to flood defence but would have the flexibility to recognise and react appropriately to specific local needs."

A system that is integrated, strategic and streamlined, but has some clear connection with local issues, is a sensible concept. That is totally different from what we have and what the steering group suggested that the evidence indicated was still sensible. It is also interesting that the Under-Secretary does not believe that either. When he appeared to be trying to explain why the Environment Agency had not been quick off the mark in dealing with the floods in Northampton and Kidlington, he said:

"As a starting point, Lord De Ramsey"—

the chairman of the Environment Agency—

"and I agreed that there must be a seamless and integrated service of flood forecasting, warning and response."—[Official Report, 20 October 1998; Vol. 317, c. 1080.]

The flood forecasting, warning and response must be seamless and integrated. However, protecting us against flood depends on a range of different organisations that are largely unaccountable to, and unconnected with, each other, and on hoped-for reviews, research, projects, ongoing this and ongoing that. That is what we have, and it is supposed to defend us. This is a sandbag culture: we wait for the flood, rush out with sandbags, and then row about who should pay for them. In my experience, that is another thing that always happens with sandbags. The sandbag culture must stop, but it will do so only if the Ministry starts by refusing to be complacent, which it is, and if it stops believing that money will solve everything.

In case the Under-Secretary thinks that I have been unfair about complacency, I will give him an example. On 18 March 1999, I asked the Under-Secretary, who was still in his place then—he is a man of considerable continuity—when would he publish the flood and coastal defence project appraisal guidance notes. The relationship between local government, the other agencies and the Government is crucial and what holds all this nonsense together. He told me that there would be six instead of one, which I suppose is some help. The six would be published separately, and altogether would be completed within 18 months. It is now three and a half years later and we still have not seen the last one. In all that time, and doubtless for some time to come, nobody has had the guidance notes. It is not that we do not have an integrated system; we do not even have the guidance note to run an unintegrated system. This is nonsense; it is not sensible.

One has to assess the complexity. The Government believe that if the money goes up—I am glad that marginally it will—everything is fine, but it is funny that the amount is exactly what the insurance companies demanded under threat of withdrawal.

It is more.

With great respect, that is wrong. The more does not come until later. I have worked out that it is £12 million less; the more does not arrive until three years from now. I have also taken into account the lowest feasible rate of inflation.

The right hon. Gentleman knows from his experience in government and with the Environment Agency that this substantial increase in flood and coastal defence funding cannot be delivered in one year. It will take three years to put the planning, the schemes and the rest of it in place: £150 million of additional money is a considerable amount. The right hon. Gentleman is right that it finally falls into place by the third year, but there has to be some ramping up, as it cannot be spent in one year.

I do not disagree, but the ramping up has to be to the level agreed in the first place; one cannot ramp up to a lower figure, which is what it will be by the time that inflation has cut into it. It is one of the fundamental rules of accounting that one should ramp up to £162 million if one wants to meet the figures provided by the Association of British Insurers. The Government decided on this figure for the simple reason that the insurers said that they would otherwise not continue to insure. It is straightforward blackmail. I do not blame them because we had turned insurance into assurance: it is virtually certain that many areas of the country will be flooded, so it becomes closer to life assurance. The Government know perfectly well that had they not acceded, they would have been in a severe mess.

Nick Pearson, the head of household products in the Norwich Union, made an interesting comment in response to the Government's decision:

"Flooding is a complex issue, where not only funding but organisation, prioritisation and land use management"—

about which the Minister has been talking—

"need to be overhauled to help reduce the problem."

The Government believe that by bellyaching about how difficult it all is and then providing some money, they have solved the problem—but the problem is much more complex than they allow. A throwaway line in the consultation paper says that

"social and environmental concerns are given insufficient weight"

by the Environment Agency and

"there should be a commitment to provide consistent standards of flood protection for similar urban communities and within communities."

However, that has not been agreed: it appears there, but the rest of the document ignores it. The Government are not prepared to face the complexities of the issue.

We have to face increases in cost, but the money has to be spent differently. Is the Minister going to spend this money more sensibly? The Oxera report points to the distortion between expenditure on capital projects and operational expenditure to reduce flood risk. That will be worsened by some of the Government's plans, so what is the Minister going to do about it? What about the necessary reallocation of flood management expenditure to ensure more sustainable flood management, or are we merely going to rush after saving flood protection places that have already been undermined?

Cost seems to be the Government's single response, so how can we ensure that the money goes where it should? The system of getting it to local authorities, where it becomes their responsibility, is at best flawed and at worst totally arbitrary. People find themselves saddled with a level of support that is unconnected to their needs and seems to change at the whim of the Government. Insurance is important, and the Government, as I have suggested, have given the money because they want to buy off the insurance. However, there is so much to do because severe weather and floods in 2001 led to insurance claims of £1 billion, and insurance claims during the past five years have run at about £400 million a year.

The Under-Secretary should come down with me to Aldeburgh and see the difficulties in the areas by the Rivers Alde and Ore and the complexity of the relationships between English Nature and the Environment Agency for England and Wales. What are the Government doing about the constant inability to get anyone to take responsibility? I had to bring representatives of the Environment Agency, English Nature, the local council and the protection body together on the foreshore of Aldeburgh to get them to talk to each other and tell each other what they intend to do. That shows our current lack of integration.

There are several things that we can do. We should stop building on flood plains and introduce a system in which part of the house building costs or house rates refers to the cost that the developers will impose on the public. Therefore, if we are going to have any building on flood plains or areas liable to flooding, the developer should meet the costs, if that is possible. If it is not, I would much prefer it if such developments were not built at all.

We must take that step, but the Government's recent planning document does not mention the issue. It talks about a lot of other nonsense, but does not address the planning biggest issue or explain what they will do. The Department of the Environment as was has been split up, and as I understand it the planning document was produced by Lord Falconer without any discussion with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. The only meeting that took place was with the Minister for the Environment after it had been written to have a nice chat about how good it was. DEFRA had no say in it, and nor did people concerned with flooding, which is the problem with joined-up government.

We should also do proper research to understand the real problem, and a great deal of work is still to be done. Two points from Scotland are important. First, why do bodies in Scotland have a duty to protect people from flooding? In England, they have the power to protect people, but not a duty to do so.

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I shall be in trouble for taking too much time.

I know what the Under-Secretary usually answers: it is a much smaller problem in Scotland, so they can handle it.

No.

Well, that was his answer last time. The point is that the bigger the problem, the more one should want to solve it. It should be the other way round, and I do not understand it. It is no good saying that we will not solve the problem in England because it is so big, but they can solve it in Scotland because it is just small. That does not seem a sensible answer.

It cannot be right that those responsible for flood prevention do not have a duty to prevent floods and protect property and people. It cannot be right that they merely have permissive powers. It cannot be right that the policy system in Scotland means that all local authority chief executives are directed to take climate change into account in all their policies. No one has said that in England, Wales or, as far as I know, Northern Ireland. Why are we not telling people that they have to do it? They should have the responsibility, not just permissive powers.

The second point about Scotland is that the Scottish Executive try to protect because it is dangerous, not because they have the cost-effective figures right. They say that one of their duties is to protect Scotland from flooding, so they will do it. In England, they say that one duty of the English authorities is to see whether, in an entirely cost-effective way, we can find a mechanism to allow people to spend such money as is available to protect people from flooding where there is enough noise and trouble. Those are two different approaches and—it hurts me to say this—I prefer the Scottish approach.

The Government stand in the dock for complacency, for failing to understand the complexity of those issues failing to do for England and Wales what Scotland does, and for not being prepared to admit that climate change has a cost that must be borne in protecting our people from flooding inland and by the sea. The Government stand condemned on those issues. I would understand if this were merely a rural issue—I say "merely" because that is how the Government think about rural areas—but it also affects many urban areas.

I exclude the Minister from those criticisms. I am sure that he is doing his best, but the Government believe that they have only to throw money at the problem. In fact, they have thrown very little money at it, and what they have offered is pretty small. However, that will not work in any case unless we stop building where we should not be building; we do the research that we need; we make permissive powers compulsory duties; and we take a large leaf out of the Scottish book and recognise that on this issue, unlike on many others, we are behind our neighbours north of the border and others in the European Union, who have a great deal to teach us.

rose—

Order. I remind right hon. and hon. Members that it is common practice in such a debate to commence the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before its conclusion. In other words, we must hand over to the first Front-Bench speaker at 12 noon. I ask right hon. and hon. Members to be clear, to make pertinent points and to bear that time constraint in mind when making their contributions and accepting and making interventions.

I welcome the opportunity to debate flooding. October is an important month in the cycle of flood events, because as far as Worcester is concerned, it is the first month of winter, when flooding is likely to occur. I also welcome the spending review announcement of £150 million to be spent on flood defences by the end of the three-year period. Will my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary give more details about how the money will be broken down over that period? What will be the breakdown between major capital projects for flood defence, and revenue expenditure, for example to improve flood-warning systems throughout the country?

As a result of the good will shown by the Government in the extra investment plans, I shall take this opportunity to put some pressure on the Association of British Insurers—which was mentioned in the previous contribution—to extend for at least a further three years the moratorium that is due to end in December. For those who live on flood plains, who have properties that would probably be unsellable without insurance and who would face huge bills year on year, the prospect of no insurance is too much to bear. I hope that the Minister will put pressure on the ABI to come up with the goods and continue with household insurance cover.

In Worcester, we have three main types of flooding. As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) said, it is a complicated issue. The most obvious cause of flooding is the River Severn, which flows through the city centre and usually floods because of rain falling in the Welsh hills and mountains. That affects properties on Hylton road, Waterworks road, Diglis avenue, the cricket ground and the racecourse.

We have a minor river course, Barbourne brook, that is prone to flooding and flooded in April 1998. The householders of Beechwood Park estate awoke one morning to find that things were not quite as they would have expected. Sewerage flooding has also become an increasing problem in the city. Sewerage systems that were built in Victorian times—combined surface water sewers—simply cannot cope with the volume of water that now goes through them.

I believe that major flood defences are needed along the banks of the River Severn, similar to the ones that have been pencilled in for Bewdley and Shrewsbury further upstream. I am worried about the number of separate zones that have been identified when assessments have been made of whether flood defences are viable. I have some experience of how the cost benefit system works. I was lucky to pick up in my in-tray in May 1997—the world was not all rosy before that date—an outstanding issue along the Diglis avenue area. A project had been identified, but under the cost benefit rules it was not viable.

I am pleased to say that the project has now been completed. Concrete was poured into the floors of Victorian houses to raise them by 18 in. It makes the bay windows look a bit odd from the inside looking out, but it stops the more regular flooding that takes place along the Severn. I worked with those residents to see how the system works. That is why, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary knows, I am a great critic of the current cost benefit rules. I was pleased to hear him say on the programme "On the Record" that from April onwards the number of people involved in those assessments would be taken into account. Could he give us an idea how that will take place so that we can look ahead in Worcester to maximising the opportunities for flood defences?

I am also keen to bring in a number of temporary defences in the city for isolated properties. The Severn View hotel stands alone on the banks of the Severn. It is surrounded by roads and car parks. There are no other properties nearby, yet it is in need of some form of flood defence. I understand that some temporary measure was being considered over the winter. Luckily we did not have to use those schemes, but again I urge that money from the spending review be used to provide temporary defences. Let us find out whether they work.

Worcester city council provides the duck boards, the breeze blocks and the sandbags for properties that flood. The sandbag culture is a difficult one to understand. Sandbags do not solve the flooding problems, although they offer residents some reassurance. The council provides sandbags for properties on major roads such as Hylton road, where the biggest problem is caused by lorries ignoring the flood warning signs and going down the road, creating bow waves that then spill into properties. Sandbags can help to prevent such flooding. What advice or guidance will my hon. Friend's Department give to residents in places like Upton-on-Severn? It is not in my constituency, but the Environment Agency has concluded that the geography of the land does not allow permanent flood defences to be installed.

The problem of minor river systems has been far more difficult for people to understand. The Beechwood Park estate is in the centre of Worcester and is about 30 years old. It is two miles from the Severn and yet in Easter 1998 it flooded to incredible depths. There was heavy local rain and the culvert that runs underneath the estate could not cope with the volume of water that was flowing through it. Residents had to be rescued from their first floor windows by an inshore lifeboat. I pay tribute to the Environment Agency for the work that it has done since then. It has improved upstream holding capacity through a penstock valve, which, by increasing the height of the dam by a couple of inches, can hold back a tremendous amount of water to manage the flow through the culvert. It also cleared out the culvert and was surprised to find a concrete blockage, which restricted the flow by 70 per cent. It was no wonder that those houses were at risk. Since that blockage has been cleared, touch wood, there has been no flooding on the Beechwood Park estate. I ask the Minister to do what he can to put pressure on those responsible for maintaining watercourses like that to take the issues seriously, because that block of concrete was not put there over night. It had been there for a while and was restricting the use of that culvert.

Sewerage flooding was one of the worst flooding experiences in the city of Worcester. In the autumn and winter of 2000, Waverley street and Cavendish street, which are miles from the river although they are in a low-lying area, were flooded. The combined Victorian sewer was unable to cope with local rain and the river at high levels and water, and sewage backed up along the system until it came out at the nearest exit point, which in some cases was in people's houses and gardens. Hon. Members who are not aware what that is like should imagine papier mâché floating in front rooms. That is the horror that people were faced with.

The River Severn at high level floods the pumping station near the river that deals with the sewage. After a strong campaign, led by a local resident, Mary Dhonau, the Severn Trent water authority put in place plans to improve the pumping station and work is ongoing to enable more sewage and flood water to be pumped under the River Severn to the sewerage works.

In the light of my experience of dealing with sewer flooding, I want to know what the Minister thinks about non-return valves, which can be used in sewerage systems that developers could install in new properties. They might be inconvenient to householders, who may not be allowed to flush their toilets during a period of flooding, but that is a darn sight better than the alternative.

I want to raise a couple more matters, one of which is similar to that mentioned by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal. First, how will PPG 25 be enforced? Building on flood plains is a cause for concern. Many residents of Beechwood Park estate, where the houses are 30 years old, probably did not know that they were living on a flood plain until they woke up to find several feet of water in their front rooms.

In Worcester, we want to develop the city further along the riverside and in the Diglis docks area, which is alongside the River Severn and the canal, which is just above the flood plain, but there is anxiety about how to do so. I fear that with climate change and the increased frequency and severity of flooding, there may be difficulties.

My last point is about insurance. Insurance companies are doing a great deal, digitally mapping flood plain areas to find out which individual properties are affected by flooding rather than using the post-code system. Does the Minister share my anxiety that the insurance companies may use that information not to help households but as a tool for withdrawing cover from properties that are most prone to flooding from sewers and from major and minor rivers? I should like to hear the Minister's thoughts on that matter, especially on how properties shown on digital maps to be in high-risk areas will keep insurance cover to enable residents to maintain their standard of living?

I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the discussion. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on securing the debate and on the manner in which he opened it.

The debate refers to the potential for flooding in October 2002 and from my point of view it is important that we remember that fact. In October 2001, south Cambridgeshire was subject to some of the worst flooding for generations and more than 400 homes in my constituency were flooded. Although there may be a small probability of a repeat of that event, many people in the constituency will live in fear of what may happen in October 2002 unless and until measures are taken that substantially reduce the risk. They will ask what has been done in the past year. I shall concentrate on a few things that have been done and on some that I hope will be done between now and October 2002.

I shall not detain hon. Members at length on what we have done locally but I hope that the Minister and hon. Members will acknowledge the achievements of the local authority, with the Environment Agency, parishes, the county council and Anglian Water, particularly in terms of sewer flooding; I hope that in due course OFWAT, when it does an interim price determination, will allow additional funds to help Anglian Water do more in respect of sewer flooding in my area. Many such initiatives have been taken on a district-wide and individual parish level so that we do all that we can to minimise risk.

Many actions, however, are beyond the scope of individual local authorities or constituents. I shall focus on some of those. When I had my own debate on the subject on 20 November last year, the first of the 10 points that I made related to the availability of additional funding for investment. It has taken eight months, but the Minister has today said that there is to be additional investment, broadly in line with what the Association of British Insurers recommended last year. As the hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) said, that takes the issue on to whether we can have greater assurance about the availability of insurance. I hope that, in responding to the debate, the Minister will make clear the Government's targets. The ABI was not asking for £145 million of investment but for a Government commitment to provision, over a reasonable time scale, of flood defences against a probability of flooding of up to 0.5 per cent. for any significant number of properties and, as an interim measure, for a short-term Government commitment to meeting the 1 per cent. probability in densely populated urban areas and 1.3 per cent. probability in less densely populated urban areas. The first question is: are we now at the point where the ABI and the Government can be brought together so that there is a long-term Government commitment to the 0.5 per cent. standard of defence which gives the insurance industry the degree of comfort it needs to continue to offer insurance? If that cannot be met for a substantial period, will the Government talk to insurers about trying to offer short-term support for the insurance industry, as contemplated in the Government's consultation on the flood defence review, so that insurance continues to be available for householders who have taken all reasonable steps to protect themselves but who would not for the time being be protected against such flood risk?

I hope that other initiatives will be in place before October. The Government have published several reports and the flood and coastal defence funding and organisation review, to which hon. Members, the public and others have responded; the Government have not yet responded to that. I hope that by October we will have such a response from them, before we debate the issues again. I also hope that we will be told whether there is a prospect of a development connection charge—the Government left that open as a possibility yesterday. However, I do not stress that too forcefully because in places where development is occurring—much of it in south Cambridgeshire—demands on it are already very high. Affordable housing, infrastructure costs and meeting the direct drainage and flood defence charges associated with such developments are factors that are substantially affecting costs. The scope for additional connection charges may therefore be modest, but may exist. I hope that in places such as south Cambridgeshire, where we have both substantial development and substantial flood risk, those two factors can be closely related at a local level.

I also hope that we will have substantial additional progress on catchment studies. The catchment for the Cam, in the first instance, and also for the Great Ouse and so on—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) who will respond on behalf of the Opposition will speak about those rivers—is a matter of the greatest importance to people around Cambridge. The catchment studies have to be the starting point for identifying where the risks are and how we can deal with them. We cannot make good progress without them.

Linked to that is the point that rural areas will not necessarily need costly physical flood defence barriers, but their requirements may be beyond the investment measures that the Government announced yesterday. In the context of reform of the common agricultural policy, one of the principle measures that we can achieve using agricultural support to the farming industry is to encourage farmers to make land available for flood storage and reservoirs up stream, so that rural areas can be defended in ways that are sympathetic to the environment. Those of my constituents in the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds would also say that there could be substantial wildlife benefits. We have identified two locations in my constituency where flooding could have been prevented last October if such flood storage areas had been created, or in some senses re-created as compared with what happened in recent years when flood plains were lost.

I shall mention two other matters that should be in place by October. We should know where the responsibilities lie for managing the watercourse, warning people about flood risk and taking action when required. I shall not dwell on who should have the responsibility, but I shall say that action cannot be removed from first-tier local authorities. They have a substantial role to play and are accountable locally to their voters for delivery of that service. However, they need the resources, which brings me to my last point.

In the context of the local government review of funding—it is now no longer part of the Minister's Department—we will know by October the shape of the new structure of revenue grant funding to local authorities and how it is to be calculated. I have considered the relevant document, which suggests several options. However, I must confess that I have not yet found any reference to flood defence as one of the factors that must be included in the calculations. I cannot believe that it would not be there, so I hope that it is and that it will be prominent among the measures that will lead to additional needs-related block funding to local authorities.

All such measures could be in place by October. On the basis of some of them being implemented, I could return to my constituents and say that some measures had been taken by the Government and Parliament to make the repetition of the flooding last October and the risk to them a great deal less likely.

I also congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), not only on securing the debate, but on the passion with which he spoke. He brings a great deal of experience and expertise to the issues. I will not detain hon. Members long, because my right hon. and hon. Friends have covered the subject so comprehensively and with such expertise that I will largely repeat what they said, and so shall curtail my remarks.

It was the flooding in autumn 2000 that enforced my interest in the subject, especially because of my constituents' experience. We have two problems in the New Forest. One is the coastal problem of the western Solent and the Lymington river, which is protected to an extent by Hurst spit. However, it is subject to tidal flooding, especially when it is exacerbated by high river levels with increased rainfall. Further along the coast, we have the erosion of the cliffs at Barton-on-Sea. That is a well- known phenomenon. I once met someone from New Zealand who explained that they knew all about the problems of Barton-on-Sea because they had read about it in textbooks at school.

An equal if not greater problem is flooding on the Avon valley, which affects towns such as Fordingbridge and Ringwood, and villages further south. Increased rainfall leading to high river levels is exacerbated by a high water table when there has been a persistently wet period before the immediate flooding. That means that the ground simply cannot absorb any more water. In that respect, I was interested to hear what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said about pigs. In the autumn of 2000, the run-off from pigs caused a substantial problem. I was unaware until he mentioned it that pigs are like ladies in that they do not sweat. I am not sure what bearing that has on flooding, but it was news to me.

After the experience that we had in the autumn of 2000 and the winter of 2001, there is a certainty that the problem will get even worse. The Henley centre, which is attached to the Meteorological Office, estimates that the sea level will rise by some 24 cm in the next 50 years. That is about 9 or 10 in. That rise in levels will have a different effect on different parts of the United Kingdom, and the Scots have less of a problem in that respect. Extraordinary as it may seem, Scotland is rising as England is sinking; the entire United Kingdom is pivoting. The sea level will rise on average by 16 cm in Scotland but by 31 cm in England. When one adds to that effect the other phenomena associated with global warming, such as increased and more persistent rainfall, storms and winds and so on, we can expect flooding problems to increase.

That begs the question whether we can continue with a legal framework that merely permits local authorities to take action over flooding rather than imposing duties on them. That approach might have been adequate in the past, but will it be adequate in future? Equally, can we go on with fragmented responsibilities and the lack of clear lines of accountability, with responsibility spread between local authorities, DEFRA, the DTLR and so on?

Finally, I entirely support the changes made with respect to PPG 25. That is a highly desirable development, and the proposal that building in the flood plain should be entirely exceptional should be rigorously adhered to. However, I wonder whether it is sustainable when unrealistic targets are imposed on local authorities. Huge pressure continues to build on greenfield sites, which is entirely out of keeping with the guidance note. I suspect that that contradiction will be the greatest source of continual flooding for many of our constituents.

Those three areas should be addressed.

My hon. Friend has made some interesting points. He identified global warming as an underlying cause of flood risks. In the light of the performance and innovation unit report on the energy review from earlier this year, does he accept that replacing the 25 per cent. non-carbon nuclear capacity with carbon generating capacity for our energy source over the next 10, 20 or 30 years will add to global warming, increase sea levels and river levels and add to the flood risk? It will be a disaster for this country, and we shall miss our Kyoto targets.

My hon. Friend is right. It is not simply a question of cutting back—we must put the process into reverse, because even if we stop generating carbon at present levels, the problem will persist for many years. The problem will have to be addressed in future, but it needs to be addressed now.

First, I congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on securing this timely and important debate. As I said in an intervention, his reputation in the area is not in dispute and is well regarded both inside and outside the House. As he also said, as he represents Suffolk, Coastal, he has a direct concern and responsibility to ensure that these matters are discussed.

At the Liberal Democrat party conference last September, I co-chaired with the Environment Agency a breakfast on flooding. The Environment Agency was then and remains extremely concerned about the fact that it has some responsibility but insufficient control to be able to prevent, and protect people from, flooding. The sad truth is that the risks of flooding are likely to be as great or even greater than they have been in recent years, and nothing has really changed during the past year. Flooding may occur in different places, but certain pressure points will be overwhelmed.

The Minister will, no doubt, make much of the spending review's commitment to provide more money. That is, of course, welcome, but he must accept that it will take time, and therefore more floods, as well as more money, to deal with the problem. Even then, we are unlikely to keep pace with the increasing pressure to build, which will create floods, so we are chasing a target that is moving away from us faster than we are moving towards it. There is a lack of control and co-ordination, as well as a lack of funding, which together reduce our protection against floods. As has already been mentioned, it will soon be 50 years since 300 people lost their lives in the coastal flooding that occurred on the night of 31 January and 1 February 1953. In the money of the day, there was £5 billion-worth of damage. As the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, the scale of damage and loss of life would be far greater were such an event to happen now.

Coastal defences were strengthened after that event, but unfortunately the circumstances that conspired to cause it have worsened in the ensuing 49 years, and the coastal defences are now at the end of their useful life. The severe weather that arises from climate change—not an issue in dispute in this debate—means that catastrophic tidal surges are more likely to happen and on a greater scale, not least because weather patterns are becoming more extreme. I saw a photograph in my local newspaper, The Press and Journal, of a tornado in Aberdeenshire. Such an event has never been heard of before, let alone photographed for the local paper.

Coastal erosion has also accelerated along the south and east coast and sea levels are rising. It has been estimated that, in the south of England over the next 50 years, the rise could average 0.6 mm a year. That means that existing sea defences, including the Thames barrier, will be overwhelmed in just a few years. Cities, such as Cardiff, Swansea, Bristol. Hull, Grimsby and Manchester, all face major flooding risks. I am afraid that, in my view, it is a matter of when, rather than if, such a major inundation of the east coast will happen, and it is by no means clear whether we could cope with coastal flooding on such a scale. Some 5 per cent. of England's population—more than 2 million people—live in the 2,200 sq km of land most at risk of flooding from the sea, but five times as much land is at risk of flooding from rivers in England and Wales, and more than 1.3 million properties are at risk. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman suggested that the combined flooding risk affects more than 2 million properties.

In both cases, it is likely to prove more expensive and less effective to spend money purely on flood protection rather than on prevention. The Association of British Insurers has said that it needs £145 million—it is funny how that figure connects—if it is not to withdraw the insurance. I have seen its press release, and the association has not said that the deal is done, only that it will consider it.

I accept that work needs to be done and, of course, protection mechanisms must be put in place. I am not suggesting that the money is unnecessary for physical protection, but I hope that the Minister accepts that we must think more deeply about how to deal with flooding, because we must address the issue of prevention as well as protection. We should not be concerned only about development on flood and coastal plains, although that is an issue. We must also ask whether we should continue building on land that is at risk from flooding from the sea, from rivers and from natural drainage patterns while recognising that development on other land, including farming practices, disrupts natural drainage patterns and increases flood risks, sometimes in unexpected places—including some of the brownfield sites that the Government want to develop, many of which have not been properly assessed for their contribution to floods.

I speak from personal experience as well as that of a constituency MP. I suffered a couple of years ago as a result of very localised flooding. After three and a half days of continuous rain, the water had risen until it came up through the floor of my house. My concern, like anybody's, was not only how to prevent it, but how to ensure that it did not happen again. Things happened by serendipity: my next door neighbour but one put down hardcore and gravel for his car—that flooded the lane, but not my garden. A house was built two doors the other way that cleared some natural drainage obstructions that we had been trying sort out for some time, and another neighbour, as a precaution, put a submersible pump in her garden in case the water level rose again. We have not had a puddle, never mind a flood, since, despite fairly heavy rain. That revealed to me that there are natural mechanisms, if one knows what one is doing. We did not know what we were doing; it was serendipity. Nevertheless it solved the problem without transferring it to anybody else and the water was diverted to the local burn.

Inverurie, the main town in my constituency, has repeated flood problems. It has not been foolish enough to build on the flood plain, although a recent development plan review suggested that it should. A more sensible suggestion was that the flood plain should be changed into an ornamental lake—I should say loch, but they call it a lake—with houses and recreational facilities built around it. That seemed a better idea. The problem was the houses that were built up the hill.

Major developments on former farming land meant that where water had previously fallen on fields and had leached away slowly in a natural drainage pattern, it now hit tarmac and tiles, overwhelmed the drainage system and inundated the centre of the town. The force of the water was so great that one constituent described to me having seen a manhole cover blown 20 ft in the air by the force of water after a cloudburst. We must recognise that we build at our peril. Any new development can have unexpected effects on drainage. We need more research and more control. If we are to build the 4.4 million homes—an astonishing number—planned for England and Wales, it is difficult to see how, under present planning rules, we will not contribute to new flooding problems that are on a scale that we have not previously experienced and that we shall have enormous difficulty preventing.

We need to take positive action to change the planning rules. I accept the role of English Nature, in terms of both wildlife and biodiversity and drainage patterns. When I say that the Environment Agency should be given overall control of flood management, it should be in partnership with English Nature. In Scotland, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and Scottish Natural Heritage work together in that way. The hard standing for my neighbour's car demonstrated in a very local and specific way that sustainable urban drainage systems can make a major contribution to preventing rapid run-offs. I suggest that the Minister tell the Department that is responsible that they should be made mandatory for new developments—they work and make a real contribution.

Reference has been made to the practice and experience in Scotland. We do not have England's scale of coastal threat or the pressure of development in so many areas that England and Wales experience. However, we have had serious problems in places such as Paisley, Perth, Inverness, Elgin and Inverurie. That has contributed to what the Scottish Parliament and the Executive have done. I shall not read it, because of the time constraints on me, but I have a checklist that draws a sharp contrast to the mandatory practices adopted in Scotland, where all local authority chief executives are directed to take climate change into account and to take responsibility for flood prevention measures. There is a series of mandatory requirements on local authorities and other agencies to ensure that they take all relevant factors into account in assessing the possible impact of development on flooding. In England, however, there is no such mandatory requirement; particular practices may be voluntary, advisable or encouraged, or there may be endless consultation about what should happen.

Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that he must conclude.

I will. In conclusion, if we do not take such issues into account, we shall be unable to tackle a problem that has been bad enough over the past few years, but which will get worse in the coming years.

I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on introducing the debate, although I have one complaint. He brings such knowledge, fluency, humour and passion to such important subjects that he is an extremely difficult act to follow. Indeed, he makes so many of one's own points so much more effectively that I sometimes feel like a man with a very large brush and a very large bucket following a resplendent cavalcade. However, I shall do my best.

The floods of 2000 demonstrated the disaster that inundation can be for people and their property. Some 700 locations were flooded, 11,000 people had to evacuate their homes or businesses, 10,000 properties were damaged and 37,000 others were saved only by prompt local action.

This October, there will be an unusually high tide. Rainfall has been high this year, the aquifers are full and much of the ground is saturated. We continue to build on water-absorbing land, however, and 5 million people, 2 million homes and 130,000 commercial properties in England are in areas at risk from flooding. In a normal year, with existing defences, flood damage costs about £600 million. In 2000, the floods cost insurers £1.3 billion, and uninsured losses may take the cost to £2 billion. This October, matters could be much worse.

It is therefore right to ask how the Government have prepared the nation. Although they cannot turn back the tide, stop the rain or immediately reverse rising sea levels, they can do much to protect us from something that is foreseeable and which may be a calamity. However, they have not prepared very well, according to a March 2001 National Audit Office report called "Inland Flood Defence". The report found that flood defences have remained constantly poor because of a continued lack of funding. In a condition survey of the Environment Agency's flood defence assets, which was completed in 2000, 43 per cent. of structures and 36 per cent. of linear barriers in England were categorised as very poor, poor or only fair.

I am sorry to say that little has changed. Indeed, the complacency of new Labour's attitude to coastal flood defences is clear from an examination of the figures supplied by the then Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food in July 2001. In 1997–98, MAFF allocated£46.8 million to local sea defence projects. The following year, the figure dropped to£36.5 million. In 2000–01, when there was£2 billion of flood damage, a mere£25.7 million was earmarked for spending on coastal flood defences. Over three years, central funding for sea defences dropped by almost 50 per cent.

It may assist the hon. Gentleman if I say that it is question of interpreting the figures. There has not been a drop in expenditure. Everything very much depends on the capital programmes and engineering schemes that are in place, and those vary from year to year. Sometimes slippage occurs on projects, and sometimes the amount of money allocated for ongoing projects may vary. In themselves, the figures do not indicate a decline in investment in flood defences.

rose—

I give way to my right hon. Friend.

May I point out that the Minister always gives that answer. The truth is that, at the same time, the proportion of support given to coastal authorities had been cut, and the result was that many coastal defence projects did not go ahead because local authorities like mine could no longer afford them.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The figures show that the Government have cut the amount being spent on protecting us from flooding. It does not matter how one cuts the cake—that is the reality. The 2001 Labour party manifesto stated:

"The dangers of coastal and inland flooding are now widely appreciated,

and we are committed to investment in preventative solutions."

A £21.1 million reduction in grants for sea defences over three years is an odd way to demonstrate that commitment.

In the aftermath of the catastrophic events of autumn 2000, the Association of British Insurers called on the Government to increase spending on all flood defence measures in England and Wales by at least £145 million. However, when increased Government funding finally arrived last year in the shape of additional subsidies from DEFRA, it did little to help a deteriorating situation. Money allocated for flood warning and flood defence programmes increased from £66 million in 2000–01 to £114 million in 2003–04—a nominal increase of £48 million, when insurers had asked for a minimum of £145 million a year.

The Minister may tell us that yesterday's comprehensive spending review will provide an extra £150 million, but my right hon. Friend has dealt effectively with that figure. True, it is to be welcomed, but how much of it will be used to maintain or improve defences; or will a third once again disappear down a bureaucratic black hole? Will the Minister confirm that none of that money will avert the effect of possible floods in October?

The Government have responded to requests from Conservative Members—which we have been making for many years—to curtail development on flood plains, yet their house building targets include the construction of 40 towns the size of Slough, which will invariably mean building on water-absorbing greenfield land.

I acknowledge that the Government are considering whether the Environment Agency should take responsibility for critical rivers, yet operational responsibility for flood alleviation measures currently lies with local authorities, the water companies, riparian owners, the Environment Agency, the internal drainage boards and a host of other bodies. That is a recipe for evading responsibility, until a problem becomes a disaster. That is why, yet again, I ask the Minister to consider appointing a body to take overall responsibility for flood defence systems. That body, which may be an expanded Ofwat, should have no direct financial interest in the provision of defences, for that may give rise to accusations of conflicts of interest. It should be empowered to act as an independent adjudicator and enforcer, so that it can order emergency works to be carried out before a problem becomes a disaster, determine who should do them and, once the division of responsibility is clear, apportion the costs.

In a Westminster Hall debate on 10 July, at column 288, I raised the need for natural or what are known as soft defences, because inland hard defences often tend to shift the problem up or down stream. The Minister acknowledged the value of natural defences but neglected to say what the Government were doing. I would ask him today to remedy that. I also pointed out the need for better dredging. He replied that

"it is not that useful in tidal estuaries. Whatever is taken out of a tidal estuary is simply filled up by the volume of the sea and has a limited effect"—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 10 July 2002; Vol.388, c. 289WH.]

I will be charitable: that was clearly an off-the-cuff remark to which the Minister had given little thought. One does not have to be a hydrologist to recognise that the reason that water flows from rivers to the sea is because there is a difference in pressure. A dredged river mouth permits the passage of a greater volume of water over a period of time, particularly at the twice-daily low tide levels. This time, I hope that the Minister will tell us what dredging operations are being undertaken and at what cost, or at least agree to write to me and place a copy of that information in the Library.

Finally, the Government have been in power for five years. What they have proposed is likely to be too little and is certainly too late.

I also congratulate the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) on securing this debate. He is acknowledged for his interest in the environment and for his work in the previous Conservative Government. He put his case in his usual flamboyant manner, which I enjoyed listening to very much. However, I do not necessarily agree with all his points, and there seems to be something of a schism among Opposition Members who have accused us of throwing money at the problem and of not providing enough money in the first place. Their approach seems confused.

Our approach has been sensible in recognising what is needed. The amount of funding that we have provided is based on independent reports that we commissioned. It is worth spelling that out and I know that the right hon. Gentleman expected me to do that. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed), however, seems to have written his speech before the announcement of the comprehensive spending review.

It is worth bearing in mind that the funding comes from several sources. We provide capital funding and funding for other expenditure on forecasting and early-warning systems. Funding comes from local authorities in the standard spending assessment and through the levy that they pay, and the internal drainage boards also provide some.

Total funding has risen from £312.4 million in 1997, the year when the Halcrow report was written, to a projected £564.2 million for 2005. During the three years of the previous comprehensive spending review, there was a real growth rate of 3.2 per cent. in the money invested in our flood and coastal defence. In the new comprehensive spending review, covering the next three years, there will be an increase in real terms of 8.6 per cent. in funding for such defence. That represents a real average increase over the period of 15.02 per cent. Those are substantial sums of money and are in line with what the ABI has been asking for and with our own independent assessments of the investment that we need to make.

I accept the right hon. Gentleman's point that it is not just an issue of money. Money is important when dealing with such matters, but doing so involves a package of measures. We recognise that flood plain development is an issue in itself. It did not feature very much in the recent planning Green Paper because it has already been addressed in PPG 25, which was referred to by some hon. Members.

I accept that there are large communities living in flood plains. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned Hull, which has invested substantially in reducing risk. I myself opened the Saltend flood defence scheme, which protects the outskirts of Hull. One of the rocks in that scheme has my name on it, as do several pumps that I have opened over the years in various obscure places in the Fens. That is part of the substantial investment in such schemes over the past few years. Since 2000, the Government have approved 274 schemes, at a total cost of £386 million.

On some of the comments about Scotland. it was conceded that Scotland has a smaller problem in that regard—it has approved 60 schemes in the past 40 years and has an annual spend is £12 million. I must correct the right hon. Gentleman: there is no statutory obligation in Scotland to provide flood defences. The situation is no different from that in England. There are statutory obligations in regard to maintenance but that is not quite the same.

Changes at sea level are taken into account in the projected changes in our planning and forward proposals, in the research that we have commissioned into shoreline management plans and strategies and in the fully integrated research programmes that we have with the Environment Agency. I accept that in some cases factors such as changes in agricultural practices have not helped in regard to water run-off, although I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman that the grassland environmental impact assessment, which is a significant study of the impact of change in land use, was not implemented for more than a decade under the previous Administration. However, I am glad to say that we have administered that environmental impact assessment; although it might have had more effect if it had been done many years ago, it is still helpful in understanding the effects of important changes such as ploughing up downlands and converting grassland into land for cultivating potatoes, for example.

We have set targets on a range of issues, including brownfield sites. We are ahead of target on the proportion of brownfield sites used for development. We are looking at ways of raising other income. The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire mentioned connection charges; we can look at that, not only in terms of raising additional money for flood defence but of making people think carefully about development in flood risk areas. A flood plain levy was also suggested but it is clear from our consultation that that is not a favoured option and we will take that into serious consideration.

We recognise that there has to be a range of elements in this package of measures. We are streamlining capital, maintenance and operational funding into one fund, as the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire requested; we have announced warning systems; we have improved forecasting; there is stronger planning guidance and long-term strategic planning; we have a foresight programme, overseen by the Government chief scientist, which is a 100-year assessment of need; high-level targets have been set; there is investment and research into climate change; there is streamlining of institutions in our study of the funding review; there is support for self-help publicity through flood awareness campaigns; catchment study plans; and support for new technology and mobile schemes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) mentioned. Those are all substantial areas of investment and no one can accuse the Government of being complacent.

Since 1998, when we commissioned the Bye report after the floods in Northampton, there has been a revolution in the provision of flood and coastal defence in this country, in terms of the number of reviews that we have initiated, the actions that we have taken to enhance flood warnings and to strengthen our response to flooding and our substantially increased investment. We have also introduced a points system to try to ensure a transparent method of determining priority in flood defence schemes. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester said, we will review that next April, to emphasise the number of people who are affected.

One cannot ignore the issue of cost benefit, which was introduced in the flood defence strategy in 1993. We accept cost-benefit analysis as part of our approach. We also recognise that we need to look at planning and that includes sustainable urban drainage. We are in close discussion with insurance companies and we listen carefully to what they say. We welcome the development of digital mapping, for example, and understand that there is a potential risk in using such mapping to exclude property. We hope that that will not happen. We hope that insurance companies recognise that only in exceptional circumstances will properties be unable to get insurance. Our dialogue on that will continue. Sewage flooding is also important, and the impending waste water directive will cover that. Those are all substantial investments that will help us examine how to reduce the flooding in this country. Huge sums of money are being invested, and our record on the problem is good. There is no complacency in the Government, and we will continue to work to reduce the risk.

As time is short, I will be happy to write to hon. Members who asked questions that I was unable to answer.

I am particularly pleased to have secured today's debate because the question of shortfalls on endowment mortgages is raised regularly in my constituency surgeries. Such shortfalls are causing real hardship, often to some of my constituents who are least able to bear hardship and who are approaching retirement. The problem is of a big scale, and about 6 million householders in the UK—about 61 per cent. of mortgage endowment holders—are facing shortfalls on their endowment mortgages. The issue has been raised regularly because it is serious for those who are affected. It cuts across a large group of people.

It is necessary to remember the past position to understand some of the present difficulties. I refer back to the 1980s, when the industry was poorly regulated. Indeed, there was simply no regulation of the sale of endowment mortgages between 1982 and 1988, during which there was a substantial increase in the sale of endowment mortgages. It was a time when many people moved into the property market and purchased their own home for the first time. Some of those first-time buyers were young couples who had no experience of purchasing properties, while others were people who had lived as tenants for many years and were given big discounts to purchase their council houses. Sadly, in 2002, the chickens are coming home to roost, and the mis-selling that occurred at that time is causing real hardship.

It is important to recognise that the sale of endowment mortgages in the 1980s increased substantially. The proportion of endowment mortgages increased from 60 per cent. of mortgages in 1982 to 84 per cent. by the end of the decade, despite the fact that life assurance premium relief was abolished. That happened in 1984; I remember that particularly well because I was an articled clerk to a solicitor's firm at that time. We had a yearly panic at the time of the Budget, and that year people were rushing to secure endowment mortgages before the Budget took effect because they feared that they would lose the relief on endowment mortgages that was offered at that time. Those people felt that the loss of relief would be the death of the endowment mortgage because it could not logically continue after the tax relief given on premiums paid on an endowment mortgage was removed. They believed that the move would make endowment mortgages more expensive, and that is what happened.

During the decade, endowment mortgages became more expensive, but sales increased. Why was that? I am afraid the answer is largely due to ignorance on the part of those who bought the mortgages. A lot of money was made in the 1980s from the sale of endowment mortgages based on commissions that were paid to the people who sold them and those who benefited from them.

First, the commissions were paid to the life companies. They secured a great deal of money because the commissions paid were not disclosed to the individuals who bought the endowment mortgages. Secondly, the building societies that benefited from the endowment mortgages also received large amounts of commission throughout the 1980s. For example, in 1989, Abbey National building society received £95 million in commission payments; the Halifax building society received £113 million; the Nationwide building society received £109 million. The public were ignorant of those payments. They were not aware that many of the payments made in connection with their mortgage gobbled up all the premiums that they paid in the first year. That disgraceful situation meant that people were buying endowment mortgages that were more expensive than the ordinary repayment mortgage because the situation was misrepresented to them when they originally purchased the product.

Endowment mortgages—especially with-profits funds—were presented to people as nest-eggs. People were told that taking out a life policy at the time of their mortgage would ensure that the mortgage was paid off and provide them with the bonus of an additional sum left over at the end of the term after the mortgage was paid.

Ironically, with-profits funds were presented as the safe option. At the time, if someone wanted to take a chance on the markets, index-linked endowments were presented as more risky, but with a greater benefit in the longer term. From my experience in the 1980s, when I qualified as a solicitor, I know that with-profits funds were presented to the consumer as safe bets. Regrettably, that was entirely untrue.

The safe bets led to hardship in individual cases, which, when one hears about it from the people involved, becomes difficult to bear. A couple who came to see me recently—a manual worker and his wife—purchased an endowment mortgage in the 1980s to buy their council house. They saved £6,000 during their working lives from their small income and have now received correspondence telling them that the endowment mortgage that they were sold in the 1980s will fall short by about £3,000. Half of their life savings—money that they had put by for their retirement over 30 to 40 years—will have to be used to pay off their mortgage. That situation is not untypical.

I am proud that the Government have taken positive steps to improve the regulation of financial services and I commend them for that. It was ironic that when we were discussing the matter last week, the Conservative party was commending deregulation. I have heard from my constituents the effect of that policy on individuals' lives. If beggars belief that that policy is still promulgated.

We have taken steps to encourage the building societies and the life companies to be proactive in their approach to consumers receiving compensation, but the existing system is not satisfactory. It depends upon those who were mis-sold these policies in the 1980s themselves being able to establish that, some 15 to 17 years ago, statements were made that misled people and persuaded them to purchase products that they would not otherwise have bought. The onus rests upon the consumer, which is very unfair, as many of those who sold the policies between 1982 and 1988 are no longer in the industry. In many cases, they received no training because, at that time, they did not need it. I suspect that most of them have left the industry, and it is difficult for individuals to contact brokers who sold them their policies. It is also difficult for individuals to record details of conversations that took place 15 to 17 years ago. It is an unreasonable burden for consumers to bear. It is unsatisfactory to place on them the burden of proof—to use another legal phrase—in these circumstances.

Last week in the Chamber in answer to one of my questions, my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary referred to the expense of a full compensation scheme for endowment mortgages, referring, I believe, to a figure of £5 billion. Such a scheme would be extremely expensive, partly because the building societies, life companies and brokers benefited substantially in the 1980s from the hundreds of millions of pounds that they received in commission. The compensation would be at the levels to which my hon. Friend referred because those companies profited hugely in the past. The resulting hardship is difficult to bear for some people who come to my surgery.

I want the Government to consider reversing the burden of proof because of the money that various companies in the industry received. If someone is notified that there will be a shortfall on their endowment mortgage and makes a complaint, they should be able to assume that unless the company can establish that the policy was properly sold to them, they will receive an appropriate amount of compensation. The onus should be on the companies that made the profits to establish that the policy was properly sold. It is also incumbent on those companies to show the profits that they made in each case. Unfortunately, because of the rules at the time, people who took out the mortgages do not know how much they paid to the companies in commission. It would be a positive step if companies were obliged to disclose the commission that they received. That should extend not only to life companies, but to building societies that took the commission at the time.

The Government have taken steps, and some compensation has been paid. I know from answers to parliamentary questions to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that that some £151 million has already been paid in compensation. However, the scale of the mis-selling in the 1980s, and the extent of the hardship that it caused, outstrips the compensation that has been paid to date.

The obligation to compensate and to pay shortfalls does not rest with those who took out the endowment mortgages, but should be shared between those who took out the endowment mortgages and those who profited by them when they were sold. That would be fair, and it is right and proper that we focus not only on the life companies, but on the building societies and brokers who made substantial sums of money when the policies were mis-sold. I ask the Government to accept that there was comprehensive and institutional mis-selling in the 1980s. They should strengthen the scheme and simplify the method of compensation that is required to put those people who are suffering so much hardship in the position that they would have been in had they bought the right product 20 years ago.

I am very pleased to see you presiding over our deliberations, Mr. O'Brien. This is an important subject in which my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) takes a keen interest. I am sure that he is not the only hon. Member to have received many representations from constituents on this matter. Before dealing with the specific issues that he raised, I should like to say a few words on our policy towards making the market for retail financial services work better for both consumers and the industry.

The Sandler report—which was published last week and which the Government endorse—sets out a vision of a simpler, more transparent and more competitive medium and long-term savings industry. Ron Sandler's recommendations have the potential to benefit consumers and the retail investment industry and to improve the operation of the market. They will bring greater competition and efficiency and more productive investment. If we can produce, for example, simpler, safer products that consumers can understand and that are economic for providers to sell, we will be able to boost the level of saving without compromising consumer protection.

We welcomed the main conclusions of the review. It contains important proposals that will be of benefit to consumers, the industry, and the economy as a whole. I will be asking my officials to begin work on designing standards for those, consulting the Financial Services Authority, the industry and consumers. The FSA has indicated that it, too, will be consulting on other aspects of the review such as, for example, the reform of with-profits policies. By increasing the level of investment and channelling it towards productive uses, we can drive higher levels of growth across the economy, while at the same time ensuring consumer confidence in the financial services required to operate in the modern world. I am sure that that is an agenda to which we can all sign up.

I should like to point to a couple of recommendations in the Sandler report that bear closely on what my hon. Friend said. First, Ron Sandler commented on commission and how it is disclosed by financial advisers to consumers when they borrow on financial products. He recommends that during that process consumers should be advised up front as to what commission is paid, if it is to be paid. If financial advisers label themselves as independent, they would not be able to charge commission for their services. He also suggests that when simple, transparent products are sold to consumers, there should be a system of warnings that flag up the fact that investments products that invest in the equity market may not be suitable for someone who wants to pay off a specific liability at a specific date in the future. As he rightly says, we have to restore consumer confidence in the savings market.

Consumer confidence is a prerequisite for progress. Trust is the most important commodity that the retail financial services industry can possess. Pension mis-selling is a scandal that still reverberates around the financial services industry, and rightly so. Some 1.7 million pension mis-selling cases have been examined. Offers of redress, totaling £11.5 billion, have been made in more than 1 million cases. That represents a serious breach of trust and it is understandable that concern has spread to other areas, such as endowment mortgages. The problems consumers have experienced with endowments have undoubtedly shaken the essential bond of trust on which financial services depend.

I should like to set out first the background to the endowment issue, and then the actions the FSA are taking to address it. The Government have been successful in achieving low, stable inflation. Low inflation has meant that nominal forecast returns from investments have fallen. Industry and others no longer need to pay out a premium to investors for economic uncertainty. But the wider benefits that lower inflation has brought include, for many borrowers, welcome reductions in their monthly mortgage payments as the interest element has fallen.

The recent falls in financial markets globally have also had an impact, although it is important to keep these in perspective. Endowments are a long-term investment and should be judged against long-term trends. Lower cash returns on investments have meant that, in some cases, the return on the endowment is no longer enough to cover the outstanding mortgage at the end of the term. That is unwelcome news for any homeowner, and I can certainly understand the concerns that have been expressed and the hardship experienced by my hon. Friend's constituents.

However, there are three points to bear in mind when comparing the problems with endowments with, for example, the scandal of personal pensions mis-selling. First, a shortfall does not necessarily mean that someone has been mis-sold a product or an endowment, provided that the risks were clearly explained and the investment forecasts used to illustrate the investment reasonable. Unhappily, in many instances, that was not the case or the policy was manifestly unsuitable. I shall outline later the steps that the FSA is taking to ensure that people can claim any redress owed.

Secondly, even where there is mis-selling, there is not necessarily financial loss. This is a hard point to grasp, but falling interest rates have meant that endowment holders have often done better overall than those who took out the alternative of a repayment mortgage.

Thirdly, because the FSA has taken swift action, endowment holders not due redress can take remedial action themselves by increasing their payments or renegotiating their mortgages now, so that they will not face a terrible outcome when their policy matures.

None of that should downplay the seriousness with which we take the problem of mis-selling; it merely puts it in its proper context. Problems with endowments emerged in the late 1990s. After discussion with the FSA, the Association of British Insurers developed a code of practice to ensure that adequate premium reviews were undertaken. The ABI began to send reprojection letters to policyholders, setting out the status of their investment.

A further round of such letters has started, showing shortfalls in more cases, and the issue has returned to prominence. Included in the reprojection letter to endowment holders is a fact sheet that explains the background to the endowment issue and sets out how to complain. The FSA has taken the view that the right way to address the problem is to tackle directly the pockets of mis-selling and to give other endowment holders the information that they need to complain and secure any redress that is due.

That strategy has had considerable success. First, the FSA has identified, and required firms to resolve, a number of areas of significant consumer detriment caused by pockets of mis-selling and mis-pricing of products. As a result, to date, 20 firms have agreed proactively to compensate policyholders who were mis-sold their products. That involves about 218,000 policies, and total compensation of about £315 million is currently due. Public enforcement action has been taken against two firms so far, and investigations are continuing into a number of others where there is evidence of potential mis-selling. Where mis-selling is established, steps will be taken to ensure that consumers receive appropriate redress. Disciplinary action against the firms may also result.

Secondly, as a result of the first reprojection exercise, firms have received just over 100,000 complaints since April 2000. That represents about 1 per cent. of all policies. The firms upheld about a third of the complaints, with an average redress of £3,000. Consumers who are not satisfied with how firms have dealt with their complaint have a channel of complaint through the financial ombudsman service. In the past two years, some 23,000 complaints went to that service, 45 per cent. of which were resolved in the consumer's favour.

My hon. Friend suggests that the onus is on the consumer to prove mis-selling. However, if a consumer complains to the financial ombudsman service, the firm, not the individual, must provide the paperwork, which makes the process much more straightforward for the individual. Although the ombudsman's ruling is incumbent on the firm, if the consumer still feels dissatisfied, they always have the right to take the matter further, to the courts. Various options are available if people feel that their complaint has not been satisfied straight away.

My hon. Friend mentioned the £5 billion figure, but that is the administrative cost of running a full-scale review, rather than the cost of tackling pockets of clear mis-selling. Administrative costs come before any potential compensation, which, because of the greater number of holders of endowment policies, will be much greater than the £2 billion costs for the administration of the pensions mis-selling scandal.

The FSA's strategy strikes the right balance between informing consumers to help them to take the right decisions and ensuring that firms do the right thing. Learning from the past should help us to build for the future a more efficient system with proper processes of consumer protection and redress in place.

Many reputable high-street companies have decided not to sell endowment mortgages, but the less reputable ones continue to sell them. The Financial Secretary talks about the future, but is it not worrying that, in the first quarter of this year, one in 10 of all mortgages were still endowments?

Some categories of consumer may decide to invest in the equity market, despite the fact that they have to pay and cover their liabilities at a certain date in the future. Such consumers may be prepared to accept the risk. However, that is clearly inappropriate for the vast majority of people when they have no other sources of finance to cover them. I shall not comment on the precise number of endowment policies sold at the moment, but some people, perhaps with other sources of finance or funding alongside their endowment mortgage, might want to invest in the stock market as a means of paying off their mortgage. I would not say that endowments are never appropriate for consumers. The vast majority of consumers, however, clearly want to pursue another option. Ron Sandler's report sets out a variety of simple and transparent products with warnings about when they may be inappropriate. We endorse his general vision of the future.

Is it not more likely that endowment mortgages are still being sold in such large numbers because of pressure from the salesmen? As we know from the past, salesmen profited hugely from endowment mortgages because they gained seven times the rate of commission than they would have gained from a redemption mortgage.

My hon. Friend is right to point to commission as an incentive to make sales, which is why Sandler's proposals have strict caps on charges and are sold free of the previous regime's dependence on commission. We must try to restore confidence and trust in the financial services industry, which plays an important and valuable role in allowing people to save and allocating savings efficiently across the economy. We have a shared interest in encouraging individuals to take responsibility for their own future, increasing their levels of saving and employing the savings pool to enhance the productivity of the UK economy. We need to create a virtuous circle of saving, investment in economic growth and enhanced incentives to save.

Consumer protection will remain a top priority for the Government. The FSA will continue to act in the public interest, protecting and educating consumers, policing the retail market and ensuring appropriate mechanisms for review and redress when things go wrong. The market will continue to be responsive to consumer concerns. Reputational risk has assumed a much greater importance these days. Firms know that if they want to prosper in the future, they cannot afford to repeat the problems of the past.

It is a great pleasure to introduce this Adjournment debate. This is my fourth such debate, and the first not to be on a specific constituency interest.

The previous Conservative Government set up the Child Support Agency with cross-party support. The CSA currently has 1.1 million clients, and its caseload is being added to at the rate of 300,000 new applications a year. It deals with many vulnerable people throughout the country, although they are mainly mothers who are seeking maintenance payments for their children. The CSA employs 12,000 part-time and full-time staff. Many of them do an excellent job in difficult and trying circumstances, and I want to place on record my thanks to them.

On 20 March, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions announced in the House that the child support reforms that were due to be implemented on 1 April would be delayed because of problems with the computer system that the agency had hoped would be up and running by that time. At present, there is no firm date for the introduction of those reforms.

It is vital that the CSA maintains complete fairness in its work with fathers. I should stress that at the start, because I will be talking mainly about the plight of mothers who are unable to receive the payments that are due to them. It is important that fathers are treated fairly and that amounts are taken from them to support children by former wives or partners only where that is fair. The CSA must stick to that principle.

Many mothers in my constituency surgeries have advised me to advocate the stopping of visits by fathers who do not make their payments, but I shall not do that, because it would be wrong on two counts. First, it would be unkind to the children, who will already have endured the break-up of their parents' marriage or relationship. Secondly, the non-resident parent's contact with his children should enable the CSA to have greater contact with him. There is therefore a double benefit in maintaining contact with fathers, and it should be allowed to continue.

I want to go through, on a confidential basis, several of the case histories that have recently come to my attention, because they illustrate the scope of the concerns that I am discussing. A few months ago, a mother came to my surgery to tell me that she was absolutely fed up with receiving official CSA statements telling her how much money would be paid into her bank account and when. She showed me the statements, saying, "I don't want to receive more bits of paper like these. I find them so upsetting, and I have had them so many times. I go to the bank on the date specified and ask the people behind the counter whether the money is there. But, time and time again, it isn't."

Another lady told me that her ex-husband was living in a four-bedroomed house in another part of the country in much greater style and comfort than she and her children were. That was because his new partner had moved out, and the CSA had said that he needed all his available money to meet his housing costs. Unsurprisingly, the mother who came to see me found that unacceptable.

Another lady told me that she was on the verge of losing her home, as she and her new partner were unable to meet the rent. If even a proportion of the money from the CSA and the considerable arrears due to her were paid, she would be able to keep her children in the home that they were used to. In that case, the father—the non-resident parent—was able to buy expensive clothes for the children on a weekly basis. Unpleasantly, he insisted on keeping the clothes in his house rather than letting the children take them to the mother's home. However, he was not prepared to make any child support payments.

Another mother complained to me about the expensive presents showered on her children by their father, who drove a T-registration car that was much smarter than any car that she could muster. She told me that she could not afford swimming lessons for her children, and sometimes even found the weekly food bill a struggle to meet. The father clearly had no such restrictions on his lifestyle.

I was told by another mother that her application had at one point been closed by the CSA. There had been a brief reconciliation, but it did not work, and she then found that the whole application had to be reopened and all the forms filled in again. She felt that that procedure caused unnecessary delay.

I also think of the mother who came to me several months ago, whose ex-husband had been at the other end of the income scale. He had substantial assets and income, and she had not received a penny from him. Apparently he had several bank accounts, moved money around and kept money in different names. He enjoyed a high quality of life and did not give a penny to the large number of children that his former wife looked after.

Yet another lady told me that she had first taken her case to the CSA in 1995, and in the seven years up to 2002 had received only £500 in payment. She wrote to me about the effects that her battle with the CSA had had on her children and herself, saying that her children

"have had to go without so many things that are considered to be an entitlement for children…they have been under considerable stress because their father has not taken his parental responsibilities; this has particularly affected them when they have been taking their school examinations … they have found preparing for university life stressful because of their financial insecurity … ongoing worry and stress…has adversely affected my health and can be confirmed by my GP".

She also said that she had had

"to give up my employment as by working five and a half days a week I was never able to speak to my caseworker, who only worked two days a week at the CSA unless I took time off work, which I could not afford".

I hope that those examples have been useful to put a little flesh on the bones of individual CSA cases. I understand the importance of computer systems that work well. We all know the benefits in working life of computer systems. My central contention is that the CSA can run a more efficient enforcement system even without the new computer system for which it is waiting.

We know that the CSA payment compliance rate is around 72 per cent, with payments not received in 27.1 per cent. of cases. If we take the current stock of cases, at present some 300,000 clients are not receiving payment. CSA statistics suggest that more than 80,000 out of every 300,000 new cases every year will not receive the payments to which they are entitled.

How can we improve matters? I shall make several suggestions, which I ask the Minister to take back to the Department and to consider seriously. I should be grateful if she could respond, now or later, to my suggestions or proposals, because there is huge cross-party concern about the issue. Many vulnerable mothers are not receiving the entitlements that they should receive.

First, we should ensure that CSA procedures are tighter. A time scale should be laid out for applying to letters, chasing up phone calls and making sure that forms have been sent out. There should be a two to three week maximum period before clients are chased so that the agency can make progress with their case. Basic procedures should be set up to ensure that cases progress more quickly.

People have suggested to me that P45s and national insurance numbers could be tagged so that the Department and new employers would realise that a new employee had a CSA payment liability. A new employer would straight away be able to action the payments and contact the agency to ensure that the money went through.

There are huge difficulties in relation to businesses that pay cash to their staff. Again, there should be a much stronger onus on companies that pay cash, whether in the building trade or elsewhere, to ensure that they ask all their employees about potential CSA obligations. They should not be allowed to treat the subject lightly simply because they pay their employees in cash. I know of cases of non-resident parents who invoice companies for their services rather than receiving a salary for their services. That is a method being used by non-resident parents to avoid their liabilities. Legislation should be imposed on employers so that they have a duty to check whether an employee who takes that route has a CSA liability. Non-resident parents should not be able to avoid their liabilities in that way.

Mothers—or, rather, parents with care—tell me that when the non-resident parent has his own business or is self-employed, there is even greater delay in the process. I realise that assessments have to be made and that the area is complicated, but I urge the Department to consider how estimates might be made more quickly. It is a common pattern that, as soon as an order arrives for deductions of earnings, a non-resident parent leaves the firm that pays him on a monthly salaried basis and becomes self-employed or asks to be paid in cash. That makes the trail much harder for the CSA to follow. More thought should be given to that problem.

The CSA does not have the same surveillance powers as the former Benefits Agency. I would not normally advocate greater surveillance of the citizens of this country, but what signal are we sending by depriving the CSA of those powers? Are we saying that abuse of the benefit system that costs the state money is a worse offence than failing to pay mothers with children the money to which they are entitled? That sends out the signal that we are not serious about supporting mothers and children.

The National Canine Defence League has as its slogan "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas." How much more that slogan applies to our children. We must send a clear signal that having children is not merely a lifestyle choice or an obligation that lasts for a few years while the relationship between the parents is going well; it is a commitment for life. We need to send that message more clearly and loudly so that it is readily understood by everyone, especially younger people, so that they understand what commitments they are taking on when they have children.

Above all, prevention is better than cure, and we should do all that we can to reduce the agency's additional caseload of 300,000 a year. I urge the Department, in its broader thinking and wider policy, to have the greatest concern for building up the stability of family life.

I first congratulate the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) on securing the debate. He raised some important issues, which have caught the concern of people throughout the country. Many of us meet people like the parents to whom he has referred in our surgeries when we are out there trying to discover what is going on in the world, so interest in the subject is not confined to south-west Bedfordshire.

The hon. Gentleman gave some indication of his concerns by referring to cases in his constituency. Naturally, he did not mention specific details, and I would not expect him to, but given that he did not tell me all the details of each case, I hope that he will understand that I cannot answer his questions on the cases that he mentioned, which appear in my notes as "Mrs. A to Mrs. G." He did not even give basic details about whether the non-resident parent in each case was working or whether the constituent to whom he had spoken was working. He highlighted some interesting issues, which I cannot deal with on a case-by-case basis today, although I can make some general points.

All Members of Parliament are concerned about compliance by non-resident parents with assessments and payments. Compliance by non-resident parents is key to an effective child support scheme, and the agency was set up to ensure that maintenance payments were made and people confronted the financial consequences of bringing up children, whether or not the parents were still together. The hon. Gentleman will know—this is not a partisan point—that because of the 1992 legislation, the current formula for assessing maintenance is complicated. The agency must work out the disposable income of both parents. and take account of necessary day-to-day expenses and even a new partner's income. In complicated cases, that can mean collecting more than 100 pieces of information before even attempting to do the calculation to make the assessment. In one in three cases processed under the old scheme, no maintenance is paid, and full maintenance is paid in fewer than half of all cases. That is after the assessment has been made. The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that there has been concern in recent years about the speed with which assessments are made. The new scheme will make the process simpler.

On another of the hon. Gentleman's themes, a small minority of parents simply do not want to support their children. One suspects that that lies behind some of the problems to which he referred. The current complicated process leaves those parents who want to evade their responsibilities with ample opportunity to frustrate the system and to delay the provision of information. The current formula makes it difficult for the agency to get maintenance assessments right and to pay them speedily. As some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents told him, non-resident parents can wait a long a time for assessments—as long as seven years in one of the cases that he mentioned—and they cannot be confident that the assessments are right. Many may then face having to pay off large sums of arrears, which is a disincentive; those who start with a mountain of debt will think that they will never get to the end of the payment process. The current formula is not a good way to ensure early and regular compliance from non-resident parents. That is one of the systemic problems that we inherited with the old formula.

The hon. Gentleman was right to say that we should not overlook the great improvements made in recent years. Compliance by non-resident parents has steadily improved. Since February 1997, the number who pay the full sum asked of them has increased by 32 per cent. to 53 per cent., which is a significant achievement. The number who pay nothing at all has reduced by 9 per cent. to 27 per cent. That is still too high, however, and we hope that the new formula will be able to tackle that.

The agency has put greater emphasis on customer relations, which was one of the problems of the old-style agency. For instance, telephone lines are now open for longer. The hon. Gentleman referred to a constituent who had to give up her job in order to contact the CSA—that was the lady who had been waiting for seven years for what transpired to be a small payment. She would not have to suffer such problems now because the telephone lines are open out of working hours. We should not overlook the great improvements that have been made to the scheme. When necessary, face-to-face interviews can now be conducted outside the office.

Like the hon. Gentleman, I pay tribute to the work of the agency's staff. They have a difficult job, placed as they are in the middle of relationships that have gone wrong. Those who have been in such a situation will know that that is a difficult place to be; the consequences are not always directed at those who are at fault. The agency staff have an inherently difficult job, and the improvements that have been made over the past few years owe much to their dedication and professionalism. I was pleased to hear the hon. Gentleman mention that.

Because of the complexities of the formula, there is a limit to what we can do within the confines of the scheme established by the 1992 legislation. That is why we are introducing a new and simpler child support scheme. The maintenance calculation will be based on a simple percentage of the non-resident parent's net income; it will be 15 per cent., 20 per cent. or 25 per cent., depending on the number of children involved. That is a far simpler calculation. Far less information will be required to complete the calculation. That should free the agency's time and resources; as a result, more time can be spent chasing payments and ensuring that they go to the parent with care instead of working out what the payments should be and then chasing arrears because it has taken so long.

Non-resident parents, especially those who have no intention of complying, will now find themselves with no excuse. They will be able to work out for themselves fairly accurately how much maintenance they will be expected to pay. More important, because the agency will be able to calculate their liability much more quickly, large amounts of arrears will not have built up before they know exactly what they will have to pay. The new scheme will have simplicity and clarity at its heart. It will free the agency staff and allow them to spend more time ensuring enforcement and compliance.

Unfortunately, some non-resident parents will still be determined not to make any maintenance payments. The agency has already taken steps to deal with that, and it has a range of enforcement tools at its disposal. For example, it can deduct earnings at source, get a liability order, send the bailiffs in or garnishee a bank account, which is a legalistic way of saying that it can force people to hand over money from that account. Ultimately, a non-resident parent can be committed to prison for a wilful refusal to pay maintenance. The agency is not interested in resorting to such tactics at the first stage, however, and it is always looking for ways to make it easier to collect maintenance and obtain compliance. It can, for example, require companies, employers and accountants to provide information about a non-resident parent's income. The failure to provide such information, or the provision of false information, is a criminal offence that carries a penalty of up to £1,000.

The courts can now also take away a non-resident parent's driving licence as an alternative to committing them to prison. That measure has been very successful in other countries—notably the United States of America—in getting formerly recalcitrant non-resident parents to start paying maintenance, and the early signs are that it is beginning to be effective here. So far, the courts have taken away only one driving licence, but that is because 51 non-resident parents who faced the same penalty started making regular maintenance payments, which is what we want. The measure's deterrent effect therefore seems to be working. We regard sending a parent to prison or preventing them from driving as a failure because we want voluntary compliance. If we cannot get voluntary compliance, we want compliance. We want maintenance to be paid and children to be supported.

I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's comments about some self-employed parents. Where people are self-employed, it is obviously more difficult to work out their incomes, what they should pay and what their assets are. It is not only the CSA that has difficulty in getting money from some—although by no means all—self-employed people, and the problem is familiar to revenue collectors at home and abroad. However, the measures that we have put in place, particularly those that allow us to gather information from independent sources, will help to improve our record on getting maintenance. If the non-resident parent will not tell us what the situation is, we can get information from elsewhere-the Department for Work and Pensions, the Inland Revenue, the non-resident parent's accountant, companies that have employed him, local authorities, which can provide bank account details, and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. We can now gather information from a range of organisations, and we ensure that we do. Our main concern—and the hon. Gentleman's—is to get compliance.

I turn now to some of the hon. Gentleman's specific questions. He made some interesting points, and I shall take some of them to the agency to get its comments. I shall be more than happy to drop him a line with detailed feedback, although I can deal with one or two of his points now.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned a constituent who had to give up her job to contact the agency. She should now be able to contact it up to 8 pm each evening—that should deal with most problems related to working hours—and up to 5 pm on Saturdays. She will not necessarily be able to contact a named caseworker, but she will be able to make contact out of normal working hours, which should assist in some situations.

The hon. Gentleman referred to a constituent whose case was reopened after an attempted reconciliation failed. When a fresh application is made after a failed reconciliation, it is necessary to go through the details again. Maintenance must be assessed on the basis of the circumstances at the time; those may have changed considerably after a period of reconciliation, and it would not be safe to assume that everything was the same. I well understand his constituent's annoyance, given that her situation may have been the same and that it must have seemed like she was jumping through the same hoop again. I am afraid, however, that we must establish the circumstances that exist at the time; we cannot simply assume that they have remained the same.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the duties on employers to make checks. It is the responsibility of the parent, not the employer to pay maintenance. We do not want to impose additional burdens on employers who already operate deduction from earnings orders on our behalf, although we do want to ensure compliance. The hon. Gentleman ought to bear in mind that where non-resident parents hide their situation and their assets, there are other steps that we can take.

The agency aims to answer 70 per cent. of correspondence within 10 days, and we exceeded that target last year, answering 82.1 per cent. within that period, so we are tightening up on the procedures that he mentioned. In respect of his other points, I shall write to the hon. Gentleman with some feedback. Finally, I would like to thank him and congratulate him again on raising the issue.

It is interesting that this debate is taking place on the same day as UK Coal's announcement of the closure of Britain's biggest coal mining complex at Selby, near York, by March 2004. The continuation of coal mining until then is dependent on productivity being improved but, regardless of that improvement, 2,000 mining and 3,000 auxiliary jobs will be lost in that area when that complex closes. Millions of tonnes of coal will be left underground. Some have claimed that the decision goes against the European Commission's policy to maintain access to our strategic reserves of coal.

Only last month, the Government gave support for limited state aid to coal producers to fund up to 30 per cent. of new investment in coal mines. Unfortunately, the Government have been reluctant to extend operating aid, which is also allowed under European Union rules. I would like my hon. Friend the Minister to consider what more can be done for the coal industry. Is it not sensible, if closure is the only option for UK Coal, for the Government to consider taking over the ownership of the mine to protect a valuable resource?

The performance and innovation unit report and energy review raises many issues that need to be considered and addressed and I believe this debate is part of a continuing process to involve the population at large. I am a member of Amicus, one of the major unions within the energy industry, and my union's record in playing a constructive role in promoting the most efficient and cost-effective methods of generation and distribution is widely acknowledged.

When the Prime Minister asked the PIU to examine the long-term challenges for energy policy in the UK, it was against a background of a number of key issues, including competitiveness, security of supply and affordability to the consumer. I believe diversity of supply should also be included.

Energy impacts on all our lives, yet we take for granted its delivery, which enables us to switch on a light, boil a kettle, switch on a cooker or a fire, watch TV or simply listen to the radio. It is only when the lights go out, as they did in California recently and in Britain during the three-day week associated with the 1974 miners' strike, which I am old enough to remember, that we realise the benefits of energy security.

There are concerns regarding some aspects of the review. At present we have a balanced energy mix of gas, oil, coal, nuclear and renewables. We are self-sufficient at present but, within the next three or four years, this will not be so. Different lead times are involved in maintaining energy security, but the building of a power station takes considerable time, from planning consent to the actual construction.

That means that the decisions reached within the near future will determine the success of any long-term strategy in energy policy. In 30 years, world oil may have become not only scarce but expensive. Over-dependence on gas imports from countries such as Russia and areas such as north Africa and the middle east might not seem as attractive as it does today. To rely on the delivery from such countries of 90 per cent. of a 70 per cent. gas component in our energy policy by 2025 would be, in my opinion, totally irresponsible.

We must remember also our responsibility concerning our international environmental objectives and our commitment to reduce the emission of CO₂ and greenhouse gases. It is logical that we should consider how best we achieve low carbon energy production in this country. The UK has done well in comparison with other developed countries in meeting our targets. The UK target under the Kyoto protocol was to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels for the period between 2008 and 2012. All projections suggest that we will reach that goal. In fact, we are on target—but only just—to meet the Government's most ambitious domestic target of reducing CO₂ emissions to 20 per cent. less than 1990 levels by 2010.

I welcome the debate. For the first time in years, we are committed to a serious and wide-ranging debate on energy policy, a policy that will have a profound effect on social and economic aspects of UK life. Our thinking must not be too narrow or pushed down pre-determined routes. The beauty of the current position is that we stand on the verge of an exciting new energy era. The Government, Members of Parliament, businesses and the people of the country must engage in a proper debate to develop energy policy for future generations.

I believe that the free market panacea will not produce the security of energy supply that the country so desperately needs if it is to remain an economic powerhouse in the new century. The decisions that we take in the coming months will have a profound effect on the legacy that we leave to future generations. We must adopt policies that will maintain the security of supply, although there is increasing demand for energy.

We must meet our environmental obligations, which have grown in importance in the eyes of not only the international political community but the world population. We must also consider the future employment opportunities of the UK manufacturing industry that supplies the power industry. Research and development into expanding technologies can give us a lead in world markets. What options must we consider? Certainly, it is essential to drive forward the need for greater energy efficiency.

Pursuing energy efficiency is unique, in that it would contribute to all the UK's key energy and environmental objectives. Energy efficiency reduces carbon dioxide emissions, is a sustainable solution for fuel poverty, reduces consumers' fuel bills, helps preserve indigenous energy supplies and creates employment. That is not unproven technology, but simply common sense. The royal commission on environmental pollution has called for a 60 per cent. reduction in CO₂ gases by 2050. Some 27 per cent. of the UK's carbon dioxide comes from household use of energy.

Without sustained effort on energy efficiency from everyone, the household sector will have increased its energy use by 2010. That is why it is important that the Government make available substantial resources in order to convince not only the public but local authorities and the construction industry about their role in achieving energy efficiency.

As I have mentioned, coal at present accounts for about 30 per cent. of energy production. In an initial response to the Government's energy policy consultation, Coalpro, the Confederation of UK Coal Producers, advocated certain policy actions. In its submission it says that we must recognise that coal, and indigenous coal in particular, has a security value to the nation beyond the commodity price it commands on the market.

Maintaining a healthy level of indigenous coal production will require Government support. Coalpro points to the range of flexible support options available to the Government under state aid rules recently agreed by the EU. It believes that the Government should establish a legislative framework that makes it attractive for owners of coal-fired power stations to maintain those assets and carry coal stocks as necessary back-up to renewables and as cheap insurance against gas supply interruptions.

The Department of Trade and Industry must start the supercritical boiler retrofit project at an existing coal-fired power station. That project was recommended in the Department' s "cleaner coal" review earlier this year, and requires that the DTI cleaner coal technology research and development programme budget be increased. Clean-coal technologies offer immediate benefits and, in the longer term, with carbon capture and storage, can help achieve—at significantly less cost than other options—the great cuts in CO₂ emissions that are called for by the royal commission on environmental pollution.

As today's announcement demonstrates, coal mines in the UK have a relatively short life ahead of them. Targeted investment aid under the new rules replacing the European Coal and Steel Community treaty would allow mining companies to access reserves from existing mines. However, any investment in coal production, whether public or private, must be underwritten by long-term supply contracts. In today's liberalised energy market, producers are often unable to negotiate anything other than short-term or spot contracts that put them in a poor position to finance capital projects.

A controversial option is replacing nuclear with nuclear. At present, nuclear power stations produce a quarter of all Britain's electricity. In Scotland, the proportion is well over 50 per cent. Under the current policy strategy, the amount of electricity produced by nuclear power will reduce to about 3 per cent. by 2025 because nuclear power stations will reach the end of their productive life and close.

For example, the Magnox stations built in the 1950s and 1960s are expected to close between now and 2010 and, a few weeks ago, the closure of the Chapelcross Magnox plant was announced, the first Magnox plant to close. The advanced gas-cooled reactors that were completed in the 1970s and 1980s will close between 2010 and 2025, which will leave one pressurised water reactor at Sizewell B that was built in the 1990s to continue until 2035. If we are to replace the plants, we must take that decision as soon as possible.

It is interesting that power produced by coal-fired power stations over the same period is expected to reduce from about 30 per cent. of the supply to a small percentage. British Energy's nuclear stations currently avoid carbon emissions equivalent to over half that produced by the UK's cars. Nuclear is the only reliable, large-scale and carbon free source of electricity and the UK will not be able to maintain low carbon emissions or have any hope of meeting CO₂ reduction targets without it.

British Energy's submission to the PIU review argued that nuclear power has a vital long-term role to play in meeting our energy needs as part of an even-handed policy that encompasses coal, gas, renewables and energy efficiency. Maintaining a balanced portfolio is the only viable solution that will deliver secure supplies and meet environmental targets. That was supported by the House of Lords Select Committee on the European Union when it investigated security of supply. It recommended that the UK should maintain the share of its power produced by nuclear at no less than 20 per cent.

Other countries have assessed their future energy policy. There was a free parliamentary vote in Finland in May 2002 that gave the go-ahead to build the country's fifth nuclear reactor. In Italy, a parliamentary committee has said that the country should consider a return to nuclear power. An opinion poll in Sweden last month found that almost 80 per cent. of people supported the continued use of nuclear power. The United States Administration has set out plans in "Nuclear Power 2010" to remove barriers to enable the building of new nuclear plants by the end of the decade. Eleven countries throughout the world are presently constructing 31 reactors.

Obviously, one of the big issues is the question of nuclear waste production and waste management. Due to the political short-termism of successive Governments, the United Kingdom has lost its way on a policy for the final disposal of spent fuel and other radioactive waste products. In this country, Nirex could be the vehicle to develop a policy for the management of nuclear waste. The Government would take a massive step towards tackling the enormous problem by supporting the call from Sir Ken Jackson for its independence.

The situation in Finland is a total contrast. Finland has a fully operational underground repository for low and intermediate-level waste. That cost £10 million and was built over two years. There was governmental approval and local community support for the underground retrievable spent fuel repository.

On 9 July, the US Senate gave final legislative approval to the storage of spent nuclear fuel beneath the Yucca mountains in Nevada. That vote was the culmination of a major debate in which the US Administration viewed progress on the repository as critical to efforts on expanding domestic energy production.

The UK Government must act on nuclear waste. We must learn from other countries and thus remove some of the public's aversion to nuclear energy. British Energy is keen to replace its existing nuclear stations as they are retired. New-build nuclear plants will produce electricity at a cost of around £25 per MW after initial research and development and "first of its kind" costs have been written off. That cost is fully inclusive of all waste management and spent fuel disposal costs.

I turn to jobs and employment today. The UK nuclear industry supports some 30,000 jobs. The programme to replace nuclear with nuclear would create some 5,000 manufacturing jobs in the UK over almost two decades and would ensure that the UK remained at the forefront of nuclear technology. However, vision and leadership will be required from all involved if we are to grasp this opportunity; the electricity and contractor industries, the unions, the regulators, and especially the Government.

The fourth component in a balanced energy policy is the development of renewable technology. The cost of development is addressed in the energy review. It suggests that to bring down the cost of new renewables and to establish new options, renewable targets should be expanded; renewables should supply 20 per cent. of our electricity by 2020. However, the review did not reach any conclusion about the means by which that target could be achieved; in fact, it indicated that it is by no means certain that the existing target of 10 per cent. can be achieved by 2010.

At present, Scotland is extremely well served by its existing portfolio of hydro-electricity stations. Provision within renewable obligations to support refurbished plant will ensure that hydro-electricity continues to make an important contribution to our climate change programme.

I am short of time, and I want to give the Minister as long as possible to deal with the issues that I have raised. We must continue to develop renewables; that will give us the opportunity to become a world leader in many of the methods and processes that we would create. A balanced energy policy is essential. It would be a mistake to be dependent on one source of imported fuel. Coal, gas, nuclear and renewables have served us well, and they will continue to do so if they are given a level playing field in the future.

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on securing this debate. The issues that he has so eloquently raised are vital to our ongoing consultation on future energy policy, and I welcome his contribution.

Before turning to specific issues, I want to recap on where we have reached in our progress towards producing a new White Paper. As my hon. Friend said, this is an important opportunity for us to get our policy on energy right for the next 50 years. In June 2001, the Prime Minister asked the performance and innovation unit to carry out a major review of the strategic issues that surround energy policy for Great Britain up to 2050. In large part, that was a response to the royal commission on environmental pollution, which had recommended that the UK should aim for a 60 per cent. reduction in carbon emissions by 2050. The PIU energy review was published on 14 February. It is a report to Government, and it makes a valuable contribution to the debate on how best to meet our future energy needs. It reinforces the importance of environmental considerations in formulating energy policy.

In welcoming the review's publication, we made it clear that fuller consultations would be required if we were to take the issues forward, and on 14 May we launched a consultation document that initiated the next stage of the debate at the start of working towards the White Paper. That stage includes workshops with stakeholders, and seeking the views of the public. Therefore, this debate and the one that was held on the Floor of the House on 20 June are very timely.

Everyone has a stake in our consultation. All of us use electricity and transport, as my hon. Friend said. All of us are dependent on gas, either directly or through its use in electricity generation, and we, and succeeding generations, have a clear stake in the environment, and in the challenge of combating climate change. We have a range of objectives relating to the environment, security of supply, competitiveness and social issues. We have to prioritise those and, as far as is possible, make them compatible with each other.

The precise nature of the White Paper will be determined in the wake of the consultation. However, we start from the assumption that it should be broad, and that it will need to consider all aspects of energy use. The consultation will be open and—we trust—constructive.

Working on the practicalities of future energy policy is complex, and time is short this afternoon. I will now turn to the substance of some of the key issues. Energy security amounts to more than keeping the lights on, and we should not be complacent about it. We must have efficient and competitive energy markets that have the correct incentives to invest. We also need to maximize the economic potential of our own fuel sources, and to build on close relationships with fuel exporting and transporting countries. With this in mind, we will continue to press for the liberalisation of energy markets throughout the Community and will continue to work with other Government Departments in building on our good relations with fuel operators.

Last year, the Department of Trade and Industry and Ofgem set up the joint energy security of supply working group, which has brought together key indicators to monitor the security of energy supplies as part of an initiative to keep the reliability of energy supplies under continuing review. The indicators, which include supply and demand forecasts and forward prices, will provide a means to gauge possible future trends and help inform energy company decisions on future investments.

The working group's first report, published on 25 June, highlights the important role that effective competition and regulation can play together in delivering keenly priced and secure gas and electricity supplies by signalling long-term investment needs and providing the incentives to respond to them efficiently. Centrica's recent announcement of a long-term contract to import large quantities of gas via Norway is a welcome demonstration that the market is making active preparations to ensure our gas supplies.

My hon. Friend spoke with great conviction about nuclear energy. As he will know, the PIU report also raised the question about whether given the continuing aims to deliver lower greenhouse gas emissions and the uncertainties surrounding renewables, the nuclear option should he kept open. There are also issues of security of supply. As such, nuclear was seen by the PIU as a potential safety net if other approaches to low carbon generation and energy security proved difficult to pursue cheaply enough. The Government's current consultation on energy policy is seeking views on that in the light of the fall-off of electricity generated by nuclear over the next 10 years as existing nuclear reactors reach the end of their operating lives. Alongside the central question of whether we need to keep the nuclear option open is the question of how that would be done, should the need arise. We expect that the consultation responses and various stakeholder dialogue discussions in the coming months will help the Government answer some of the questions.

Radioactive waste can continue to be stored safely in the medium term using current technology, although the PIU report acknowledges that the problem is mainly an historic one and that new nuclear stations would make only a small addition to the total. In practice, it is for generators to apply for consent to build new power plants, and decisions on whether they will use nuclear technology will depend on its costs compared with other generation options and on securing public confidence about issues such as safety and the environment. The Government recently completed our public consultation on managing radioactive waste safely, and we understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will make an announcement shortly.

My hon. Friend made a point about the independence of Nirex; Sir Ken Jackson, the general secretary of Amicus, has called for its independence. Indeed, Nirex has recently expressed a wish for independence from its shareholders, but the only people able to do that are the shareholders themselves. The Secretary of State does not hold that power, and it is up to Nirex to convince the shareholders of the argument's logic.

On climate change, I am pleased to say that, at the end of May, the UK ratified the Kyoto protocol with the European Community and other member states, which means that the UK is legally bound to achieve its target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. by 2008–12. However, we must also think hard about what happens after the Kyoto commitment period. The challenge is that unless extra steps are taken, the UK's emissions are forecast to begin rising again in 2010.

I want briefly to mention combined heat and power. Encouraging CHP and other energy efficient technologies is an important part of the Government's strategy to combat climate change. The Government are also committed to increasing the UK's CHP capacity because of the considerable environmental, economic and other benefits that it can bring.

The PIU report concluded that promoting energy efficiency and the development of renewables should be the immediate priority of a low carbon energy policy. As my hon. Friend said, the Government have set an ambitious target of securing 10 per cent. of the total UK electricity supplies from renewables by 2010. The renewables obligation, which came into force on 1 April this year, is a 25-year commitment to the development of renewables. It requires electricity suppliers to provide a rising proportion of their supplies from eligible renewables by 2010; 3 per cent. by March next year, 5.5 per cent. by March 2006 and 10.4 per cent. by March 2011. The expected cost is an average increase in electricity prices of 4.4 per cent. in 2010 above 1999 price levels, which is a good deal all round.

We are also well down the road now on developing regional renewable energy strategies that will help renewables in the planning process, leading to a much more positive approach to planning. We also propose to revise planning policy guidance 22 to provide much more up-to-date guidance on renewables to local planning authorities.

I shall now deal with coal. My hon. Friend spoke about the sadness and tragedy of today's announcement that UK Coal is to shut the Selby complex. He mentioned taking the pit into public ownership, but I have to say that the geological position of the pit means that it will have to close. The Department commissioned its own independent study, which is available—like so many other things these days—on the internet. It was carried out by the mining consultants IMC, who endorsed UK Coal's assessment of the geological problems that militate against delaying closure beyond the first quarter of 2004.

My hon. Friend will know that the DTI announced separately earlier today a package of measures designed to soften the blow of this closure. He asked what more could be done to help the coal industry. We have negotiated flexibility to pay investment aid beyond the expiry of the ECSC treaty on 23 July, which could enable support for the development of commercially realistic mining projects and allow for coal to be treated on a level playing field with other industries.

Coal is still crucial. As the PIU pointed out, more than a third of UK electricity is currently generated from coal-fired power stations and coal is expected to continue to play a key role in the provision of secure energy supplies in the medium term. It has important advantages such as the geo-political diversity of supply sources, the relative ease with which coal can be stockpiled and the flexibility of load factors for coal-fired generation, which make it particularly useful for meeting peak demand or covering for supply difficulties in other fuels.

Environmental considerations also need to be borne in mind. If we want for security of supply reasons to continue to use significant amounts of coal in electricity generation in the longer term, we will need to adopt technological advances to deal adequately with the remaining potential environmental impacts. The DTI's cleaner coal research and development programme is supporting the necessary work.

Transport is another key sector. Vehicles are already getting more fuel efficient, and using less energy. Further substantial energy-saving developments are opening up, including hybrid electric and internal combustion cars, which simply make the internal combustion work better. Here in the UK, one of our world-class automotive companies has developed a diesel hybrid demonstration car that reduces energy use by 30 per cent. on a 1.2 litre engine. Further ahead, fuel cell vehicles will use hydrogen.

In summing up, I would like to emphasise the importance that the Government attach to the current review of our energy policy options. Some huge issues will have very considerable implications for the UK for decades to come. We shall face some tough decisions when we write our White Paper towards the end of the year. My hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson) will resume his normal place as the Minister for Industry and Energy. I am off the substitute's bench today. The current debate is crucial to helping us to think through the issues. I congratulate my hon. Friend once again on raising this issue; I greatly welcome his contribution to the debate.