I rise to introduce the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government’s report on coastal towns. Given that a large number of hon. Members who represent coastal towns are present, I shall try to keep my remarks short. I do not intend to cover everything that is in the report, since it largely speaks for itself.

Let me explain why the Committee decided to undertake the inquiry. We have a strong interest in regeneration and we perceived a lack of national policy focus on coastal regeneration. The report reproduces a map of deprivation in the UK. Unfortunately, because it is printed in shades of green, it is not quite as striking as the original, but it shows a clear ring of deprivation around the coast of England, as well as large areas of deprivation in inner-city and former industrial areas. Twenty-one of the 88 most deprived authorities in the UK are in coastal areas. We felt that there was a lack of policy focus on coastal regeneration, in contrast to the Government’s well established policies on urban and inner-city regeneration.

There has been a considerable amount of interest in the report both inside the House, where it was most recently mentioned during Prime Minister’s questions, and outside, where it was one of the subjects of a “You and Yours” programme that occasioned a great deal of public input and interest. There has been considerable interest from local authorities, local authority organisations and various organisations that are involved in coastal towns. It has also been the subject of discussion at a number of national conferences on coastal towns and regeneration. I am confident that the issues raised in the report will be carried forward outside the House and within it.

The evidence given to the Committee demonstrated clearly that although coastal towns are extremely diverse, which we recognise, they have a number of shared characteristics. The most obvious is their physical isolation and peripheral location, which often means that they have poor transport connections.

The demography of coastal towns is often skewed by the outward migration of young people. One of the more distressing experiences that the Committee had was when we met young people in Margate, who all said that they would leave as soon as they could because they did not see their future in their home town. One will always be able to find young people who want to leave their home town, but for them all to want to leave is depressing. Not only do such towns see outward migration of young people and inward migration of older people—often those who have chosen to retire by the seaside and so have a reasonable income—but they see inward migration of people on benefits or low incomes who can live more cheaply at the seaside than elsewhere, and the number of transients, including vulnerable adults and children, is high. There is often a two-level housing market, in which the incomers drive up house prices so that they are out of the reach of many local people. Coastal towns have a low-wage, unskilled economy, often with seasonal unemployment. I shall return to that point in a minute because it is the subject of one of the Committee’s recommendations.

The Committee also remarked that no one Department has responsibility for coastal towns, which are affected by a range of policies administered by many Departments, and that there is no national strategy or policy framework for coastal towns. In fact, the Committee did not recommend that there should be a national strategy, although many organisations outside the House wanted one, but we stated our belief that some changes in the way in which Government works were necessary to ensure that there was more effective cross-departmental working and to ensure that issues that affected coastal towns were given proper consideration in all Departments.

We called for the establishment of a cross-departmental group led by the Department for Communities and Local Government to examine the impact of national policy on coastal communities and to monitor and maintain an overview of the situation in coastal towns. Unfortunately, that recommendation was one of those that were rejected by the Government. I hope that they will reconsider that. I am sure that some of the MPs who are in the Chamber to represent coastal towns will make their own arguments about why the Government should accede to the Committee’s recommendation.

I welcome the fact that there has been greater activity on the part of some Departments, notably the Department of Trade and Industry, since the inquiry began. It was interesting that a couple of Ministers who gave evidence to the Committee readily admitted that they had not thought about coastal towns as a group until our inquiry started and they were required to give evidence. We have at least achieved something by focusing individual Ministers’ attentions on coastal towns. The DTI organised a coastal towns conference on 8 May. The Committee can claim some credit for having stimulated greater DTI activity on that front.

The Government have agreed to our recommendation that one of the regional development agencies should act as a lead in co-ordinating RDA activity in respect of coastal towns. That RDA is the South East England Development Agency, because it was generally felt that SEEDA already has a reasonably well developed strategy for the coastal towns in the south-east and would be the most suitable agency to lead and exhort the other RDAs to take greater note of their own coastal towns.

We also concluded that there was a lack of Government understanding of and of substantive research on coastal towns and the problems that they face. We were particularly unimpressed by the evidence that we were given by the Department for Work and Pensions. It seemed stunningly unaware of the situation on the ground in some of our coastal towns. The DWP did not challenge the findings that we reproduced in our report, which demonstrate that since 1997 the levels of those who claim incapacity benefit, special disability allowance or income support for disability had increased six times as much in coastal towns as the national average. We sought to ask the DWP what evidence it had to show whether those figures meant that individuals in coastal towns were more likely to claim those benefits, or that people who claimed those benefits were more likely to migrate to coastal towns, since the Department’s response would need to be different depending on which explanation was correct. We are not impressed that the DWP does not seem to have challenged those findings or responded to them in its response to the recommendations. It has simply written off the problem as historical.

It will also come as a surprise to many of those who represent coastal towns that the DWP believes that seasonal unemployment in coastal towns is

“not substantially higher than the national average”.

I recognise that, given that coastal towns are very disparate as a group, there might be some support for the DWP in the numbers if one takes into account all coastal towns, including those that are successful. However, that avoids the issue of those coastal towns that have substantial problems with large numbers of people on disability benefits and with seasonal unemployment. We wish to follow that issue up and will refer it to the relevant Select Committee.

I want to draw attention to some other issues, but I shall not expand on them. The first problem is the lack of affordable housing in coastal towns and the fact that young people are often completely priced out by the more affluent incomers. The second issue is houses in multiple occupation, which are a particular problem in those coastal towns that were once seaside resorts and where a large amount of housing that used to be hotels is now HMOs, and the effect that that has on districts in those towns.

Further issues are the growing importance of coastal management in the light of global warming, and the need to integrate shoreline management plans with economic planning, rather than treat them in isolation. Funding for coastal towns and the formulae used by Government are also issues of importance, and I am pleased that the Government are reviewing the day visitor indicator, which is obviously significant to many coastal towns.

I see the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) in his place. I am sure that he will provide a remarkably good exposition of what is needed by a big coastal town. However, many of the characteristics that the hon. Lady has just enunciated are typical of the problems faced by a small, resource-pressured district council in trying to maintain the character of coastal towns and areas such as Fylde, and particularly Lytham St. Annes. Does she believe that the Government have shown, through the changes to which she referred, that they truly understand the need to make additional resources available to such places, in recognition of the costs of taking action in the four areas that she mentioned?

I certainly hope that the Government now have a greater understanding, but it is up to individual councils to make the arguments for their particular area very strongly, both directly and through the Local Government Association. The Government need hard evidence on such matters, especially because the more money that is given to one authority, the less is given to others. Additional More funding has to be justified to the residents not only of the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but to those of all Members, because if one constituency gains more funding, others are the losers.

I want to draw attention to one final aspect of our inquiry, which shocked those Committee members who took part in the Committee’s visit to the Kent coastal towns, particularly Margate. It is the problem of using former guest houses as care homes for vulnerable children—a problem that is most marked in those coastal towns that are relatively close to London, although I suspect that it occurs also in other coastal towns near large urban conurbations.

The problem is one of boroughs—in Margate’s case, London boroughs—placing vulnerable children in care homes in a coastal town, rather than in facilities in their home borough. The Committee understands that there are circumstances in which the required facilities are so specialist that an individual borough does not have them within its boundaries. However, we are concerned by the apparent practice of placing children outside a borough—in particular in towns such as Margate—because it is the cheaper option.

We made it clear that children should never be placed outside their home authority simply on the ground of cost. The effect on such children and, indeed, on the authority in the area where they are placed was graphically described to us by representatives of Thanet district council. The council cited individual cases in which vulnerable children, although adequately supported financially, were not given the necessary additional support and care by the home social services authority. The social services in the town where they had been placed were completely unaware of their existence until the point of crisis.

In one case, a teenage girl came to the notice of the Margate authorities only when she waded into the sea to try to commit suicide—thankfully unsuccessfully. So I am pleased that the Government have accepted the principle of the Committee’s recommendation in this area, and are considering how to take matters forward in their Green Paper, “Care Matters: Transforming the Lives of Children and Young People in Care”.

That is an important issue to emerge from the report, and one that we do not necessarily think of in relation to wider coastal towns matters. Social services are not the only bodies affected; education bodies are too—I know that from experience in my own constituency. There is a school there that deals with a dozen different social services departments because those departments stick with the child even though the child has changed area. That is a real problem.

I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman.

I apologise to the Chairman of the Select Committee for not having been present for the start of her speech. I am particularly pleased that she has mentioned looked-after children, because Worthing shares Margate’s experience. The real problem is the clustering of independent children’s homes, not only in former retirement homes but in domestic residential properties which, if they have six or fewer residents, do not need planning permission.

The point is not a new one, however. Lord Utting made a recommendation back in the 1990s that such placements should not happen—that children should be placed within 20 miles of their own home unless that would result in serious harm to them. How much confidence does the hon. Lady have that the Government will show more urgency in the matter than previously?

I accept the Government’s word when they say that they will take an issue more seriously. However, it is incumbent on hon. Members who represent areas in which the problem exists and who have evidence of the points that have been made to make the Government directly aware of the practical consequences in their constituencies of the policy’s continuance. The point is not that people are unaware of the problem; it is that until now the efforts that have been made have been inadequate in ensuring that the placing authorities do not continue their practices.

I understand the pressures on London boroughs in particular. They might not have sufficient accommodation in their area, but in my view they should be more proactive in dealing with the problem, instead of shunting children off to care homes. Those homes might try their best, but they can never provide the proper care that is needed, because the children concerned have been completely removed from the support mechanisms that they would normally expect in their own borough.

I said that I would be brief, and I do not have any further substantive points to make. I shall listen with interest to the remarks of other hon. Members. If they do not manage to address all the points that they wish to, I urge them to continue to use other parliamentary avenues to get their message through to the Government.

I appear not as a resident of a coastal town but as one of the Committee members. It has been pointed out by some hon. Members who represent coastal constituencies—in particular, those who are within earshot—that the tide is in, that I should be short and succinct and that I should then shut up and get out of the way so that they can get to the meat of the report.

The report is very good—it is among the better reports that the Committee has submitted. The Committee Chairman has given a very able summary, although she was a little more benevolent to the Government than I feel inclined to be. In the preparation of the report, evidence was received from many witnesses from coastal towns and from groups and individuals. There was also a considerable response to the report itself from many and varied sources. The reaction of witnesses varied considerably, as indeed did the problems that were described. Some witnesses—both in person and in writing—were very positive and took a positive approach to the benefits that they have.

Brighton and Hove city council is a good example of that. Brighton has lots of benefits: it is close to London, it has a university and it has been well known as a seaside town for decades, if not centuries. The interesting thing is that it was determined to overcome its problems and that it had a very positive attitude. Some of the other towns—I shall not mention them—also showed that spirit. One that I must mention is Blackpool. In my opinion, it should succeed on the grounds of effort alone. It is a town that even when clobbered—and it has been clobbered recently—seems to get up on its feet and fight back. It was quite a contrast with some others.

A few of the authorities that presented themselves before the Committee were crying in the pool of their own deprivation and lying there with their hats out waiting for central Government grants, instead of getting down to it and doing something. Yes, some of them have huge problems, but a positive attitude might be more helpful.

Our essentially radial transport system means that coastal towns are at the end of the line or the end of the road—Brighton, for example, is at the end of both. Brighton has quite a good transport system, but other towns such as Hastings do not, and I hope that the Government will consider such issues.

On a more positive note, there were increasing signs that the coastal towns are working together on coastal town issues, which is more than I can say for the Government. The British Resorts and Destinations Association, whose name is a heck of a mouthful, is a relatively new grouping. It and the British Urban Regeneration Association’s seaside network—an even bigger mouthful—are two positive groups that are providing guidance and pulling together ideas. They are starting to get some positive things back into the thinking of coastal towns.

As I have said, and as the Chairman of the Select Committee has faintly and delicately hinted, there is much that the Government could do. In many cases, expenditure is not needed. Unfortunately, the Government’s response to the recommendations in the report is, in essence, negative. Some of the recommendations are fairly basic. A joined-up approach is a fairly basic thought, but there was no action on that. It is clear that there is little Government understanding, research or assessment of coastal towns, particularly as a group. The fact that coastal towns have similar problems should be recognised.

The effect of seasonal low-wage employment—the other way of putting it is off-season unemployment—the outside placement of vulnerable children and adults, which has already been mentioned, and the outward migration of the young and inward migration of the retired are key factors that should be but have not been recognised. The effects of poorly checked coastal flooding and erosion, and even the acceptance of such things, need not only compensation but concerted thought and action. Action is needed.

The report speaks for itself. It is a good report, and it has attracted good attention. This debate is an opportunity for hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent coastal towns to push the Government and then sit back while the beleaguered Minister comes up with some positive responses on behalf of joined-up government. I hope that she feels beleaguered—she ought to, if she does not.

I wish to declare my interests, as one should, at the beginning of my contribution. First, I am the honorary president of the British Resorts and Destinations Association. Last night, I spoke at its annual conference in Eastbourne, where it was sunny. Secondly, I am the convenor of a group of Labour Back-Bench Members of Parliament who represent seaside and coastal towns. The group was formed shortly after the 1997 election, as you are aware, Mrs. Anderson, because of our belief that seaside and coastal towns had things in common. Thirdly—and, of course, not least—I am the MP for Blackpool, South. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood (Mrs. Humble) is unable to be here today because she is on a Select Committee visit. She and I work closely together on all the issues that affect Blackpool, and I am sure that, if she were here, she would echo many of the things that I hope to say this afternoon.

I praise the Select Committee and its Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), for producing an excellent and outstanding report. To those of us who represent seaside and coastal towns, many of the issues that the report covers will not come as bolts from the blue, but the singular value of the report is in bringing all the specific characteristics and challenges together in a succinct way and with the full authority of an informed and thoughtful Select Committee. The report is an important contribution to the debate.

I was pleased, but not at all surprised, that the Select Committee included in the report many if not all the problems that Blackpool and many other coastal towns face. Some of them have already been mentioned: the skewed demography, the outward movement of young people, and the need for stronger care structures for vulnerable and elderly residents, which is a big issue that needs to be addressed. Certain resorts have a reputation for attracting retired people, but all coastal and seaside resorts attract a significant number of people who are retired or are about to retire. When they move to seaside and coastal resorts, they often think that there will be many years of happiness and security ahead of them, and for many, pray God, there will be. But if illness or accident come along, or if one partner loses the other, those people are often deprived of the natural supports of family and familiar social networks that they would have had had they stayed in the places that they came from originally. Therefore, apart from the number of care homes and the other issues to which my hon. Friend alluded, seaside and coastal towns attract significantly higher burdens in that respect, and the funding formula and the Government in general would do well to pay attention to them.

Transience has been mentioned. It is a great challenge for local authorities. I believe that sometimes the sophistication of the problem is not entirely understood, particularly in relation to education. For example, I can think of two or three schools in the centre of my constituency for which turnover on the roll can be anything between 40 and 50 per cent. in a year. It is not just a question of people coming into the town—families coming to Blackpool or escaping economic pressures elsewhere and so on—but of families moving within Blackpool. I know from my advice surgeries and from cases that have been raised with me that some families in Blackpool move three or four times a year to get access to relatively low-cost accommodation in the rented sector, which, sadly, is sometimes of relatively low quality as well. That creates additional burdens. The impact of transience was well documented in a series of reports that Janet Dobson and her colleagues at University college London did some years ago under the sponsorship of the Department for Education and Skills. The report deals very well with the subject.

Housing is a major problem. If we pick up our papers today, we see alarmist reports about what will happen to the cost of housing in years to come and how difficult it will be for first-time buyers to get on the ladder. I pay particular tribute to the Select Committee for having the sophistication to recognise the dual problem in seaside and coastal towns. House prices have been driven up very high in seaside towns that are attractive and where regeneration has taken place. However, areas with former bed and breakfasts that have officially or unofficially become houses in multiple occupation, for the reasons given by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West, have remained areas with low-cost rented accommodation that is often of poor quality. Those twin pressures do not do seaside and coastal towns any favours. I am glad that Blackpool council, with the support of the Government, has begun to license HMOs. The Government acknowledged the problem in their response to the report, but a great deal more needs to be done about it. The situation will only get worse, not better.

As for tourism, again, I do not want to repeat many of the things that I and other colleagues have said continually since 1997 to a succession of Ministers, but the historical reliance on tourism for jobs and inward investment, certainly in a town such as Blackpool, cannot be expected to produce change or renewal overnight. An analogy that I have used before can be used to describe the problem faced by all of us who represent seaside and coastal towns. After Suez, Dean Acheson said that Britain had lost an empire but not yet found a role. That is true, although perhaps not in quite such a bleak way, of many seaside and coastal towns. We have lost the empire of the standard one or two-week family holiday.

It is not true to say that seaside towns have not yet found a role; they are all in their various and vibrant—some more vibrant than others—ways trying to find alternative roles, but it is not an easy path. I will briefly illustrate that with some facts about Blackpool. One of the great advantages of being the MP for Blackpool is that everyone has an opinion about it—it is not like representing some melange dreamt up by the boundary commission. Blackpool experienced one of the biggest, if not the biggest explosion of investment in working-class holidays and infrastructure in the late 19th and early 20th century. Our experience of the legacy and the downside of that is therefore significant, which is one of the reasons why Blackpool is currently ranked as the 24th most deprived authority area out of 354 nationwide, why between 1987 and 2003 visitor numbers dropped from 13.2 million to 10.6 million, and why about 11 per cent. of Blackpool’s population is classed as transient.

I am grateful for the comments on the evidence given to the Committee by Blackpool council as it means that we have not simply cried into our beer. I see my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) in her place; and she will be pleased to know that I will not go into a long account of Blackpool’s attempt to secure a super-casino—although I am tempted. That process and campaign demonstrated that it was not just about getting a super-casino, but about everything that Blackpool has done with its master plan, its sea defences and the investment that has gone in. Much of that was directly a result of Government investment.

What can regeneration do? What should we expect the Government, local authorities or regional development agencies to do in terms of regeneration in response to the Committee’s excellent report? I hope that most hon. Members agree that the success of a community in a seaside or coastal town depends on addressing the needs of visitors and residents equally. We should take account of the needs of visitors, who are in many cases still the economic bread and butter of a town, as well as the needs of residents. In Blackpool there has sometimes been a history of friction and tension between those involved in the tourist industry in the town, who thought that enough could never be done for tourism, and those residents who were not involved, who thought that far too much was done. I am glad that that tension has largely disappeared in Blackpool during the past 10 to 15 years. Regarding the need to have a joint enterprise, there is a great sense of commonality between those who are involved in the tourism sector and those who are not.

It must also be recognised that investment in infrastructure is important, which the Committee has made clear. Another important factor is the economic motor in a seaside or coastal town. Money may be spent on infrastructure, but if there is not an economic force in the town—a vibrant activity, entrepreneurship or source of job creation—the infrastructure that is designed to attract tourists will not in itself lead to regeneration.

Tourism infrastructure will also not solve the problem of transport, which is a key issue in seaside and coastal towns. The report has alluded to that, but on the whole Governments of all parties have not focused on the transport needs of seaside and coastal towns. We are grateful to the Government for the first tranche of investment in our tramway, but we are still waiting for a definitive solution on transport. Hastings is a classic example of a south-coast town that does not benefit from good links to London, either by rail or by road. Such peripherality issues cannot be left solely to regional development agencies to deal with; they have their own priorities and pressures. An element of central Government intervention or response is needed.

Internal transport in Blackpool may leave a little to be desired, but getting to Blackpool is relatively easy. Getting to towns in south-east England that are on the south coast is a nightmare, whether it is Hastings or, in my case, Worthing. The density of housing that is being imposed on us means that transport will become an increasing nightmare. Never mind the gridlock that we have in our towns; getting into the towns, and getting corporate investment into the towns is a complete nightmare. The quality of life for residents trying to get back to their homes, particularly in south-east England, is also a problem.

I entirely accept what the hon. Gentleman says as it underlines the need for transport and peripherality to be addressed centrally by Government.

I shall briefly mention benefits and education and skills because they are key issues. Blackpool had some good results this year in the league tables, but like many other seaside towns, Blackpool has historically had a low-wage, low-skill economy and staying-on rates have not necessarily been what we would wish them to be. On incapacity benefit, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West was right to take the Department for Work and Pensions to task for not looking at which of the two elements is relevant. My own view is that in Blackpool it is a bit of both. We know that many IB claimants in Blackpool originally arrived 10 or 15 years ago, probably when they were in their 40s from other industrial centres in and around the north-west. Those are important issues. If the Government want to achieve what they hope to in terms of welfare to work, they need to use their imagination in using the money that is put in. It is not enough to produce welfare-to-work plans; there must also be an economic strategy—whoever it is delivered by—to create decent and progressive jobs in areas that have an historically low-wage and low-skill economy.

My hon. Friend has already referred to the Government response; I share her concerns and her disappointment. I am not a fan of committee for committee’s sake or of a joined-up, linked, strategised or anything else approach. However, my experience as an MP for 10 years who represents a seaside, coastal town—and I think the experience of many of us—is that such an approach is sorely necessary. For the sake of argument, if civil servants in various Departments dealing with tourism, local government and communities and transport met regularly to speak informally about common issues, we might be dismissed as pedants for wanting a strategic approach. However, the fact is that they do not. With honourable exceptions, the record of Departments on this issue during the past 10 years—I can only speak about the past 10 years, but I know about before that period—has been extremely patchy. If there is not some form of joined-up strategy, it is very difficult to deal with the problems.

We may praise the efforts of organisations such as the British Urban Regeneration Association or the British Resorts and Destinations Association, but it is difficult to follow through their work in a systematic way. In recent years, we have had a coalfields regeneration taskforce and a rural taskforce, so I see no reason why the Government should not go back and think a little bit more about the recommendations of the Committee. Some of the details of the response strike me as rather complacent and show that the Government have not looked in detail at the issue. For example, the response mentions the diversification of the economies and states that the RDAs are

“best placed to take on this role within the context of the Regional Economic Strategies”

and then refers to the role of city region economic development companies. However, I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that city regions and city regional approaches will not necessarily be the magic solution for seaside and coastal towns. Most such towns—there are exceptions, and Brighton is a significant one—will not benefit directly from city region-orientated economic activities, because many, if not all, fall into the second-level category of town.

Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one way to develop the co-ordination to which he referred to the advantage of the wider Fylde coastal area, including the constituencies of Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and Blackpool, South and my own, would be for the Government, as a major employer, carefully to think through their employment strategies? That is particularly true of Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Departments that deal with national insurance, investments and so on. In its own way, that could have a major impact on the future of coastal areas and towns. Without proper co-ordination, however, we will have, not economic well-being, but economic unwell-being.

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood and I, he is well aware of the importance of the public sector and the civil service across the Fylde. I agree that there needs to be a joined-up approach to Government policies in such areas, although I would gently remind him that that process is greatly complicated by the outsourcing and breaking up of elements of the civil service, which goes back to before 1997. However, on the basic issue, I entirely agree with him.

Let me say a little more about the role of RDAs. I pay tribute to the Northwest Regional Development Agency, which has grasped and grappled very well with seaside and coastal town issues. However, RDAs cannot do everything. As the evidence given to the Select Committee made clear, RDAs were not all clued up about some of the issues or—because of the population distribution in some of their areas—always entirely sympathetic. If we are to have a national strategy or linkage, it should not be implemented on a one-size-fits-all basis or by setting up some new Government quango that is stuffed with civil servants to administer it.

We should be looking not only at how to support some of the existing networks that have been mentioned, but at how Departments, and particularly Government officials, can meet regularly. We do not need to create an enormous, expensive bureaucracy to ensure that a few civil servants from some of the main Departments can sit down together two or three times a year to discuss an agenda put to them by BURA, BRADA or other outside groups and to look at some of the issues. At a time when we have the social exclusion unit in the Cabinet working across Departments—social exclusion is, of course, another important aspect of the problems in places such as Blackpool—ensuring that those officials meet each other would be entirely in keeping with the spirit of Government policy.

I do not want to end on a negative note, and we are not talking about seaside and coastal towns managing the process of decline, to quote the offensive words of a certain chairman of the casino advisory panel. Seaside and coastal towns have a strong and vibrant future, and some good things have already happened. In a briefing that it has circulated today, the Heritage Lottery Fund rightly draws attention to the more than £104 million that it has put into seaside and coastal resorts in deprived areas. We in Blackpool are particularly grateful for the money that was provided to help with the major regeneration of Stanley park and the restoration of the Grand theatre.

I have said relatively little about the details of tourism, but the recent emergence of issues such as sustainable tourism, carbon footprints, lifestyles and short-tem breaks should benefit and give new life and opportunities to seaside and coastal towns. That will be particularly true if those involved in tourism, however it is stimulated, look at ways of building closer and more imaginative links with the rural and heritage hinterland of seaside and coastal towns. There is also the issue of social tourism. One in three families still do not get any form of regular annual break, and the Government could take up that issue imaginatively.

There is genuine and exciting entrepreneurship in seaside towns. Not long ago, the Number One guesthouse in Blackpool literally became the No. 1 guesthouse, when it was awarded the title of best bed and breakfast in the country. I have already referred to our master plan, and I should also mention the imaginative refurbishment of the Solaris centre in Blackpool, which turned an old solarium from the 1930s into an environmental centre and a venue for meetings and conferences. There are other examples up and down the country that we could talk about, including St. Ives.

Seaside and coastal towns bring out a can-do and entrepreneurial quality in the people who go to them. Blackpool pleasure beach is an extraordinary institution, which has been going for more than 100 years. It was built as a result of the efforts and continued investment of one family. So seaside and coastal towns have a can-do attitude and entrepreneurship, but they need structure, support and an economic motor for regeneration. Most of all, they need a joined-up strategy and encouragement from regional and central Government.

I wholeheartedly congratulate the Select Committee on its report. I can say with my hand on my heart that I agree with all its recommendations.

As politicians, we are only too well aware of the problems, but it is the solutions by which we are somewhat challenged. Having carefully read the Government’s 33 responses to the Select Committee on Health, or rather the Communities and Local Government Committee—sorry, I am a member of the Health Committee—I am just appalled. I do not know who wrote the Government’s response. Over the years, I have become accustomed to the way in which the Government respond to Select Committee reports, but they normally dress things up a little. In this case, however, their response to the various recommendations has been to say, “One, no. Two, no. Three, no.” There is not even any soft language. The only recommendations with which they agree are those in which the Committee does not ask a great deal of them. The Chairman said that the Department for Work and Pensions saw certain matters as historical, but the Government have not even bothered subtly to blame the previous Government for what is wrong.

I am delighted that we are discussing the report, and those of us who represent coastal towns owe a great debt of gratitude to whichever member of the Select Committee it was who walked in one morning or afternoon and said, “Let’s have a report about coastal towns.”

It was the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh).

I am greatly obliged to the Chairman, and we owe the hon. Gentleman a great debt of gratitude for coming up with the idea for this inquiry. Those of us who represent coastal resorts have tried for so long to persuade the Government of the real difficulties that such towns face. Select Committees are wonderful and independent, and they increasingly have more powers, and it gives those of us with coastal resorts in our constituencies great heart to be able to refer to such a report, but I am not holding my breath waiting for something to happen as a result of the debate.

Does my hon. Friend think that it is a coincidence that the Government’s response applies only to recommendations that affect non-Government agencies, and not the Government?

My hon. Friend and I entered the House of Commons at the same time, so we have become accustomed to these little tricks over the years. He is entirely right about that point.

I was going on to say that we are about to have a change of Government, without a general election, so I am hoping that we may get some action on the 33 recommendations in the Select Committee report. The Minister for Local Government is not here to respond to the debate, but he and I have had several meetings about the challenges that we face in Southend. I am in a reasonably good position to judge what it is like to represent a coastal town, as compared with a new town. Representing, as I did, a new town with a development corporation and a new towns commission was as if I had won the pools. There was investment there all the time. However, having moved to a seaside town I am, not to use too much of a pun, awash with challenges.

I do not want to stir things up too much, but I still regard Southend as the finest seaside resort in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, it has some real challenges, among which is the fact that 20,000 people were left off the census. I had meetings with the census organisation and the Minister, and was given tea and sympathy, but has anything changed? Absolutely not. It will not change until the next census when some of my constituents, and even I, may have passed on to another place. Who knows? The impact of losing funding for 20,000 people has devastated the community.

It was wonderful that the Chancellor could give everyone free bus passes. Sadly, in Southend that is of no use because we do not have too many buses. As a result of unitary authority status we had cuts of £7 million one year and £5 million the next.

A very peculiar issue about bus travel that seems to worry several seaside resort local authorities is that when the concession is extended nationwide, areas with an influx of visitors will result in a charge for the council tax payer, because of paying for the concessionary fare, unless government properly compensates them. There is no indication that that will happen.

The hon. Gentleman has made a wonderful point. We were not given anything, and an even greater burden has been placed on us.

We have lost our buses. We had the longest pier in the world, which burnt down for the third time, and on which huge amounts of money will have to be spent, through nobody’s fault. Our beautiful cliffs started to slide into the sea, which will cost a huge amount to repair. The estuary at Leigh-on-Sea needs dredging, because it is becoming silted up and the cocklers can no longer harvest as efficiently as they used to. There are a huge number of problems. How right the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) was to bring up matters concerning children. In my constituency such issues have been a particular challenge for the local authority. Southend—and Southend, West in particular—has not only the problems of all other coastal resorts, but its own special problems, which we could do without.

We celebrate the fact that we have the most concentrated gathering of senior citizens in the country, including the most centenarians. I shall not fall out with my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) over numbers of senior citizens, but we shall be in the “Guinness Book of Records” for bringing together the most centenarians in the country. That itself presents huge challenges.

The Government’s response tells us that they have been helping all Britain’s towns and cities to address the issues that they face, through various programmes and initiatives, over the past 10 years, which is splendid. The initiatives have been developed by organisations such as the European Union, development agencies and urban regeneration companies. As to the European Union, I make regular visits, when I meet the appropriate commissioner and try to get money in relation to green initiatives or disability, for example. Whatever the criteria, we will meet them, but we do not really get much money from the European Union in Southend. I ask the House to consider how on earth the European Union will know the detail of the challenges faced by a constituency such as mine.

I understand the good intentions behind the establishment of organisations such as the regional development agencies, but I, and many of my constituents, are fed up with unelected, unaccountable quangos trying to dictate to towns what is best for them. In the 24 years that I have been a Member of this House, Parliament has gradually lost a great many powers, and the balance has now finally tipped so that the mother of all Parliaments is in truth no longer running the country. Quangos—unelected bodies—are. The point about them is this: when I represented a new town the money was there, but all those quangos are unable to deliver. Privately their representatives come to see me, asking, “David, can you raise this issue in the House of Commons, and get us taken a bit more seriously and given more money?”

I know, Mrs. Anderson, that I am probably talking to myself. It will not do much good in the long run, but I am heartened by the prospect of a change of Government, without a general election. I particularly welcome the proposals in the Sustainable Communities Bill, which is sponsored by some of my hon. Friends and which will make the action of the relevant organisations more transparent, and, it is to be hoped, more responsive to the needs of specific communities. [Interruption.] I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West wanted to intervene, but he was obviously just terribly interested—or hoping that I was about to finish; I am not going to quite yet.

A common characteristic of coastal towns on which the Select Committee reported was the nature of the coastal economy. Southend became a popular seaside resort during the Victorian era, owing to its proximity to London, and easy access. It has many similarities to Brighton, but we are not in Brighton’s fortunate position. We face many challenges that are different from those faced by Brighton, which of course now has city status. You, Mrs. Anderson, were once the Tourism Minister, and a splendid one. I recall your responding to a debate that I secured in this Chamber some years ago. I thank you for what you were able to do for my constituency and the difference that you made.

To return to the report, it recommended that the Government

“conducts an immediate study on coastal tourism, including evaluating the levels and spend of domestic and inbound visitors to the coast in comparison to non coastal areas.”

The Government, however, have stated in response that their investment of £50 million a year in VisitBritain has already taken that task in hand. However, VisitBritain has been getting £50 million every year. Without pretending to be a mathematician, I do not think that it is worth as much as it was 10 years ago.

As always, my hon. Friend makes an extremely powerful case. Is he aware that rumours are circulating in coastal towns, such as Skegness, which I represent, that the funding to VisitBritain will be cut by the relevant Department?

My hon. Friend has his ear closer to the ground than I do. However, I think that the Chamber has heard him. The battle must now be joined.

Many coastal towns with aspirations, such as Southend, cannot afford to promote themselves through the VisitBritain scheme or to appear in its brochure, in which the towns that pay the most money get the best slot and pictures. Now that we have a global market, I hardly need to illustrate the enterprise of various countries, such as Qatar, which has realised that its oil resources will not last for ever and recently has invested £40 billion in tourism. I think that despite having so much to offer, Britain cannot be a lead competitor in the tourism market without increased funding. Indeed, if we are going to talk about wasting money, we must highlight the logo for the Olympic games. I am one of the lead enthusiasts for the games, but I do not think that the logo is worth while.

The report considered diversification, with which I agree entirely, and touched on employment opportunities in Southend. This was another blow to Southend: we were called to a meeting with colleagues at the Treasury and found out that Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be sized down. Where will cuts be made? In Southend!

Downsized.

Sorry, I mean downsized.

We are fighting those changes, but I do not know whether we will get anywhere. I agree also with the points made by the Select Committee about the demography of coastal towns.

I end with the point about coastal management and, specifically, the Select Committee’s recommendation. The report pointed out that

“some communities face significant and increasing risks from coastal erosion and flooding”.

I do not want to over-egg the situation in Southend, but many years ago there was a very serious flood on Canvey island, which is very near to us, and many people lost their lives. I agree with the Committee’s conclusion that investment in sea defences is linked with the regeneration of costal areas. However, again, the obstacle is the lack of Government funding for sea defences. I understand that the Environment Agency no longer provides funding for sea defences because it is not allocated sufficient funds by central Government.

That brings me to the point that I made at the start of my speech regarding the commonality of coastal towns. Many coastal towns suffer from the same problems, but I think that Southend’s problems are worse than those of others—for instance, the local authority must bear the huge cost of tackling coastal erosion, if it is going to deal with it. On top of that, coastal towns suffer from the outward migration of the young, which may mean that the particular problems of the coastal economy are more serious even than any of us realise.

The Government must develop a national strategy to help with the serious problems that coastal towns face, the cumulative effects of which put many such towns in a very serious situation. The huge numbers of elderly people in coastal towns do not have the time to wait for action some time in the future.

Like other Members who have spoken today, I pay tribute to the work of the Select Committee. I also pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) who has over the years lobbied Ministers along with other Labour MPs representing coastal towns and seaside resorts.

I shall try to start with the positives. Cleethorpes itself is a small part of my constituency, but the name conjures up an image of saucy seaside postcards and end-of-the-pier shows. Blackpool, Southend and other coastal towns and resorts also have that image, which is still stuck in many people’s minds. That perception is detrimental to the development of our economies. Nevertheless, coastal towns have a lot going for them, and I do not think that we talk them up enough. Cleethorpes has about four and a half miles of sandy beach, although unlike Southend, we probably have the stumpiest, shortest pier on the east coast. It used to be considerably longer, but for some reason, after the second world war, the War Office decided to blow up most of it—I think that the office thought that that was a matter of national security. So we were left with the pavilion, but no pier attached to it. The timbers were then sent to Leicester, I think, to rebuild its bomb-damaged football ground. At least we managed to help out there.

On any sunny Sunday bank holiday, Cleethorpes remains the playground of South Yorkshire. People from Rotherham, Barnsley and Doncaster all head to Cleethorpes, so it remains vital to day trippers. People still spend holidays there. We have the wonderful, listed Humberstone Fitties chalet park, which is enormously popular, as well as some very large caravan sites. However, the core of the tourism economy is now day trippers from South Yorkshire.

As others have said, there is a lot of entrepreneurship in coastal town resorts, and there have been new developments on our seafront—restaurants, coffee bars and other such facilities. We even have our own boutique hotel. The coastal light railway has been expanding; in the 10 years in which I have represented the area, the railway has expanded year on year—it is probably the only railway in Britain about which that could be said during that time—run on time and been very cheap. The track is being extended into the theme park in Cleethorpes. A new cinema was opened recently as well. Until a few years ago, there was no cinema. Given British weather, it is absolutely outrageous that the resort had nowhere inside where visitors could go if it rained. Good things are happening, but they are happening in spite of the Government. We are seeing this development only because of action taken by some very determined, single-minded visionary people in the area.

Cleethorpes has another wonderful attraction: the meridian line runs straight through the resort. Cleethorpes is 9,919 miles from the south pole and 143 miles from London, but frankly London might as well be 9,000 miles away given the understanding of some Departments of what is going on in seaside resorts. The last calculations that I looked at estimated that about 2,000 people work in the tourism economy in Cleethorpes. However, as the Select Committee and others have mentioned, there are serious problems. There is physical and social isolation in the area—it is true to say that we are at the end of the line. The railway stops there. The A180 stops at the outskirts of Grimsby, and from there to Cleethorpes there is one huge traffic jam as people try to get into the resort. The A46, which comes up from Nottinghamshire, is a dual carriageway to Lincoln and from there it is an ordinary road. That creates further problems. The hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) will understand those problems; some of those who go to Boston and Skegness travel the same route. Those transport problems are quite serious.

On the question of the skewed demographics, as in other coastal areas, young people want to move out—particularly talented young people. They do not see a future for themselves there, so if they are bright, they move. There is therefore a much lower than average number of 18 to 44-year-olds. There is also a larger number of elderly people in the constituency, and as other hon. Members have mentioned, many of them do not have family and social networks there, whether because they moved to the area to retire as it is by the seaside or because younger members of the family, seeing no future in the area, have moved out. We therefore need to consider loneliness and social isolation as well, which naturally impact on the Department for Work and Pensions.

Apart from the outward migration of young people, most residents who remain in the area are manual workers. The number of unskilled and semi-skilled workers is much higher than the national average. In the 2001 census, Cleethorpes came fifth in the UK for people in lower supervisory jobs and 37th for semi-routine jobs—routine is the term now used for unskilled jobs. As for professional, managerial and technical jobs, the numbers were negligible. That skewed demographic profile impacts across the board in an area, including politically. In the part of Lincolnshire to which I am referring, there has never been Government investment in a Government agency to bring white-collar jobs to the area. I would love to see that; other areas such as Blackpool have it.

My hon. Friend is making a very powerful speech and echoing many of the points that have been made already. Does she agree—this point was touched on by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who has left his place—that one of the problems when it comes to acquiring grants for seaside and coastal towns is that often the area that needs the sustained investment and support has been regarded not only by the Government but by the EU and others as too small to fit into the category, and that a pepper-pot approach, which is desperately needed by seaside and coastal towns, does not always get through?

I certainly agree. I intended to touch on some of the problems in that regard later in my speech.

One point about employment in seaside and coastal towns that has not been made is that much of the work is part-time. Cleethorpes is third in the UK for the proportion of people in part-time work. People will be getting the sense that it is low-skilled work, but it is also part-time work, with quite low wages as well. Interestingly, Great Grimsby—Grimsby and Cleethorpes form the North East Lincolnshire unitary authority area—comes in seventh for part-time work. That has a big impact on our area. In fact, I do not think that any other seaside or coastal town has a higher percentage of residents in part-time work: in Cleethorpes, 23 per cent. of the working population works part-time. If action could be taken on that, the area would benefit.

Also owing to the skewed demographics, the burden placed on social services is extraordinary. Others delivering services in the area have difficulties because of the skewed demographics, but also because of visitors coming into the area. The police argue that they are funded based on population but not on the number of people coming into the area, which increases the burden on policing in terms of antisocial behaviour and law and order. I would love the formula for police or local government funding somehow to reflect the fact that seaside and coastal areas often have a huge influx of people. They do not necessarily stay overnight, but there are certainly day-trippers. I would like that to be examined.

Points have been made about deprivation and poverty. Yes, I have created a lovely picture of the seafront, the promenade and the 4.5 miles of sandy beach. I love the fact that within a few minutes’ walk of my front door is that wonderful beach, but as we go further back from the prom, behind the seafront, the poverty grows, and the areas with the most poverty are those closest to the seafront. The commuter villages and suburbs and the new-build estates do not have that poverty.

Of the nine electoral wards in my constituency, three use Cleethorpes in their postal address, and two of those three wards—Sidney Sussex and Croft Baker—are among the most deprived in Britain, but trying to get any grants is very difficult, because we are talking about only two of nine wards in the constituency. That relates to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South. The Lincolnshire wolds, on the fringes of my constituency, are not deprived, which has an impact. Overall, the area is quite average. Those pockets of deprivation are hidden by relative affluence in the Lincolnshire wolds and in the suburbs, so whatever we do to tackle this problem, we must recognise the hidden deprivation, which is centred on the quite transient population that other hon. Members have mentioned.

Unlike in many other coastal towns, house prices in Cleethorpes are relatively low. That is the case compared with the regional average and the national average. However, that has led to particular problems, which have increased transience and some of the deprivation. No disrespect to the people involved, but there is a lot of buy-to-let, which in our area does not involve people with one or two properties. Because house prices have been relatively cheap, people are buying a lot of them and they are renting them out, putting many people into them. The condition of many of those properties is very poor. People on a low income are moving into Cleethorpes because the money goes further there, but that is increasing deprivation and social isolation. People move into the area from somewhere such as Leeds, Sheffield or Rotherham, thinking, “Well, things will be much nicer by the seaside. The rents are low.” That is creating problems.

Those of us who went out and about canvassing five or 10 years ago recognised the names and the households as we went down a street. Yes, there was turnover, but we would probably recognise the vast majority of people. Now, in some of the streets where most of the buy-to-let is happening in Cleethorpes, there will be several changes every year of the residents in the houses. Information comes through to me from the local authority about alterations and I think, “Oh well, that house has changed again.” In some streets, almost half the people could be described as a transient population.

A problem particular to Cleethorpes and some other parts of the country is that many of the properties are leasehold houses. That has kept the house prices low, but it has an impact on people who have lived in the properties for many years and paid their mortgage off. Because the big house building period in Cleethorpes was in the early 1900s, the 99-year leases have been running out and people have found that they do not own the property because it is leasehold. That has had a serious impact on our housing market. Some people are having to sell very cheaply because there is no lease left, which is leading to the buy-to-let.

There is a similar situation in Bournemouth, where there is a very high proportion of leaseholds—the freeholds are mainly owned by two major estates—but the people who live in those areas are enthusiastically using the leasehold enfranchisement legislation, the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, either to buy the freeholds or to obtain new long leases. Why is that not happening in the hon. Lady’s constituency?

As someone who sat on the Standing Committee that considered the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill, I welcome many of the changes that the subsequent Act brought about; indeed, I put some of those changes into the Bill. That legislation has made it much easier for residents in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency and mine to extend their leases.

The reason why many people do not take advantage of that legislation is probably to do with the type of people who live in those areas. In the part of Cleethorpes where most leasehold properties are, many people do not have post-compulsory, school-age qualifications. There is some ignorance, much as I try to let people know about the legislation through leaflets and advice surgeries. The problem is purely down to fear and ignorance. However, it does cost money, and many people simply do not have the money to pay surveyors to give estimates of what it will cost to buy the freehold.

People either do not know about the legislation, or they feel that they cannot afford to take advantage of it. Things are not as bad as they were, but it is particularly difficult to get that knowledge to people, especially given that freeholders, frankly, do not want folk to know about it. That is a problem. I try to tell everybody, “Enfranchise, enfranchise, enfranchise.” I tell people, “Buy it: you might think that it is expensive, but it is better than losing your home.” I thank the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill) for making that point, because I have now put another advert on the record telling my constituents, “Buy your freehold.”

On Government strategy, I shall not use such strong terms as the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), because I am such a Government loyalist, but I am sorely tempted to use similar language. Instead I shall say that I was somewhat disappointed by the Government’s weak response. It was fragmented and did not seem to be a coherent response. Is not that typical of the whole approach to coastal and seaside towns? Perhaps we would have been more surprised if it had all fitted together and been coherent, because so many Departments have responsibilities for such towns.

Let us consider the issues that have been raised today: we have discussed transport, work and pensions, health and education. The Minister who will respond to the debate is from the Department for Communities and Local Government, but the Department of Trade and Industry also has an input because of its role with regional development agencies. We are talking about life—people’s lives and people’s towns—so every Government Department is involved in this issue. I was disappointed with the Government’s response to the report, but my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South and I, and other hon. Members present, have been banging this drum for an awfully long time, so perhaps we should not have been surprised by the response.

I want to discuss RDAs and their input. The RDA with which I work has the wonderful title: the Yorkshire and Humber RDA. The Humber is a river and although Cleethorpes is in Lincolnshire, Lincolnshire is not mentioned. As there is only a tiny bit of Lincolnshire in the RDA, we are, again, on the fringe; the vast majority of its work focuses on Yorkshire. I have read about all the wonderful innovation, and, yes, there has been wonderful innovation in places such as Leeds, but we are still on the fringe. The psychology of the RDA is to put us to one side. Yet again, we are at that end-of-the-line place.

For those reasons, I have my doubts as to whether RDAs are an appropriate vehicle with which to tackle the common problems of seaside and coastal towns. I shall give hon. Members an example to illustrate my point. A few years ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) did some work on former fishing ports, many of which are, of course, still coastal towns. We tried to track down Government money that had been allocated to RDAs for the regeneration of former fishing ports, and discovered that it had been divvied up almost equally across the RDAs, including London. The RDAs then spent that money, which was meant to be tagged for specific purposes, in many different ways. In one region, we discovered that it was used to put new lampposts somewhere not remotely near the seaside. When money is earmarked, can we guarantee that when it has been filtered through all the relevant organisations it will get to its intended targets? I have worries about that.

I shall try to end on a positive point. One positive point is that Cleethorpes is a most wonderful place, and save for Tory MPs who are trying to campaign, anyone is welcome to come and have a nice wee break there. As we are next to Grimsby, our fish and chips are probably the best in Britain.

Hon. Members will recall that I raised this matter with the Prime Minister yesterday, because the debate was coming up today. I must admit that the wee bit of sniggering from those who do not represent coastal towns did not go down terribly well. Although he is going to be around for only a couple more weeks, I shall remind hon. Members what the Prime Minister said, because it might be good to repeat his comments to a future incumbent. He said:

“Because the focus is sometimes on inner-city regeneration, people forget that some coastal towns have large numbers of people who are either socially excluded or unemployed and that such local economies can be difficult. It is precisely for that reason that we are looking at what more we can do to support our coastal towns and to make sure that a fair proportion of the £20 billion that we are spending on regeneration gets to them to allow them to develop local economies that are sustainable in the future.”—[Official Report, 6 June 2007; Vol. 461, c. 254.]

Having rubbished the Government response to the report, I must say that I thought that a better response than anything in the Government response. It is a shame that the Prime Minister is off, because with that attitude, we could have worked on him a wee bit more.

It has been wonderful for us to discuss the problems of our coastal towns. Yes, they are all very different, but we have come together today to share our concerns about the problems in our constituencies.

A number of hon. Members would still like to speak, but if Members restrict their speeches to less than 15 minutes, we should just about manage to get everyone in. I am sure that hon. Members want to give the Minister plenty of time to respond.

I am sure that as a former Tourism Minister, you must be tempted to intervene in this debate, Mrs. Anderson. I hope that the Minister will respond to the last point made by the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) by commenting on the fair proportion of the £20 billion that is set aside for regeneration. If we get that sort of news at the end of the day, it will be very welcome.

The report has clearly got people talking seriously about coastal towns. As Oscar Wilde said, there is only one thing worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about—and we are certainly being talked about. We have been talked about on “You and Yours” and on a Trevor McDonald show that I caught, on which the Select Committee report featured prominently and Southport was shown quite favourably. Few Select Committee reports make it on to Trevor McDonald’s show.

Apart from the profile of this issue having been raised, I question what other results there have been. The Government’s response has been disappointing, and that disappointment has been echoed by organisations such as British Resorts and Destinations Association, which has commented on it. To be fair to the Government, however, they have had some sort of conference and have given support to deprived wards in particular areas.

Dogging the Government’s thinking—and, to some extent, the Select Committee’s—has been the question of what thematic solutions apply right across the piece for all coastal resorts. Both the Committee and the Government recognise that there is a great variety of seaside resorts, which might be why they both rejected the idea of an individual, dedicated seaside or coastal fund. That is not a bad tack to take, because seaside resorts differ enormously in size—one could compare Brighton and Whitstable in that regard. One might also compare Southport and Whitby in terms of accessibility, Blackpool and Bournemouth in terms of current economic success and Hastings and Cromer in terms of types of economy. The housing profiles, resident bases and educational opportunities in those towns all differ.

The report makes a fair case to suggest that there are generic problems that are solved more or less adequately in different places. Some problems might not be universal and might be a consequence of the fact that the towns concerned are seaside towns. Although such problems might not be totally peculiar to seaside towns, the fact that the towns are by the coast is the prime cause of those problems.

The fundamental thing that goes against all coastal towns is that they are not in the middle of a radial catchment area—50 per cent. of what their residents look at is sea and fish, if they are lucky enough to have fish in the sea off their coast. That has two important consequences: it often affects the location of public investments, such as hospitals, which should arguably be in the middle of dense population centres, and it affects the location of private investment, because industrial and commercial operators look hard at the catchment area for any investment that they make. Those highly desirable public and private facilities, which are good for any town, often follow commercial and public service models and are set up in centres of population. Most coastal resorts are not centres of population in that sense, so they face problems in keeping public facilities and attracting inbound investment apart from leisure investments, from which they have had particular success.

Coastal towns are invariably at the end of a transport link, on which they are highly dependent. Those links are often appallingly inadequate, given the nature of the economy, the demands of citizens and so on. A lot of seaside resorts grew up in the railway age. In many cases, the railway is either no longer there or no longer useful, so those towns are left with a somewhat inadequate road. It frustrates local councils and local people when their perfectly reasonable pleas for better communication are dismissed because their towns do not happen to be regional priorities or because the funding is simply not there.

Although we complain, the coast remains extraordinarily attractive, which is a big plus. At times, there is an enduring call to all human nature to go to the coast. Unfortunately that call is seasonal and, sometimes, it is to the coast of the Mediterranean, the Iberian sea or elsewhere, which leads to all the problems that we have discussed. Employment fluctuations have always been there to some extent in seaside resorts.

There is an element of decline in many resorts, and there is the problem of spare capacity. Accommodation that was once for visitors who stayed some time is now sometimes filled with benefit clients and the like. We saw a good deal of that in Margate, where we saw the problems that it is experiencing. Not every resort has such problems, however. I was told the other day—the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) will confirm this—that Southend has a university, so many places that might formerly have been occupied by holidaymakers are now occupied by students. That solution is not available to many other seaside towns.

There are other problems that are consequential on being a seaside town but are not a necessary consequence, which to some extent invalidates the Government’s response. The Government have dismissed some of the Select Committee’s findings by giving general statistics. They suggest that economic fluctuations in employment are not very different from those that one might find in many inland towns. If one aggregates the figures for all seaside towns, including those for the really successful ones such as Brighton, I am sure that one can come up with some such stat, but some seaside towns that are in decline are severely affected by precisely the problems that we have identified.

The Government should also concede—I do not think that they have hitherto—that because of the environment of coastal towns, they attract a large number of retired or otherwise economically inactive people, which puts an additional burden on social services departments. That is insufficiently recognised, which has been the case for a long time.

The fundamental point, which we all want to address, is that to solve the problems as they crop up in coastal towns, we need central Government, RDAs, transport and health authorities and policy makers in general to recognise that there are generic problems and problems that are peculiar to, or typical of, coastal towns. Such problems do not necessarily have a single solution—it is not a case of casinos all round for everything to come right—but there are good solutions for most resorts that have not gone too far down the path of decline. However, those solutions cannot be implemented without a degree of sensitivity from the policy makers.

The Committee Chairman made the point, albeit in a less full-frontal manner than I will, that solutions cannot be implemented without a certain amount of tough political leadership locally, and another member of the Select Committee also made that point. The management of change in a seaside resort, or anywhere else, is fairly tricky, because one is dealing with a volatile political environment. We have only to look at the local election results in—dare I say it—Blackpool, Torbay, Bournemouth and Eastbourne to see what a volatile political environment it is. Seaside towns are difficult places in which to manage change.

One of the most discouraging events that the Committee witnessed in the south-west happened when we went to Exmouth. We found that it had solutions to its problems, but zilch political leadership to deliver any of them, so it was in a state of paralysis. There has to be an absence of paralysis, and there has to be dynamism and a vision of how the resort will regenerate. The community and the other agencies have to buy into that vision.

Support from other agencies is not always as helpful as it might be. VisitBritain was mentioned earlier. On a trip to France with the Select Committee, I picked up a brochure entitled “Guide to the North-West”. I looked to see whether my resort was mentioned in glowing colours, and I found that it did not feature on the map, although the squirrel reserve half a mile down the road did. Some mills in Oswaldtwistle that I had never heard of—I had never actually heard of Oswaldtwistle—were also mentioned. I was deeply puzzled, as I am when I go abroad and find that London, Stratford-on-Avon and bits of Scotland are the only things to which foreigners who come here are generally directed.

Regeneration is a difficult business, and it is a rollercoaster ride for anyone who embarks on it. A major regional attraction will open this month in my resort. It will be called Splashworld, and I am happy to put in a plug for it here. As I go back to my resort, I shall see cranes around the town, which testify to the building of new hotels, a conference centre and so on. I do not share the views of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) about Blackpool Pleasure Beach, which last year, cynically, stupidly and in trust-destroying fashion closed its Pleasureland operation in Southport, leaving the site semi-vandalised. Within weeks, there will be renewed activity on that site and international marketing of a prime opportunity. I seek to bring home the fact that for most towns, seaside regeneration is struggle. It is a tough ride, but I hope that the report will help people to go on that journey.

Although Bournemouth is often considered to be one of the most successful seaside towns in the country, it is not without its problems and it did not achieve its position without many courageous actions on the part of the local authority and others. Many people think that Bournemouth is a very prosperous resort, but the present Government have identified West Howe, in my constituency, as one of the 20 most deprived areas in the United Kingdom. That often surprises people.

I do not wish to dispute statistics with my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), but my constituency also has one of the highest—if not the highest—concentrations of elderly people. I am talking about extremely elderly people. My oldest constituent lived to be 116; I went to his 116th birthday party, accompanied by most of Europe’s television and other media. He claimed to be 118, but his 92-year-old son said, “No, dad is getting on a bit and he is beginning to lose it. He is actually only 116.”

There was a saying among some of our colleagues that Bournemouth was the place to which people came to die and then forgot why they had come there. When I was first elected for Bournemouth, West, some 24 years ago, the town was not the thriving place that it is now. I shall not try to claim much credit for the transition, but the town was fairly typical of seaside resorts: it had an ageing population; it had little industry and commerce outside the tourism industry; and it was suffering the same problems caused by the decline of the traditional family bucket-and-spade holiday as most other resorts. Its future did not look terribly bright.

Bournemouth has been fortunate because its borough council, under successive administrations, has courageously taken difficult decisions. The decision to build the Bournemouth international conference centre and subsequently to refurbish it at the cost of many millions of pounds was very courageous. Some political opponents campaigned, particularly among elderly residents, on the basis that the centre was a waste of their money and would not benefit them. In fact, it has made the town extremely successful and very much to the fore in obtaining major conferences, such as the Labour party conference that will be held later this year. We look forward to welcoming the Labour party to Bournemouth once again.

I should also cite the decision to expand our education facilities. When I was first elected, Bournemouth had the Dorset institute of higher education, which had about 1,100 students. That later became Bournemouth university, which now has 12,500 students. That has made a tremendous difference to the feel of the town. Bournemouth also has about 10,000 students of English as a foreign language. Other than London, Bournemouth is the biggest centre in the United Kingdom for such students.

We have encouraged some major financial services companies into Bournemouth. I played quite a big part in that. I was involved in the decision by JP Morgan to come to the town—we were talking about Chase Manhattan then. That has increased the financial services employment in the town enormously. Such things can be done. Financial services fit well with tourism and do not conflict with it. Where local authorities are prepared to spend the money on making a town attractive, success can be the reward, although it is difficult to obtain.

As the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and others have said, most of the constituencies of the hon. Members present have a large elderly population. Those people usually come to our areas with fixed incomes, which often fall, particularly when one of the partners dies and the surviving spouse is left to live on a much diminished income. There is a great deal of hidden poverty in most seaside towns. As the Committee’s excellent report has indicated, that fact is inadequately recognised by Government in terms of the support that can be given to local authorities. It is a courageous local authority that embarks on substantial public expenditure of the type that is needed to maintain the position of a town as a seaside resort, knowing that much of the burden will fall on people who are not well able to afford it without Government support.

Similarly, the report was perceptive in identifying the problems—we all have experience of these—caused by people coming to towns, particularly on a day basis. When I was first elected, the only way a seaside town could get recognised in respect of Government support was on the basis of bed nights for foreign visitors: if we could encourage enough foreign visitors and prove to the Government that we had received that many foreign visitors, we would get a bit more money.

First, I argued, “What about persuading English visitors to come here rather than go abroad?” When we were successful in that respect, I asked, “What about all our day visitors?” There is no doubt that day visitors impose a huge additional burden on local authorities, on our local health service and on our other local services. At the height of the summer season, the greater conurbation of Bournemouth goes from dealing with 500,000 people to dealing with more than 1 million. That imposes huge burdens on everyone, not least the police.

I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend, who is making a good case for Bournemouth, which has done very well. We must also consider the impact of youngsters who want to have a night out and drink in the centre of town. That puts burdens on the local police authority and Bournemouth borough council.

My hon. Friend is right. Although some might not agree, Bournemouth is in some ways fortunate for having supposedly become the clubbing centre of southern England, after London. All sorts of young people appear for the day, for the night or for a little longer, some of whom are scantily dressed. They enjoy themselves in the town until the wee small hours of the morning, and sometimes beyond. That imposes a huge burden, despite bringing a lot of business and spending power to the town. I would not say that we should do without it, although some of my more elderly residents might think that it would be well dispensed with.

The criteria that the Government use to consider how support should be given to seaside towns are not fair. The day visitor allowance has been abolished under the present Government—an extraordinary decision. Although Bournemouth might be able to sustain that loss to a degree, it might be a death knell for many other seaside towns. It does not help us in creating an environment in which we can attract not only UK visitors but overseas visitors. We attract such visitors in increasing numbers, thus benefiting our balance of payments greatly.

Interestingly, the language schools contribute substantially to the number of our overseas visitors. I am not just talking about the young people who come, because some people meet their future husband or wife in such places and subsequently come back on honeymoon and then bring their children back on family holidays. That is a noticeable phenomenon, and we undervalue it at our peril, leaving aside the enormous economic benefit that we gain from the language schools, and the employment and prosperity that they bring to the town.

I welcome this excellent report. I should apologise because I was meeting the President of Namibia when this debate began and I therefore missed the opening part of the speech by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey).

It was brilliant.

So I gather. The hon. Lady has done an excellent job, and I hope that the Government will listen. It is very important that they do so.

May I conclude by citing the chairman of the Bournemouth tourism management board? He says:

“We need to ensure that the government does not do a disservice to Coastal Towns by discounting and dismissing the very sensible recommendations of the All-Party Coastal Towns Inquiry.”

I, too, apologise for missing the first few minutes of the excellent speech by the Chairman of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey). I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I have been urged to do so, not in order to join the voices of those Parliamentary Private Secretaries who want to dish it to the Government, but to make some observations arising from the various points that have been raised. I was late because I was with the representative of the Sheikh of Abu Dhabi, but that does not outdo meeting the President of Namibia—[Interruption.] I believe that he has a bit more money than Namibia.

I do not want to outdo colleagues, but Worthing has the oldest population in the world, if not the universe—4.6 per cent. of Worthing’s population are not just pensioners, but are over the age of 85. I recently went to a 106th birthday party—not quite 116—and was regally entertained with the largest glass of sweet sherry that I have ever had in my life, and some interesting entertainment. I thought that people came to Worthing to die, and then forgot, and that the apocryphal graffiti at Victoria station says, “Dover for the continent; Worthing for the incontinent.” I shall not go into that.

The serious point is the enormous pressure on the local infrastructure, particularly the health service. I shall not repeat health debates, but in south-east England the pressure that older people place on the health service is considerable. A 75-year-old requires twice as many visits to or from the doctor as a 65-year-old, yet the captitation payment in the health service does not acknowledge the additional age-related costs. The older population is disproportionately concentrated in seaside resorts, particularly along the south coast in Bournemouth, Worthing and the coastal resorts of Kent.

The references to Margate are interesting, and I see from the Select Committee’s report that the Committee visited Margate. I am delighted that the serious problem of looked-after children being dumped there was also mentioned. I made a speech about that this morning at a conference on looked-after children. Disadvantaged children who have had traumatic experiences are often dumped at the opposite end of the country from the place they are used to. That does them no favours, and they are often left to run riot.

A couple of years ago, a chief inspector in Worthing told me that 28 per cent. of his crime figures for one month related to half a dozen children in independent children’s homes—we now have 10 such homes in Worthing. The problem was not necessarily the individual homes, but the effect of clustering them. If the children are not properly looked after, it is not fair to local agencies or the police who must pick up the problems, or to local residents who must suffer the problems. Most of all, it is not fair to the young people whom we have already failed to fail them again by putting them in those areas.

I quoted Lord Utting earlier because many years ago, back in the ‘90s, he produced a report saying that young people who go into the care system should remain as close to home as possible, unless there is a good reason for them to be given a completely clean break and taken to a place of safety away from traumatic family experiences, and that preferably they should have kinship care. I have visited independent homes in my constituency, which often offer good-quality service, but children from inner-city London, Somerset and other urban towns are dumped in seaside coastal resorts or rural areas in West Sussex, and are like fish out of water. The experience is disorienting for them and we are doing them no favours.

That happens in many coastal resorts, such as Margate, although I read a little while ago that because of the perceived problem with hoodies, whom we love dearly, a group of pensioners in Margate had got together—they were dubbed the gangster grannies—and went around wearing hoodies so as to make the wearing of them so uncool that young people would not want to wear them to make themselves seem intimidating, which is interesting counter-intuition.

Another problem in coastal towns, certainly in Worthing, is identity crisis. As the hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) said, they are often towns that grew up because of railway links, and they prospered because they followed the success of Brighton’s royal patronage. Worthing became an alternative to Brighton, and coastal towns became upmarket seaside resorts, but were later often hit by poorer times. Some places, such as Cleethorpes and Blackpool, served as holiday resorts for midlands industrial towns where everyone took their holidays at the same time.

What are those towns now? In the age of low-cost flights, when it is cheaper to fly to Torremolinos than to take the train from London to Brighton or from Leeds to Cleethorpes, their role is not so clear. Are they still seaside resorts with a future? I believe that they have a future, but the competition is far greater. Are they retirement towns? In places like Worthing, there is clearly a dominance of people who have retired there, and they are often incoming retirees. Many people retired to Worthing from Essex because they went to Worthing for their holidays when they were children, and then retired to the south coast that they knew. However, nearby towns in my constituency—Shoreham and Southwick—consist of people who have lived there for generations. There is a great contrast in the populations.

Are coastal resorts business towns? For three years running, Worthing had the extraordinary accolade of being the most profitable town in which to do business in the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) and I are at a loss to work out how that was calculated. We think that because GlaxoSmithKline has a large division in Worthing its worldwide profits were predicated into the calculations; thus, Worthing turned out to be the most profitable town. However, we have a thriving business community, as does Brighton—the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) mentioned that. Are the south-eastern coastal towns business towns, or are they on the fringes as commuter towns? I do not know the answer. Many local people—Worthing is not atypical in this respect—really do not know the answer.

Some towns have been very successful. A few years ago, some coastal towns, such as Brighton and my birth town of Eastbourne along the coast, got together to work out what they wanted their identity to be. With the council, the chamber of commerce, business, the hotel industry, and the movers and shakers they decided that they wanted to be upmarket conference towns, for example, and appealed to the conference business. A common theme among many coastal towns is an identity crisis.

I agree that many coastal towns need strong leadership and someone to bring together strong local movers and shakers to take them forward, out of the time warp in which many of them have been stuck. That can be done, but it needs Government support. They do not need the Government to lead the way, but they need the Government to provide support. The Government have been good at identifying areas of social exclusion in inner cities and sometimes the rural poor, but coastal towns have missed out, and they need help because of their special circumstances.

I would guess that all our constituencies—we have heard this today about coastal towns—have enormous contrasts between neighbouring wards. In my constituency, I have wards that are in the top 10 per cent. in terms of deprivation next to wards that are of average or just above average affluence. Depending on how the geographical boundaries are drawn, if the two are bunged together they come out as having an average rate of poverty or affluence, so some pockets of poverty are overlooked, which masks the situation.

Places such as Worthing, Brighton, Hastings and Cleethorpes used to be fishing towns, but the fishing fleets have gone. We did not see the money that was supposed to help them out, but the last vestiges remain of what used to be prosperous fishing towns. Shoreham harbour in my constituency is the closest cross-channel harbour to London, but reflects only a shadow of its former glory in years gone by.

There is a problem, particularly in the south-east coastal areas, with transport. When I go to Blackpool for party conferences, the journey by car is swift, and travelling within Blackpool to one’s hotel is not too bad. However, travelling to Worthing, Eastbourne, Brighton, Chichester and Hastings by road can be a nightmare. The train service to Brighton is a good one, but as soon as one arrives at the south coast and turns right, it becomes a nightmare. I have many big manufacturers in my constituency, including GlaxoSmithKline, British Oxygen and B&W Loudspeakers, but a place at the end of a line where there are very poor road infrastructure links surrounded by residential areas is not obviously the best place to run a manufacturing business.

I am glad that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges Blackpool’s good road links, and I do not dispute anything that he says about the problems with roads in the south-east. However, there is another side to the coin. Getting to Blackpool by road from London may be relatively easy, but getting to Blackpool by public transport is anything but. That is a legacy of the failure of 1970s Conservative Governments to invest in the west coast main line, and sadly, of our general problem over the past 20 years in making Governments of all hues recognise the importance of public transport—in particular the railway network—to seaside and coastal towns.

The hon. Gentleman has had 10 years to do something about it, but let us not go there, because we have built up a cross-party consensus in the Chamber.

Transport to many coastal towns, and particularly to the south because of the population density, is not good. When we in the south-east are told that the region stretching from Milton Keynes—the constituency of the Chairman of the Select Committee—to Dover, the Isle of Wight, Sussex, Berkshire and so on, which is amorphous and incohesive, is to be the powerhouse of the European economy, and that central Government must impose housing development on us, many of us have reservations. However, everybody will have reservations if we do not have the infrastructure to support that development.

The number of new houses that my constituency is being forced to take is ridiculous given the geographical limitations of the sea to the south and the downs to the north. We simply do not have the spaces for those houses, and we certainly do not have the infrastructure for getting to and from them, let alone to and from the companies for which the people living in the houses are supposed to work.

We are dealing with a double-edged sword. The A27 is probably the biggest car park in the south of England. One can drive from Newcastle all the way down south on dual carriageway or motorway until one reaches my constituency when it changes into single-file traffic on a major trunk road. It is crazy putting more and more cars arising from the extra house building on to that road; it is a double-edged sword. Our biggest weapon for combating inappropriate further developments at the foot of the downs is by saying that the roads cannot sustain them. That is the biggest factor enabling us to reject some of the developments on appeal. However, we want infrastructure, investment and everybody to have a good quality of life, so that they can retire to Worthing or bring up their families in Worthing, Shoreham or another town in East Sussex.

Brighton is a thriving place and a big town of 250,000 people, but it has its problems. I visited a Brighton school that was dubbed the third worst in Britain a few years ago. At the school, which is in a particularly depressed part of Brighton called the Whitehawk estate, there is some really good stuff going on, and an entrepreneurial headmaster is bringing about change. Brighton is the drugs capital of the United Kingdom, and there has been a great deal of downside to its prosperity and the life that has been put into it.

However, Brighton is just a city, and although I am not trying to undermine the place, it has gobbled up the lion’s share of investment, particularly social investment, from the Government. Much regeneration money has quite rightly gone into cities because of their problems, but it has done so to the exclusion of neighbouring towns and villages, which also have big problems. They do not qualify for that help because they do not have economies of scale or the same quantity of problems, and they do not get the help and regeneration that they need.

A scheme that worked really well and that the previous Government strongly championed was the single regeneration budget. One did not need to be a big city or a big deprived estate to qualify for it. The SRB did a lot in my constituency and along the Sussex coast in pockets of deprivation to help to upgrade the more downmarket business estates, to regenerate the town centres that had lost out to out-of-town shopping centres and to bring up the standard of the housing. It worked very well, because it was not big-budget stuff, but it had a big bang for its buck.

My final point is about coastal erosion. We have benefited greatly from the Environment Agency, I am glad to say. We got £20 million to fortify the coastal defences from Shoreham to Worthing, where we are vulnerable and below sea level. I am grateful for the Environment Agency’s far-sightedness, which enabled us to do that work. The trouble is that because of the pressure on budgets for coastal defence work, and because the problem a few years ago was not coastal but river defences, when the city of Chichester, the town of Lewes in Sussex and other market towns throughout the country flooded badly, a great deal of money that would have gone into coastal defence work had to go into river defence work in our towns. There is a competing equation, and towns are losing out on coastal defence work that is essential if we are to defend them from the effects of global warming.

The debate has raised a range of interesting coastal town problems. I am not one to bleat and say, “Why aren’t we getting more help?” because ultimately local people, enthusiasm and entrepreneurship, and the flexibility to adapt to new times, markets, customers and interest, are the future of our coastal towns. However, the Government must at least recognise that coastal towns have diverse problems. They are not inner cities with enormous estates that suffer from all sorts of deprivation; they are not rural ex-coal mining or ex-tin mining communities that have specific problems; and although many parts of north-west Sussex are close to affluent rural areas, many parts of south-west Sussex are not. It does not mean that they are without their problems.

We want to solve the problems ourselves. We need greater co-ordination and we parliamentarians can be the catalyst for much of that change, but it would help if the Government recognised the problems and responded rather more positively and proactively than they have to the Committee’s otherwise excellent report.

As a non-member of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government, I start by congratulating the Chairman, the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), and her colleagues of all political persuasions on the excellent, comprehensive and cohesive report that we are debating this afternoon. As I was present when she spoke, I can confirm to those who were not that she did so with great passion and eloquence.

The hon. Lady was absolutely right to highlight the three or four key issues that the report pulls out. They include outward and inward migration. Outward migration involves people who are younger, brighter and ambitious—they want to go away to university, and they rarely come back. We have exactly the same problems in Skegness. Inward migration is often by elderly, vulnerable or poor people. The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made the same point, and he was right to do so.

There are also poor transport links, but I shall not dwell on them, because although it is an issue in Skegness, it is not one of the top three or four that I want to discuss. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is right to be proud of Southend. I am sure he knows that in a recent survey, Southend and Skegness came joint first as the best places to retire in the United Kingdom, and we, as the representative Members, can be proud of that.

My hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) was absolutely right to highlight the importance of co-ordination. In Lincolnshire, East Lindsey district council has set up a coastal action zone that pulls together all the disparate and requisite bodies to put forward a cohesive action plan to regenerate the coast. He has a great deal of expertise in regenerating socio-economically deprived boroughs from his excellent work over many years in Wandsworth, which is now a beacon in the local authority sector.

I was there, too.

The hon. Lady was also on the local authority in Wandsworth with me at that time, and I am sure that she learned many lessons from my hon. Friend about dynamism and how to regenerate socio-economically deprived areas.

My hon. Friend was also absolutely right to say that the Minister should feel beleaguered, although I would go further and say that she should also feel embarrassed to come here and defend the Government response to the excellent Select Committee report. The hon. Members for Blackpool, South and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) also said, although in a very polite way, that the response was not acceptable and not up to scratch. Of course, they have to be careful, given their positions.

Before I drill down into some of the details of the issues for Skegness, I should like to put it on the record that the town is very different from Bournemouth and Worthing, because it does not have economic diversification. It is very reliant on the UK tourist industry and is a very successful UK tourist resort. I would argue that it is the leading UK tourist destination. People go there—and to Cleethorpes—from the former coalfield areas of South Yorkshire and from many parts of the midlands, such as Mansfield, Nottingham and Worksop.

Some 600,000 people visit Skegness in summer. In peak periods, there are 250,000 tourists in the town. The tourism sector is dynamic, full of energy and driven by an entrepreneurial flair that means that the private sector is prepared to put its money where its mouth is and invest in creating attractions that bring people back to Skegness, and other tourist resorts, year after year. Skegness’s tourism sector is also coupled with a hard-working public sector that understands the importance of co-operation and a link between the private and public sectors.

I want to pull from the report several key points with which I agree—I shall rattle through them quickly. The report states that

“Government has neglected…coastal towns for too long.”

I agree. It also states that the

“Government does not sufficiently appreciate the needs of coastal towns.”

I agree. There needs to be cross-departmental liaison, which is currently “disappointing”, and I shall return to that theme.

There are problems, particularly those linked to deprivation, common to many coastal towns, and that is just as true of Skegness as it is of Blackpool and Cleethorpes. A high number of people in coastal towns claim sickness and disability benefits, and it is absolutely right to point that out. The response from the Government on that, read out earlier, was awful, and it raised a titter of laughter in the Chamber. I hope that the Minister will address that issue in her reply.

We need a national-level requirement to promote English seaside resorts to visitors, and it is incumbent on the Government to try to find ways to address such resorts’ inherently low-wage and low-skill economies, the seasonal nature of employment and the importance of economic diversification. I will make some specific suggestions on that later.

I want to put on the record some of the specific problems in and around Skegness. I want to cover the level of deprivation. Some 19.4 per cent. of the working-age population in the East Lindsey coastal area claim incapacity benefit. The area includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes—

No; my constituency is in north Lincolnshire.

Well, I am talking about the East Lindsey district council area, which is along the coastal strip. The figure is 19.4 per cent. in that area, compared with the average of 7 per cent., which is a significant difference. According to the 2001 census, Skegness has a population of 18,000, divided into four wards, three of which rank very high on the indices of deprivation. However, as has been mentioned, because things are done on a ward basis, the requisite funding from the European Union or central Government to address those problems is not attracted.

There have been problems with the local hospital in Skegness, which has been under threat. As in other coastal resorts, there is a high proportion of elderly residents in Skegness—the average is 23.7 per cent. compared with the UK average of 18.4 per cent. When one of the hospital’s wards was closed and there was a threat that the hospital would be totally closed—coupled with the threat of the closure of the accident and emergency ward in Pilgrim hospital, Boston, which is also in my constituency—there was a chance that the accident and emergency ward nearest to Skegness would be in Lincoln, which is an hour and a half away. Thankfully, that possibility was defeated by a concerted effort and campaign. I hope that there will be more investment—capital investment, not just revenue investment—in the health service in Skegness, and if I have time I shall return to that theme.

Turning to education, some 50 per cent. of residents in the east Lincolnshire coastal region have no qualifications at all compared with a rate of 29 per cent. nationally, and only 13 per cent. are qualified to NVQ level 3 compared with a rate of 48 per cent. nationally. Those significant statistics demand changes to how the public sector is funded through the current formulae, and I shall come to some specific proposals later. Several of the schools on the east Lincolnshire coast and in Skegness are poorly equipped. Such areas have highly transient populations, and there is significant movement in school rolls. That means that the schools do not get the requisite funding, because the decisions are made on the count of the school roll in September, even if the numbers increase significantly later in the academic year. I have raised that issue before, but nothing has been done.

Turning to employment, the Lincolnshire coast is the least productive area of a low-productivity county. It has a low and falling gross domestic product in comparison with the rest of the United Kingdom—there are low wages and low skills with seasonal work often dominating. Large numbers of people in the area claim jobseeker’s allowance in the winter months. Disgracefully, the DWP withdrew that without warning, leaving people in Skegness and other coastal towns suffering without any money at all. Thankfully, that decision was overturned on appeal.

The significant problems with housing have been driven by the recent changes to housing legislation. The changes mean that local authorities have to take into consideration people coming from elsewhere. A resort such as Skegness is an attractive place to live. People from the east midlands want to come there, and if they come from pockets of deprivation, they are often very high on the housing priority list. That means that local people in Skegness cannot access social housing. The problem is coupled with and exacerbated by the fact that there are 26,000 caravans on the east Lincolnshire coast, the vast majority in my constituency. They used to be holiday homes—second homes for people from the midlands. There is now a growing trend for people to live permanently in caravans. They use the local facilities but make no economic contribution through council tax towards paying for them. Caravan parks close for one or two months of the year, so such people go and rent private property in Skegness and then return to their caravans. I am working closely with East Lindsey district council on that, and we are attempting to set up a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss it.

There are also significant environmental issues, particularly coastal flooding. According to the Environment Agency, my whole constituency would be under water if it were not for the coastal defences and the excellent work of the internal drainage boards. Yet via the local authorities, this Government have cut funding to those boards, which used to get 100 per cent. rebates from central Government. Now they get only 87 per cent., which means significant deficits and more pressure on local council tax payers. The Government ceiling in respect of 5 per cent. increases means that the local authority has to make a difficult decision. Does it cut back on service provision or flood defences?

Because of their incompetent handling of the single farm payment, the Government, through the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, are having to make significant cutbacks to coastal flood defences. In this year alone in Lincolnshire, £15 million is being taken from those defences. That could well have a significant impact, particularly in the context of climate change and global warming.

The Government need to focus on five particular issues, the first of which is tourism. They need to formulate a national strategy, including economic diversification strategies, for coastal tourism. I do not share the confidence of the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West about regional development agencies. Like the hon. Member for Cleethorpes, I believe that the RDA in the east midlands is distant and does not understand the coastal region and coastal issues, although I believe that she and I have different regional development agencies. I would much prefer the engagement to be with the local authorities and in order to go to the lowest possible level with people who understand those communities. More needs to be done about tourism.

The revenue support grant is the second issue that needs to be addressed. It needs to take into account to a far greater extent elderly and transient populations and recognise the geographical variations that demand different emphases on services in respect of those groups. There are large numbers of tourists in Skegness, and some of them are not terribly well. GPs get refunded from other primary care trusts, so they give tourists priority at their surgeries, which means that local people cannot access their own GPs, particularly in the summer months. That is causing immense tension, as I am sure that all hon. Members will understand.

Furthermore, we need to look at coastal protection. We need a significant increase in the availability of funding for coastal flood defences. DEFRA must not continue the cuts that have followed the RPA shambles. Some 20 per cent. of the food consumed in the UK is grown in eastern and southern Lincolnshire, and the possible salination of high-quality agricultural land could significantly damage the production of that food for a long time. Coastal protection is vital for most, if not all, the people in my constituency, because, as I have said, the whole of my constituency would be under water otherwise. The Environment Agency must be fully funded in the comprehensive spending review that will report in the autumn and I hope that the Minister and her officials will take that message back.

Finally, I would like the Government to focus on further investment, particularly for health and education. I have talked briefly about the hospital, which needs capital investment. I hope that we will succeed in getting some capital investment from the community hospital fund. There needs to be a greater focus on the further education sector in my part of Lincolnshire, as it has low penetration and accessibility. The whole Lincolnshire FE sector gets less funding than one FE college in Nottingham. That has been recognised by the Learning and Skills Council, but in my view the misallocation of funds is being rebalanced and readdressed far too slowly. The low-wage and low-skill economy in Lincolnshire means that there is a need for the FE sector to be more accessible and relevant to the needs of the people in the part of Lincolnshire that I represent.

In conclusion, I thank the Committee once again for its hard work in putting together this excellent report, which makes a significant contribution to coastal towns. I hope that the Government will go away and reflect on their response, which is not excellent. As a representative of Skegness, I do not see why—we have heard this from the representatives of other coastal towns—we should not have the same priority and resource allocation as the inner cities. We have the same problems, exacerbated by distances, isolation, an ageing population and declining public services, including transport.

The Government need to take seriously the issues set out in the report. There is no reason why the work cannot be done across the Departments, nor why the Government should not set up a coastal regeneration taskforce, as the hon. Member for Blackpool, South pointed out. That should be a facilitating and enabling taskforce, rather than one that tries to take on the work load itself. The Government need to take coastal communities seriously and, at the least, to provide the appropriate focus to help economic diversification.

I shall continue to fight on behalf of the coastal town of Skegness, and the message from other Members in the Chamber, irrespective of their political persuasions, is that they will continue to fight for their coastal towns, too.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on securing the debate and enabling this important matter to be discussed through her work as Chairman of the Select Committee. The Committee’s report took the common challenges that face coastal towns and placed them firmly on the political agenda. For too long it has been assumed that because a town is an excellent place to spend a week’s holiday, the permanent population must be lucky to live there. In a sense they are, but as we have heard today, in many other senses they are not.

Anyone who ventures past the promenades, deckchairs and piers will soon realise that many people who reside in coastal towns are far from lucky. From the lack of affordable housing to low-value employment, the vast range of problems that plague such towns have a daily impact on the lives of residents. I commend the Committee for turning its attention to some of those issues. Although I appreciate that the Committee covered a wide range of issues, for the sake of the debate I will focus on coastal economies, demography, funding and regeneration.

As the MP for what I consider to be England’s premier coastal town, I am only too aware of the challenges faced by such towns. It is difficult to represent a holiday area as our main business is attracting visitors and therefore it is our duty to put the best gloss on the attractiveness of our area. However, we cannot ignore the socio-economic changes that have taken place in most of our seaside towns over the past 30 to 40 years, which have resulted in a number of negative features, more often associated with inner-city areas, that lie behind the facade of the palm trees.

Seaside towns could be described as 180° local economies, whereas inland communities are 360° economies. Seaside towns have hinterland on only one side, while the sea faces them on the other. Those with the most severe economic difficulties are, inevitably, a long way from the main centres of economic activity and are geographically on the periphery. Many seaside towns are a mixture of the urban and rural, the deprived and affluent, and residents and visitors. Their main industry is tourism, which is one of the fastest-growing economic activities in the world—but not, sadly, in our coastal tourist resorts.

Some 42 per cent. of British residents who opt to take their main holiday in Britain choose a traditional seaside destination. The market is worth an impressive £4.2 billion. Between 2005 and 2006, more than 270 million day visits were made to the UK coast. However, day trippers to the coast spent on average one third less on their day out than those who visited an inland city. However, that is only part of the story. The figures do not separate tourism spending in seaside resorts from the growing number of inland attractions and markets across England. They do not recognise the fact that local tourist spending does not stay in the local economy because of the growth of nationally owned entertainment centres, pubs, hotels, retailers and superstores, where once locally owned businesses rang up the tills.

The geographic location of coastal towns means that they are likely to be end-of-the-line destinations, and with poor transport links it is harder to diversify the local economy to attract higher value employment from manufacturing and other sectors. The Government’s transport policy only exacerbates the problem, as funding and approval of major road projects is concentrated on the main arterial routes linking our main centres of population, with a number of coastal towns waiting decades for much-needed link roads.

Although the Committee has highlighted the trend of high sickness and disability benefit take-up in coastal towns, the Government have again chosen to stick their head in the sand and deny that that is a problem. Unemployment in seaside resorts remains higher than the national average. In the United Kingdom the average was 5.4 per cent., but in many seaside towns it was well above that figure.

The most recent figures produced by the Office for National Statistics on local labour markets show that in three of England’s regions, coastal towns have the highest take-up rates of jobseeker’s allowance: my constituency in the south-west, Thanet in the south-east and Great Yarmouth in the east England region. I am glad to see that the hon. Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) has taken an interest in the debate. The Government fail to acknowledge that the majority of tourism sector jobs are of a low value and tend to be minimum wage, service sector employment.

High employment figures mask the cruel reality of low-value employment for both the individual minimum wage employee and the local economy that has less disposable income in circulation to help other businesses to grow. The employment figures that the Government use do not reflect the nature of the employment situation. Low-skilled jobs do not prevent young people from leaving the area, provide enough income to allow people to compete in the local housing market or provide stability within communities that already have an above average transient population. No progress will be made until the Government acknowledge that that is a problem.

Housing has been mentioned this afternoon, and although I appreciate that the issue of affordable housing affects many parts of the country, unaffordability is exacerbated in coastal towns. I welcome the Committee’s acknowledgment that greater provision of affordable housing is a key priority in coastal areas. Too many grotty bedsits and flats hide behind the affluent image of the Victorian seaside hotels and villas. That is a consequence of changes in the tourism market and of the Government’s failure to recognise that special change. The housing that has been built is out of reach to the two thirds of would-be movers who earn less than £17,500 a year, which is not enough to get a first-time buyers’ mortgage on a terraced house in my constituency, let alone on certain housing in areas of higher house prices in the constituencies of other hon. Members.

The Government must consider giving local authorities more power to require developers to build properties that match local needs. Part of the problem could lie in the fact that VAT is levied on renovations but not on new build. The renovation of a great deal of old, crumbling infrastructure, often built in the Victorian era, in our seaside resort areas could be encouraged if that VAT were lowered. Planning law also needs major reform; local authorities must have greater power to determine what can occur in their area. Following pressure led largely by Members of Parliament from coastal resorts, the Government changed the rules on second home council tax discounts. Although that change is welcome, however, it is only a tiny step in the desired direction.

The decline in business for both hotel and bed-and-breakfast owners and the consequential pressure from their lenders have led many into a tariff war with their competitors in which they have been charging rates that minimise profit margins. Where I grew up, I had friends whose parents made money as bed-and-breakfast proprietors—that was all that they did, yet it provided an income for a family. They were able to sit on the income during the winter months and spend the winter renovating for the next season. I do not know any guest house proprietor today who does not need a second job or income, because they cannot now sustain a living through tourism alone. Others have sought new custom from the growing numbers of people who are looking for accommodation to rent—many of them on long-term benefits. Changing accommodation use from tourism to long-term tenancies has an impact on the streets and neighbourhoods in which that accommodation is located.

Reference has already been made to the number of housing benefit claimants, which increased nationally by 5 per cent. between 2001 and 2006. In my own constituency, the number of claimants has increased by 16 per cent. Government ought to be asking why that is and addressing the consequences of that trend. In their response to the report, the Government have stated that they are on track to deliver 30,000 new social rented homes nationally in 2007 and 2008. I acknowledge that that is a 50 per cent. increase on 2004-05, but it is really not good enough. In my constituency alone about 6,000 applicants are waiting to be housed, with only about 600 properties being allocated each year. If the Government are serious about tackling the shortage of affordable housing, they need to provide serious funding, but currently they are not.

The Committee noted the impact that a coastal town’s demography can have on its economy. Inward migration of older or economically inactive individuals, coupled with outward migration of the young, perpetuates many of the problems that coastal towns face. The large, elderly populations are in many ways an asset—elderly people contribute to voluntary organisations, clubs and societies that would collapse without them. However, the numbers have effects for which local authorities, businesses, and health and social services cannot compensate. A large proportion of the elderly population are on fixed incomes, which in real terms are declining incomes, so the amount of money circulating in the local economy is suppressed. The extra pressures on local health and social services are not fully compensated for by Government grants. As the number of retired people is expected to increase over the next decade, the Government must deal with those issues.

On regeneration, I welcome the Committee’s recommendation that the Government should support a permanent network to facilitate the spread of best practice in coastal town regeneration. Although they have held a Department of Trade and Industry conference on coastal towns, the Government refuse to take responsibility for the regeneration of such towns, stating that it is the role of the regional development agencies. Yet the South West of England Regional Development Agency, for example, with the support of the Government, is using taxpayers’ money to help relocate Dartington College of Arts—a higher education establishment—to another part of the south-west region. That is taking business and jobs away from the coastal resorts and towns of south Devon, despite the fact less taxpayers’ money could be used to secure the college’s future where it is currently based. I have much sympathy with the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) in wondering what the point of RDAs is if they can, in my terms, misuse or abuse taxpayers’ money in that way.

Governments have recognised declining and restructuring traditional industries, and have funded inner cities and rural areas to assist their economic regeneration. New tourism markets have developed, which in most cases have won some of the business that traditionally came to resorts. Traditional seaside resorts have suffered a double whammy: their economies have been in decline because of overseas competition, while Europe and the UK Government have funded other areas and made them into competitors for tourists.

Why, given that single pot funding was allocated to the old coal-mining towns, are the Government so quick to dismiss a similar approach to tackle the problems faced by coastal towns? At the same time they seem perfectly happy to see European funding wasted on pointless relocations of higher education establishments that add no value to the economy of the far south-west. Is the answer that the decline of the mining towns occurred almost overnight, whereas the decline in coastal towns has been happening gradually for the past 25 years? Is it also that those who approve European and other funding lack any real accountability to the areas that they serve and to those whose taxes fund them in their work and largesse? Both those issues need addressing—and quickly.

In conclusion, it saddens me that the Government have disagreed with every single recommendation by the Committee that requires them to carry out any action or change any resource priority. The Government are supporting only those recommendations that require them to do nothing. Their response to the Committee’s report shows a blatant disregard for the people who live in coastal towns.

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, because both it and the report are very worth while. Those of us who represent coastal towns realise that there are some serious issues to deal with, because the problems of coastal towns have not been under the spotlight in the same way as those of many older industrial areas in the nation. I, too, am disappointed by the Government response, but I hope that the debate will prompt both the Minister and the civil servants to go back and think more carefully about what can be done to try to address some of the difficulties.

It is clear that there is a range of challenges and problems and that there is no uniform solution. However, one’s impression from today’s debate is that the problems of larger towns that have proud borough councils with universities and conference business are little different from the problems of Skegness or Cleethorpes. Nevertheless a range of actions is needed. There are certain common themes. One is that all of us in seaside towns have wards that are generally speaking very prosperous and in which property prices are beyond the means of most of us, yet those towns still have areas of deprivation. That is not picked up by the grant formula or European funding, which means that when the average comes out we miss out on most of the grant funding. In the computer age, we should be able to refine the grant system to deal with some of those areas of deprivation.

In my constituency is Sandbanks, where people buy houses for multi-million pound figures, knock them down and build even bigger, Dallas-type houses. However, the constituency also has areas of great deprivation that can be as little as a mile and a half away. Dealing with the problems of that deprivation is terribly difficult. People go to the seaside and see nice beaches and attractive scenery, but sometimes that masks the social and economic problems. The report mentions many such problems, of which housing is one. People born in Poole and Bournemouth and in many other coastal communities are often the very people who cannot afford local housing and who are therefore sometimes forced to leave the area against their will.

A common theme has been the number of older residents that coastal areas attract, and the loss of young, enterprising people, partly because of house prices and partly because people with degrees can perhaps find better-paid jobs in London. South-east Dorset, which I know a little better than many other areas, has a real problem in retaining the knowledge base in the local economy to create jobs and wealth.

One of the most telling points in this debate was one made by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The issue is not only the number of pensioners—we can debate the statistics, but I believe that Worthing probably has the highest number of pensioners—but the fact that people live to their 70s, 80s or 90s. The dependency of people in their 80s and 90s—the number of visits from doctors, the visits to hospitals and the care support that they need—means that the real costs get driven up substantially. Quite often when I have a pensioner with difficulties or with problems with care, the relative who writes to me and asks whether I can help Mrs. So-and-So lives in Cleethorpes, London, Bristol or somewhere else. People do not have extended family to give support.

We heard in this debate about the real problem of care homes in coastal communities, but, as we all know, dealing with some problem children in our boroughs and constituencies can cost an awful lot of money. Legislation makes much of that spending mandatory, which means that money allocated for social services does not get spent on the elderly, who need it and who have very real demands. There is certainly a good argument for reviewing the grant funding formula to determine whether it needs to be rejigged.

I believe that the report mentions the national health service once—it does not say much about the NHS because it is, of course, the preserve of another Select Committee—but the NHS and the impact that it has on our local citizens is a major and real problem in coastal towns, and it needs to be taken into account.

There are major problems. Another theme that comes up, particularly in Transport questions, is the ability of people to get in and out of coastal communities—some coastal communities have better links than others—but that is not only because the towns want tourists to come in, but because they want goods to be exported.

My constituency still has quite a lot of manufacturing. One of the enduring themes of local business men whom I meet is how to access the motorway network and how to get goods to market. The fact that we do not have very good transport links is a negative, and they are starting to take decisions for investment. The area can ill afford to lose companies, but we lose them because there are better transport links elsewhere. Where do Tesco and Sainsbury site their giant centres for distributing stuff to their various supermarkets? It is not usually anywhere near coastal towns. They usually pick a site on the motorway network, which does not serve coastal towns particularly well.

We also heard in the debate about the problems with day visitors and transients. There is a range of problems that are not always recognised in the Government’s grant calculations.

What are the solutions? The idea of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) for a taskforce approach is worth considering. There is a need for much more cross-governmental working, as the policies of some Departments can be offset by the policies of others. I agree with the Select Committee Chairman’s comments about the Department for Work and Pensions, which raised a real issue that needs to be focused on. I am not sure whether there is a solution to that problem, but I got the impression from her contribution and from one or two others that the DWP people had not focused on the issues and that that has implications for the coastal communities that many of us represent.

Many of the towns on the coast grew up not only because of Victorian entrepreneurs and the building of railways but because of strong and effective local leadership—borough councils and the people who built the piers, winter gardens and facilities combined with local entrepreneurs to attract people to the towns. Another thing that came out of the debate is that the future will not necessarily be Government-led; it will be led by business, local authorities and people in the towns who have a vision of what they want to do with their communities. To reinforce that, my party would like more power to be devolved to local authorities rather than to regions, because decisions that are made at the lowest possible level by the people who live in the town and who realise what the problems are, and perhaps have some of the solutions, are better than those made by people in Whitehall. That would be an effective way to proceed in the longer term.

My hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds) mentioned tourism. Perhaps a bit more thought could be given to how we promote tourism nationally and internationally to get people to come to our coastal resorts.

There are many problems, and the Select Committee has been good at focusing on them. I am not sure that we will get much progress in the short term, but we have started a debate that many of us who represent coastal towns realise we must have, and perhaps we will start to come up with some solutions for dealing with the issues. The focus must be on the towns and on looking at the real problems behind the palm trees, as the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) said.

We must determine whether we can deliver, sustain and reinforce the good things that are happening—and good things are happening in coastal towns. I was in Brighton recently, and I often go to Bournemouth. There is a vibrancy in some of the towns—sometimes they are a bit too vibrant late at night—but there are also problems a little bit back from the seafront that do not always get attention, money or investment. My party, which is reviewing its policies and looking ahead to its future manifesto, will focus on that problem, because it is important that we deal with the citizens of our country equitably. Coastal resorts have not had the attention or investment that they need. If we do not focus on and invest in them, we will have much bigger social problems and higher costs in the long term.

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) for truncating his comments. It is most frustrating after three hours of debate to have only 10 minutes to respond. I shall do my best to respond to the comments that have been made in the time available.

I thank the Chairman of the Select Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), for bringing this subject forward for debate, and I thank hon. Members for their good and interesting contributions. I noticed that in an intervention my hon. Friend described her own speech as brilliant. That was backed up by several other hon. Members who thought that it was excellent, passionate, comprehensive and cohesive. Clearly, it was a good presentation of the issues that were raised in the report.

I have learned a great deal from the debate. From the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir John Butterfill), I learned that Bournemouth is an ideal dating agency, and that it is a centre for foreign students who are learning English. I learned that the best fish and chips are to be found in Cleethorpes, and we had a competition over who went to the oldest person’s birthday party. I can claim only to have attended a 101st birthday party.

I have a great affection for seaside towns, having spent several years in Westcliff-on-Sea in the Southend, West constituency. It is important that coastal towns are included in any Government objective to ensure that towns are vibrant, thriving places in which people want to live. They must not be forgotten; they must be included in policy. The report raises a wide range of issues that cut across Government Departments. That shows the depth and breadth of the issues that face coastal towns.

The debate goes back several years, and we can all think of Adjournment debates and conferences on the subject. Most recently, on 8 May, officials of my Department took part in a conference on coastal towns hosted by the Department of Trade and Industry. It examined whether there are problems common to coastal towns that need to be addressed, and the best policy approach for doing that. As my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West indicated, the diversity of seaside towns—and, in other cases, the similarities—brings challenges. In the light of the conference, which was valuable, the Government have to consider how to examine the evidence further to inform policy making.

I appreciate that in many cases hon. Members are making bids for additional funding for their areas. Indeed, I hope that they will vote for, not against, additional funding when that matter comes before the House. When we make such bids, we perhaps concentrate on some of the negatives and difficulties, but we should also keep at the forefront of our minds the fact that seaside towns have a strong appeal to the public and great potential for the future. Our seaside towns are changing, and there are strong grounds for optimism, but we cannot at any stage be complacent about the problems. I believe that that is recognised in the Government’s response to the report.

I would like to make some general points and, if I have time, deal with specific points that hon. Members made. Cross-Government working was raised by several hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Mark Simmonds), and my hon. Friends the Members for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) and for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac). My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West spoke about having one Department responsible—she said that there was no one Department to deal with these matters. Unlike the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), who I believe was at odds with the Committee on the issue, she did not want a national strategy, but she made the point that there should be a permanent cross-Government working group. The Government are convinced that that is the best way forward. It is crucial that there is a far greater degree of working together across Departments hoping to achieve that objective. The report and the debate on it have accelerated progress in that respect.

The Government’s approach to coastal towns is to promote the benefits of a local and regional approach to ensure that plans are based on a detailed knowledge of the specific needs of the places. That emphasises the value of taking an integrated and strategic approach and of looking at the economic, social and environmental issues together, as my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South said. The report mentioned that local, central and regional government should be co-ordinated with business and the voluntary sector so that we are all pulling in the same direction.

I apologise for having to be absent from the debate for an hour. I had another meeting to go to and I did not think it was appropriate for me to intervene on other hon. Members who had sat through the debate. One of the points that has been raised today is that where there are pockets of deprivation in seaside resorts, such as in Great Yarmouth, we need to take the regional perspective. The area may well be affluent, but we tend to forget the problems, such as transport and infrastructure links.

We should be able better to address infrastructure issues through a regional approach. My concern and that of hon. Members is that in doing so, those pockets of deprivation—whether they are in coastal, city or rural areas—can sometimes not be dealt with in the way that hon. Members want. We must ensure that we have that relationship and deal with issues at the appropriate level. Infrastructure must be dealt with at a more regional level. At the same time, we must ensure that local councillors, businesses and the voluntary sector are involved at local level.

The best way to strengthen cross-government engagement is through the Government offices that are supposed to represent the 10 Whitehall Departments. They could play a more strategic role, and particular issues that they could look at and work on with local councils on are transport connectivity, employment and skills training, which are crucial. They could also consider housing issues, which were mentioned by a number of hon. Members.

My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South paid tribute to his regional development agency and the way that it deals with coastal towns and their issues. He also highlighted several problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes made a serious allegation, about which I hope she will give me further information, regarding the misuse of funds by the RDA. I am not aware of the matter, but I will look into it because allegations of the misuse of funds are obviously a serious matter.

rose—

Before I give way, I want to finish making this point. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned the sharing of best practice and I think that RDAs are best placed to share best practice information in the context of regional economic strategies. The decision of the South East England Development Agency to lead an RDA network is important and the Government will give as much support to it as possible. That is a way that we can recognise RDAs and bring them together.

Will the hon. Lady give way?

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not give way. I only have seven minutes left and I do want to respond to all hon. Members who have spoken.

Additional funding was mentioned. I have difficulty with that because funding is going to coastal areas. Hon. Members may think that it is not enough or want different allocations, but under the local enterprise growth initiative, Great Yarmouth got £8.6 million over three years; Hastings, which includes Bexhill, got £3.9 million over three years; in the second round, Blackpool got £10.8 million over three years; and North Lincolnshire got £18.7 million over three years. Those are important contributions to encouraging enterprise and growth. The new deal for communities—[Interruption.] If my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes had listened, she would know that I was careful to say that I want to respond to all the points made.

Because of time constraints, I cannot name all the areas involved in the new deal for communities funding and the neighbourhood management pathfinders, but a number of coastal areas—Brighton, Plymouth and Southampton—have benefited from significant amounts of money through the new deal for communities. In Brighton some £43 million has been spent to date, and there is a £48 million potential 10-year allocation for Brighton. The amounts are similar in relation to Southampton and Plymouth—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may not like the figures, but they cannot deny the amount of money—

Order. I ask hon. Members to let the Minister respond.

It is important to recognise the degree of funding that the current structures allow. I entirely accept the need to co-ordinate better between different agencies and Departments; we certainly take that on board.

Problems of transport and physical isolation were raised. It is impossible to divide transport issues and economic development, because one without the other does not make a whole package and does not enable an area to develop economically. The draft Local Transport Bill, published on 22 May, is a key part of the Government strategy to give local authorities stronger powers to meet local transport needs. I hope that hon. Members will discuss that with their local authorities. It will help to provide a more coherent approach across local authority boundaries, which will help the economic regeneration of areas.

Older people’s social services and the grant funding were raised repeatedly by hon. Members. Within the calculation of formula grant, there is a relative needs formula for older people’s social services at present. The resident population is the main driver of the formula and additional elements take into account other factors related to need, including the number of very elderly people in the area. Currently, that is calculated using data on the number of people aged 65 and over who are resident in each area, the number of pensioners who live alone, the over-65s who are in receipt of pension credit and attendance allowance, pensioners who live in rented accommodation and those who are over 90. We expect to update the data that we use in the relative needs formula for the 2008-09 settlement. That will ensure that the calculations reflect the demographic changes and other trends in local authorities, which hon. Members suggested.

Several hon. Members mentioned housing. All of us know that our communities need additional affordable housing. That has been taken on board by government at all levels. There are powers in the Housing Act 2004 relating to houses in multiple occupation. The local authority is the licensing authority, which will help to ensure good management standards in HMOs. However, the Government are keeping the effectiveness of that legislation under review and we are open-minded on the need to give additional powers in that respect.

The point was made quite effectively that many coastal economies are characterised by tourism, which has seen some increase and some additional benefits, but more still needs to be done. Hon. Members also referred to low skills, low pay and seasonal employment. There is an urgent need to tackle those problems and diversify into other growth areas of employment. Local authorities will have an important role to play in that. Coastal towns have benefited from a strong national economy and a buoyant labour market, with a rise in employment. The key for economies in coastal areas is to diversify.

I was in Southend just over a week ago and visited a very good, high-value company—KeyMed. That company has a social conscience. It is a good employer and has attracted new investment into the area. The mayor of Southend, the Japanese ambassador and I attended the opening. There are opportunities—Southend benefits from the Thames Gateway development—to draw investment into the area.

I think that the hon. Member for Southend, West had his tongue in his cheek when he said that Southend’s problems were worse than those anywhere else. I made the point that we should celebrate our coastal towns, and the hon. Gentleman said that he was very proud to be the MP for Southend, West. Southend is one of the designated areas of change in the Thames Gateway. It is important that we recognise the other regeneration issues that we can use to benefit coastal areas. Southend has benefited from Southend university, through an investment of £14 million and the creation of a new university right in the heart of the town. Education opportunities are extremely important in coastal towns, as several hon. Members said. I do not know the details of the project to which the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) referred, but certainly I will look at that. Where we can drive up skills, create employment—[Interruption.] I would like to respond to the hon. Gentleman. Where we can drive up employment, it is important to do so.

I acknowledge the comments made in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West and the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) and for Torbay about looked-after children. That is a very serious issue. It is ludicrous that several social services departments have to co-ordinate with one school. The “Every Child Matters” consultation paper that the Department for Education and Skills is examining now will be crucial to trying to address that extremely serious issue.

I cannot do justice to all the comments made. I thank hon. Members for their comments. I hope that some of the measures that we are taking to ensure that we work better together across Government and at all levels of government—local, regional and national—will ensure that we can address the issues that affect coastal areas.

It being half-past Five o’clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.