Westminster Hall Sitting of 20 November 2001

Preamble
[SIR MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Flood Defence
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned—[Mr. Stringer.]
9.30 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak about flood defences, a subject that is of great importance to my constituents. I thank the Minister for being here; I know that shortly after the events that gave rise to so much unhappiness in my constituency on 21 and 22 October, he responded to the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) in an Adjournment debate about the consequences of that storm.
The House will recall that the weekend of 21–22 October was one of exceptional rainfall in Cambridgeshire. I see the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) in her place; her constituents and mine, and those of other hon. Members in the area, suffered greatly as a consequence. It was a one in 220 chance that 96 mm of rain should have fallen in Bourn, to the west of Cambridge in my constituency. The consequence of that in my constituency and in the surrounding area was extensive flooding. The current estimate is that 12 villages in my constituency experienced flooding of property, as did several in the hon. Lady's constituency and the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice).
In many instances, such flooding had not been experienced within living memory. As one would expect, it gave rise to many questions about our preparedness, its exceptional nature notwithstanding—whether the circumstances led to worse flooding than should have happened, whether the response was adequate and what lessons should be learned. I know that the Minister and other hon. Members have debated flood defences extensively since the floods of Easter 1998, and again after last winter's exceptional flooding. I wish to draw on those debates and to make a modest contribution to the Government's thinking on the matter.
I raise this issue not only because of my constituents' unhappy experience of three or four weeks ago but because we in Cambridgeshire know that as a result of last winter's exceptional rainfall, ground water levels are very high, aquifers are full and springs are appearing in places where water has not flowed for years. We are now exceptionally vulnerable to flooding. That and the more volatile and extreme wet weather conditions that we are experiencing mean that flooding on such a scale may occur again if we do not take measures to deal with it.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this debate, which is timely. I wonder whether his constituents were in the same position as mine during that flood. My constituents, especially those in the Birdwood road area of Cambridge, phoned Cambridge city council to ask for
2WH
sandbags when they realised that their homes were about to be flooded, but were told that they were not available. I wonder whether that happened in other districts.
Mr. Lansley: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. It will be helpful to deal with some of the questions that emerged from that flooding before moving on to the generality of what needs to be done. The hon. Lady is right that sandbags were not available in some places, although they were in others. I do not detract for a moment from the work that South Cambridgeshire district council did in my constituency: it responded quickly, and most residents were grateful for its efforts. None the less, there were problems, and villages such as Bourn have resolved to pre-position sandbags against future flooding. As the hon. Lady knows, there were difficulties because of the speed of the flooding, which would have tested any response mechanism.
A constituent in Great Shelford, just south of Cambridge, contacted the Environment Agency's flood line. The agency's report entitled "Learning the Lessons" looked to the flood line as a mechanism for conducting responses among a range of agencies. My constituent rang a recorded call-back system to learn when the River Cam would peak, but he was given information about the River Lea. He asked the agencies three times to call him back, but no call came until the following day. To be fair, the Environment Agency acknowledged in subsequent correspondence with my constituent that on
"that particular day the primary call centre in Bristol was unable to function for most of the time due to a major problem with its telephone infrastructure."
It added with admirable candour:
"As ever, failures such as these always seem to occur at the worst possible time."
As regards the area code quickdial number that was to provide my constituent with information, the agency acknowledged that
"with your postcode we allocated the wrong quickdial number on our database. As yours is the first request we had from CB2 5EN, the erroneous entry had not been identified previously."
Understandably, my constituent feels that the system should—for the benefit of himself and others—work correctly the first time that it is put into operation because that is likely to be when flooding is experienced. As the hon. Lady rightly said, some constituents have inevitably encountered serious practical difficulties with the system that has been put in place.
Other hon. Members will relate their experiences, and I shall move on to the more general concerns that have become clear to me in my discussions with constituents and others. My constituents' experiences of flooding have raised considerable concerns, one of which is flood plain development, which the Government have sought to tackle in planning policy guidance 25.
The doctor's surgery in Bourn was flooded. When I visited three or four days later, patients' records were still drying off on tables, and one can imagine the distress that villagers felt about that. However, that was not the first time that the surgery had been flooded, although the flood was more serious than previous ones. The surgery and other properties had been built on what was recognised in the village as a flood plain.

3WH
The consequence has been repeated flooding, which will continue unless we deal with flood plain development. We could talk about a specific response. PPG 25 points in the right direction, but the question is whether we need to go further. Developments that took place in the village more than a decade ago went ahead despite the fact that the parish and the Environment Agency recommended against them.
The second question is to what standard flood defences should be constructed. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) and his constituents will know that one major issue is whether flood defences will be reinstated at a standard likely to deal with high flood levels in future. In a little more than a quarter of cases last winter, floods topped flood defences.
What indicative standards will there be for the future? The Government are being offered various pieces of advice. On the basis of what my constituents experience, some of the assumptions about standards for flood defence—for example, the 1 per cent. probability for urban areas and a lesser one for rural areas—will not be considered acceptable in future. Given the frequency with which extremes of weather occur and if we persist, contrary to recent experience, with high levels of ground water and aquifer levels, we shall have more substantial floods. They look statistically improbable, but will none the less happen.
As the Association of British Insurers stated in its recent report, we should consider a 0.5 per cent. or a one in 200 standard for flood defence to reassure the public, and to ensure that they can secure flood defence cover from insurers at a reasonable price. The Government have rightly sought advice from the Institution of Civil Engineers, which saw one in 100 as the common standard. Many of my constituents, who live in rural areas, would benefit from a higher level of protection than at present under a higher standard.
A need for investment would arise from a new standard. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is right to continue to acquire research and reports, on the basis of which decisions must be made. It commissioned a report on the national appraisal of assets at risk from flooding and coastal erosion in July, which pointed out an increase in Government investment in flood defence of between 35 and 85 per cent. The ABI calculated that, on the basis of the Department's current expenditure, about an additional £145 million a year should be invested in flood defences.
It would be interesting if the Minister were to tell us more about the Department's review of the organisation of and funding mechanisms for flood defence. I hope that he will say that the Government will respond positively to the appraisal of the required levels of increased investment, and that they will strengthen the indicative standards. He could also follow up on a short exchange that we had during departmental questions on the revision of the basis on which individual projects are assessed. There is merit in the argument advanced by the Institution of Civil Engineers about the point-scoring system. The overriding priority, in terms of the human consequences of flooding, is the avoidance of threat to life. However, as many of our constituents know, flooding has many distressing features, including social and health costs.
4WH
It is clear that the subsequent distress of flooding means that, when we calculate the benefit to be derived from undertaking more flood defence investment, we should take fully into account the human cost as well as the strict economic cost, with the distortions that can occur in relative property values in any case. Perhaps we should go beyond that and consider a further, high-level Government target to reduce flooding of properties. We should identify the extent to which minimising the problems that flooding causes residential properties can be a target in itself.
Everyone will be aware of the confusion that surrounds the question of who is responsible for what in terms of flood defence. That is not a new question in my constituency; it was asked even before the events of 21 and 22 October. In a number of villages we had to take stock after the events of last winter. We met in a room not much smaller than this. Parish and district councils, the county council and the Environment Agency all came together to discuss the matter. The first conclusion was that, in many villages, the parish or district council knew who was responsible for the ownership and drainage of ditches, for clearing them out and for ensuring that flooding problems were not merely passed on to neighbouring properties.
I am sure that the Minister will be pleased to know that earlier in the year we began the process of saying that each parish must have a survey to establish riparian ownership and responsibilities, and that the district council must consider where it can undertake drainage clearance.
It was interesting in that context that the body that many expected to be able to participate in the process was the Environment Agency. However, the agency said that it could give advice but not funds, with the exception of a small grant to the village of Fowlmere to help with a study to ascertain how flooding could be alleviated there. Presumably, that was because we were not dealing with the main rivers for which the agency is responsible. Those who work for the agency and who were formerly with the National Rivers Authority seemed to feel that in the past they might have been able to do a little more than to offer sympathy and advice to those dealing with ordinary water courses.
I believe that the Environment Agency feels that it can take a wider role. It might not be the front-line authority in each instance—perhaps that should be the role of the district council. However, it should be the strategic body to view the entire catchment area for a river such as the Cam, which extends into many ordinary water courses that, having flooded, have caused a great deal of water to run into the Cam very rapidly, as the hon. Member for Cambridge knows only too well.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman is being most generous with his time. He has highlighted the important issue of who is responsible for cleaning out ditches, waste pipes and drains. In the past, my constituents were aware of people who regularly cleared out such courses, but those people have not been seen for some time. Would their experience accord with that of his constituents?
Mr. Lansley: Yes it would, in various places. In some parishes, residents take it upon themselves to do the

5WH
work, in co-operation with farmers. In other areas, the drains and ditches on farms themselves are not kept sufficiently clear. That is one of the reasons why the runoff was so extreme as a consequence of the flash flooding a few weeks ago. In many places, for example in the Shelfords, some of the culverts and drains were blocked—that can happen very quickly. The debris was already there; it was not brought there in the course of the flood. Thus the flooding occurred very quickly and some of the response mechanisms that might otherwise have helped were overtaken by the speed of events.
I should like to leave time for other hon. Members to contribute their thoughts and experiences. However, it might be helpful if I summarise the matters that I should like to put to the Minister. I realise that it might not be appropriate for him to respond now, because any comment will depend on the Government's further response to the review of organisation and funding mechanisms. Nevertheless, Members will want to give their input to that. On the basis of discussions that I have had with my constituents about their recent experiences, and of some of the material that I have seen, I would summarise in 10 points.
First, investment needs to increase. It is reasonable to look to the ABI. Its estimate of £145 million is in line with the figure that independent advisers have quoted to the Department. That is a reasonable starting point for reflecting the priority that has to be attached to increased flood defence investment. The benefits associated with that more than justify the direction of resources.
Secondly, the Institution of Civil Engineers suggested a new high-level target as a way of acting directly to reduce the number of properties that are flooded, especially residential properties. That may be a good way forward.
Thirdly, the criteria for projects should not merely be economic cost-benefit analyses, and should not necessarily be based on a benefit-to-cost ratio of five to one. A human dimension should be built in. It is difficult to express quantitatively something with a qualitative value, but it has been done in the health context, for example, to express quality-adjusted life years. That kind of methodology can be used to express the reduction of distress that would be the result of building a human dimension into the criteria for choice of projects. My constituents feel that projects that might benefit them in rural areas are not undertaken because of the property values associated with urban projects. I would like to see more evidence to support that argument. There should, at least, be a more transparent system for considering projects one by one and comparing them.
Fourthly, we are working to an indicative standard of 1 per cent. probability for all projects. Perhaps over time, however, as the ABI recommends, as new defence projects come on stream we might move to a probability of one in 200, which would ensure that insurers felt confident about giving affordable insurance cover to those who might be affected by flooding.
Fifthly, the Environment Agency has sought a role in co-ordinating catchment strategies. I understand that the Government are considering that idea positively, and I hope that it may be put into practice, especially as regards the River Cam, for which no suclh strategy
6WH
exists. Clearly, the agency will not undertake projects alone, but will be joined by county councils and district and city councils, which need to have mechanisms in place to support their activities. In-year flood defence mechanisms are needed. The Local Government Association feels that no adequate mechanism exists, although it must undertake responsibilities as flood defence levies increase, and it does not anticipate that mechanism being put in place in relation to the standard spending assessment.
My sixth point relates to the SSA, although I hesitate to mention it, as it always makes hon. Members glaze over. Ministers are expecting further changes to be made to the structure of SSA, which I might wish to happen sooner. If they occur by April 2003, one hopes that local government in some places may find in the new structure an immediate response to an increase in flood defence levies. In Yorkshire, for example, levies are expected to rise substantially.
My seventh point relates, again, to the Environment Agency. Although it may be the right body to establish long-term strategy and take responsibility for examining the viability of projects, the front-line response should come from a front-line authority such as a district council. The Environment Agency should dovetail with such an authority. A district council would be the right body to act as the immediate co-ordinating mechanism, as it would understand the geography in the area where the flood had occurred and how villages were affected. I hope that the co-ordination of emergency responses through the front-line authority might be better achieved in that way. On 21 and 22 October in my constituency, many agencies were doing their best, but in isolation from other authorities because an emergency plan had not been put into place. The hon. Member for Cambridge referred to sandbags; that is an instance of how co-ordinating different bodies' responses can, with a pro-active approach, increase effectiveness.
My eighth point concerns the fact that some constituents experienced not just a flash flood but sewage flooding, as a result of living in relatively low-lying places. I know that the Minister will have received reports of that problem many times, but that sort of flooding is distressing to constituents. Anglian Water calculates that at present such flooding could affect 1,173 properties. The technical jargon calls them DG5 properties. The funding level until 2005, in the settlement with Ofwat, would permit 20 such properties a year to be dealt with. My constituents would consider it very important for the regulator to allow, in the price mechanisms for Anglian Water and other water and sewerage authorities, for a service of a standard that would enable sewage flooding to be reduced. I hope that the Minister will press the regulator to recognise that.
My ninth point leads me to wonder whether the Minister has considered giving district councils, the front-line authorities, greater powers to require riparian owners to undertake their responsibilities for clearing ditches and drainage, or allowing them to undertake the work and impose charges on those responsible. In some villages in my area, it is felt that the difficulties have reached the point at which that is necessary. There is confusion about riparian ownership, in some cases going back hundreds of years, and about overlapping responsibilities.

7WH
Perhaps it would be in order for the Law Commission to work on regularising and simplifying the law. There might be scope, using the new system of orders under the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, for the Government to examine the difficulties in this area. I know that they are considering simplifying some other legislation. A mechanism exists enabling that to be done without taking inordinate amounts of parliamentary time on legislation. Perhaps the time has come to examine riparian ownership and responsibilities and to reform the law. I note that the Institution of Civil Engineers recommended that as titles are reregistered with the Land Registry, riparian ownership and responsibilities should also be registered. That would provide helpful transparency.
For my 10th point, I return to the matter of trying to prevent any more of the flood plain flooding that has occurred recently, which worries my constituents. As some hon. Members will know, in Cambridgeshire and around Cambridge itself there is an unprecedented amount of building work. The Government want 2,800 additional homes—the equivalent of one of our large villages—to be built every year. People wonder where so many properties can be built, year after year, in an area which is, in part, subject to fluvial flooding and which elsewhere—to the north and west of Cambridge—is relatively low-lying anyway, with internal drainage boards trying to avoid flooding problems. People ask, "How can we accommodate that sort of development?" That is one reason, among others, why the Government should consider stemming the increase in targets for building. They should bear in mind the environmental and flooding consequences.
Generally, when the Environment Agency examines plans for development, including structure plans, it should consider whether it should issue directions against building in certain places. Those directions should not be simply advisory. If planning approval is granted in contradiction to such a flood direction, the Secretary of State should call the case in, to stop flood plains being developed to the extent that has been going on. Clearly, there are circumstances in which some development can occur with appropriate defences. However, my constituents in Bourn see Cambourne being built—3,300 new homes where there are already 500. It seems to them that common things happen commonly and that the consequences in terms of flooding of the development occurring in such a place could fall upon them. They saw the balancing lakes fill on 22 October, when only one sixth of the houses that will eventually be built had been built, and they feel that, even if on that occasion the development was not the prime cause of their flooding, it may make things worse in the future.
Those are my points for the future. I know that the Minister recognises that the events of last winter and those recently experienced by my constituents should be prevented from happening again. As we enter another season of potential flooding, the public want to know that we have identified the necessary measures and that the work is in hand to deal with the problem. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that.
10 am
Mrs. Ann Cryer: I thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) for initiating the debate. I wish that I had done so myself a few weeks ago, but I have had one or two personal problems. I am delighted to he here this morning. I would like to raise a number of mainly parochial issues, but before I start to talk about such matters I should say that we must not forget the fact of global warming, which causes many of the problems that we are experiencing in our constituencies. I hope that the President of the United States will continue in his new international mode. Perhaps it will draw him into returning to Kyoto, which would be very significant for the world but particularly for us, whose constituents are at risk from flooding.
Mr. Richard Bacon: The hon. Lady may be aware that there are scientists who believe that the increase in flooding is due to the north Atlantic oscillation more than to global warming. We are dealing with a blip. The references to the flooding being the worst for 400 years beg the question of what caused the flooding 400 years ago. What is the hon. Lady's answer to that?
Mrs. Cryer: I was not around 400 years ago, so I have no idea. However, we should still concentrate on global warming—it clearly contributes to the flooding. I will not argue with the hon. Gentleman's point about what happened 400 years ago, but I feel that the United States is being selfish in its attitude to the use of fossil fuels and is causing many problems for our constituents and us.
In my constituency—Keighley—there are three rivers. These include the Wharfe, which is beautiful and comes down from the dales, but which also floods. Some 12 months ago, that River flooded and a small number of homes—about eight—in the Ilkley area of my constituency were affected. The River Aire caused many more problems. It is a beautiful river up in the dales, but as it gets into the industrial areas it becomes narrow, particularly near the Bridge Inn at Stockbridge, which the Minister visited shortly after the flooding. Stockbridge is built in a triangle at the confluence of the River Aire and the River Worth.
The Worth is a fast-flowing river because it comes from up in the Pennines towards Oxenhope, which is very high. It has a great force behind it. The 1950s houses in that small triangle where it joins the Aire have always been prone to flooding and will continue to be so unless something is done by the Environment Agency to the River Aire flood defences higher up the valley. The agency has promised me that work will commence next summer, but that seems to be moveable and I am worried that it may become next autumn. Some 12 months have already passed since the flooding devastated many of my constituents and their families.
Another problem arose in that area. In addition to the small semi-detached houses in the triangle, there were some Victorian terrace houses with cellars. To improve their homes, many people had dry-lined their cellars to keep the damp out and make them waterproof. Unfortunately, dry lining also keeps water in so at the time of the flooding 12 months ago, the homes became water tanks. The water did not simply seep away as it would have done many years ago.

9WH
Almost every day during the flooding, I attended a meeting of the co-ordinating committee of the local authority and the various agencies and services. One of my jobs was to co-ordinate with the West Yorkshire fire service, which initially told people that there would be a charge of several hundred pounds to pump out their cellars. As time went on, it became clear through discussions that they would pump out the cellars, but would charge if the householders had property insurance and the insurance companies could pay, rather than the taxpayer. I have no argument with that, but it took several days for that to become clear. The water came up to the cellar steps and the cellars were just tanks of water with things floating around in them.
We should clarify that issue before we have that terrible experience again. Every time that it rains heavily, some constituents are terrified and go through another trauma because they are reminded of the morning of the floods when they were awakened at 3 or 4 o'clock by the sound of water gushing down their street. That is a horrific experience for people, many of whom are elderly. One or two of the older people who, like me, are a bit deaf, did not hear the sirens or the water coming down and slept, oblivious to everything. At 4 or 5 am, they were awakened by well-meaning neighbours, who were breaking down the doors to get them out. They looked down and saw water coming halfway up the stairs.
We need to consider those issues, so that in the event of another terrible flooding, we know where we are going. Sandbags must be in place. There were sandbags, but there need to be more. We should also ask why the Environment Agency is telling us, 12 months on, that it will be another eight months before it can even start the work on the flood defences on the River Aire.
Some 300 houses in that area were flooded. Many problems have also been exacerbated by the reluctance of insurance companies to be more helpful. They simply dragged their feet. A few weeks ago, I got so angry with a large and famous insurance company—I will not name it—for doing nothing for an elderly lady that I wrote a postscript at the bottom of a letter, which said that if the company had not responded to my letter within a week, I would name it in Parliament. I am not sure whether I should do that, but I felt so angry with them, and it worked. The company started to respond to me, so I will not name it today, because it has gone some way to answer my constituent's problems.
Some 12 months on, my constituent is still out of her home, which was badly flooded. Four weeks before that, her husband died. She had to move out of her home, which was in a terrible state. The insurance company has still not sorted out the repairs to her property. It has had cowboys—people who are clearly unskilled—working on her home. They have only been working from 5 pm every day, so they obviously have another job and that is why it has taken the lady so long to have the work done. She was going to move back in a few weeks ago, but when she looked at the property, it was in an appalling state. My assistant and a surveyor have seen it and the surveyor says that it is not fit to live in. The doors do not fit and the plaster does not reach the skirting boards, which do not fit the floors. It will be a nightmare to live in, because it is very cold and full of draughts. That elderly lady, who is in her 70s, still cannot move back to her home, so I have a big moan
10WH
about a few of the big insurance companies that have been operating in that way. I must admit, however, that a number were very good: within a few months of the floods, wonderful repairs were made to some of my constituents' houses, which were almost like brand new homes.
I have one more point about insurance. One family returned to their long-standing insurers, a small company, which said, "We're not keen on insuring you again, but we will. However, there will be a £10,000 excess for flood damage." For a working-class family, that is pie in the sky; there is no way that they could raise that sort of money. We advised the family to shop around for their insurance and I should like that to be the message that goes out from this debate. Had that family gone along with their insurance company, they could have ended up in great difficulties and debt.
I again thank the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. I shall not repeat the problems that he mentioned because other hon. Members want to speak, but a number of those problems have been with me for the past 12 months. I am still working on them and I am sure that many other Members are doing the same.
10.11 am
Mr. Roger Gale: I start by apologising to the Minister as I shall have to leave fairly shortly to chair the Standing Committee that is considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill. Of course, I undertake to read his remarks in Hansard carefully. I suspect that I may be joined in Committee by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). If he arrives there late, I shall understand why.
On 23 October, the Minister wrote a "Dear Colleague" letter about flood defence preparedness for autumn and winter 2001. He said:
"Operational responsibility for…flooding—saving lives and property—rests with the Environment Agency, who issue flood warnings, and local authorities and emergency services who ensure that emergency plans are implemented."
Would that it were so. The fact is that the devil lies in the detail. The notes to the section about the autumn 2000 floods, which the Minister kindly appended to what I appreciate was a well-intentioned letter, say:
"It does not cover non main river or local drainage problems".
However, they are the crux of much of what we want to talk about, in parochial terms, this morning.
Last winter, the Minister and I shared a happy half hour at the end of what was a long and tiring day for both of us paddling around the Eddington lane area of Herne Bay in my constituency. That winter, Eddington lane, the Plenty Brook estate, the Nurserylands estate, Cherry gardens, Gordon road, Spencer road and much of Greenhill were flooded. The Eddington lane area was first flooded on 4 April 2000. It was flooded again on 12 and 13 October 2000, on 8 February 2001 and, most recently, on 21 October.
On the last occasion, the waters did not enter any houses, but my constituents suffered genuine trauma watching the waters rise, in exactly the same way as the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) described. They finally stopped within 4 in of an elderly gentleman's door. The insurance companies have said that from now on, although they will maintain insurance on properties

11WH
that are currently insured, they will not insure them again if they are sold. Effectively, therefore, my constituents who live in those areas cannot sell their homes unless they can find buyers who are willing to take them on without insurance.
Returning to the Minister's letter, the problem is that the responsibility is unclear. Certainly for minor rivers and riparian rights, there is no real responsibility. Sir John Harman, the head of the Environment Agency, made it plain that he was not prepared to take on the Government over their building programme. In opening this most welcome debate, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said that far too little attention appeared to be given to the problems of building on flood plains. I would extend that by saying that this is not only about flood plains but about land adjacent to them. The Minister visited the relevant site in my constituency, so he knows exactly what I am talking about.
Two big estates have been built in Herne Bay recently: the Willow Farm estate at Broomfield and the Stillwater estate adjacent to Thanet way. The Stillwater estate has balancing ponds, which are supposed to be satisfactory to compensate for the loss of drainage. However, in the most recent flood on 21 October the balancing pond came within about 9 in of the top of its bank. It had nowhere to drain, because the Southern Water reservoir, which is designed to take floodwater, was full and backing up towards the new estate. The Willow Farm estate is of interest, because this will be the first winter in which the houses have been occupied. They were built on what was—last winter—a lake with waterfowl nesting on it; I am sure that that will interest the Minister. A lot of twitchers came and watched the birds nesting on what is now a housing estate.
The building work is going ahead, but no control is exercised on the infrastructure and no responsibility is taken for it. The Environment Agency claims that it does not have the powers to enforce the correct infrastructure prior to planning. Building work is going ahead, and one does not have to be a genius or a rocket scientist to work out that if one builds on land that has been drained, puts down tarmac, and builds roofs with tiles, the water has to go somewhere. The "somewhere" in question is a stream, such as the Plenty brook, which turned into a raging torrent last winter, and the Minister knows that because he saw it. That lasted only for a matter of hours, but it was enough to affect the sewerage system, to pump raw sewage into people's homes and to do an immense amount of damage—for the fourth time.
People have had enough, and I endorse the 10 points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire. I hope that the Minister and his colleagues will consider carefully the powers and responsibilities of the Environment Agency and local authorities to ensure that minor rivers—I was going to say "never mind the major ones", but they are important too—water courses and drainage systems are properly looked after. Until they are, and until the water companies carry out their responsibilities, floods will recur.
In my view, Southern Water has behaved disgracefully. When that company was privatised, it invested millions of pounds in new sewerage systems in
12WH
Margate and Herne Bay. We were assured that floods, which at that time were caused by breaches of sea defences, would never occur again. As a result of the previous Government's investment in sea defences, and Southern Water's investment in a new sewerage system, many of the difficulties were overcome in an Edwardian and Victorian town. A new difficulty has arisen from the change in climate and too much building with too little infrastructure. Southern Water knew for more than a year that its reservoir was clogged with weeds.
I am happy to say that Southern Water, as a result of the threat of being exposed in an Adjournment debate and of the pressure brought to bear by the hard work of Canterbury city council's Viv Pritchard, has completed the dredging of the existing reservoir. That company is now investigating the possibility—no more than that—of extending the reservoir and increasing its capacity by a third. That would be welcome, but when does Southern Water intend to do the work? It is no secret that Scottish Power, which owns Southern Water, wants to flog the company, because it is a liability. I suspect that Scottish Power does not want to spend any more money. That suspicion is borne out by a letter about one of my constituents, Mr. Bevan, who lives in Herne Bay. His house is a listed building and has been subject to flooding for quite a long time, not just the last two or three years. In that letter, the engineering manager for Canterbury city council told me:
"It would have been at least six years ago that my Drainage section, at Southern Water's request, reported upon the likely source of flooding at that time and recommended some possible solutions… I am not aware that any action by Southern Water resulted from our original recommendations. More recently my Drainage staff produced an updated version, initially for internal consideration, and this was passed to Southern Water… Southern Water have embarked upon a thorough investigation of the public sewers with a view to undertaking such works as are deemed necessary subject to their investment approval procedures."
Stuart Derwent, the managing director of Southern Water, in referring to the same case, said:
"if it becomes apparent that a capital solution is required to resolve the flooding, then this will be prioritised and undertaken in accordance with our capital investment procedures."
In the meantime, my constituent has had enough, has moved out of his home and is unlikely to return. Southern Water and many others are reluctant to invest in the necessary flood precautions to help to alleviate a problem that is not entirely of their making. I agree with my hon. Friend that the regulator, Ofwat, must seriously consider the necessary investment, or our constituents will face an even worse situation this winter than they did last year. I look forward with great interest to reading the Minister's response to the matters raised by my hon. Friend.
10.19 pm
Mr. John Grogan: My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) graphically described the situation in her constituency, which, like mine, is in Yorkshire. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) referred to Yorkshire in his speech on the levy increase, and I shall comment on the situation in Yorkshire and nationally.
Although Yorkshire can now boast that it has the best cricket team in the country, it has the worst flood defences—a fact that is just beginning to sink in across

13WH
the county. Only 15 per cent. of Yorkshire's flood defences are categorised as good, or better than good; 85 per cent. are only fair, or worse. Following the floods that affected Keighley, Leeds, Selby and York, the Yorkshire flood defence committee was the only one not to accept the Environment Agency's recommended increase in the levy earlier this year. That is having massive effects on flood defences in the county. It led to a reduction in the capital works programme of £3 million this year and £2 million was cut from the maintenance programme, so the 64 communities at risk of flooding will not get a flood warning system this year. The Yorkshire flood defence committee is now politically balanced: it contains two members of the Labour party, two Conservatives and three Liberals and most of the local authority representatives. I hope that it will live up to its responsibilities and fund a flood defence programme in Yorkshire, which lost more than £2 million of Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food grant this year.
There is much diplomacy in Yorkshire at present as we do not want to let the county down again. Last year, Ros Amor, a flood victim from my constituency, presented white roses to the flood defence committee in an effort to get it to be less parochial and to live up to its responsibilities for the whole of Yorkshire.
The Environment Agency recently examined flood defences throughout the county; it found that those protecting Leeds are a major worry and that the standard of service in Doncaster is of prime importance because of the many properties potentially at risk. In Selby, Drax power station, alone among the major power stations in the country, does not have its own flood defence bunding. There is much to do in Yorkshire. There is a special meeting of the flood defence committee early in December, when options will be considered. At this stage, the Environment Agency is not making a recommendation, but presenting options to the committee. The reputation of local government in Yorkshire depends on delivering a partnership with the Government. Talk about regional government is a joke to many people in Yorkshire if it cannot get the flood defences right. I hope that local politicians of all parties will respond as necessary to the county's problems.
A national review is now taking place. The local authorities recommended that capital expenditure should be separated from the maintenance of flood defences and that the Government should assume responsibility for the maintenance of flood defences and other flood expenditure. I am dubious about that because the outcome could be that the bright, new and shiny capital schemes will be funded, but maintenance, which is so important, will be neglected. I favour the suggestion that the Environment Agency and the flood defence committee should be given borrowing powers. At present, the flood defences are funded from general revenue expenditure, although that was not always the case. They are major items of expenditure, and if borrowing powers were utilised they would allow the necessary expenditure to be spread over several years.
There is a case for an all-party group on flooding. We have heard the expertise of many, hon. Members. We need extra resources for the decades to come, and I know that the Minister has been prominent in arguing
14WH
with the Treasury for that. It is a long-term issue. I hope to put out feelers among Members of all parties in the coming months on the feasibility of an all-party group.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): Order. For the benefit of hon. Members, I point out that the three winding-up speeches will start at 10.30 am.
10.25 am
Mr. Charles Hendry: I shall be brief, in view of the time pressure. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this important debate. The number of Members present and the fact that they represent different parts of the country demonstrate that this is not just a local but a national problem.
It is more than a year since the town of Uckfield in my constituency and the villages of Buxted and Hellingly were devastated by the floods in October 2000. Some of the people affected by those floods are still not back in their homes, which shows the extent of the problem. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) had similar huge problems as the problems in Uckfield shifted downstream to his constituency. A year on, there is frustration bordering on anger in towns such as Uckfield that so little has been done. A great deal of investigation has been carried out into the sort of projects that the Environment Agency could undertake. Some ditches have been cleared and some minor repair works carried out, but no major scheme has been started or seems likely to be started for some years.
The Minister will know that the Environment Agency has proposed four schemes, on which it is consulting. There is a general wish that it should skip the consultation process because those in the agency are the experts; they know best. Members of the public do not have real views on the issue. We should move as fast as possible to get these schemes implemented. There is a suspicion, which I know the Minister will understand, that the driving force behind the schemes is not that they are the best method of preventing flooding but those that are most financially acceptable for the Treasury. Will the Minister give an assurance today that his Department will support whatever scheme the Environment Agency comes up with, even if it is the most expensive of the four? That will enable us to move forward with greater speed.
The Minister will also know of the continuing concerns about insurance matters. We have discussed domestic insurance but my constituency has a particular problem with business insurance. A large part of the flooded area of Uckfield was the business area at the bottom of the town. The Minister has been having important discussions with the Association of British Insurers, as has the hon. Member for Lewes. If we cannot secure agreement from the ABI that it will look benignly on insurance cover for properties in flood areas, will the Minister consider the sort of scheme that the Government recently agreed with the airline industry, albeit in different circumstances, to accommodate the significant additional insurance costs that it has incurred? The hon. Gentleman might be able to assist companies that are unable to get flood insurance, thereby helping them stay in business.
The lesson that we most need to learn from our experience is that we cannot continue building at the rate at which we have in the past. I welcome the

15WH
tightening of planning guidance in planning policy guidance 25 but the Government must also review the number of houses that they want built in the south-east. Many areas such as my constituency and Lewes cannot accommodate the number of houses that the Government suggest without building on flood plains. I therefore urgently request the Government to review that figure and reduce it.
I wish to end on a positive note. I recently attended a meeting of the Cuckmere flood forum—I sent the Minister a copy of the minutes—which brings together many of the villages along the Cuckmere. The hon. Member for Lewes also attended that meeting. It comprised environment agencies, the county and district councils, residents and a range of others who are concerned about the issue, and was an example of people working together exceptionally well and effectively. I hope that the Minister or one of the representatives from his Department will attend the next meeting of the forum so that it can be seen how effectively people who sit down together can avoid the heat of the discussion and focus on the steps that must he taken. Much work needs to be done, and I urge the Minister to bring that forward as fast as possible. As other hon. Members said, there is desperate anxiety every time it rains heavily. We nearly saw renewed flooding this year, so urgent action is required.
Mr. Edward O'Hara (in the Chair): I shall call the Minister no later than 10.50 am.
10.30 am
Malcolm Bruce: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on this timely debate. Several Members spoke about flooding in their constituencies, and several others wished to do so. That demonstrates that flooding and the associated problems are live issues that must be addressed.
Using the situation in Cambridgeshire as an illustration, it is interesting and indicative that the exceptional rainfall in October happened during the warmest October on record. The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) should understand that arguments about whether climate change is having an effect are somewhat irrelevant. Flooding is becoming a more severe and increasingly frequent occurrence throughout the country and, unsurprisingly, the public and their elected representatives want action to be taken.
We must focus on the problems and the practical action that can be taken. The Minister will have received information from various sources that flood defences are inadequate and that investment is required to bring them up to existing standards and, because of the volatility of the weather, possibly even higher standards. Our planning situation must be fundamentally reviewed, not only to prevent building on flood plains but to recognise that development distorts drainage patterns and can create new flood risks in places that have not been affected. It is a more complicated problem than might otherwise appear.
We must address the practical problems of individual householders' ability to get effective insurance and payouts on that insurance. Although flooding is an
16WH
insurable risk, that does not remove the horror of disruption, and total restoration is not always possible. When people find that they can get neither full compensation nor, worse still, further insurance, that has a devastating effect on the value of their property, and naturally they want to know where to turn.
Norman Baker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the dangers of the insurance situation are possibly more worrying to people than the lack of flood defences and the flooding itself? Some insurance companies, such as AA Insurance, are failing to adhere to the Association of British Insurers agreement—I know of three outstanding cases on that—and nothing is in place for when the ABI agreement expires next October. There is a danger that hundreds of houses in Lewes and elsewhere will simply be uninsured. Should not the Government address that problem and assure people in Lewes and elsewhere that they will be able to get insurance from next year?
Malcolm Bruce: My hon. Friend has made his point about a specific insurance company and that is on record. I am sure that it will be acknowledged, and I hope that the ABI will address the problem. He raised a pertinent point. Despite the serious disasters, we have mercifully had no loss of life of householders. One could argue that property is always restorable in a way that life is not, but that is what insurance is for.
I have read the ABI report, and its first conclusion was:
"In order to ensure that affordable flood insurance is available, at least throughout the greater part of the UK, urgent Government action is required."
We could say, "Well, it would say that, wouldn't it?", and there will have to be a partnership to decide who will deliver what. However, the ABI makes the reasonable case that unless insurers can be reassured that adequate flood prevention measures are in place, they do not see why they should accept all the risk of having to pay out incessantly for homes that flood continually. The ABI, although riot ducking out of its responsibilities, has a reasonable argument that there must come a point where public authorities are responsible for that.
On planning, I agree that we should question any further development on flood plains. We must review that. That is a considerable problem in a county like Cambridgeshire because of the terrain. I urge the Minister to recognise the extent to which development can distort drainage patterns. Although his responsibility is for England and Wales, I represent a Scottish constituency where there has been rapid development. We have had severe flooding in the lower part of Inverurie, which is mostly directly due to a high building programme higher up the town. Natural drainage was absorbable before but water falling on tarmac and tiles is now rushing down into the town and overwhelming the systems. We have had to upgrade them. We must recognise that any development can contribute to flooding.
Quite properly much has been said about the role of the Environment Agency. It has the expertise and not the money, and local authorities supposedly have the money but not the expertise. In reality, many of them, as in the case in Yorkshire that has been described, either

17WH
do not have the money or, because of the pressure on priorities, are unable or unwilling to contribute enough. My party produced a flood management programme earlier this year, in which we suggested that the Environment Agency should take a lead and be given some of the resources to deliver the programme. There can be regional flood committees but given drainage patterns, one local authority may be seriously affected by flooding while another is unaffected. Unless they both contribute there will not be the resources to deal with the problem, not least because action higher up a river or a river drainage system can have consequences further down.
While local authorities must be involved, and that coordination is relevant, we should shift more of the responsibility to the Environment Agency, not only to co-ordinate but to have the resources as well as the expertise to deliver the flood management plan and overall responsibility for it. More should be done within that plan for sustainable urban drainage. That is consistent with the planning point that I made, and the Minister has referred to that in the past. We must recognise that there are ways of developing new build that can help to absorb water in a natural and sustainable way and prevent it causing floods elsewhere.
Coastal defences are clearly a very live issue, particularly on the east side of the country where they have been seriously depleted. I have been at a number of meetings where people from East Anglia and further up the coast have expressed their concern that a decision has almost been taken to let a significant part of our coastline go. That will lose us agricultural and development land. There has been a consistent pattern of such erosion on the east coast over many years, and people in the area want to know what the Government's policy is. How much of England are the Government prepared to lose before they decide that we need defences to retain what is left? That is not a debate that would take long in Holland on the other side of the North sea, but it seems to go on for ever here. It is all very well to say that we can use salt marshes and allow them to re-establish, but that is effectively to allow the sea to invade and to yield our land to the sea. People want to know that there is a coherent strategy behind that, not just an unwillingness to pay the money to protect the coast.
My final point brings me round to the point that I made at the beginning. As well as considering how we should deal with the practical difficulties that arise from flooding and the severity of the rainfall that causes it, we must recognise, and make the wider public recognise, that these events will happen with greater frequency if we do not take much more global and international action to deal with the problems of climate change. The intervention suggesting that that was no longer the case astonished me. Not even President Bush would argue that there is no problem. The debate is about what action to take after the problem has been acknowledged.
Citizens must understand that what might appear remote—a change in climate that seems not directly to affect people—becomes very real when water is coming up the staircase. The two are connected and we must collectively support policies to modify the severity of climate change as well as deal with its practical consequences.
10.40 am
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: The hon. Members for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and my hon. Friends the Members for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and for Wealden (Mr. Hendry) all congratulated my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this debate. They drew on their parochial experiences to produce more general conclusions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden mentioned Uckfield in his constituency. In many ways that town epitomises the problem. For 13 months, people were forced out of their homes and they are still not back in them. They have been waiting far too long for action, which is also needed throughout the country. My hon. Friends the Members for East Devon (Mr. Swire) and for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) also wanted to contribute to the debate. I am sorry that, due to lack of time, they were unable to do so.
I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire on securing the debate. His contribution was thoughtful and balanced. He drew on his local experiences, but translated them into valuable general propositions. There can be no doubt about the scale of the problem. The Environment Agency has reported that 4 million people live or work in flood risk areas and that 1.2 million homes and businesses are at risk. The National Audit Office suggests that 2 million properties are at risk, while the Flood Hazard Research Centre believes that 10 per cent. of the population live in risk areas and that property worth £200 billion is at risk.
Whichever figure is correct—they may all be correct but using slightly different criteria—it is clear that flooding is a major problem that is likely to get worse. Last year, 11,000 people had to evacuate their homes and 150,000 people lived in areas directly at risk. As late as this October, Alison Baptiste, who works for the Government's own agency, Environment Action, speaking about the southern region said:
"Many houses in our region are far from back to normal"—and we are now a year on from the floods.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire asked who was in charge, who was responsible and where was the co-ordination to deal with flooding. Those questions were echoed by other hon. Members. The Environment Agency said:
"Encouraged by the Minister, the EA directed the process to undertake a general supervisory duty over the many public sector organisations responsible for delivering flood defence".
There is no doubt that flood defence is by far the EA's largest expenditure category. At £275.6 million in 1999–2000, it was 44 per cent. of its total expenditure.
The EA falls under the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the position is more complicated. In 2001, the DEFRA grant aid was £107.9 million, but the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions supported local authorities through the local government finance system to the sum of £268.4 million. The Environment Agency's claim that it has taken over the general supervisory duties contradicts the proposition that he who pays the piper calls the tune. However, the Agriculture Committee clearly stated in its 1998 report that responsibility for flood prevention was too fragmented.

19WH
Where are we now? The National Audit Office claims that 40 per cent. of flood defences are not up to scratch. The Environment Agency has surveyed all flood defences in England and Wales. I would like to know whether it will publish its findings and conclusions. Before the autumn 2000 floods, the Environment Agency claimed to be concerned about the adequacy and the mechanisms of funding for flood defence and delays to the funding review. I hope that the Minister will deal with that concern.
The Environment Agency claimed that repair work had restored the damage done to flood defences last winter to the condition of a year ago, but no more than that. It also claimed not to have the budget or time to make all the necessary improvements. We need to know what budget and time it needs.
A July 2001 report of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs indicated that budgeted spending was significantly below the levels necessary to meet its standards. The Association of British Insurers suggested that an extra £145 million a year is required for several years and, in a report commissioned by the Government, the Institution of Civil Engineers said that current expenditure must be doubled. We need a proper, quantified assessment of the protection that England and Wales have now, a statement about a reasonable and appropriate level of protection, and a budget and time scale to achieve it.
Clearly, 100 per cent. protection can never be achieved. However, communicating with people in risk areas is important. They must understand the risk, the system of warnings, the preparations to be made and the actions to take after flooding. The Environment Agency has responsibility for that and has spent millions of pounds on advertising and direct mail, yet its research shows that only 9 per cent. of people in risk areas have made any preparation for flood defence. We need to know how many people are aware of the risk and what will be done to increase awareness. How many understand and can use the warning system? How many have made the necessary preparations, and are the local authorities properly prepared? Do people understand what action to take after they have been flooded?
I have a quick point to make about the long-term problem of land use. One of the oldest tricks for evading a difficult question is to suggest that the question is other than what it is. That is exactly what the Minister did last Thursday, when he said:
"Instead of saying that one cannot build on a greenfield site at any time, under any circumstances, we need a balance and some common sense."
I had not said that we should not build on any greenfield site, but that
"plans for massive development on water-absorbing greenfield sites will make a thoroughly bad situation worse".—[Official Report, 15 November 2001; Vol. 374, c. 968.]
That comment has been echoed by nearly every hon. Member who has spoken today.
In addition to supporting planning policy guidance 25, we need to know that it will be easier for local authorities to veto planning applications on flood plains or on greenfield sites, because such developments affect the ability to deal with heavy rains. As the hon. Member for Keighley said, climate change is likely to get worse.
20WH
Last week, I said that I believed that the Government's response was too muddled, too little and too late. I hope that the Minister can persuade me that I was wrong, but they need to get organised, get funding and get on with it.
10.50 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley): I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on securing this debate. He made a thoughtful and detailed speech. He also raised several serious issues, but he had the good grace to acknowledge that the Government are trying to tackle them. It is clearly a subject for debate.
We have a great many issues to deal with, some of which go back many years. Although we can argue about the science, climate change is taking place. We are funding research at the Hadley centre for forecasting to help us understand the link between climate change and weather patterns. We cannot deny that sea levels are rising, the weather is getting warmer and heavy downpours are becoming more frequent. We have to prepare for change. We cannot ignore it. Indeed, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said, the devastation caused by the terrible floods that we suffered last year was a wake-up call. That raises a series of questions, an important one being that of preparedness for flooding.
The letter that I circulated to all hon. Members shows that the Government are thinking ahead to ensure that we are prepared this winter. It lists what action we have taken since last year's flooding and what action we intend to take. Indeed, the reports that have been mentioned were all commissioned by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. Undertaken by various independent organisations, they describe the standard of flood defences that we should expect, the cost-benefit ratio of spending on flood and coastal defence and some of the structures that we should be considering. Another report is to be published shortly on the sources of funding for flood defence and some of the institutional arrangements that have been mentioned. Those reports will all be in the public domain. We want to concentrate on making our flood and coastal defences better, and to ensure that we are organised and able to respond to any kind of flooding.
Following on from the major flooding of 1998, the Government acted on the Bye report, which put us in a good position to respond to the floods of 2000. Although I have every sympathy with those whose properties were flooded—I visited many of the areas affected, and I am aware of the stress and disruption that people suffered—it was a relief to know that not one life was lost as a result of the flooding. That was quite an achievement, given the scale of flooding. Many properties at risk were properly defended. The flood defences worked, in many cases beyond their designed capacity.
Following that, we had a major upgrade in flood warning systems. The Environment Agency, with Government funding, has invested in a major flood awareness campaign. It is an annual campaign to make people who live in flood areas aware of the risk. We also have flood risk mapping and a helpline called Floodline.

21WH
I was sorry to hear of the problem mentioned by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, and I am sure that the Environment Agency will try to rectify matters if things are not going as well as we would like. Local authorities and emergency services have the task of running annual exercises in responding to any kind of flood emergency. That would have been the case in the hon. Gentleman's area, so the local authority would have known what to do and how to respond.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell) mentioned sandbags, and I understand how important they can be. Apart from anything else, it offers people reassurance to know that sandbags can be made available by the local authority or the Environment Agency. I stress that the legal responsibility for providing sandbags rests with the home owners. However, we must be realistic; we need to ensure availability, and we are working on that with the Local Government Association. The LGA has written to all its members to check that they are making preparations for flooding and we intend to introduce a sandbag strategy, to ensure that people are reassured. The Environment Agency and many local residents groups have promoted innovations such as flood shields that are coming on to the market. In the medium term, they have a great deal of scope and I am keen to pursue them.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire is right to say that there has been some bad planning. I visited the area represented by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale). Some had decisions had clearly been taken, in terms not only of where houses had been built but of the impact of new estates, a new road and whether the sewerage system could cope. Flood defence is a multi-agency issue. I accept that we have a responsibility to bring agencies together and co-ordinate them properly, and we are considering that matter.
We expect planning authorities to take advice from the Environment Agency seriously. Current information suggests that they now give more weight to what it says about new developments. I would like to see a norm of a one in 100 years defence standard. We are raising standards in new defences, and those of some existing defences must also be raised.
The Environment Agency surveyed the constituency represented by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire after the floods and marked the peak flood areas, to help it understand where they are. That will guide its response, which is under way, as to whether the risk of future flooding can be minimised. As I said, 75 per cent. of the flooding was from non-statutory main rivers. Nevertheless, we must tackle that problem, which is partly due to lack of maintenance of ditches, dykes and drains and the impact of development. Discussions are under way on the subject.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the point-scoring system. I think that it is fair because it is clear and transparent, so people understand where they are in relation to priorities. When one spends money on flood defence, one will always want to defend the maximum number of homes at risk, which will tend to be in urban
22WH
rather than rural areas. That is a fact of life, unfortunately. However, it does not mean that we cannot have schemes for rural communities, and we do.
Mr. Greg Knight: Why have the Government not claimed a penny of the money available from the European Union to help member states alleviate flooding problems?
Mr. Morley: The simple answer is that there is no such money to help member states. The suggestion that such money is available is a fallacy that has been circulated. There is money for disasters, but it does not relate to flood and coastal expenditure. We have to raise the money ourselves, as we are doing.
The calculation of the points score is based on economic, social and environmental need. The pertinent points made by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, which we will try to address, were on social need. At present, the way in which the points system works is being considered in a review that is due to close on 26 November. It will take into account what people have said.
We have commissioned several independent reports on funding. We must calculate what would be a realistic rising spend. It is one thing to argue for doubling money to huge sums, but many engineering projects have to be planned two, three or four years in advance. Even if the budget suddenly increased, people would see no benefits because one would have to provide for the increase in the planning. We want a planned rising spend. In our spending review bid for 2002, we will discuss with the Treasury what the most appropriate spend will be.
My hon. Friends the Members for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and for Selby (Mr. Grogan) and the hon. Members for Wealden (Mr. Hendry), for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) and for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Sayeed) also spoke. It is difficult to address all the ills of flooding in the country in 10 minutes, but I shall touch on some of their points.
One of the most important subjects raised was time scales for flood defence schemes. Such schemes must be consulted on. We have to take into account the effects that any scheme might have on other parts of the watercourse. Solutions are not easy in some parts of the country, such as Uckfield, which is represented by the hon. Member for Wealden. However, I am sure that we can find cost-effective solutions that will work. We have commissioned catchment area studies, which will report on the Uckfield area in the beginning of 2002. All operating authorities have also been asked to publish policy statements to set out the responsibilities for watercourses and drains, and plans for their maintenance.
My time is rapidly running out. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire raised several other points, and I shall write to him about them. However, the wider debate continues. I like the idea of an all-party group, which my hon. Friend the Member for Selby mentioned. I give a commitment that my Department would fully support such a group by providing information and by any other means, as it would tackle our common aim of reducing the risks of flooding for all our constituents.

Transport (Eastern Region)
11 am
Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: I am pleased to have this opportunity to put my concerns about transport in the eastern region to hon. Members and to the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson). Several parliamentary colleagues from the region are present, and I hope that they will have an opportunity to make clear their concerns.
The eastern region is doubtless one of the most prosperous in the country: average incomes are high, unemployment is low and the quality of life is better than in many other parts of the country. The region is not, however, without its problems. It is disparate and incoherent, stretching from Watford to Walton-on-the-Naze and from Basildon to Blakeney Point. It has areas of high-tech, high-skill and high-income activity, but also pockets of deprivation, unemployment and economic stagnation. Transport links are crucial to overcoming such problems, particularly at the periphery.
The region is dominated by radial transport links that spread outwards from London. Some are quite fast and efficient, but others are badly affected by overcrowding and traffic congestion during peak periods. New investment and higher on-going investment are necessary for transport purposes. Major difficulties are involved in travelling from east to west across the region, and poor east-west links will feature strongly in our debate. It is easier and quicker to travel from Luton to Sheffield than from Luton to Lowestoft.
The region has several significant sea ports. That sector is growing, and sustainable expansion must be supported by improved transport access. There are five airports, including Stansted and our rapidly growing airport at Luton. Those key regional and national infrastructure assets depend crucially on efficient and convenient terrestrial transport links. Given the decline of manufacturing in my town of Luton and, most notably, the closure of Vauxhall in four months' time, the growth of employment at our airport will be vital for the town's prosperity. Transport will also play a critical role in the successful regeneration of the Thames gateway.
Six multi-modal studies are being carried out in the east of England, of which the London and south midlands study is the most significant for my constituency.
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of the benefits of better east-west links in the area that he and I represent, will he concede that one useful aspect of such links, which should have been in place many years ago, is that heavy goods vehicles would no longer thunder along roads and through villages and towns that were not designed to take them?
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is right. The problem is especially acute in my constituency because an east-west route takes heavy lorry traffic right through the middle of the town, which is wholly inappropriate.
24WH
I hope that my colleagues will expand on how that problem affects their constituencies and the different parts of the region.
I turn now to the matters of most concern in my constituency and the sub-regions that surround Luton. The M1 motorway passes through my constituency and is regularly congested where it does so. I am delighted by the decision to erect acoustic barriers where it passes close to homes and schools in Luton, North. That will make a major contribution to the environment in which many of my constituents live. However, congestion on the M1 through Luton is caused as much by local commuting as by long-distance traffic. For example, a logical route from Dunstable to Luton airport and the car plants on the south side of Luton would use the M I between junctions 11 and 10. Commuting between Milton Keynes and the Luton conurbation also pours local traffic on to the M1 in peak hours.
During peak hours, there is extreme congestion in Luton, and we move closer to gridlock year by year. New transport links must, therefore, pass through and around Luton and between the conurbations in our travel-to-work areas. The most urgent need is to develop the eastern corridor route in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Margaret Moran). Before the roads review during the previous Parliament, there was much talk of widening the M I northbound. Wisely, that was rejected. I trust that the M1 widening north of junction 10 has now been firmly rejected for the long term.
However, that has made even more vital the development of Translink, the dedicated public transport corridor from Dunstable and Houghton Regis that passes through Luton to the airport and other areas of employment on the south side of the town. Sadly, local authorities have been deeply divided about the form of transport that should operate on the corridor. Luton borough council has proposed a guided busway, while South Bedfordshire council prefers a rail option. Heavy rail would be an inefficient and inappropriate use of the corridor, and I support the development of guided buses.
The Translink corridor is too valuable simply for local bus traffic. That is why I have proposed that a light railway or tramway be built along the whole length of the old single-track rail line from Bletchley through the Translink corridor in Luton and onwards to conurbations further east. I have spoken to a number of transport engineers, who say that it is feasible to combine a tramway and a guided busway on one corridor. With a tramway and a busway, the Translink corridor would be more easily financed and of immensely greater economic benefit to our sub-region. It should be extended from Bletchley to the centre of Milton Keynes, and follow the old single-track railway line all the way to the conurbation of Welwyn and Hatfield.
A significant advantage of a light railway scheme is that the corridor would permit two-way trams but only a single-track heavy rail service. Although Milton Keynes is just outside our region, it has an impact on traffic in the Luton area, and on the M1 and the A5.
A second and associated major improvement that is vital for our area would be to build the long-proposed northern ringroad around Luton from the A5 to the

25WH
A505 Hitchin road to the east of Luton. I am not generally in favour of road building, but this is an exception. It would link up with the new M1 junction 11A north of Luton and provide an important link in a key east-west route across the region. It would take an enormous amount of through traffic off the narrow, residential roads in my constituency that are currently designated as a through route. That northern transport corridor has been protected for many years. It is time to develop it for future transport use. It is vital both locally and regionally and should be carefully designed and routed to minimise its impact on the local environment.
I must say something about rail. One of the casualties of the rail investment chaos of the last few years has been the Thameslink 2000 project. It should have been completed by now, but even the new track work seems to be years away from being started. As a rail commuter on that route for the past 32 years, I declare a personal interest. It is a vital project for the whole of the region, with the possibility of linking King's Lynn and Brighton at the extremes. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to use all his influence to bring forward the regional railway investment that we so desperately need, in particular that for the Thameslink 2000 project.
I should comment on buses before I conclude. The deregulation and privatisation carried out by Conservative Governments were a profound mistake, driven by a market dogma that was wholly misplaced in public services. Our bus services are not good enough. They are not subject to democratic control or proper regulation and follow cherry-picked routes where most profit can be made. They do not provide a comprehensive needs-driven network, thoroughly integrated with other forms of transport. I would like to see bus services back in public hands, operated by local authorities or regional public sector organisations. Such arrangements work wonderfully in Holland and elsewhere in Europe and could bring enormous benefits both to our region and to the country.
Will my hon. Friend the Minister use his influence to the maximum on our behalf to bring forward the vital transport investment that the eastern region needs? The Government will need to play a greater role in transport provision in the future. I do not expect him to give definite answers to all the issues raised in today's debate, but I would ask that he give them serious consideration.
I could say much more about transport in our region, but I must leave time for colleagues to have their say. The primary theme of today's debate is the promotion of better east-west transport links in the eastern region. I hope that my hon. Friend will take that message back to his Department.
11.9 am
Mr. Bob Blizzard: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing the debate, which covers the top priority issue in the eastern region.
I wish to make a number of general points about transport policy. First, it should not be cast in environmental terms alone; transport is too often discussed as if it were merely an environmental inconvenience, whereas it is also the engine of the economy. This country will not be competitive on the global stage and will not achieve the productivity that
26WH
the Chancellor wants unless we fully recognise the importance of transport infrastructure to the economy. A better balance must be struck between economic and environmental factors in making transport decisions.
Secondly, we must beware of a one-size-fits-all transport policy. The balance between environmental and economic considerations will vary in different parts of the country, depending on local circumstances. An elderly lady living just outside Beccles, a market town with a population of 10,000 in my constituency, once wrote to me in trepidation saying that she might have to pay a congestion charge to drive into town, and begged for exemptions for pensioners if such a charge should be imposed. The message that we are putting out is, in some ways, far too simple.
Thirdly, the overall state of transport infrastructure in this country is poor, as it is suffering from decades of under-investment. The road and rail networks have never been comprehensively developed and are now patently inadequate for modern purposes, especially in the eastern region, as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North said. The situation worsens the further east one goes, and one cannot venture further east than my constituency. The east-west links are bad, so coastal communities such as the one that I represent suffer the worst. Transport in East Anglia is all too often typified by large heavy goods vehicles trying to squeeze their way through villages and market towns, such as Beccles and Bungay, whose streets are narrow and full of historic buildings that shake as the trucks pass. Although those trucks may pass through villages for perfectly good economic reasons, nothing has been done to improve matters. Also typical is the experience of sitting in frustration in a line of vehicles following the ubiquitous tractor down an East Anglian road, whether it is an A road or a B road. What I have said must be set against the reality that people will not want to be less mobile under any future policy.
The Government's £180 billion 10-year plan for transport makes an impressive start in rectifying the problem. However, our planning system means that, all too often, large essential transport projects become bogged down and progress is painfully slow, so few people can plan ahead with confidence. As I travel the world, I see that we are falling behind other countries in developing modern transport systems.
We cannot continue like that. We must ensure that our transport policies meet the needs of the eastern region, while recognising that needs vary within that region, which stretches from the fringe of London to Britain's most easterly point. No single solution or policy will suit the whole of that diverse area.
The general principles to which I have referred are relevant in understanding the transport needs of my constituency. The long-standing problem in my area is unemployment, which reached 14 per cent. under the last Conservative Government and was 11.5 per cent. when I was elected in 1997. It now stands at 5 per cent., which is good news, but that percentage is still two or three times higher than that in much of East Anglia. The structural unemployment is still there, and one must ask why that is when our wage costs are low and our land is relatively cheap. We have excellent industrial relations and a pleasant working environment.

27WH
The answer is location. Lowestoft, the main town in my constituency, is Britain's most easterly point. It is in a peripheral position, at the end of a peninsula—East Anglia may be rounded, but it is a peninsula. If one measures by journey time, East Anglia juts so far out into the North sea that it almost touches Holland. My constituency is not connected to the national network of dualled roads. One has to travel 45 miles south to Ipswich to pick it up that way, or 50 miles east to Bury St. Edmunds. We are not included on the national rail network map that one sees at stations and on trains. That is surprising, because we are the country's most easterly point, and I have taken the issue up with the rail authorities. I suppose that it is because only two branch lines come to Lowestoft. That fact speaks volumes.
Poor transport links put business in my area and the local economy at a disadvantage. Existing businesses do not have a level playing field and it is difficult to attract new businesses. All the signs are that businesses in Britain increasingly prefer a more central location. The Lowestoft area can become more central only if it has better transport links. Coastal unemployment is a national phenomenon. The league table of unemployment by travel-to-work areas shows that, in October 2001, the Lowestoft travel-to-work area had the 23rd highest unemployment in the country. Of the top 23 travel-to-work areas for unemployment, 19 are on the coast, and that is not just a freak result for October.
When a coastal community is not connected to the network, things get worse. There is a feeling among my constituents that things are unfair, and a perception that they missed out during the road-building era. Now we are often told that roads are not a good idea anyway and that our roads do not need upgrading. However, I wonder how many people in those places where relief roads and bypasses were built or key routes were upgraded feel that those roads should never have been built. My guess is that they are very pleased that they were.
The greatest irony of all in this is the reason for Lowestoft's very existence. The town's origins lie in its port. Ports integrate land and sea transport and the Government have given us an integrated transport policy, but Lowestoft's excellent low-cost port has to contend with not being integrated into the national road and rail network, even though the old railway lines run parallel to the docks. Efforts have been made to establish rail freight. We were even mentioned in the famous transport White Paper, but sadly, there have been too many obstacles to overcome to turn that into reality.
We need at least one good road link to the rest of the country. The A12 has been detrunked and, after the trunk roads review, the strategy appeared to be to dual the A11 to Norwich and then carry on the dualling to Great Yarmouth, which has the same unemployment problems as Lowestoft. That was probably not the best solution for Lowestoft, but at least it was a link, and we supported it. However, a group of consultants for the Highways Agency has produced a report that comes out against dualling the key part of the A47, which is a real setback. It has struck the wrong balance between environmental and economic considerations, and my
28WH
hon. Friend the Member for Great Yarmouth (Mr. Wright) will seek a special debate on the matter. I am surveying businesses in my constituency on road priorities. The communities on the east coast of East Anglia with long-standing unemployment cannot be left unconnected. We must have one good road link to the rest of the country.
Transport is such an important issue in my constituency that, unfortunately, the problems do not stop when one finally reaches Lowestoft. The Al2 runs the length of the town, north to south, right through the town centre. The town is bisected from east to west by the inlet that forms the port, which crosses the A12 at a lift-up bridge. It is the only bridge in the town—one must go 2.5 miles further inland to find another. The bridge has a special place in this country's transport system. It is the most disruptive lift-up bridge in the country, with the highest number of lifts per day and the second highest traffic flow. Those factors combined disrupt more traffic than any other lift-up bridge. It must lift to enable the port to operate. We have lived with that state of affairs for decades, and for decades we have wanted another river crossing.
I am pleased that some progress is being made. We were delighted before Christmas last year to learn that the Government are providing £25 million for the south Lowestoft relief road. That is the best news that my constituency has received for years, and it comes after the completion of the northern spine road. If, eventually, we can link the two together with another bridge—what we in Lowestoft call "the third crossing"—Lowestoft's long-held dream will have materialised. In Lowestoft we do not talk about the second coming; we talk about the third crossing. Successive Ministers have stood on our bridge. We sometimes wish that it had lifted up and tipped them off, but the one who grants the new bridge will be immortalised by the people of Lowestoft.
11.20 am
Mr. Richard Bacon: I join the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) in saying that the people of our area feel neglected compared with those of other parts of the country. Although the eastern region as a whole has done well economically, that economic benefit is concentrated more in the west of the region, around the Cambridge corridor, than in the east. When I went to Blackpool for my party's conference I found that I would save two hours by taking the train from Norwich to London and thence to Blackpool, instead of going direct from Norwich to Blackpool. That shows what neglect our area has suffered.
Further to the hon. Gentleman's remarks about Lowestoft, I have a good sense of how far east it is because when I was growing up in Worcestershire we used to visit my grandparents in Lowestoft. It was the most interminable journey that I ever had to undertake as a child. Points east in Norfolk as well as Suffolk are disconnected. The hon. Gentleman mentioned Great Yarmouth. We all look forward to the development of the Yarmouth outer harbour and the contribution that it will make to reviving the eastern part of East Anglia.
We are delighted that work on the section of the A11 from Roudham Heath to Attleborough is going ahead and that the Government have announced their

29WH
preferred routes for the remainder. I understand that there will be one public inquiry to take account of both routes. That news highlights the problem of time scales. I am told that, if things go smoothly, the earliest that we can expect construction to start is 2005 and that dualling of the A11 will not be complete until 2007. That is six years—as long as it took to fight the second world war. There seems to be a wider policy point to be made about the length of time that planning inquiries take. However, we are grateful that progress is being made, albeit slowly.
What is the Government's current policy on bypasses? The residents of Long Stratton, in my constituency, are desperate for a bypass. I invite the Minister to visit Long Stratton to see what they put up with. The A 140 from Norwich to Ipswich runs through the centre of that small town and 45.000 cars a day use it. That is wholly inappropriate. The problem has festered for years and we look forward to a rapid solution. The county council will consult on the issue next year and when the process is complete it will assemble a bid for a major project. I hope that the Government will look favourably on that when the time comes.
We should not forget the other kinds of transport that are available. Norwich airport, just outside my constituency, is a vital resource for the area, and for many people is much closer than flying from Stansted airport in the west of the eastern region. The national media sometimes do not bring out the difference between what is happening in the east of the eastern region and what is happening in the west of the region. I hope that the Government will bear in mind, especially in relation to the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study, the fact that economic development of the region requires better transport links in the east too.
The hon. Member for Waveney spoke about environmental links and striking the right balance. That relates to a more general point that environmental protection can be afforded only if there is wealth. It is not an accident that the poorest countries tend to have the least environmental protection. Greater economic prosperity means that we can better afford to enhance the environment.
11.25 am
Mr. Patrick Hall: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing the debate and on his wide-ranging consideration of several issues that affect the eastern region. I also endorse a key point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) about the importance of location and of transport and its influence on economic development. That applies to coastal regions, as we have heard, but it also applies to Bedford, which is nowhere near the coast.
Bedford has two or three wards that record some of the highest unemployment in the eastern region, and the reason for that is connected to transport. North-south links are congested, and east-west links are under-developed. I shall concentrate on east-west links, especially the east-west rail link. The aim of the project is to establish a modern rail route that connects Ipswich and Norwich through Cambridge, Bedford and Milton Keynes to Oxford and the west country. Much of that
30WH
link requires existing track to be upgraded, and some of it, including a section east of Bedford and parts of the Bletchley-to-Oxford stretch, requires re-railing on former track bed.
The project is being promoted by a consortium—the East West Rail Consortium—that comprises 36 members, most of which are local authorities. The consortium has worked hard for several years to put together feasibility studies and business cases on the preferred route to get the scheme under way. It has raised funds to pay for that work. The East of England Development Agency is fully on board and strongly supports the project, which it regards as an integral part of delivering the region's economic development objectives.
The project will relieve pressure on the existing radial routes to London, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North referred, that are congested. It will also offer more choice to residents and businesses in the region, and will underpin the economic benefits associated with what is known as the Oxford to Cambridge technology arc, a concept that is being studied seriously by several people in the region. The idea is that development that concentrates especially on the Cambridge area could extend along corridors to the west towards Oxford, but also, I imagine, to the east.
I fully support the east-west rail link. It will be good for my constituency, and I want it implemented as soon as possible. The route will serve the heart of Bedford. It will re-open the service to the east, which British Rail closed in the early 1960s, and modernise the badly neglected cross-country service west to Bletchley. The route onwards to Oxford, which British Rail also closed in the 1960s, will be re-opened. Importantly, the east-west rail link would not just benefit east-west movements in the eastern region, but would relieve pressure in London and the London orbital area, and create all sorts of opportunities for freight and passenger movements using parts of the east-west rail link across the country. It would also connect with movements north and south from the west coast main line, the midland main line and the east coast main line.
It is intended that the project be delivered in three phases: a western phase west of Bedford, an eastern phase east of Cambridge and a central phase, including the missing link, from Bedford eastwards to the east coast main line, mostly along the former track bed of the Bedford to Cambridge railway.
A rail passenger partnership joint bid to the Strategic Rail Authority for improved services eastwards of Cambridge was made earlier in the year by the consortium and Anglia Railways. It was surprisingly successful, winning £10 million for improved services and new trains, which will come into service in about 18 months' time. The problem is the western section; two years' hard work in research and discussion led to the consortium, on the advice of the SRA, making a much-reduced bid, a concept that the SRA eventually rejected on the grounds that it was not ambitious enough. However, the revenue schemes associated with a smaller project were not sufficient to deliver the correct cost-benefit ratios to pay for the longer-term capital investment. The fact that a scheme was advanced on the advice of the SRA, which said, effectively, that that advice was not correct, has filled many associated with the project with anxiety about how to deal with the

31WH
matter through the SRA in future. I hope that I am wrong, but it seems that although the SRA can handle simple projects involving a single franchise and train operating company, such as the successful and welcome scheme east of Cambridge, it has problems thinking strategically about more difficult concepts.
Mr. Hopkins: My hon. Friend may be aware of past railway investment projects, notably the east coast main line, where more elaborate and expensive proposals were rejected on Treasury advice. Over the years, the investment proved not to be effective and further work is now required for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is better to get it right at the beginning and not to spoil the ship for a ha'p'orth of tar?
Mr. Hall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Strategic thinking is all about looking ahead and investing for greater gain in the longer term, rather than short-term revenue, budget-led ways of looking at things. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary wants to break the old, narrow, finance-based thinking and look ahead, but that is difficult, as the SRA shows in many other cases, too.
The SRA's "Strategic Agenda" on the east-west rail link, which was published earlier this year, describes it as
"a scheme that would not be needed for seven to 10 years,"
which contradicts everything that the consortium has demonstrated in the past few years. It even goes on to state that the scheme has
"not been the subject of any substantial analysis"
thus dismissing, in the most cavalier manner, six years of work and analysis costing about £500,000, raised by the consortium. Can my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary confirm that the Government take the east-west rail project seriously and that they understand the strategic economic arguments underpinning the concept.
We all understand that the rail industry is facing financial difficulties, and not just because of events in the past few weeks. In recent years there has been an increasing lack of confidence in the industry to invest. Railtrack failed to maintain the existing network, never mind expanding and improving it. We must look ahead, beyond taking Railtrack into administration, to a positive, confident future for the rail industry. In that context, it is vital that the SRA becomes more reliable, business-like, professional and strategic. It needs more Government investment if it is to play its part in delivering the Government's transport plans, but it also desperately needs to be managed better and to deal with people in a straightforward and reliable manner.
I urge my hon. Friend to take on board my comments, which are offered in a positive way. I hope that he will tell me, perhaps today or later in writing, whether he is prepared to discuss with the Secretary of State the need to review the guidance issued to the SRA after the general election. I also ask my hon. Friend to ensure that
32WH
nothing is done during the upgrades of the west coast and east coast main lines to jeopardise the east-west rail project, which will need to connect with and cross those main lines.
Another key matter is the rail industry's ability to invest. It was the Secretary of State's decision to put a stop to the 20-year franchise replacement process. In regard to east-west rail, that means that the consortium's train operating company partner has only a four-year financial horizon against which to assess a long-term investment project such as east-west rail. The fact that many franchises will have to be replaced soon after the next general election means that opportunities to deliver rail improvements in this Parliament will be missed. I cannot understand who will benefit from that—certainly not my constituents or people in other parts of the country, or the Government. I look forward to discussion on the issue.
We all know that life is full of problems but the problems encountered by the East West Rail Consortium in its bid for the western section of east-west rail has served to strengthen its will to succeed. That is pleasing, but if it is to be translated into positive action in the months and years ahead, it is crucial that the Government listen and that they support the project, directly and indirectly. I hear that we can have hope because there is talk—it may be only rumours—about means by which the project can be delivered. I refer particularly to the missing link east at Bedford: the section of track that was lifted in the 1970s after it was closed in the 1960s. That section is crucial to the delivery of the scheme as a whole and there is talk that that part of it could be delivered by the Government's special purpose vehicle.
I am not sure what a special purpose vehicle is. There is something attractive but mysterious about the idea. I have visions of a magical steam locomotive that will drive through and get everything built. However, tempting though that vision is. I do not think that Harry Potter, or east-west rail, will deliver the missing link. Ministers need to take action, possibly by waving a magic wand—that is up to them. Ministers, not Harry Potter, need to provide the motivation.
The consortium has looked at the important question of dealing with the missing link. With the agreement of the SRA some months ago, it advertised for an infrastructure partner to promote the development of that crucial section and Skanska Construction was selected by a competitive process. Skanska Construction is looking at route options, prior to the process laid down by the Transport and Works Act 1992, which will involve a public inquiry. It is also looking at interaction with the east cost main line upgrade plans in the Hitchin area and it is also investigating potential demand for services to Stansted and Luton airport. So we have the prospect of integrated transport and regional and national links.
With common sense and clear leadership—qualities that have not thus far been noticeable—we shall add to the improved services east of Cambridgeshire that are due to begin in October 2002. We could have new services from Bedford to the west of England by 2003 and—this could be called the full monty—the east-west rail link by 2006. How can my right hon. Friend resist such a temptation? I ask for his and his colleagues' support.
11.40 am
Bob Spink: I crave your indulgence today, Mr. O'Hara, because this is my first opportunity to contribute to such a debate. I hope that you will bear with me.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) said that life is full of problems. Indeed it is and we certainly know about them in this place. Life is full also of opportunities, and I thank the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) for providing the opportunity this morning to discuss some of the problems, so that we can find the solutions. He introduced the issue of transport in the east of England eloquently and thoughtfully, and I am grateful for the opportunity to add my little bit.
This has been an excellent debate, but so far it has focused on the north of the eastern region. I shall bring a balance, as I will talk about the south. I represent the interests of south-east Essex, in particular Castle Point and, more parochially, Canvey island. I see the Minister wincing a little. He is clearly not surprised to hear me utter the words Canvey island in this place; he has heard them many times and has shown great tolerance and understanding of our local problems.
Although south Essex is on the periphery of the East of England Development Agency region, we have not been overlooked. The agency has shown our problems great concern and understanding, and is prepared to invest £5 million in Canvey island to prepare about 50 acres of land for what is potentially an important employment-generating development. I will talk about that and the transport infrastructure that it will require. Without a strategic transport infrastructure in place, whatever the East of England Development Agency spends on Canvey island—to provide economic development land and the internal infrastructure—will be less effective.
The Thames gateway initiative is a great one and, providing that it can be made to work properly, should be welcomed. Transport will play a crucial role in the successful regeneration of the Thames gateway, and proposals are being prepared through the Thames Gateway South Essex Partnership. It will require early ministerial support and commitment and, having heard Lord Falconer's comments, I am sure that the commitment is there.
However, there is a problem with the co-operation between local councils. The Thames gateway initiative involves local councils joining together to help put in place a strategic infrastructure for the economic benefit of the whole region. The key problem for me as the Member for Castle Point is that Basildon council is not prepared to co-operate with Castle Point council on an infrastructure that will see the Canvey Island third access road go over some of Basildon's greenbelt land. That road will be necessary if the vision of the Thames gateway is to succeed. The vision sees the Basildon-Castle Point business hub as an important local hub, and that is how the Thames gateway is being sold. Without that third road for Canvey island, the vision will become a nightmare rather than a reality.
I am seeking talks with Basildon council and my council, particularly councillors Dave Wells and Ray Howard, to try to break this logjam with Basildon council. I find it a bit rich that a new town that is built on greenbelt and continually expands on greenbelt wants to
34WH
stop us putting our little road in so that we can have a little bit of the action because it is greenbelt land. No residential houses in Basildon are involved in the Canvey island third road and some of the greenbelt is tip land. Those are arguments that we will have locally and I hope that we can find a way around the impasse with Basildon. I know that the Minister is aware of the problem. He has shown great patience in listening to us over the years and I hope that that will continue.
I turn from the third road link to Canvey island, which I shall take up with Basildon council, to an important and more imminent local scheme: the extension to Roscommon way. There is some opposition from the residents of Western esplanade where the new road will join, but that always happens when there is a development. Generally the people of Canvey island see the benefit of this extension or southern relief road as it is being called. It is seen as an important opportunity for Canvey island.
The scheme has positive benefits across a range of integrated transport objectives, but its main benefits relate to two key issues. The first is employment and regeneration. The scheme will facilitate development opportunities and generate local jobs in the Thames gateway, which nationally is the number one priority area for economic regeneration. The second issue relates to transport and safety. By improving the island's distributor road system, the scheme will enable further improvements in safety and passenger transport to be made elsewhere on the island. In particular, the scheme will improve access to the eastern end of the island and provide much needed relief to Long road, which runs right down the middle of the island.
A key point to remember in looking at the potential benefits of the scheme is its role for the future of the island, which has a population of about 45,000 and is an important part of my constituency. In promoting the scheme, the county council, led by Councillor Ron Williams, who is a well-known advocate of integrated transport in Essex, recognises that its immediate impact on transport may not be as great as competing schemes. For that reason, the funding for the full £9.1 million cost of the road scheme is not being sought. The aim will be a form of private-public partnership. However, the long-term benefits to the island of securing this infrastructure improvement, effectively at a public cost of about £4.7 million, are considered to represent extremely good value for money.
Turning now to the detailed case for employment and regeneration, lack of local employment is a major problem on the island. In the borough only 38 per cent. of jobs are met locally. Putting the available land to use is expected to create a further 1,500 much-needed jobs. The East of England Development Agency has an 18-month plan for the preparation of the £5 million Northwick road site. The Thames gateway strategy identifies Canvey island as being one of the major sites for development and job creation. This 50 acre Northwick road site maximises the use of brownfield land. Accessibility to sites in Canvey will be improved by the new Roscommon way infrastructure, which is a key part of the proposed integrated infrastructure improvements for the island.
Canvey island needs support or it will become physically, economically and socially isolated from the mainland. Regeneration will also give the island a

35WH
greater sense of purpose, helping it to be a place where people contribute to their local community and which contributes to the wider economy. I trust that the Minister has heard all that.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I certainly have.
Bob Spink: Again. I am grateful to the Minister for listening carefully. There is a strong case for the scheme, on the basis that it is a prerequisite for, and will facilitate, further improvements that fit within the broader aims of an integrated transport policy for the whole region.
11.50 am
Tom Brake: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing the debate and setting out imaginative proposals. The Translink idea of tram and bus is certainly worth pursuing.
The debate has been informative. There has, of course, been special pleading. The hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked for a little road to be built on the green belt. There was some not so discreet special pleading from the hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard), who offered the Minister immortality if he delivered the third crossing.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) referred to interminably long journeys through the region to see his grandparents. I hope that he was not suggesting that the countryside in the area was boring—I am not sure what he was driving at.
The hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) was right to bring Harry Potter into the debate, because he stands a much better chance than the Government of achieving an integrated transport policy. Using broomsticks would certainly be an effective way of getting away from congestion, and they could use the new facilities at terminal 5 if that is announced later today.
Hon. Members have made interesting contributions. As they have outlined, the eastern region is quite prosperous. It has a population of 5.5 million and is one of the fastest growing areas in the United Kingdom, with one of the lowest recorded crime rates in England. Unemployment levels across the region as a whole are 3.3 per cent., which is well below the national average.
The East of England Development Agency is seeking to promote a number of key themes to 2010. One of the six key aims is for the region to become more outward looking, and Members have explained why the region feels isolated in many respects. If the development agency is to achieve that objective, transport in the area must be improved.
Many Members have outlined ways in which the transport system could be improved. I think that we all agree that the main transport problems have been caused over many years by neglect, a significant lack of investment in the road and rail networks and a lack of capacity. There are problems getting into Liverpool Street station, for instance, because of bottlenecks. In particular, there is a lack of east to west transport links, on which the hon. Member for Bedford focused.
36WH
The road network includes the A14, Al2, A47 and A11, most of which are already dual carriageway or part dual carriageway. However, they are struggling with capacity. As the hon. Member for Luton, North explained, apart from the M1 and the M11, motorway links are poor in the eastern region.
The Government announced on Friday that the A11 will be dualled, but cited 2005 as the earliest completion date. Will the Minister tell us the most realistic, rather than the earliest, completion date?
The A14 takes most of the freight coming out of Felixstowe. Currently, 40 per cent. of the UK's freight comes into that port, and only 20 per cent. leaves Felixstowe by rail. If we are going to move freight off roads and on to railways, we must significantly improve rail links in the port area. The section of the A14 road from Cambridge to Huntingdon is one of the busiest and most dangerous in Europe.
A multi-modal study for that area has been completed and I hope that it emphasises improving rail links for freight. The Felixstowe to Nuneaton line needs improvement to achieve that. The line needs a basic change in the loading gauge to enable bigger, wider trains to carry large freight containers. That would affect bridges, which would need to be raised, and further electrification along the line would be needed. Will the Minister comment on the likelihood of making those improvements?
We must also consider passenger services. Decent passenger rail services would provide an alternative to the A14 for people travelling from Ipswich to Cambridge. At the moment, that service is very limited: only nine trains run each day and if anyone needs to travel quickly, the journey by rail takes about an hour and a half, but the trip by road takes only 40 minutes. If we wish to see more people using the rail network, we must improve train speed.
The hon. Member for Bedford referred to British Rail closing lines in the 1960s. The Oxford to Cambridge line was closed in 1968 by Barbara Castle, so in that case British Rail closed a line on behalf of a Labour Government. I hope that many lines will be reopened. Some have called for the reopening of the Cambridge to St. Ives line, but I understand that funding has not been forthcoming. I hope that the Minister will confirm that rail schemes are not disadvantaged when decisions are taken on the promotion of such schemes as opposed to road schemes, which seem regularly to get the go-ahead.
Many towns in the area are suffering from traffic congestion, although there have been success stories. The Cambridge park-and-ride scheme has been successful. Does the Minister believe, as the hon. Member for Luton, North mentioned, that there is a role for tram systems in smaller towns with populations of 100,000 or less? Will the Government provide guidance on such schemes to those towns?
Hon. Members will know that Stansted airport wants to increase its capacity from 15 million to 25 million passengers a year. Stansted has also called for a standby runway, which has caused local concern as some fear that it may be converted into a full runway. Has the Minister had any recent discussions on that and does he support such a proposal? Stansted airport is in a strong position: it has good public transport links to London, with trains every 15 minutes. However, the services

37WH
going north are not nearly as good; for example, the service from Liverpool through Peterborough and Cambridge is a one-train-per-hour service and is extremely unreliable. Work must be done if we are to make greater use of public transport to access airports. That is increasingly a source of concern, particularly with respect to the terminal 5 announcement.
The public transport links to Luton airport are not good. In fact, I will be meeting with a representative from Luton airport tomorrow. Are there any plans in the pipeline for a decent rail link in addition to the bus service?
Mr. Hopkins: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the link to the station. That link, between the new mainline station and the airport, is the problem. Translink might provide a link—certainly in my scheme—with a tramway that would go directly from the station to the airport departure area. That is part of my suggestion.
Tom Brake: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that helpful clarification about a way to solve that integration problem.
It is clear that transport infrastructure is at breaking point, not just in the eastern region but across the country. I hope that the Minister can explain the impact of the 10-year transport plan in the eastern region. How many extra miles of railway line will have been constructed by the end of the process? What effect will the plan have on the roads network? The Minister is frowning; he does not like my questions. None the less, I hope that he will respond. I thought that a purpose of Adjournment debates was to raise questions, but the Minister shakes his head.
We need guidance from the Minister about what the 10-year transport plan, which is the Government's key method of delivering improvements and integration, will mean for the region. Hon. Members have described the isolation that is felt in parts of the eastern region because of the relatively poor transport links with London and with the north and west of the country. The Minister's response will, no doubt, clarify whether the situation is likely to change.
12.3 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing the debate, which has been wide-ranging and good. Many questions have been posed to the Minister, and I hope to allow him sufficient time to answer as many as he can.
The hon. Member for Luton, North began by describing our region as disparate and incoherent. I thought for a moment that he said "desperate"; I will accept "disparate". I throw at the Minister the fact that one of his colleagues thinks that the region does not have an obvious cohesive entity, yet the Government are pressing ahead with regional government for an area that is, apparently, disparate and incoherent.
Mr. Hopkins: The point is that a transport link would make it more coherent.
Mr. Moss: I do not disagree with that.
38WH
The hon. Gentleman said that the situation in our region results from the radial routes that come out of London. That key problem affects the important east-west links about which many hon. Members spoke and with which I shall deal in a little more detail.
Mr. Blizzard: Hon. Members, including the hon. Gentleman, rightly focus on east-west links and have spoken about the "radial" pattern. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in the north-east region, where I come from, even the radial links tend to peter out some 40 or 50 miles before they reach us?
Mr. Moss: I agree, but the A 11, which is a key link into his region, is being dualled. It is long overdue, but represents an important radial link from south to north.
The hon. Member for Luton, North spoke about the importance of ports such as Felixstowe and Harwich—the London gateway and east port. Luton and Stansted are the pre-eminent airports in the region. If those are to expand—and there is every sign that they will—we must focus on improving access. The hon. Gentleman spoke about congestion on the M1, and I would also mention the M11. The dual system north of Stansted airport is inadequate and long tailbacks often arise where it joins the A11. That problem should be examined immediately; we should not wait for the expansion at Stansted mentioned by the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake).
I shall start at the macro level and later examine the micro detail, particularly with respect to my constituency in the north of the region. Six multi-modal studies on the roads have been undertaken: the London orbit, London to south midlands, London to Ipswich, Cambridge to Huntingdon, Norwich to Great Yarmouth and Norwich to Peterborough. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) mentioned the Norwich to Great Yarmouth route and the hon. Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) mentioned the London to south midlands route.
Mr. Blizzard: May I put a correction on the record? The hon. Gentleman referred to the Norwich to Great Yarmouth study as multi-modal, as did the briefing paper produced by the East of England Development Agency. However, a road-based study was requested. Will the Minister explain why what was ordered as a road-based study turned out to be a multi-modal study?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) is trying to involve the Minister, but his intervention should be addressed to the Opposition spokesman.
Mr. Moss: Thank you for your guidance, Mr. Winterton. I am used to being a conduit for questions that hon. Members forgot to ask the Minister when they were on their feet.
On this occasion, it would be remiss not to thank the Minister personally for his recent announcement about the Thorney bypass on the A47. It has now moved on to its next stage and I know that the Minister has taken a keen interest in it. Thorney is probably the only village on a trunk road in the United Kingdom that has not yet had a bypass. The congestion there every morning and evening is huge, so the bypass is long overdue.

39WH
The problems do not stop at Thorney. The Eye bypass, which seems almost like a three carriageway road in design terms, is only a single carriageway. Two recent fatalities have involved motorcyclists, so I ask the Minister to examine the design and configuration of the road, which is inherently dangerous. The congestion around the periphery of Peterborough due to travel-to-work traffic is also huge, so the Eye bypass should—in conformity with the original intention—be upgraded to dual carriageway. The problem is that the Department bought insufficient land to achieve that.
I want to correct the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington, who said that most of the A47 was dualled. In fact, most of that road in the eastern region is not dualled, even though it is a key east-west route linking Yarmouth and Lowestoft to Norwich, King's Lynn and Peterborough. A multi-modal study is being undertaken, but does the Minister know when it will be published? Can we can expect a sensible dualling programme for the whole of that road? It is presently dualled piecemeal, which leads to all sorts of problems.
Another problem that has raised its head in the eastern region is the Government's policy of detrunking some roads, including the A10 from north of Cambridge to King's Lynn and the A12 between Ipswich and Lowestoft. It is simply an excuse for the Government to offload blame for failing roads. Once the roads are detrunked, they can say that the problem is no longer theirs but one for local authorities. The only way that those roads can be improved to beat the congestion problem is for the Government to make sufficient funds available through local transport grants to county councils and other bodies—
Mr. Jamieson indicated assent.
Mr. Moss: The Minister is saying that they have, but that is not so in every case. Unless it is done, some of our historic trunk roads—they are important arterial routes—will continue to decline.
Several hon. Members have touched on the importance of the rail network in our region. In particular, I refer to the east-west rail route—the hon. Member for Bedford asked the Minister about that—and the Felixstowe and Harwich to Nuneaton freight route, which is considered by EEDA to be a high priority. The recent decisions taken by the Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions have thrown rail investment into chaos. It will cost more to pay the companies involved in receivership than it would have cost to pay Railtrack as originally envisaged.
Why are the Government not prepared to grant long-term extensions to some of the key franchises, especially the Great North Eastern Railway, which goes through the western part of our region and I believe runs an excellent service from Peterborough to London? The service has much improved since privatisation, but investment will grind to halt if the Government are not prepared to allow a long-term extension to its franchise. Without it, no company will make the necessary investment.
40WH
Many of the important and strategic rail links in the region are not yet electrified. The section from Peterborough to March in my constituency and on to Ely and Cambridge is a priority. It is difficult to link the various services; for instance, the trains that serve Stansted airport and Liverpool cannot be electric-powered because of the gap in electrification.
Many towns and cities in the eastern region have difficulty with the Government's policy on congestion charging. Councils are closing car parks in city centres and increasing parking fees. In Ipswich, car parking costs are set to increase by a massive 43 per cent. Have the Government given any thought to the future success of many local businesses in the city centres? That policy works only if there is alternative transport into city centres—in most instances, a bus service. All too often, bus services in our region are in chaos. For example, in Suffolk in 1994–95, public transport subsidies were £630,979, but by 1999 they had risen by a measly 0.3 per cent. In the current year, the county council subsidy for local bus contracts is only £636,000.
Ipswich is particularly badly served. It has poor bus services, which are frequently the subject of letters to the local press. One local paper, the Evening Star, has run a campaign to
"solve the scandal of Suffolk's bus services".
The key problem seems to have been the withdrawal of services because of a lack of funding. One might have expected the Government, wedded as they are to the idea of public transport, to seek to do something, either directly or indirectly through the borough and county councils. However, that is not the case in Ipswich. Through the Urban Bus Challenge, Ipswich Buses recently applied for a grant to improve late-night services and to increase to every 10 minutes the frequency of an out-of-town service to a village called Whitton. That would have been a great help to commuters and would have taken cars off the road, but both proposals were turned down. Thus a local Labour-controlled borough council, with a policy on congestion charging to get cars off the road in the city centre, turned down sensible applications by a local bus service to improve quality and timing.
The problem stems from the Government's policy, set out in the Transport Act 2000, to re-establish the failed bus monopolies of the past. The Government seem to want to dictate terms to local bus services through local councils, via "quality contracts". Given that that is opposed by the bus industry and is neither popular nor welcome, it is not likely to lead to the improved services that both the Government and we would want.
Bus passenger usage is still declining in rural areas in the eastern region and the Government seem uninterested in doing anything to address that decline. A report by the Institute for Public Policy Research in February 2001 revealed that the Labour party's 10-year plan envisages a decline in bus services outside London.
Mr. Blizzard: Did the hon. Gentleman receive yesterday a large report from the Countryside Agency, which found that the number of parishes that now benefit from a bus service has increased markedly since the Government came to power?
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman answers, let me say that the Minister requires a minimum of 10 minutes to reply to the debate. I hope that interventions will now cease.
Mr. Moss: Thank you, Mr. Winterton. I think that that was the third or fourth intervention by the hon. Member for Waveney, who has, I see, lost weight recently. Perhaps he has taken his bicycle or the pedestrian paths in Waveney to achieve that. I was going to wind up in any case.
We have had a useful debate and the Minister has many questions to answer of which he might manage only a small number. I congratulate the hon. Member for Luton, North on securing the debate.
12.18 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) on securing the debate and on putting his well-presented and carefully argued case so briefly. Brief points are often the best made. He raised a number of important issues and I shall try to address them. If I do not cover all of them, I shall write to him. Early in his speech, he welcomed the new acoustic barriers on the M1 where it passes through his constituency. I know how important that is to people in the area. He will have noted that our 10-year plan dealt with noise from motorways and other trunk roads.
Hon. Members mentioned the Milton Keynes to Hatfield light rail link. I shall discuss some of their specific points, and then deal with more general ones if there is time. As my hon. Friend knows, the light rail link is a matter for the London and south midlands multi-modal studies, which are examining east-west road and rail routes between the M25 and the Al4 and will be completed in 2002.
I noted my hon. Friend's disappointment at the delay to Thameslink 2000, which is probably shared by many in my Department. He will know, however, that the public inquiry is now complete, and we expect the inspector's report soon. We cannot second-guess what it will say, but we share my hon. Friend's optimism that the project will go ahead as soon as possible.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) rightly described transport as the engine of the economy and said that the region was rather rounded. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) rather unkindly referred to the rounded regions of my hon. Friend's persona. None the less, my hon. Friend made some important points, particularly about the careful balance that we must strike between the environment and transport needs, although I suspect that he erred more in one direction than the other.
My hon. Friend also mentioned a lady from Beccles, and I can assure her that congestion charging is unlikely to be imposed on small towns. He welcomed the money from the 10-year transport plan. I should tell him and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North that we are using the plan as the engine of the economy to bring prosperity and employment to areas that suffer difficulties. If it does not achieve those aims, we shall not have succeeded in our ambitions.
42WH
The hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) mentioned bypasses, but we receive requests for many more than funding would allow. Our general theme is improvement in the quality of people's lives, reducing congestion on roads and, sometimes, reducing noise and pollution. We take those in order of priority. The hon. Gentleman will know that, on a recent visit to the constituency of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard), we examined certain improvements to, and bypasses on, the A11, to which other hon. Members have referred.
Mr. Bacon: If Thorny is the only village in the United Kingdom on a trunk road that does not have a bypass, that is only because the A140 has been detrunked, and Long Stratton, which has the A140 running through it, is still desperate for a bypass. The fact remains that congestion in Long Stratton is unacceptable, and something must be done.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman's comments are well made.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Hall) welcomed some of the improvements that have been made on the east-west rail line. I assure him that we consider it important and are anxious that the matters that he raised are seriously examined. The SRA considered the scheme but felt that the economic case had not been entirely made. My hon. Friend's points were well made, however, and we shall ensure that they are conveyed forcefully to those who deliberate on the matter.
My hon. Friend and the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire discussed the length of franchises, which we have carefully examined. Some people have asked whether two-year franchises are long enough. We must assess the state of the infrastructure to make a realistic long-term assessment of the franchise, but that is sometimes difficult given the current circumstances. To avoid delay, therefore, we are pressing on with two-year franchises. If appropriate, there will be longer-term franchises, but there is no blueprint. Different franchises are under different pressures, so we shall follow no specific model; we shall simply consider what will deliver best in the long term for railway customers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford asked whether short franchises could inhibit franchisees from acquiring new rolling stock. Section 54 of the Railways Act 1993 ensures that purchased rolling stock can be moved on to a new franchisee if the company that has the franchise changes.
I was delighted to see the hon. Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) back in debate, as he was regularly between 1992 and 1997. There was a brief interregnum at the wishes of the electorate. He bet me a tenner that he would have a bigger majority than me in 1997, but I have never collected it. Perhaps at some stage—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. The Minister will agree that all Members of the House of Commons are honourable gentlemen and ladies.
Mr. Jamieson: I am sure of that, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will honour his commitment. Among the many good points that he made about his

43WH
constituency was one about the Roscommon way on Canvey island. He will be aware of the Essex county council local transport plan bid, on which the decision will be announced next month.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome—perhaps he did not have time to mention it—the substantial extra funding that has come to local authorities through local transport plans. It must be welcomed by all hon. Members. In some cases, funding under local transport plans has increased two or three fold. Opposition Members do not always mention that fact when talking about their constituencies, but I keep a list in case they forget and their memories occasionally need jogging. Some of the benefits that he sees will have come from that funding, which we made available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney tried to tempt me to Lowestoft. It would be my first coming to Lowestoft, but he said it would be greater than the second coming if there were a third bridge. I can think of no higher accolade than to be immortalised by the people of Lowestoft. He posed a question to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire—I like my questions to go by that route, as it gives me time to think—about the road-based study for the A47, which although not multi-modal does not preclude other forms of transport such as rail.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake), or at least the person who writes his speeches for him, because they always contain lots of questions. He said that I frowned at one stage, but I was doing so only because I was counting all the questions that he had piled up. He asked what we intended to deliver in the 10-year plan for the region. In broad terms, the plan will provide extra road improvements along the lines that hon. Members have mentioned, such as bypasses and dualling of roads, including the A11, which I visited recently. Some of our plans to modernise the railway system are under way. We shall cut casualties on the roads and reduce pollution. The eastern region will receive a substantial cut of the £180 billion available under the 10-year transport plan.
In a recent debate in this Chamber, the hon. Gentleman was challenged by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) about Liberal Democrat plans for extra spending on transport. I would take him more seriously had he not said that there were none and that any extra money—that famous penny—would be spent on education. We like his lists, but we do not take them terribly seriously because they cannot be achieved.
I want to let the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who mentioned buses, off the hook. The date of 26 October 1986 should be firmly in his mind, because it was then that the Tory Government deregulated bus services. That was when the decline in many rural areas began. The Labour Government supplied the extra funding that is providing rural bus services.
The debate has been very wide and, as always, I have had a brief time in which to deal with the valuable points that hon. Members have made. However, I shall endeavour, in correspondence, to deal with those as necessary.

Haemophilia
12.30 pm
Mr. Gary Streeter: I am pleased to be able to discuss the plight of haemophiliacs in the west country, particularly those who suffer from hepatitis C. Many right hon. and hon. Members have taken part in a long campaign on the issue. As a Member of Parliament for the past nine years I have also been aware of the excellent and important campaign by the Haemophilia Society. I have been in correspondence with Ministers in the Department of Health about the problems.
It was, however, in summer this year that the campaign became real for me. I was contacted, for the second time I think, by Mr. Richard Waring, who lives in Staddiscombe in my constituency. I went to see him in July and found out more about his background and what he was going through as a haemophiliac who, sadly, has hepatitis C. Richard Waring is a good, decent man. He is a committed family man, happily married to Jacqueline with a lovely daughter called Charlotte. He lives in a very nice part of my constituency—although, of course, all my constituency is wonderful.
Richard Waring had the grave misfortune to be born haemophiliac. I used to think that, if haemophiliacs were cut, it would not be possible to stop their bleeding. Of course, that can happen, but the problem primarily concerns internal bleeding, particularly internal bleeding into joints. I am no medical expert but to me that sounds painful and uncomfortable. It is not a problem that I would want. Naturally, as a result of internal bleeding, many transfusions are necessary. That is where the problems began for Mr. Waring.
Mr. Waring was born a haemophiliac. It was not his choice or his fault. Because of regular blood transfusions he had the additional, secondary misfortune in 1985 to contract hepatitis C through one of the many instances of contamination of blood products in the 1970s and 1980s. The blood was provided by the national health service, and through no fault of their own about 5.000 haemophiliacs were contaminated. Hepatitis C is a horrible disease. It attacks the liver. It is potentially life threatening. It is extremely debilitating and painful and causes consistent tiredness. That terrible disease has greatly affected the lives of Mr. Richard Waring and many other people in the west country who suffer from it.
I sought the debate because I was not only informed, but moved by Mr. Waring's plight. I believe that a real injustice is being done to people like him. I accept that it is not the present Government's fault: this debate has been going on a long time. However, it lies in their hands to remedy the injustice. My reason for introducing a debate on a matter that has been the subject of plenty of debates over the years is to ask the Government to think again.
Living in the west country is terrific, but it is not so great for haemophiliacs suffering from hepatitis C. There are four reasons for that. First, we do not have a comprehensive care centre in the west country. The nearest such centres that haemophiliacs in Mr. Waring's position can use are at Basingstoke and Oxford. That is at least three hours' travelling time. Many people in London confuse Plymouth with

45WH
Portsmouth. I sometimes drive to Plymouth via the M3 and A303, and every time I reach the edge of London I smile at the sign that says "Portsmouth 65 miles", because I know that I have another 220 miles to travel. I wonder how people can confuse Plymouth and Portsmouth, but they do, and they fail to realise how far Plymouth is from London and Bristol—from the centre of the country, in other words. It is not unusual to have to travel three or four hours to get somewhere from Plymouth, which is the last thing people need if they suffer from a debilitating disease and have to go for treatment.
There is no comprehensive care centre in the west country, but the Trent region has four such centres, based in the west midlands and the north-west and possibly even serving your constituency, Mr. Winterton. The issue was debated on 9 November last year with the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who said that he hoped that the regional commissioning group would reconsider the provision of a comprehensive care centre in the west country. My first question to the Minister is, has any progress been made on that?
The then Minister for Health acknowledged that, although no comprehensive care centre existed in the west country, hospitals at Bristol and Southampton can provide some specialist services. That is good, but not good enough. Bristol is two hours away from Plymouth and even further away from Cornwall, and getting to Southampton is also difficult. This is an important point because those centres are the places to go for routine and emergency medical treatment for people suffering from haemophilia, for drug therapy, physiotherapy and counselling, and for genetic and specialised services for HIV and hepatitis sufferers. The west country is not a good place to live if one has hepatitis C and is a haemophiliac. We need better facilities.
Secondly, the west country does not receive recombinant factor 8 on the national health service as do other parts of the United Kingdom. Recombinant factor 8, as I discovered in the summer, is a blood clotting agent prescribed on the NHS in some parts of the United Kingdom. If Mr. Waring lived in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland, or elsewhere in England, he would get it free, but he does not get it free in the west country. How can that be justified?
I can cite an absurd example from the north-west. Welsh health trusts have decided that they will fund recombinant factor 8, which means that people who live to the west or south of Liverpool and happen to live in Wales can go to specialist hospitals in Liverpool and receive that product free on the national health service, whereas people living to the north or east of the city who go to the same hospital and have the same disease cannot get those blood clotting agents on the NHS. That is an extraordinary situation: it is a postcode lottery of the first order.
On 9 November 2000, the then Minister for Health said that
"the clinical case for recommending the use of recombinant clotting factors has not yet been made. Plasma-derived clotting factors have had an excellent safety record".—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 546.]
46WH
If someone is born with a serious complaint and is infected with contaminated blood products provided by the national health service, is that person not entitled to the best support and treatment that we can give? Mr. Waring is in no doubt as to the superior quality of recombinant blood agents, and the Haemophilia Society has no doubt that they are superior. The Government themselves seem to have accepted that, because they decided that from April 1998 all 16-year-old haemophiliacs must be provided with recombinant factor 8 and that from April 1999 they must be provided with factor 9, which is another recombinant blood agent. If the Government are making a tacit admission that those agents are superior because they are safer, why cannot those drugs be made available to everyone?
Mr. Waring already has hepatitis C, and he might get more diseases, such as HIV or new variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, through future blood transfusions, so we should give him the best and safest products. As I have mentioned, some national health service trusts in England already do that, but sadly, not in the west country. For all its beauty and its outstanding Members of Parliament, the west country is not a good place to live if one is a haemophiliac suffering from hepatitis C. In a written answer on 10 May 2001, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath said that the Department was carefully considering the case for extending provision of re-clotting factors to all haemophiliac patients in England. Has any progress been made on that issue?
My third point is brief. The Haemophilia Society is calling for a public inquiry into how, in the 1970s and 1980s, so many people were infected with contaminated blood products. Given the recent scares over new variant CJD, people who are vulnerable to contamination from blood transfusions are entitled to know that we have got to the bottom of what went wrong and that every conceivable lesson has been learnt and every possible safeguard put in place. Last year, the then Minister said that there would be no public inquiry. I understand that, but the Government should think again. I do not want to be too controversial, but if we can hold a public inquiry into the Bloody Sunday incident from 25 years ago, is it really too late to hold an inquiry into this silent scandal, which affected so many lives?
My fourth point about compensation is the most important of all. Richard Waring accepts that nothing can be done to undo the past, but the impact on his life of his unwilling contamination has been very great. It has had a serious impact on his family life and his potential to earn a reasonable income and live the kind of life to which most of us aspire. Is it really too much to ask the Government to introduce a compensation package for the relatively small number of people who are suffering in that way? When the matter was raised in the House on 9 November 2000, the then Minister said:
"Government policy remains that compensation or other financial help to patients is paid when the NHS or individuals working in it are at fault. The underlying principles are clear cut and independently established under common law."—[Official Report, 9 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 457.]

47WH
As a lawyer, I recognise that. The relation between negligence and compensation in such action is well established. However, there are more and more exceptions to that rule. Notably, in 1987 the then Government decided that they would compensate people infected with HIV in very similar circumstances, and established the Macfarlane Trust to do that. Perhaps the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Government of the day did not accept legal responsibility for the fact that people had contracted HIV through blood transfusions, but seemed to accept that they had a moral responsibility to compensate people who, through no fault of their own, were given HIV. The problem may not have been the fault of the NHS—we have learned a lot more about screening blood products since then—but people suffered as a result.
If it was right to compensate HIV sufferers, why is it not right to provide a similar package for people who contracted hepatitis C in exactly the same way? Will the Minister deal specifically with that question? What possible justification can there be for treating HIV sufferers differently from those hepatitis C sufferers, given that the disease was contracted in just the same way, and the impact on a person's life can be just as great? Last week, I met some haemophiliacs at the House of Commons, as the Minister may have done. One of them told me that it would have been better if he had contracted HIV and not hepatitis C, because he would have had some financial help. It is terrible to hear someone say that. His life is in a mess as a result of contracting hepatitis C.
The Government were right in 1987 to provide financial help for HIV sufferers who had contracted the disease through blood transfusions, and they are right to talk about compensation for sufferers of new variant CJD who have acquired the disease in a similar way. Why cannot we do the same for sufferers of hepatitis C? If newspaper reports are to be believed, the Government are now considering compensation for families who witnessed the terrible events of 11 September, and who watched the planes knowing that members of their families worked in those buildings. I realise the impact that that would have had on them: one can never get over something like that. However, if the Government are prepared to consider compensation in a situation that was not their fault, why cannot they think again about the principles that apply to sufferers of hepatitis C? After all, negligence is not at issue, and litigation does not apply. Sufferers of hepatitis C are blameless. I sometimes think that we do too much for too many people who do not deserve support. Some groups of people, for whatever reason, have been overlooked. They deserve more support than they get.
It would be a popular decision if the Government were to reconsider the issue. That would be good news, not bad news. I have a petition signed by several hundred people in my constituency, who happen to know of the case and who feel strongly that the Government should put their hands in all our pockets to give more support to those who suffer in this way.
48WH
The Government have resisted claims for compensation before, and I understand that. However, the case is compelling and, inevitably, the Government will one day have to address the issue of compensation. I ask the Minister to respond as positively as she can and to think about the justice of the case. She must take whatever steps are necessary to put in place better local facilities and end the postcode lottery. She must also understand the need for an inquiry.
I am sure that the Minister's speech will be excellent and well worth hearing. However, whatever else she says, I hope that she will agree to think again about the situation of Mr. Waring and others who have suffered this injustice. I realise that Governments make decisions and run along the same track for years and years, but in this case a paradigm shift is required. I ask the Minister to think again and to come back with the welcome news for these 4,800 sufferers that the Government have seen the justice of their cause, believe that they deserve compensation and are willing to put a package in place.
12.48 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I thank the hon. Member for South-West Devon (Mr. Streeter) for raising this matter, and I pay tribute to him for the committed and passionate way in which he has represented the interests not only of his constituent, Mr. Waring, but of the wider group of people who, unfortunately and tragically, are in similar circumstances.
I hope to be able to deal with all the issues raised by the hon. Gentleman. He may have anticipated some of my comments, and they may not take him as far as he would like to go, but I shall deal with his points separately and in some detail, so that he will understand the Government's position.
Some 7,000 people with inherited bleeding disorders are registered with haemophilia centres in the United Kingdom. Those disorders include haemophilia A, which affects one in 10,000 men, the rarer haemophilia B which affects one in 50,000 men, and the milder von Willebrand's disease, which affects one in 10,000 men and women. Haemophilia is a lifelong, painful and debilitating condition. However, modern treatments are effective and many patients can look forward to a good quality of life. Sadly, during the late 1970s and early 1980s, as the hon. Gentleman said, the majority of regularly treated patients with haemophilia were infected with HIV or hepatitis C before it became possible to remove those viruses from clotting factors made from human plasma. As a result, about 3,000 haemophiliacs are estimated to be living with hepatitis C 500 of whom are also infected with HIV, and most of those with HIV are also infected with hepatitis C. That co-infection may accelerate the clinical course of both disorders as well as making the haemophilia more difficult to manage. People in those circumstances face considerable medical and psychological problems over and above the ordinary problems faced by people with haemophilia.
The Government have enormous sympathy for haemophiliacs in that situation, and it is essential that the NHS is properly geared to delivering the full range of clinical and support services needed by people with haemophilia and treatment-acquired infections. Those

49WH
include routine and emergency medical treatments, drug therapies, physiotherapy, counselling, which is crucial in such circumstances, genetic services and specialised services for HIV and hepatitis. As the hon. Gentleman said, the key need is for a range of high-quality services. He is right that specialist services are provided by a network of comprehensive care centres, but there are a range of smaller haemophilia centres that help to support the existing comprehensive care centres.
All haemophilia patients who need the care provided by a comprehensive care centre should have access to one. People, especially from the south-west, often have to travel a long way to gain access to the wide range of comprehensive services. Many of the hon. Gentleman's constituents have to travel to London or Oxford for that care. He rightly drew attention to the need to ensure that there is equity in the service, and that people who live in far-flung, disparate rural areas have access to as much comprehensive care as we can provide.
As the Minister with responsibility for the south-west region, I took time out in the summer to visit Plymouth, Exeter and Cornwall, and I appreciate the distances that people living in that part of the country have to travel. There is a tension between excellence and specialised services and local access throughout the country, but the problem is acute in the south-west region, which needs special attention. The Haemophilia Society has been drawing up a national service specification to inform the Government of the range of facilities that should be available to people with haemophilia and other acquired infections. The work of the Haemophilia Alliance, which comprises the Haemophilia Society and the UK Haemophilia Centre Doctors Organisation, is a sign of progress. People with these conditions and their medical specialists are drawing up the service specification that informs Government policy on how to put it in place.
The hon. Gentleman highlighted specialist service commissioning. The comprehensive care facilities offer extremely specialist services, and now that responsibility for commissioning is to be devolved to primary care trusts, it is necessary to ensure that they have sufficient expertise and guidance to undertake regional specialist commissioning of those highly specialised services. The issue must be kept at the top of their agenda. The development of the national service specification will ensure that the commissioning process is informed by a depth of knowledge about what the services should be like and where they should be located.
There must be enough patients to justify the provision of a comprehensive care centre in an area, and a balance has to be struck in ensuring that everyone has reasonable geographical access. However, a plan is being developed in the south-west for several haemophilia support centres rather than one, and for specialist facilities to be available in a range of centres so that within the region there will be access to the full range of facilities normally found in a comprehensive care centre. Rather than drawing provision into one geographical centre, each centre could specialise in a service. That may be a way of overcoming the problem of insufficient patients to merit a comprehensive care centre.
50WH
We must be more innovative, flexible and creative in our development of services so that they are appropriate to the needs of people in areas such as the south-west. That theme is emerging not just in haemophilia services, but in the full range of NHS services. An attempt is being made to meet the requirements of disparate areas, where transport is a real problem, by departing from set models of care and taking more flexible and innovative approaches—what might be termed hub and spoke arrangements, whereby spokes radiate out from the hub into the community, allowing people access to facilities.
On recombinant clotting factors, as the hon. Gentleman said, synthetic clotting factors have been developed in the past 10 years. The Haemophilia Society and British haemophilia doctors have actively pressed for factor 8 and factor 9 to be the treatment of choice for people with haemophilia. I understand why people want that. Recombinant products are regarded as free from the risk of transmission of as yet unknown viruses and from the theoretical risk of variant CJD. People with haemophilia are very worried about the likelihood of future risks and the incidence of HIV and hepatitis C.
The unavailability of recombinant factor products is not a matter simply of funding. Worryingly, there is a world shortage of those products. Along with the medical profession, we have been directing our energies to the management of existing products so that they are given to the people most suited to receive them. That was one of the reasons why children under 16 and new haemophiliacs were priorities for recombinant products. We are actively considering whether recombinant clotting factors should be the treatment of choice for all haemophiliacs, although that is not possible at the moment because of the world shortage, as a consequence of which some children have been temporarily switched back to the plasma-derived clotting factors. We are keen to get children back on to recombinant factors as a priority as soon as the supply of those products improves.
I am afraid that my response on compensation will be disappointing. As the hon. Gentleman said, successive Governments have considered the matter and established the principle that compensation payments are made when the NHS has done something wrong. Whether such actions fit the technical definition of negligence, the principle is that compensation is paid only when the NHS is at fault. The hon. Gentleman highlighted the issues of HIV and CJD compensation. Those cases were truly exceptional and have been considered in depth. In the late 1980s, HIV had a vast and dramatic effect: it carried huge stigma, no treatment was available and sufferers almost invariably died of AIDS-related diseases. The prognosis for people with HIV at that time was virtually nil. The circumstances were therefore exceptional, and it was in that context that the Macfarlane Trust was established and payments made. The circumstances of and background to variant CJD are also exceptional. Such circumstances do not change our long-standing policy on compensation for injuries caused by the NHS: the hon. Gentleman said that he understood the logic and reasoning behind that policy. I understand his strength of feeling on the matter, but I cannot say that there will be any change in the position.

51WH
The hon. Gentleman requested a public inquiry. I understand the strength of feeling of people infected with hepatitis C, who want to know how and why it happened. We have given careful consideration to the issue of a public inquiry, and it has been raised at numerous meetings and in correspondence. We have explored the possibility, but I am not in a position to promise a public inquiry into this matter. However, I believe that it is vital that the health services available to those with hepatitis C, HIV or haemophilia are of the highest possible quality. I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's wish to improve those services in his region. We must ensure that combination therapy is available to sufferers, that there is good local specialist commissioning and that those health services are improved.

Prisoner Rehabilitation
1 pm
Mr. Graham Allen: It is a pleasure to be here in Westminster Hall, Mr. Winterton. This is my first time. As someone who has come blinking into the sunlight from the Whips Office, I am once again participating as a full Member. I look forward to your gentle guidance as I stumble through the procedures. I sent the Minister a copy of my speech yesterday to try to be helpful. It is also available on my website and through e-mail at Allengw @Parliament.uk. Essentially, there are three points that I should like to make. I shall make them very briefly so that the Minister can have as much time as she wishes to put her views on the record.
First, I should like the Government to outline the state of play with regard to the rehabilitation of prisoners and their proposals to improve rehabilitation. My second point, which I have already raised with the Minister, is about personal rehabilitation plans for each prisoner. The Prime Minister outlined several months ago that the hard core of recidivist prisoners have three things in common. First, they have a problem with literacy and numeracy. Secondly, they have a high propensity to drug problems. Thirdly, they have problems in their family background.
I should like the Minister to consider seriously introducing a personal prisoner plan for most prisoners—it probably would not apply to all—in which they would be set targets that they would be helped to meet. They could thus become more literate and more aware of the problems of drug abuse, and could develop the personal and emotional skills to allow them to reenter society and not to go back into prison. Prison does not work. The statistics make that clear. Our exploding prison population gives eloquent testimony to that.
Finally, I should like to refer to a scheme that does not take place in prison but which helps those who are trying to reduce prison numbers, and that is the youth offender panels. Youth offender panels have been an immense success in Nottinghamshire. I shall explain the scheme briefly. The panel consists of volunteers from the community. They meet offenders in the 10–17 age group who have pleaded guilty. The offenders bring along their parents and the victim is present. They are challenged by the volunteers about their behaviour and what they intend to do to become better citizens, so they do not need better rehabilitation in prison because they do not get to prison.
The Nottinghamshire scheme is important and I hope that it has come to my hon. Friend's attention. I would like to praise it publicly in Parliament and also, if I may, ask that people who listen to this debate participate in this valuable scheme, which helps to get young people back on the rails before they end up in prison needing expensive and serious rehabilitation.
With those brief remarks, I will leave as much time as possible to my hon. Friend the Minister. If it is appropriate and acceptable, I may intervene on occasions. Incidentally, I do not expect her to go all the way to half-past 1 if she has not been given an enormous brief to take her there.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I believe that this is the first time that I have been in the Chair in

53WH
Westminster Hall when a Member who has raised an important subject has spoken so briefly and sent his speech to the Minister prior to the debate. I can only express hope on behalf of the hon. Gentleman that the Minister will deal with the matter fully, in detail and to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction.
1.05 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Angela Eagle): We have seen another aspect of the evolution of Parliament in the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) introduced the debate. I thank him for giving me notice of the issues that he wanted to raise. I hope that his speech will appear in its entirety on his website, because I have just been told that the Parliamentary Data and Video Network is down and in total chaos. Equipment updates are causing it problems, and I hope that his speech will be restored to the web quickly, as well as our electronic services, which we desperately need.
The hon. Gentleman has got to the nub of the question of reducing reoffending and trying to turn the tide of increases in our prison population in past years. I am not one of those Ministers who thinks that a rising prison population is a cause for great rejoicing. Some Home Office Ministers may have thought that in the past, but I hope they do not return in the future. Clearly, we must do what we can to battle crime and ensure that those who perpetrate it are appropriately punished. The public must be protected from those who pose a danger to the society that we cherish. However, if we want to get crime rates down and have a long-standing effect, we must reduce reoffending. We must put a lot of work into rehabilitation, so that we get people, especially younger people, off the path on to which they have stumbled before they damage themselves, their families and society as a whole.
Clearly, prison has a role in rehabilitation. We want to give people the skills and motivation to rebuild their lives, so that they do not reoffend. The Prison Service, the national probation service and other groups are working hard to achieve that. They share a target of reducing the reconviction rate of those serving custodial or community sentences by 5 per cent. by April 2004 compared with the predicted rate. A substantial agenda of joint work is in hand to achieve the target, and my hon. Friend mentioned the areas on which we must focus—basic skills, drug addiction and offending behaviour. Offending behaviour may result from rage, or an inability to express anger or violence in childhood. There may be many reasons for such socially unacceptable behaviour.
We do not underestimate the problems, and we must concentrate on the hard core of people who keep reoffending. Like my hon. Friend, I praise the Nottinghamshire youth offender panel. It has been a pioneer in the establishment of a central feature of our youth justice reforms. Juvenile offenders who appear in the youth court for the first time and plead guilty can be referred to a youth offender panel comprising trained volunteers from the local community and the local youth offending team.
The panel agrees a contract with the young person, perhaps providing some structure in their lives for the first time. The contract often involves reparation to the
54WH
victim or the community for the offence. Other activities may be specified that address the offending behaviour and associated factors. If young offenders do not follow the contract, they can be returned to court for resentencing. The Nottingham project piloted and pioneered this highly successful approach. Because of its success across England and Wales, we intend to implement youth offender panels in April 2002.
I visited the youth offending teams in my own constituency and met some of the mentors. Young offenders, often for the first time in their lives, have someone who is not from officialdom or from their family who is interested in them and able to provide support and guidance as they struggle to come to terms with the change in their lives.
Mr. Allen: People in Nottinghamshire and the east midlands will be pleased to hear the Minister's strong encouragement of youth offender panels. It is often the last chance for 10 to 17-year-olds to break away from a path that leads inevitably to prison. As an aside, the volunteers on youth offender panels who help to tackle these young people's problems and get them back on the straight and narrow are the motivators, the mentors and the gold dust without whom the schemes cannot work. I hope that people reading the debate will reflect on whether they could spend some of their precious time helping out on youth offender panels, which would help young people not just in Nottingham, but throughout the UK.
Angela Eagle: I agree with those sentiments. I was struck by the degree of satisfaction enjoyed by individuals who agree to mentor young offenders. When it works, it is extraordinarily rewarding, so I would encourage those who feel that they have a contribution to make to get in touch with their local youth offending teams to offer their support.
I should like to deal with the scale of the problem of the social exclusion of offenders, to which my hon. Friend referred in his opening remarks. The figures show that one key aspect of effective resettlement that can make reoffending less likely is getting individuals back into jobs and into stable housing conditions. That is often difficult when people leave prison. It is less easy for people who have been in prison to obtain employment.
Some figures show the scale of the problem: only 50 per cent. of prisoners have reading skills; only 30 per cent. numeracy skills; and only 20 per cent. the writing skills necessary to apply for 96 per cent. of jobs. Basic skills training, for which extra money has been provided, is the key to making the prospect of resettlement and a reduction of reoffending a reality—both for those in prison and those working with them.
My hon. Friend is right that the people who are likely to end up in prison are those who have been in care or institutionalised in other ways, which makes it difficult for them to live independently in the community. Mental health and drug-related problems and low levels of basic skills are also factors. Once those problems are taken into account, it becomes clear what we should focus the extra money that we are spending on trying to bring down levels of reoffending.
Mr. Allen: People watching or listening to the debate may say, "Here we go. The Government are being soft

55WH
on prisoners and giving them an easy time. Now we're going to teach them to read and goodness knows what else." In fact, it is very demanding for someone to tackle a drug habit, or for someone who was frightened by school and probably opted out of it to try to achieve challenging educational goals within the prison system. We can almost hear the ghosts in the distance saying that we are being soft on these people. In fact, rehabilitation is designed to keep people out of prison in future by making them better citizens and more able to look after themselves, rather than to keep recycling them through the prison system, which is very expensive. That will greatly benefit everyone who may be under threat of crime.
Angela Eagle: Clearly, if we contemplate the cost of keeping people in prison, on and off, for most of their lives, we realise that the prison system is a far more expensive option. If we can make these policies work, we will take some people out of the system. I do not want to become too philosophical, but there will always be some recidivists whom it is very difficult to rehabilitate. To some extent, we are not as interested in them as in the people whom we can help. We are trying to give those people practical opportunities. It is no good telling people that they should reform if we do not give them practical ways in which they can transform their lives.
We are investing an extra £18 million in prison education over the spending-review period, which will deliver 23,400 nationally recognised qualifications in literacy and numeracy at level 2 or higher. Last year, 12,462 qualifications were achieved. The target is for a rise to 36,000 at the end of the spending review process. That will make some people literate and numerate for the first time and therefore much more employable than before.
We are spending an extra £88 million under the Prison Service drugs strategy to ensure that we help almost 6,000 prisoners a year to enter drug rehabilitation programmes. Clearly, that will deal with some of the issues that have been raised.
We are spending an extra £16 million over the same period—2001–04—on the continued extension of independently accredited offending behaviour programmes. The number of completions is targeted to rise to almost 9,000 by the end of that period. We hope that, by focusing on the areas in which prisoners have difficulties, we will reduce the likelihood of reoffending in many thousands of cases.
We await the Social Exclusion Unit's study on reducing reoffending to provide us with further impetus in the development of our integrated inter-agency action zone resettlements. That includes an investment by the Employment Service of £1 million a year from this financial year to strengthen links with prisons. Often, the Benefits Agency does not know that a prisoner is coming out. A place to live and housing benefit claims could be sorted out before the prisoner leaves. Everyone knows the release date, but agencies have not been working together. Clearly, the prospect of reoffending rises significantly if the individual is just turned out of
56WH
prison on to the streets without support, so a place on a training course or a structure in which he can look for work is necessary.
Mr. Allen: I am sure that the Minister will deal with two important points. The first is about personalisation of a plan for the prisoner. My hon. Friend spoke about the global amounts of money that are allocated to education, drug awareness, and so on. That is welcome, but devising a personal plan is important if initiatives are to be practical and real for the individual. I would be interested in the Minister's remarks about that.
Secondly, would the Minister discuss the culture in prisons and the value of prison officers, education officers, probation officers and others who perform education and rehabilitation work? Again, I welcome the additional resources, but it is important not only that we keep prisoners under control and locked away, but that we value those who undertake education and rehabilitation work—unusual, at the moment—in the Prison Service.
Angela Eagle: Certainly. I was just about to deal with personal plans as part of a seamless sweep across the whole structure. All young offenders and those aged 21 and above who are serving sentences of at least a year are subject to arrangements for sentence planning and post-release supervision, which involve the probation service and youth offending teams. Such arrangements include joint action to tackle offending behaviour problems, and address practical issues such as employment and accommodation. Post-release supervision follows up and reinforces the work that is done in prison.
However, short-sentence prisoners—those who are serving under a year—may, depending on whether they were on remand, end up in prison for less than three months, and certainly no more than six months, by the time sentence has been passed. That is not always enough time to get to grip with their problems.
The recent Halliday report proposed a framework for short-sentence prisoners. It suggested a new sentence of custody plus, which would involve a substantial amount of custody planning and post-release supervision for those serving short custodial sentences. The number of such prisoners is a significant proportion of the overall figure, and we are considering how to deal with them in light of the Halliday proposals, the consultation and the responses that we have received. We must get to grips with that issue.
In my time in government, I have often had to tackle cultures in institutions. Closed institutions such as prisons have a stronger sense of their own culture than organisations that are more open. Despite the large increase in prison numbers, we have managed to maintain the 24 hours a week average that prisoners spend on purposeful activities. That average is not as large as I would personally like but, given the rapidly increasing numbers of prisoners, our commitment is shown by the fact that the amount of activity that is arranged for individuals has not fallen. In allocating extra resources for education, we must maintain the focus on ensuring that prisoners spend their time in a purposeful and useful way, which increases their chances of being able to avoid reoffending after they leave.

57WH
If my hon. Friend wants me to praise those who educate people in prison, I certainly will; if he wants me to say something about their salaries, that might be a bit harder. We obviously value those who carry out that work, because we want to give prisoners a chance to reform.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend is extremely generous in giving way again. Sentence remission is often automatic in personal plans. If prisoners behave themselves and keep their noses clean, they may get a third off their sentence. Will the Minister consider linking personal achievement to remission? A prisoner may have worked damned hard with courage and determination to achieve a low level of literacy, or broken a long-standing drug habit. It may also be linked to the prisoner's category, so that people can claw their way to a better life and have that achievement recognised while in prison.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Before the Minister replies, may I say that I allowed the hon. Member for Nottingham, North long interventions because he was brief in his opening remarks? I hope that that does not set a precedent.
Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend's idea is interesting and I will regard it as a submission to the Halliday review. I will ensure that that goes back to my ministerial colleagues and those who are considering our response to the Halliday review, because we want to encourage positive behaviour, and what he said was logical. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue.
The Government are investing in public services, but they are also reforming and developing them so that the money is used well. The Prison Service is part of that programme, and focusing on reducing offending behaviour is a more efficient use of money than putting people into prison, locking the door and throwing away the key. As long as the public are protected, it is cheaper to reform offenders and reduce reoffending.
Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend seems to be ending her remarks. This subject is so important for people in our constituencies. It is important to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Salford (Ms Blears), and the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), who are both present, and to all of us, that we crack the problem. When people are arrested, it must not be the first occasion of many on which they go to prison, but the first occasion that enables us to prevent them from going to prison again.
Finally, I would like to thank the Minister for her positive response, and you, Mr. Winterton, and the staff of Westminster Hall, for helping a novice through his first debate here.
Angela Eagle: My hon. Friend has raised an important matter. Unless we tackle reoffending, we will not reduce crime levels and maintain that reduction. The number of ex-prisoners who reoffend is a large percentage of those committing crime. If we crack that problem, we will see a sea change in the crime figures, which we are all working to achieve. Despite some early signs of success, I would not underestimate the problems. Already 12,500 prisoners have achieved level 2 literacy and numeracy qualifications. We have also promoted random drug testing, and the number of those who tested positive fell from 24.5 per cent in 1996–97 to 12 per cent. Drug use in prison has reduced dramatically. The number of completions of accredited offending behaviour programmes rose from 1,373 in 1996 to nearly 6,000 in 2001. We are on the right track. It is a difficult issue, and we have to focus our resources, our creativity and our attention on it. I hope that we shall succeed.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): It has been a different debate—one might almost say unique. We now come to the final debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick), on the traditional medicines directive—a subject in which the hon. Gentleman has been involved for a long time.

Traditional Medicines Directive
1.30 pm
Mr. David Tredinnick: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Winterton, for that kind introduction. I cannot say that I have caught your eye—we all know that these debates are balloted—but I am grateful to have this opportunity to debate such a vital issue at this important time. It is also a pleasure to see the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Salford (Ms Blears), in her place.
Many herbal products are sold in the United Kingdom under section 12 of the Medicines Act 1968 as medicines not requiring a product licence. Those products are regarded by some regulators as technically illegal under European Union law, but I shall not go down that route today. The proposal for a traditional medicines directive would allow a product licence to be given to herbal medicines without proof of efficacy, provided that they are safe, have been traditionally used for 30 years—the current proposal suggests that at least 15 of those years must have been in Europe—and that they are produced to good manufacturing practice standards.
I suggest that regulation on the subject should aim to establish a new system that provides the consumer with assurance on the safety and quality of the products that they purchase, and enables information on the purpose of the products to be given. However, individuals and organisations in the UK, including the Health Food Manufacturers Association, the European Herbal Practitioners Association and the Consumers for Health Choice—umbrella bodies that represent many interests—are concerned that the directive no longer does what it set out to do.
The problem is that, as the directive has developed, it has changed direction. Its criteria now rule out many safe and popular products that are on the market. That leaves many products in limbo, because although they are regarded as medicines they are unable to meet the criteria for registration. The consequence will be that many valued products will be removed from the market and thus denied to the consumers who wish to use them.
The traditional medicines directive is now in its third informal draft. The first formal draft is due to be published by the Commission soon. If the Minister is to act, it is vital that she does so speedily. The title of the latest draft is significantly different. What earlier drafts called the "directive on traditional medicinal products" is now entitled the "directive on traditional herbal medicinal products". Thus the new directive will not accommodate those traditional medicines derived from mineral or animal sources. Traditional medicines from India, China, Pakistan and Tibet that use natural products of animal or mineral origin will therefore have no place—especially if we do not use them now. That does not seem to be a scientific decision, and the Commission needs to redraft the directive so that it can include traditionally used medicinal products of non-plant origins. The decision whether to include such products should be taken on scientific grounds alone.
The directive has become very Eurocentric. In its present form, it runs the risk of being branded Eurocentric because it will prevent a full range of
60WH
traditional medicinal products from ancient medical traditions—Chinese and ayurvedic—from being placed on the European market.
Another problem is that there must be evidence of usage for 30 years, of which 15 must have been in the European Union. Furthermore, many companies have gone out of business or changed hands, and many new companies marketing old products have not been around for 15 years, let alone 30. That problem will be overcome if we apply that qualification not so much to the product but to the active ingredients—the constituents of the product.
Thirty years is a long time, so it will be difficult for manufacturers to meet that requirement. As a result, it will be impossible for other traditional medicines to enter the United Kingdom market, as they will not qualify under the 15-year rule. I fear that many traditional products—we may not know about some of them—will be blocked, which is highly unsatisfactory. As drafted, the directive applies to traditional products. The industry's view is that it should refer to traditional ingredients because, although data will support a long history of use of ingredients, they are less likely to be available for products. There are also concerns that the directive is drafted in such a way that it could not be used to register products from non-EU traditions.
Although the current draft is called the "traditional medicinal products directive", its scope will probably be restricted to herbals. I cannot see what else could happen. At a stroke, that would make the many products that combined herbals with food nutrients ineligible and would rule out many important and popular combinations produced in traditional Chinese and ayurvedic medicine.
There are concerns that the standards proposed for registration under the directive will be too difficult for manufacturers to meet. That issue needs to be addressed, as there will be serious problems if the industry simply gives up trying to register products that are already saleable.
The directive should be a major step forward, but it no longer looks as though it will help. Indeed, it now seems to threaten many herbal remedies. It would require natural herbal medicines to comply with strict pharmaceutical testing procedures that are completely inappropriate for such naturally occurring substances. Especially at risk are blends of herbs with vitamins and minerals, which the Medicines Control Agency argues should be classed as medicines requiring a full licence if the herbal ingredient is at therapeutic levels.
One expert said to me in a written submission:
"What is needed with regard to regulation in this area is either a Directive that can be used by a broad range of unlicensed products currently on the market or, if EU agreement for this cannot be achieved, appropriate national rules for products unable to achieve EU registrations."
If such a measure could not be implemented, the effects on industry in terms of employment, survival and growth, and on the consumer in terms of restriction of choice, would be extremely serious.
Another expert told me:
"As the Commission is likely to press ahead rapidly with this revised draft, it is essential that trade associations and companies fully appreciate its possible consequences. It is unlikely to have any significant benefit for firms in a large number of EU countries,

61WH
and it could have a serious effect on the market in those countries currently enjoying relative freedom for the sale of herbal products."
If ever there was an amber light for a Minister, and if ever a Back Bencher fired a Verey light to alert the Government to a problem, surely this is it.
You were generous in your remarks, Mr. Winterton, about the interest that I have shown in the subject in the House during the past almost 15 years. I warn the Minister to take great note of what I say, as the subject is worrying.
The consultation exercise by the Medicines Control Agency on a proposal to extend the list of potent or toxic ingredients that are not permitted in unlicensed herbal medicines has an indirect bearing on the directive. We need to educate the Department and the agency on the fundamentals of Chinese medicine. It works by combining as many as 15 herbs. It is nonsense to test one herb to see whether it is safe, because others are often included in a recipe to counteract side effects. It is meaningless to test in isolation a herb that is part of a prescription. I gather from one source that formulating
"various herbs into a recipe is the essential way to treat diseases in clinical practice of Chinese herbal medicine."
Usually, between four and 15 herbs are used. Practitioners believe that it is fortunate that their ancestors have left them so many effective formulae, which have been tested over thousands of years in clinical practice. Doctors in this country have been regulated for more than 100 hundred years, but Chinese medicine is based on thousands of years of experience. When people say that there is no evidence to support such remedies, I ask, "What about the anecdotal evidence?" Are we so misguided as to adopt an imperious, if not imperial, attitude towards countries that have used such remedies for such a long time?
Why must herbs be used together to treat a disease? A single herb usually cannot resolve a complex disease, so to do so Chinese medicine must combine several herbs with similar or different therapeutic effects. The basic principles behind combining herbs are co-ordination and mutual restriction. In co-ordination, two or more herbs with similar therapeutic functions or two or more herbs with different therapeutic functions are combined to strengthen their curative effects. Mutual restriction is quite technical, but important. It means that one herb inhibits or relieves the side effects or toxicity of another. Combining herbs is, therefore, the art of selecting two or more herbs with a clinical purpose that is the crux of the matter. Mutual restriction means that one herb can inhibit or relieve the side effects or toxicity of another, but well-known Chinese herbs that should be used only as part of specific combinations are now being taken off the market in Britain, and will be taken off elsewhere in Europe, too. A senior Chinese practitioner told me last week, "David, it is so sad. It is a disaster for us. We simply cannot treat some conditions. The Medicines Control Agency foolishly banned substances on the ground that they were toxic if used on their own. But they are not toxic if used as we use them."
Traditionally, there are four methods of combining herbs in Chinese medicine. It is a pity that the Minister is not a former Whip because the language involved might have appealed to her. Generally, practitioners talk of using a chief herb, a deputy chief herb, an assistant herb
62WH
and an envoy to achieve curative results. That would go down well in the Whips Office, where there is a Chief Whip and a deputy. The chief herb is used to produce the leading effects in treating the cause. The deputy herb has two purposes: first, it helps the chief, just as the deputy does in the Whips Office; and, secondly, it is used to produce the leading effects in the treatment.
The assistant herb strengthens the therapeutic effects of the chief and deputy herbs, and treats less important symptoms by itself. It is also used to prevent the possible toxic side effects of the chief and deputy chief herbs—the very side effects for which the MCA has banned these herbs. Finally, the assistant may possess opposite properties to those of the chief herb, and may be used to deal with possible adverse reactions in serious cases where the herbal tea has too potent an effect.
The fourth constituent is the envoy, which we do not have in the Whips Office, although there are perhaps such things in the diplomatic service. The envoy herb works in two ways, as the medicinal guide and as the conductor. As the guide, it leads the other herbs in the formula—the chief, the deputy and the assistant—to the affected parts of the body. As the conductor, it harmonises them, co-ordinating the effects of the various herbs. I do not think that anybody on the expert panels—except, perhaps, one person—is capable of making such assessments, and that is a fundamental problem.
The easy way out is to say that all the herbs should be tested on their own. However, as I hope that I have shown by giving the House the benefit of this briefing from one of the leading Chinese medical institutions, that policy is nonsense and must be looked at again. I have been through the problems that we face with the medicines control directive, not least because it has been renamed, because the 30-year period is beyond reason, and because if we do not address the issue now, products will be removed from the shelves in many shops and pharmacies across the country at a time of public demand for greater access to them. The blame will lie fairly and squarely at the door of the hon. Lady and the Government.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Ms Hazel Blears): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) for having raised the important matter of the proposed European directive on traditional medicines. This is an opportune time for the debate because we are expecting the European Commission to make formal proposals. As the hon. Gentleman said, several unofficial drafts of the directive have already been issued.
I should like to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Gentleman. I have not been in the House for 15 years, but I am aware that he has raised such issues regularly and he brings to the subject great knowledge and expertise. I have learned some things today that I was not aware of before the debate. I should also like to record our appreciation of the helpful contribution of the many herbalists, manufacturers and people involved in the industry to the preparation of the directive. It is important for us in the Department of Health to look outwards to the industry, to consumers and to the range of people with direct experience of how medicines work.

63WH
There has been a constructive dialogue between the industry and consumers and the Medicines Control Agency. I understand that there are tensions, but it is important for dialogue to continue, otherwise we shall be operating in isolation from each other. I hope that today's debate will contribute to the effort to identify both the weaknesses of existing arrangements for regulation and what might be done to improve the regulatory framework for herbal medicines. As a result of the dialogue, and of the information that we have, the UK has been able to play a prominent role among member states in arguing the case for the reform of European law to provide a secure regulatory home for traditional herbal medicines.
It is widely acknowledged that the current, unlicensed system is a very weak legal basis for regulation, and there has been a search for a more secure regulatory framework. To give a simple example of the problem, a consumer might find two apparently similar, unlicensed herbal remedies at a local health store. One might be made to high standards, following good manufacturing practice, and the other might be a low-quality product. However, the consumer has no way of knowing which is which. Product information can vary widely between two apparently similar products. The consumer cannot tell which is the more reliable and effective product.
The hon. Gentleman gave examples of unlicensed herbal medicines that contain products that pose a risk to public health. The Government must be mindful of striking the right balance and ensuring that the public are protected. By implication, he mentioned the ingredient aristolochia, a toxic herbal ingredient used in traditional Chinese medicine. It has been known to cause renal failure and cancer. I understand that there is documented evidence of that. It has happened not just here but elsewhere in Europe and, indeed, in China.
Mr. Tredinnick: The Minister makes a valid point. That ingredient was over-prescribed in Belgium, but one case does not necessarily make good law. The Minister must consider my explanation, which described how proper Chinese practitioners often use ingredients that can be toxic in one situation but are beneficial in another. That is the real issue.
Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman's explanation about the chief, the deputy, the assistant and the envoy gives a clear picture of the complex interaction of herbs, and I understand his point. However, the Government have a responsibility, when serious public health issues arise, to protect the public from toxic ingredients. I expect that the hon. Gentleman would accept that.
Another example of what I am concerned about involved Chinese skin creams that were found to contain prescription-only steroids. That is a serious matter. They were being used on children, and I do not think that any hon. Members would want such a state of affairs. I do not say that that is typical, but cases arise in which the Government need to take action.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the traditional Chinese medicine sector will have every opportunity to contribute to discussions about the ingredients that should be licensed and regulated. There is no intention
64WH
of making the process exclusive, and one in which the Medicines Control Agency adopts a "we know best" attitude and imposes its views. We want to be inclusive and to consult people, because we want to reach the right result. That is the most important thing for the public, including people who want access to traditional herbal medicines.
The directive is being developed to provide a secure regulatory framework, so that consumers can be assured on quality, safety and a history of use. Those factors will enable them to have trust and faith in a product, and reassure them that it is not completely untested and undependable. We are keen to ensure that people representing all the traditional sectors are represented in our consultations. Responsible herbalists are concerned that proper standards should be built into the system. For the sake of their reputations and the conduct of their business, they want standards to be raised to enable the public to depend on the products in question.
We have three main aims. We want the public to have continued access to a wide range of safe, good quality, traditional herbal remedies, we want consumers to receive systematic information to enable them to take the right decisions; and we want the regulatory framework to be established, so that we can safeguard the long-term future of various herbal traditions, which are greatly valued by many people. We should not underestimate that.
As to the requirement for 30 years of traditional use, the United Kingdom has pressed strongly for account to be taken of use outside the European Union as well as within it. Remedies must be safe and meet the normal quality standards, and people need information about them, but it is important to draw on the experience of other cultures and the use of herbs outside Europe. I understand that some European countries have good, well-documented histories of traditional use. In France and Germany there is a good base of information on which we should be able to draw.
We also want to ensure that as well as traditional Chinese medicines, ayurvedic medicines, which, I understand, originated in India, should be available. The idea is to find the right balance and, without compromising on safety or quality, to permit access to a wide range of traditional remedies that might help people to improve their health.
We are aware that many people in the industry would like the directive to extend further than it does at present. The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of combinations of herbal and non-herbal items. The difficulty is that consensus across the European Union about extending the directive to cover that would be unlikely. Our prime objective is to find a safe regulatory framework for traditional herbal medicines. Combination products cannot be sold as an unlicensed medicine, although many can be sold as a food if they contain vitamin and mineral supplements, and we should ensure that they can continue to be sold in that way. However, we should focus on what we can achieve within the confines of the directive, which has widespread support, although I accept the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Tredinnick: What the hon. Lady says will be reassuring if combination medicines can be sold under existing legislation. If she can assure us that that is the case, she will remove many of the concerns expressed by the representative groups.
Ms Blears: Some of the combination products can be sold as foods under the legislation, as I said, and that position will continue. I can also give an assurance that, as the Commission's proposals proceed, the Medicines Control Agency will continue to consult the herbal sector. Last week, a useful meeting took place with representatives from the industry's herbal registration forum. We have established a group considering specifically ethnic medicines, and we also have an ethnic medicines forum. Plenty of discussion and consultation is taking place, which is key to getting the maximum benefit from the directive to secure the future of traditional herbal remedies in this country. People rely on those remedies and value them for improving their health.
There should be many more such meetings, which will help to inform our negotiating position when we go to Europe, and will enable us to speak from a position of strength, based on evidence in the field. We look forward to keeping in regular contact with those groups.
We are cautiously optimistic that the directive and the proposals will achieve the objectives that we have set for safety, quality, information and a good regulatory framework. Many in the herbal sector have been hoping for such an approach for a long time. Those operators who fail to operate systematic quality standards will have to raise their sights considerably to meet the requirements of the new scheme, which is good because it will bring consistency into the industry. Consumers will be able to rely on the quality of the products that they are purchasing, which will benefit the public and the many responsible operators. It will make for a good regulatory framework, and could lead to greater
66WH
stability in the industry and increased public confidence in the products on offer. The industry has little to fear because setting up a proper regulatory framework will mean that the products have a standard of guaranteed quality on which people can rely. We should take the best scientific advice that we can find.
The hon. Member for Bosworth raised interesting issues about the combination in which some products are provided. I undertake to do more work on those issues, because it is important that we consider matters not only in isolation but across the piece. I will take those issues away with me for consideration, and acquire some further information.
Mr. Tredinnick: I am grateful for that assurance. Will the Minister also consider the proposed 30-year role, which may restrict the number of companies that can register their products?
Ms Blears: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about the 30-year rule, but persuading Europe that 30 years is not an appropriate period may be difficult, to say the least, so we must consider what we can reasonably hope to achieve. A 15-year rule exists for use in the European Union, and there is a possibility of looking outside the European Union to make up for the 30-year rule. Trying to make the period shorter than that would pose severe difficulties, especially in achieving a consensus on the directive across Europe. It is difficult to achieve consensus within the European Union, but we are anxious to do so in the interests of consumers, the public and the industry to ensure that quality products are available on which people can rely for their traditional value. We must provide a good regulatory framework to sustain products that have been of such great benefit to so many people.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.