---

Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras): Does the Secretary of State accept that his statement and document are long on pious concern, which sits uncomfortably with the fact that the Conservative Government, who have claimed for 17 years to be the party of rural England, have encouraged out-of-town development, whether it be housing, super-stores, warehousing or leisure centres? He commends the idea that local people should make decisions themselves, but was not much of that out-of-town development pushed through by Ministers, who overrode the decisions of local councils?

Does the Secretary of State accept that we welcome the recognition that something has gone wrong, but deplore the fact that he does not seem to have decided to do anything about it? Does he not realise that the problem of people leaving cities is not just a planning and housing matter? It is necessary to deal with the reasons why people leave cities--usually to seek a better quality of life.

Does the Secretary of State not accept that the years of failure by the Government to do anything about the problems of air pollution, rising crime, schools and hospital services in urban areas, other than to close those hospitals, have made things worse? Will he confirm that, last year, the Budget reduced the funds available for hospitals, schools and police in urban areas? What will happen in tomorrow's Budget? [Laughter.] It is no good the Secretary of State mouthing pieties today and allowing the Chancellor of the Exchequer to kick the bottom out of his pieties in the Budget tomorrow.

The Secretary of State will, I am sure, accept that we have long advocated more building on brown-field sites and more people coming back to live in flats above shops. Will he confirm that Tory central office arranged for Tory candidates to denounce us for advocating that? Does he not accept that there are limits on building in already built-up areas, that it costs more per house, that, with higher densities, maintenance costs are higher, and that problems can arise for householders if buildings have been erected on polluted land--for instance, on what were formerly landfill sites? Will he contemplate changes in the law to protect householders who acquire homes on brown-field sites?

Does the Secretary of State accept that not all open land in urban areas can be built on, that many green-field sites in urban areas are precious, and that more are needed to

25 Nov 1996 : Column 48

provide playing fields and sports grounds for existing town dwellers to keep up the quality of life, which may stop them moving out of the area? He says that not all sites are ripe for development, but does he accept that people are unlikely to accept his promises when 5,000 playing fields have been sold under the Government and 2,600 more are threatened with sell-off?

Does the Secretary of State recall that, on the "Today" programme this morning, he said that he would provide more money for urban areas when that is not true, and that tomorrow's Budget is likely to reduce the amount of money that goes to social housing? According to the Government's present plans, 1.8 million houses will be built on green-field sites. The Secretary of State aspires to just 40 per cent. of the new houses that are needed being built on green-field sites. That would mean that he aspires to building 1.5 million houses on green-field sites, concentrated particularly in the south-west, eastern and south-east regions. This is not the end of building in rural areas as we know it.

We welcome a debate, but the Secretary of State should remember the here and now. He wants to hit the target of a further 3.7 million houses by 2016, but is he not obliged to accept that he is building only 137,000 a year, at which rate, by 2016 we would be 1 million short of his announced target? Does not that expose his document for what it is--fine words, pious objectives and pious aspiration--but, when it comes to something practical, the Government are nowhere to be seen?

Mr. Gummer: I will stick to the here and now. I had hoped that we would be able to have a common view on this, but, as the hon. Gentleman decided that we are going to have a party political debate, I will remind him why Britain's cities have driven people out. It is because they have had Labour councils, which have made it more and more difficult for people to live in them. There has been greater crime in cities, because the Labour party has voted solidly against any measure against crime. It is soft on crime, and not hard on the criminal.

The Labour party says that we have done nothing about air pollution, but it has improved every year because of our policies, which are the most advanced in Europe. Within 10 years, we will have overtaken any country. Of course the Labour party does not know what happens in the rest of Europe, and clearly it does not know what happens in Britain, given that last series of questions.

The Labour party voted against everything that has raised education standards in schools. It was against league tables and any improvement in the school system. It was against city technical colleges and everything that has changed the face of education for the better in our cities. How the hon. Gentleman dares to make such party political points, I do not know. They might be all right for speeches in Camden, where the people have forgotten how much Camden borough council has contributed to the desolation of that area of London.

Since we are talking about contributions to cities, what about Lambeth's contribution to the improvement of life in the city? What about Islington, where the education is so bad that the Leader of the Opposition sends his child outside the borough? What happens in Southwark, where one of the Labour party Front-Bench spokespersons finds the education so bad that she sends her child outside the borough, but not even to a school in the state system?

25 Nov 1996 : Column 49

The Labour party has nothing to say on this matter. It is largely responsible for the condition of our cities; it has damaged the cities, while the Government have had to come to the rescue to change things.

Mr. Nick Raynsford (Greenwich): Which party controls Greenwich council?

Mr. Gummer: The hon. Gentleman dares to ask from his seat who represents Greenwich. I shall tell him about the London borough of Greenwich that he dares to speak about. It has done nothing to attract people. All it has done is make it more and more difficult for people to live there comfortably and happily.

I shall now deal with one or two of the sensible suggestions made by the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras. On open land, I have committed myself to protecting playing fields in the planning system throughout the country. I will tell the hon. Gentleman who my biggest enemies are in trying to do that--Labour councils, which have been trying to build on playing fields. One after another, they come forward with their schemes for building on playing fields and ask me, "Can we please build just here--not next door, just here, no more, but this one?" I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I turn them down.

I have been one of the foremost supporters of parks, through "Greening of the Cities", and so on. I am also pleased that, for the first time, large sums of money are going into the regeneration of our parks, not least from the lottery and the national heritage memorial fund. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggested that I am not building houses. Governments do not build houses; houses are built by the private sector and housing associations.

I turn to the question of money going into the city centres. Due to the capital challenge programme and environmental policies generally, we have brought in vast sums of money from the private sector that the Labour party could not begin to tap, and never wanted to. It pretends that such money does not go to city centres. The regeneration of the country will depend on partnership between Government, business, local government and voluntary organisations. That is what we are promoting.

We want a debate that goes far above and beyond the kind of petty comments that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras made up on the train from Nottingham. [Laughter.] He was going to make such comments no matter what I said in my statement. Even if I had mentioned figures of 70 or 80 per cent., he would have said the same. He should get on with the discussion, and leave the silly comments to the Liberal Democrats. They are the ones who have a different policy from one constituency to the next. He should leave them to lower the debate, and raise his sights.

Several hon. Members rose--

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Can we now have some short, sharp questions, and succinct answers?

Mr. Tim Yeo (South Suffolk): Does my right hon. Friend agree that converting almost 7,000 hectares of rural land for urban use every year is unsustainable? In view of

25 Nov 1996 : Column 50

that, is he aware that there will be strong support for the idea of increasing the target for the percentage of new houses built on recycled land? Will he therefore consider supporting that target--not only through the planning system, by having a strong presumption in planning guidance against permission for development on a green-field site unless the developer can show that all the possibilities for development on brown-field sites have been exhausted, but possibly through the use of a market instrument such as a levy on any development on green-field sites?

Mr. Gummer: My hon. Friend will be pleased to see in the document that we have suggested that we might use the same kind of sequential judgment as that used for out-of-town shopping. We start by asking why the development cannot be built in the city centre, and, if it cannot, we ask whether there is a moderately close position. Only then can green-field sites be considered.

That is one of the propositions, and I hope that my hon. Friend will add his support to it if he feels that that is right. He is absolutely correct to say that it is unsustainable to believe that we can meet the requirements of the kind of life style that we have largely decided for ourselves merely by spreading houses across the countryside. That would not be right, either for our own generation or for future generations.

---