| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
New Housing
5. Mr. Stephen Day (Cheadle): If he will make it his policy to adopt a target of building two thirds of new housing development in brown-field sites. [39508]
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): I consider our 60 per cent. target both challenging and achievable. To help achieve it, I have established a task force led by Lord Rogers to look at how best to use previously developed land. We shall launch shortly a national land use database to review how many recycled sites exist, or are likely to become available in the near future, and we will expect regional planning conferences, for the first time, to set their own regional targets.
Mr. Day: Can the Secretary of State advise the House of one green-field site anywhere in Britain that has been saved since he announced his change of policy on green-field sites?
Mr. Prescott: I am pleased to announce that, under the new system, the review carried out by the west midlands regional planning conference shows that, of the 330,000 houses proposed by 2011, 61 per cent. will be on green-field sites--
Sir Norman Fowler (Sutton Coldfield): Green-field sites?
Mr. Prescott: I apologise; 61 per cent. will be on recycled land. That shows that the Government's proposal will save many green-field sites. There is considerably more green belt land now than when the Government took office last year.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish): Does my right hon. Friend accept that Britain still has the problem that far too many people want their houses to be on green-field sites but want others live on brown-field sites? Will he ensure that we regenerate our cities so that people feel that they are free of crime, have high-quality schools and are places in which they want to live? We shall then have gone a long way towards solving the problem.
Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is precisely the Government's policy. We need to make our cities more attractive so that more and more people want to live in them. That is what our plans are about.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): Will the right hon. Gentleman understand and accept that in West
Sussex--particularly in Mid-Sussex, where people have been outraged by his arbitrary decision to add 12,800 houses to the figure decided upon by his inspector--his policy is considered untenable? Where does he think West Sussex will find brown-field sites to accommodate more than 12,800 houses in addition to the 38,000 that he has already said we have to build there?
Mr. Prescott: We have made it clear that our new approach is to consider these matters in the regional context, and the West Sussex structure plan will be so considered. That will be helpful. We have yet to start discussions on that. The county council has been granted leave for judicial review of my direction to increase housing provision in line with the regional planning guidance, so I do not wish to comment on the matter at present.
London Government
6. Mr. Clive Efford (Eltham): Pursuant to chapter 3 of the White Paper on "A Mayor and Assembly for London", if he will make a statement on arrangements for ensuring public accountability of the mayor and assembly. [39509]
The Minister for London and Construction (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The mayor and assembly will be accountable to Londoners through the ballot box. To strengthen public accountability, the mayor will hold a monthly assembly question time, twice-yearly people's question times and an annual state of London debate. The assembly will hold the mayor to account, hold its meetings in public and publish its papers and reports.
Mr. Efford: Does my hon. Friend accept that the current situation in London is unacceptable; that too many individuals and quangos are spending public money for which there is no accountability? Does he further accept that the new arrangements for a mayor and an assembly will make such expenditure publicly accountable and make those people directly accountable to the people of London through the democratic process?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right. The previous Government abolished democratic citywide government in London and replaced it with a raft of unaccountable quangos. We are restoring to the people of London the democratic right to elect their own citywide mayor and authority and ensuring that decisions are taken in an accountable framework and that quangos are brought back within democratic control exactly in line with the principle of accountability my hon. Friend espouses.
Mr. John Wilkinson (Ruislip-Northwood): If, as seems likely, a large number of Londoners register on Thursday their lack of confidence in the accountability of the new mayor by not bothering to vote--by a large electoral yawn--will not it be because they do not believe that there will be any sufficient mechanism either to bring the mayor to account or even to replace him or fire him if he is not up to the job? By what means will a corrupt or ineffectual mayor be replaced?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman gives little credit to the electorate if he believes that the principle of democratic accountability is ultimately flawed. We do not
believe that; we believe that the people should decide and that if they are dissatisfied with the mayor they should get rid of the mayor--[Hon. Members: "How?"] By the ballot box, which is the best and most effective way to achieve accountability. I hope that on Thursday the people of London will give a resounding endorsement to the Government's plans for a mayor and an assembly for London.Revenue Support Grant
7. Mr. Tim Boswell (Daventry): What recent representations he has received about the allocation of revenue support grant between local authorities. [39511]
The Minister for Local Government and Housing (Ms Hilary Armstrong): My Department receives representations almost continually from Members of Parliament, local authorities and their associations and other sources, including the general public. Such representations arise from the local government finance settlement for 1998-99, which was announced to the House on 5 February. In addition, we receive views on what changes might be made for the next financial year and responses to our current review of local government finance.
Mr. Boswell: Now that the Government have, admittedly under some pressure, made the welcome decision to reinstate the practice of their Conservative predecessors in publishing a rural White Paper, will the Minister undertake to tell the House, either in that document or, even better, now, what their rationale is for taking nearly £100 million a year out of the revenue support grant for shire counties? In addition, why has such a small allocation--only about 1.5 per cent. of the total--been made for shire districts on account of sparsity factors?
Ms Armstrong: The hon. Gentleman will know that the previous Administration considered sparsity factors but found no means of changing the formula fairly. I have invited authorities to submit further ideas this year on how the formula might better reflect sparsity factors. That will be a matter for discussion and deliberation. It is simply untrue to say that there has been a deliberate attempt to take money from the shires. The hon. Gentleman knows that additional money went to shire districts this year after we had looked at the formula for other areas. If he adds up the amounts for shire counties and for shire districts, he will find a different sum.
We are trying to redress the enormous unfairness that existed in the formula during the last few years of the previous Administration. We are moving towards a fairer and more fiddle-free agenda.
Mr. Keith Simpson (Mid-Norfolk):
So it has been changed.
Ms Armstrong:
Yes, we have changed it. We are making sure that we end the ludicrous practice of doling out money for visitors as if they were residents. That happened in a place not far from here, and the hon. Gentleman knows that that was a fiddle. We have stopped the fiddle.
Mr. Harry Barnes (North-East Derbyshire):
In determining areas of need, will the Minister consider
Ms Armstrong:
We are seeking to reflect need more accurately, but we also seek to make the formula simpler. We want council tax payers to know exactly what they are paying. At the moment, the system is so complex that that is extremely difficult. I do not promise that we will be able to do it in one year; it took the previous Administration 18 years to make the mess and it will take us some time to undo what they did.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire):
Does the Minister agree that the Government's changes to standard spending assessment methodology this year have cost London nearly £50 million, which is the equivalent of £17 per household, or more than 2 per cent. on council tax? Will the Minister assure Londoners that the Government's plans for further SSA changes will not mean further cuts in SSA for London next year, after the London elections?
Ms Armstrong:
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Front Bench. I am not sure whether his appearance means that the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) has disappeared. I shall miss him greatly; I used to enjoy his over-the-topness and the opportunities that that gave us for scoring yet more goals.
It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman moves back to this issue; at our previous Question Time his Front-Bench colleagues accused us of hitting London hard. [Interruption.] Sorry--they accused us of being overgenerous to London as against the counties. Conservative Members change their minds so often that they confuse even me. The hon. Gentleman demonstrates that the settlement is fairer and fiddle free. If there had not been so many fiddles, some London boroughs would not have had the cushioning that the Conservative Government gave them.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney, North and Stoke Newington):
Does the Minister agree that some of us are astonished that the Tories should be so brazen as to come to the Chamber and talk about revenue support grant, because those of us who were in the previous two Parliaments saw how RSG was gerrymandered to pour money into Tory Westminster and Tory Wandsworth? Whether they live in the inner city or in the countryside, where we have unprecedented representation, people are glad to see fairness and common sense return to the allocation of RSG.
Ms Armstrong:
I agree with my hon. Friend. The fact that Conservative Members dare complain about any settlement for London demonstrates just how brazen they are. That does not win support, but being straight with people does. We are being straight. This has been a difficult settlement, but it has been fairer. People in
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |