| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Raynsford: I am rather disappointed in the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, who came to see me last week. We discussed that matter, and as he knows perfectly well, it is not the Government's policy to build an additional 1.1 million homes in the south-east. Rather, that is a recommendation from the panel that was chaired by Professor Crow. That is one of the factors that we shall take into account when we make our decision, but he knows that it is not Government policy. He should not build up fears and anxieties among people in the countryside on the basis of false allegations.
Mr. Blunt: Will the Minister then explain why, when I wrote to every Member of Parliament representing a constituency in the south-east, not one Labour Member chose to join me in recommending to the Minister that he reject that proposal? What are people in the south-east supposed to think is the Government's intention if none of their supporters will speak out against that proposal?
Mr. Raynsford: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to apologise for his previous remarks. I shall take up the subject of his letter in a moment, and I think he will be surprised at the answer that I shall give him.
Ms Ward: Is my hon. Friend aware that as one of the Members who received a copy of the hon. Gentleman's letter, I decided not to support him because I wanted to make my own representations, which would not be coloured by his party's hypocrisy?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
Mr. Soames: I thank the Minister for giving way--he is being extremely generous with his time. Will he accept, without blaming the previous Administration, that the proposals for Mid-Sussex, where the Deputy Prime Minister has overturned his own inspector's report, will mean more houses being built in an area where there is not enough water, there are not enough roads, there are not enough schools and there is not enough hospital space? More houses will mean more people and more cars. Sussex is facing "Carmageddon". How can the hon. Gentleman seriously propose that his Government are following a policy of sustainable development when he is butchering the south-east of England?
Mr. Raynsford: I make two points to the hon. Gentleman. The first is that it is very easy to insist that an inspector's report is followed when one agrees with it, but I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the right hon. Member for Wokingham is absolutely adamant, as are most of his colleagues, that we should not accept Professor Crow's report. The fact that a report is by an
inspector does not determine whether or not it should be implemented. Obviously, the Secretary of State has to form a judgment.
In Sussex, as the hon. Gentleman knows well, the under-provision in the county's housing proposals, which are 25 per cent. below the figures set by the Conservative Government, was such that the Government felt that they were inadequate and therefore directed that county uniquely to increase its housing provision. The county challenged the Secretary of State's decision in the High Court, and lost. I rest my case.
Mr. Raynsford:
As hon. Members know, I have already given way several times. I want to make progress, then I shall give way to colleagues on both sides of the House.
Let us contrast the previous Government's approach--predict and provide--with our new arrangements for regional planning. Under our arrangements, local planning authorities, which are getting together at regional level with other stakeholders, are preparing the draft. That draft is then subject to a public examination. That process has been undergone in both the eastern region and the south-east.
The public examination exposes the hard issues; it does not hide them behind closed doors in Whitehall. This debate, and tomorrow's on housing in the south-east, illustrate the way in which, under this Administration, the real issues are exposed and can be publicly discussed. We may not agree on all issues--they are difficult--but they are all debated in public. Previously, decisions were taken behind closed doors--and former Ministers know it, because they were party to that procedure.
Mr. Redwood:
In that spirit of openness, does the Minister understand that, unless he says today that1.1 million new homes in the south-east is far too much and intolerable, he will go down as one of the bulldozer boys--the bovver boys--who are trying to fill in the countryside with concrete?
Mr. Raynsford:
I am pretty disappointed in the right hon. Gentleman. As a former Secretary of State, he knows perfectly well that there is a due process for considering representations on such matters. To pre-empt consideration with the unilateral declaration for which he is calling may go down well in a school debating society, but is not serious politics--and he knows that. We shall make clear in due course our decision on the proposals of the south-east regional planning conference and the panel report of Professor Crow and his colleague. In the meantime, I have made it perfectly clear in this debate that the proposal for 1.1 million new homes is not Government policy. We shall consider that proposal along with other evidence.
Mr. Raynsford:
I give way to the right hon. Gentleman for the final time.
Mr. Redwood:
We are talking about more than just evidence; the proposal is the conclusion of the Minister's
Mr. Raynsford:
The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that the details of regional planning guidance are complex and numerous. We shall make a decision as soon as it is possible to do so. That is a serious response. We believe in speeding up the planning process; we do not believe in hanging around and delaying such processes However, serious issues need consideration. Household numbers are one of hundreds of different issues, all of which need to be considered. When we produce our response, it will be comprehensive on all issues.
Mr. Raynsford:
I shall make some progress.
This Administration are determined to ensure that development is sustainable and has proper regard to environmental considerations and infrastructure constraints. That is why we put so much emphasis on the need for a sustainability appraisal of development proposals. A properly informed debate may then take place, and development be planned where it is sustainable. That of course includes maximising the potential of brownfield sites.
Let us look at the record on brownfield development.
Miss Julie Kirkbride (Bromsgrove):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Raynsford:
No, I want to make some progress.
The right hon. Member for Wokingham is only too happy to talk about more brownfield development today, but what was his record when his party was in government? From 1985 to 1995, only 42 per cent. of land used for housing was previously developed land. That was the Conservatives' record in government.
Mr. Ivor Caplin (Hove):
May I remind my hon. Friend that he and I began a brownfield development in my constituency when I was leader of Hove council, and that that development, on which there are now 75 housing units, was opposed by local Conservatives and the Conservative Government?
Mr. Raynsford:
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I remember well the start of development on that site, which had been occupied by housing owned by a notorious bad landlord, who had neglected the properties scandalously and left many empty. It was absolutely right of my hon. Friend and his colleagues on Hove council to take action to secure that brownfield site for decent housing development.
Mr. Raynsford:
I give way to the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke).
Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe):
Before the Minister continues his attempt to ascribe to the previous
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |