| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
9.56 am
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Faversham and Mid-Kent): First I wish to resist, on behalf of Kent, this extraordinary expansion in the numbers of houses required, not least on ground of water provision. How on earth can the Government square their demands that the water companies cut prices--partly, in our area, by postponing the building of new reservoirs--while wishing upon our area a quantity of houses for which there is simply no water provision? That is hardly an example of joined-up government.
My main argument is that, however many houses we eventually have to accept for demographic reasons and so on, we cannot continue to rely on existing planning methods. At the moment, speculative builders are compelled by the planning laws to take each field as it falls vacant--or as they can get hold of it or take it out of their land bank--and bid for as many houses as possible, regardless of local preferences. It is very hard for councils to define the type of house--
Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Rowe:
I shall take one intervention. I am trying to be brief.
Mr. White:
Will the hon. Gentleman explain why planning changes in the 1980s forced developers to take that route, and how the Conservative Government caused many developers to take such a view?
Mr. Rowe:
As the hon. Gentleman is well aware, no doubt, I do not feel that we have ever, in this country, got
Why, for example, when so many well-off retired people choose to spend their money on sheltered housing of the type that McCarthy and Stone or English Courtyard put up, and when, at the other end of the income range, there is such a huge demand for almshouses that one cannot get into them for love or money, does no one appear to feel that it is necessary to build the type of accommodation for less-well-off people that that demands? If it were properly provided, it would make tremendous savings in social services and other support services. If we want joined-up government, we must think across budgets.
I suspect--I have no idea whether it is true, but we should certainly try to find out--that many in single-parent households, which are partly to blame for the new increase in the number of households, would be a great deal happier in accommodation that has various shared facilities, such as a communal room in which to entertain, than being compelled to live in detached, tiny properties where they feel so isolated that they often get into further difficulties.
Builders sell what they sold the last time. The planning system creates artificial shortages, so there is virtually no choice for purchasers. They buy what is available, to which builders say, "We have sold all that we have built, so it must be what everybody wants." As a result, very little effort is made to break the mould, and many builders still sell houses like those their grandfathers built, except with modern appurtenances such as new kitchens.
I have played a role in the campaign for lifetime homes--the building of new houses that allow for level-entry access, enabling disabled, old or frail people easier use of their homes. I am very pleased to welcome the new planning regulations, which have gone some small way towards that.
Too many people live in absolutely foul homes. Local authorities and housing associations are simply not prepared to do them up because, on some unspecified day in the future, they are to be redeveloped. That means that, for a whole generation, some families live in the kind of house that we would not tolerate for ourselves. We have inspectors for pigsties and hen coops, but, as far as I can see, very ineffective inspection mechanisms for people's houses.
Such problems are partly because no Government--this Government have shown even less interest in doing so than their predecessors--will trust people with resources. The idea of giving them a small amount of money to try to improve their housing environment is tried occasionally in odd places, but when it is deemed a success it is never generalised because, in the end, local authorities do not trust people.
Why are we so totally unimaginative about the provision of granny accommodation? It is extremely difficult for people to extend their houses to provide for their elderly relatives--mainly because of planning laws. Why are we so reluctant, for example, to enable people to erect temporary houses? Modern mobile homes provide
admirable accommodation for various elderly people. I have seen such housing work extremely well, yet planning regulations are against it. That is fatal.
Last night, we heard the Government's extraordinary argument that more provision in the south-east will benefit the poor. When carried to the extreme, that suggests that the entire population of the United Kingdom could move to the south-east.
Mr. Roger Gale (North Thanet):
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Government's aim of imposing 250,000 new homes on Kent, while, as he said, the Environment Agency is preventing the expansion of water provision and the water regulator is trying to prevent the extension of reservoirs, is absolute nonsense, and that the Government ought to think again?
Mr. Rowe:
My hon. Friend confirms the point with which I started: such an argument is as arid and ridiculous as one can imagine.
Mr. Brian White (Milton Keynes, North-East):
One of the things that I have found distressing since the publication of the Crow report is the lack of a rational debate about housing in the south-east. I found it disturbing that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) said that the entire United Kingdom population could move to southern England. I seem to recall a former Tory Cabinet Minister saying, "Get on your bike and find a job! Come to the south-east." The hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that.
Another argument seems to be that we can beat market forces. I am a little confused when I hear that deployed by Conservative Members, who argue at the same time that market forces cannot be beaten when it comes to jobs or old-style industries in which people could lose employment.
Mr. Blunt:
I was under the distinct impression that the House did precisely that on Monday on behalf of a firm in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
Mr. White:
I have always argued that we should intervene in the market; it is the Conservative party that has always argued that we should not.
It is important that we get beyond the rhetoric of this debate and yesterday's, and get down to what we want to achieve in the south-east. Reference has been made tothe south-east England development agency report. The south-east might be top of the economic activity league table in the United Kingdom, but it is not top of the table in Europe. Over a long period in the early 1990s, we were falling down the table quite rapidly. It is also important to consider the jobs and skills base in the south-east. Then, we may begin to consider housing.
My city has undergone similar growth to Reading, Wokingham and the Berkshire area over the past 30 years, but, because it was planned, and the development
corporation and private investors worked together, the city works. We do not have the congestion that is suffered around Reading, Wokingham and Newbury.
The question is one not of providing no more housing or of concreting over everything, but of what is appropriate.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley):
Concrete cows?
Mr. White:
I point out to my hon. Friend that the growth of Milton Keynes has resulted in the planting of 22 million trees. There is more green space in the city than in many urban areas. Having planned properly, such space has been built into the city.
If we are to have jobs and provide quality of life, we must have a more rational debate. Just to say no is a fair response, but would result in rising house prices in urban Portsmouth and any other town in the south-east. Demand would still be apparent, but supply scarce. It is a basic law of economics that prices would rise as a result. Conservative Members may not mind that, but I argue that that is how to cause social disruption and chaos. It would not solve the economic issues in the south-east, such as the creation of jobs. In some rural communities, particularly villages, simply saying no leads to people having to move away from their parents and grandparents, losing continuity with their families.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie (Chichester):
I think that every Conservative Member accepts that there must be some additional housing; the question is how much. These plans are absurd and without precedent. The hon. Gentleman talked of green spaces in Milton Keynes, but does he not realise that the plans will close all green gaps between rural settlements in my constituency and those of many Members on both sides of the House? Local people will not accept that their concerns and wishes are being overridden by the Government--
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |