| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Housing
7. Kali Mountford (Colne Valley): What assessment he has made of steps taken by local authorities to improve the quality of housing since 1997. [107312]
The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. John Prescott): Good quality housing is a right not a privilege. We are taking a great many measures to help local authorities improve the quality of their housing. They include a number of actions to raise building standards, the increased involvement of tenants and a new regime of Government funding that will release a massive £5 billion increase in the resources available for housing, a factor that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) should take into account.
Kali Mountford: I am pleased to hear what my right hon. Friend has said about cowboy developers. He will know that my constituency, which is rural, has had significant problems with rogue developers. My constituents will be pleased to know that we are dealing with those problems. Will he also say how many council homes he expects to be improved as a result of his measures? He is right that council tenants deserve good quality homes.
Mr. Prescott: We faced a backlog of about £10 billion in housing, and the £5 billion that we have devoted to it over the life of this Parliament is a major step towards improving it. So far, we have improved 300,000 council homes and we plan for an additional 1.5 million council homes to be improved over the three years of the comprehensive spending review expenditure programme.
Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York): Is the Secretary of State taking a keen interest in the reform of housing benefits? Will he assure the House that local housing associations will not lose their income under the housing benefit reforms?
Mr. Prescott: These are very important issues. We are considering them and changes will be set out in the Green Paper. Housing benefit support is an important issue in regard to sustaining the existing agreements on housing. However, it also needs reform and we intend to cover that in the Green Paper.
Mr. Bill Rammell (Harlow): I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to council housing. Does he agree that no area of public expenditure was cut as much under the previous Government as housing? Although the release of capital receipts has been wholly welcome, we need sustained year-on-year increases to undo the damage done by the vandalism in the 18 years of the Conservative Government.
Mr. Prescott: Yes, quite apart from leaving a backlog, the previous Administration cut their housing programme between 1992-93 and 1997-98 by half--from £1.5 billion to £751 million a year. That was their order of priorities. Another dividing line between the two parties is that we
choose to use the money from capital receipts to refurbish housing and to make the investment that should have been made rather than keeping it in the banks earning interest.
Mr. Simon Hughes (Southwark, North and Bermondsey): Will the Secretary of State assess himself the policy of Labour-run Southwark council, which proposes to demolish perfectly good council housing that was built in about 1980 near Tower bridge and replace it with a smaller amount of council housing and private housing so that it can raise money from land sales? Other estates are much worse and, on any basis, they should be demolished, but they have not been included in the scheme. Will he ensure that all policy has the agreement of the residents first and that it is consistent with keeping sustainable communities?
Mr. Prescott: I am not aware of exactly what has happened in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, but social housing is an important matter. It is about mixed development and obtaining the agreement of tenants. I am sure that, in all cases, councils try to achieve that, but, in areas where there are differences of opinion, decisions have to be made. However, I am conscious of the importance of putting social housing at the top of the list.
Mr. Andrew Love (Edmonton): I welcome the £5 billion of investment that will improve 1.5 million homes over the next three years, which is in complete contrast to the failures of the 18 years of the previous Government. Will the Secretary of State ensure the critical involvement of tenants in the use of that investment, which will improve their estates and their lives, so that the compacts that will come into operation from April will ensure local democracy?
Mr. Prescott: I agree with my hon. Friend. That agreement will come in from 1 April, along with best value. We intend to improve the services provided by local authorities. It is important to do that as well as providing extra resources. That shows the Government's comprehensive approach to housing compared with that of the previous Administration. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) was concerned not about housing but simply about building on greenfield land. He has experience of that because he has spent most of his time building on it.
Green Belt
9. Sir Sydney Chapman (Chipping Barnet): If he will make a statement about the protection of established greenbelt land, and the acreage of it that has been approved for non-conforming use for development during the past 33 months. [107314]
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): The Government are entirely committed to the green belt as a method of restricting urban sprawl. The area of green belt has been increased under this Government by around 30,000 hectares. As I have already indicated in a written answer to the hon. Gentleman, information on inappropriate uses in the green belt is not held centrally.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The integrity of our greenbelt policy depends entirely on no part of it being built on.
Is it not spurious to allow development on greenbelt land and then say that the problem is overcome by adding more land to the green belt elsewhere--land that would not in any case be built on?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman will know from his background in planning that it is always important to keep policies under review and that there are circumstances in which policies that might appear to be unduly rigid may need some modification to achieve a more sustainable outcome. That should always be allowed for. The Government whom he supported consistently allowed development on greenfield and greenbelt land up until their last year in office when the then Secretary of State released 1,200 hectares of greenbelt land for development. That was a shameful record, and this Government are protecting the green belt.
Mrs. Alice Mahon (Halifax): Northowram hospital in my constituency, which is in the green belt and has beautiful lands, is due for closure. My hon. Friend will know that NHS Estates is essentially the landowner. Is there anything that he can do to prevent NHS Estates from going for the easy option of more housing in an already crowded village and make it consider alternatives for that beautiful site?
Mr. Raynsford: Inappropriate development in the green belt is a strong prima facie ground for refusal of planning permission. Certainly, any concerns that my hon. Friend has about an inappropriate proposal for development in her green belt should be referred to the local authority, which should be guided by PPG2, the relevant planning policy guidance note, which makes it clear that inappropriate development in such circumstances should be refused.
Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Does the Minister recall justifying last week his approval of the building of 10,000 houses in the green belt in my constituency on the basis that the land is near the transport links of the A1 and the railway? Does he recognise that planning in this country works on precedent, and will he admit that the precedent that he has created gives the green light to ribbon development along motorways and railways, even when they go through greenbelt land? Will he remove that precedent by lifting his approval for the monstrous building of 10,000 houses on greenbelt land in my constituency?
Mr. Raynsford: No. As the right hon. Gentleman ought to know by now--he has heard it often enough from the Dispatch Box--the decision was properly made by the local authority in his area, which felt that it was better to concentrate development in one area with good access to transport links rather than to allow sprawl throughout the surrounding rural area. That was a decision properly reached by democratically elected local representatives who were facing up to their responsibilities rather than uttering cheap soundbites, of which he should be ashamed.
Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test): Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that, under the previous Conservative Government, substantial development, particularly ribbon and dormitory development, took place outside the green belt, with a consequent impact on
transport and services? Does he accept that a sane and rational planning policy must take account of that, and that the Government must plan accordingly for the future?
Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend is right to highlight the appalling record of the previous Government in permitting consistent and profligate use of greenfield land, including the nibbling away of the green belt, for inappropriate housing developments. We have adopted a different approach. We are seeking to ensure that the principles of sustainability are at the top of the agenda and that greenfield land is protected wherever possible, to ensure that the bulk of development is concentrated in our cities and on brownfield sites.
Mr. Damian Green (Ashford): The House and the country will be alarmed to hear the Minister say, as he did a couple of minutes ago, that greenbelt land is under review. Will he give us a commitment today that if the Government adopt any part of the Crow report, which disgracefully advocates concreting over large parts of the south-east, no greenbelt land will be lost? Does he agree that the Government's failure to protect the green belt has led to comments such as the one in this month's Environment and Planning Review, which states that
- "considering Labour's pre-election pledge that the party would form the 'greenest ever Government'",
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on all three counts. First, he misinterpreted my comments about the need to take a serious approach towards policy, and not to be utterly rigid when circumstances suggest that there are real gains to be made from an adjustment of policy. That occurs in certain cases, and any sensible, serious Government recognise that.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |