| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Norman: As the hon. Lady knows, the point about Cambridge, which the Minister will accept, is that the extra houses built there will not only be for sons and daughters of local people, but for people migrating out of Leicester, Birmingham and other parts of the country, and they will leave behind a declining population. She might like to tell us whether she is in favour of redefining the green belt and building on the green belt around Cambridge. Is the Minister in favour of that, too? Is not the truth behind the Government's determination to build so many houses on green fields that the green belt is no longer sacrosanct? Is that not exactly why the Minister now says that the green belt is no longer safe under Labour and needs continual revision and redefining?
Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman has made another completely false allegation. I have never said that the green belt is not safe under Labour. Will he withdraw that completely unfounded allegation?
Mr. Norman: The Minister says that he has not said that the green belt is not safe under Labour; during his speech, he will have plenty of chances to explain what he meant when he said that the green belt has to be constantly redefined and revised. In Cambridge, in Newcastle and in the south-west we see that the green belt is no longer safe under this Government.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour leader of North Hertfordshire district council, Councillor David Kearns, recently attacked the Government? He said:
- We feel very let down. The Government claims to be committed to . . . the environment and regenerating urban areas . . . now we have them supporting plans to rape 2,000 acres of Green Belt
Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. The rape of Stevenage and the removal of the green belt around it--one of the Deputy Prime Minister's first acts on coming to power--signalled his intentions for the future very clearly.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire): Before my hon. Friend moves on from the green belt and Labour's record on the Cambridge green belt, is he aware that the Labour city council, supported by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell), was the authority that pushed for a review of the green belt to free up sites inside the Cambridge green belt for large-scale additional development?
Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend is correct.
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes) rose--
Mr. Norman: I want to make progress.
Mr. Steen: Before my hon. Friend moves on, will he give way on that point?
Mr. Steen: My hon. Friend has mentioned brownfield sites. Is he aware that the Government's plans for
new-build houses depend entirely on building 60 per cent. of new housing on brownfield sites and that not only are the local authorities unhappy about those plans, but that the European Union has ruled that the Government cannot build on brownfield sites if that entails giving a grant to the owners of the land because that would be an unfair subsidy? Is he aware of that problem and do the Government realise that their entire housing policy will be destroyed if that EU ruling is upheld?
Mr. Norman: My hon. Friend is something of an expert on these subjects and I know that he wants to speak later. As ever, he has made an original and different contribution.
The price of building in the south-east will be borne not only by the inner-city areas of the north, but by the taxpayer. The south-east is one of the most congested parts of the country and the infrastructure is simply not available to accommodate the 900,000 new houses that the Minister wants to have built there. Building 900,000 new houses implies not only new housing, but new roads, street lighting, hospitals and schools. We estimate that such a number of new houses also implies 2,000 km of new road at minimum, as they would have to be connected to other areas, as well as 3,250 hospital beds, 300,000 school places and a total price tag of £7.7 billion.
Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Norman: No, I want to make progress.
However, there is no provision for that investment and no plan to provide for it. The roads are more congested and the railways more crowded than ever. Investment in roads is declining. In the south-west, there are other problems--my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) will want to mention those to do with sewerage--and concerns over water resources. The Government have made no provision for the flood plains of Kent and none for renewable energy. That is not environmental sustainability, but environmental vandalism.
Incredibly, the Deputy Prime Minister claims that 200,000 extra houses can be built in the south-east with no extra use of green fields. However, the Government give the impression of simply playing with numbers and ratios. As he said in the Frost interview on Sunday:
- People think, "Isn't this about spinning and spinning is about misleading people".
Mr. Norman: Yes, that means the loss of green spaces in the towns and villages. Yes, it means the return of 1960s and 1970s high-rise.
Mr. Norman: The Minister knows that the targets cannot be delivered in the south-east. He knows that the
weight of housebuilding is overwhelming. [Interruption.] Instead of shaking his head, when he makes his speech why does not he list the counties and county councils in the south-east that believe that they can achieve 60 per cent. of new building on brownfield sites at that rate of construction over 20 years? Why does not he tell us exactly how that will be achieved and describe the implications of the 60 per cent. figure? What densities will be required to achieve it? Why does not he come clean?
Mr. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth, South): Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Norman: No, I am about to conclude.
The challenge for Britain today is to convert existing accommodation for single and elderly people, to rebuild our inner cities, to restore the ownership of neighbourhoods by local people--[Interruption.]--to revitalise local government--[Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) wish to make a point?
The challenge today is to revitalise local government and to protect our countryside, yet instead we have the most centralised policy ever, a determination to ignore local views and steamroller local councils--a policy that will perpetuate the decline of the cities and do nothing to address the needs of the elderly and the less well off. The countryside will be concreted over with identikit executive homes. Quite simply, we will get the wrong houses in the wrong places.
7.47 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Nick Raynsford): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
- "welcomes the Government's move away from the previous 'predict and provide' approach to housing provision and the introduction of a 'plan, monitor and manage' policy under the new regional planning policy arrangements, including a target for building 60 per cent. of all new housing on previously developed land and the tightening of planning controls on out of town shopping and ending the profligate use of land; supports the Government's policies on protecting the Green Belt and improving the use of all land and preventing piecemeal greenfield development; believes the Government's planning, housing, transport, countryside protection, welfare and economic policies will achieve more sustainable and equitable patterns of both urban and rural development; welcomes the Government's continued commitment to sustainable growth, safeguarding the countryside and promoting an urban renaissance; supports the targeting of regeneration initiatives in areas of greatest need and the Government's inter-linked policies for revitalising towns and cities and protecting the countryside; and applauds the Government's aim of giving everyone the opportunity of a decent home and recognises that the doubling of housing investment and other social housing reforms introduced by this Government are creating stronger, safer and more sustainable communities."
The choice of this evening's debate--our sixth on the subject in the past three years--is telling. To focus attention on planning and housing when England's football team kick off in a crucial European championship
match implies either extraordinary stupidity or great political acumen. Could it be that the masterminds of Tory central office were unaware of the Euro 2000 timetable when they sought the debate? That is possible, but even I cannot believe they are so crassly incompetent as not to have realised that tonight the nation would be glued to the television screen--not, I hasten to add, to watch the parliamentary channel.If we give those masterminds the benefit of the doubt and assume that they knew about the England-Romania match, what is the object of the exercise? I suspect that two thoughts were uppermost in their minds. The first was to provide a perfect cover for another lacklustre performance by the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells, whose legendary ability to empty the House will be excused on grounds of football mania. Secondly, having convincingly lost the past five debates on the subject, the Opposition clearly relish the chance to initiate a debate when no one will take a blind bit of notice of what they say. That way, they can masquerade as a concerned Opposition without having once again to witness their hopelessly inadequate case falling apart in the full glare of publicity.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |