| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Jane Griffiths (Reading, East): The inclusion in my right hon. Friend's statement of support for parish and town councils will be warmly welcomed. Can he assure me that that support will assist Woodley town council in my constituency, so that it can maintain the area, which is not urban but nestles against an urban area, as both an inclusive and a distinctive community?
Mr. Prescott: I am not too sure how to reply to that question, as I only picked up half of it. I apologise to my
hon. Friend for that, and I will write to her. I assume that she was talking about a town council in the Reading area--I picked that up through natural intelligence.
Mr. John Gummer (Suffolk, Coastal): If the right hon. Gentleman wants local people to be able to make bigger decisions about their own future, why, in giving local authorities discretion to charge the full rate on second homes, does he not permit them to use the money as they think fit? Instead, he insists that he must get his hands on it. Is that not merely another stealth tax? The Government make the local authority take the lash, then take the money back so that they can pay for their own housing policy.
Mr. Prescott: This is about housing policy. The proposal is in the interests of every local authority that I can think of.
At least I give the right hon. Gentleman credit for deciding that there should be a rural White Paper when he became Secretary of State for the Environment in, I believe, 1995. As he knows, however, his observation document showed that little had been done. Recommendations had been made, but had then been rejected. We have embodied some of his proposals in the White Paper.
I think that the money is an extra resource that should go towards affordable homes. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's essential point that local authorities should make their own decisions about resources, but as we are removing a discount, I feel that the money is required because of the desperate need for affordable homes--especially in view of the Conservative Government's record.
Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk): My right hon. Friend will know that, with 67 parishes, mine is a truly rural constituency. I can tell him from my surveys of parish councils that 70 per cent. of them will welcome the proposals in the White Paper, and the continuing attention paid to the many deprived rural areas that developed during the 18 years of Conservative government.
I especially welcome the proposal to evaluate progress on the rural agenda, which I am sure will be welcomed throughout the House. Has my right hon. Friend considered the establishment of an annual report on rural issues, which could be debated annually in the House?
Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether I should congratulate my hon. Friend on having 67 parishes in his constituency or commiserate with him, but that statistic shows the diversity of the parish council structure. I hope that our proposals will help parish councils to provide a better service by giving them the resources and powers to meet the needs of people in their areas, as I am sure my hon. Friend will explain to them.
My hon. Friend raises the important issue of whether there should be an annual report. Governments--I do not have one particular Government in mind--often make statements advocating that something be done for rural or urban areas. All too often that commitment is not checked, except from time to time by Select Committees, as was said earlier. We intend to produce an annual report on the state of the countryside, which will be available to
Departments, Select Committee and hon. Members, so we can have a proper debate in the House on the provision of the services that I have announced and make a proper assessment of their effectiveness.
Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes): I congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister on his statement. It contained many good ideas and I support a great many of the sentiments behind it--and when he said that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) had given him those ideas, I understood why the White Paper was so good.
I have one question. Last July, the European Commission told the Government that grants could no longer be given to clear polluted brownfield sites. That drove a coach and horses through the Government's policy to build on brownfield sites first and greenfield sites second. Has the right hon. Gentleman solved that problem, because if he has not, the green fields of our countryside will be destroyed, whether he likes it or not, with the customary knock-on effects of light and noise pollution?
Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the Deputy Prime Minister replies, I should remind hon. Members that the shorter the questions, the better for everyone concerned.
Mr. Prescott: I do not want to leave the impression, nor, I think, would the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Central--[Hon. Members: "Coastal."] Sorry, I meant the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). I do not want to leave the impression that even 1 per cent. of the ideas that we are putting forward came from his White Paper. There were ideas in it, but he implemented only one of them. He did not manage to implement the rest, which I have here before me, even after his one-year observation report on his White Paper. Where the ideas make good sense, I have included them. For example, it is right to build on the rate discount for such places as shops and pubs--but perhaps it would be better not to recognise the actions of other politicians by congratulating them on their contributions, because it only leads to silly remarks such as that made by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen).
The EC definition of state aid has concerned the House. It is a real problem. We have cleared much land of pollution by using such resources, especially through English Estates and English Partnerships, and we need to contest the EC's contention that those resources are state aid. We have allowed for that problem and made changes to deal with it while we continue to argue our case. We are not a lone voice in that argument.
Mr. Mark Todd (South Derbyshire): I commend in particular the initiative that my right hon. Friend announced for supporting innovation in parish and town councils. A number of parish councils in my area--perhaps in Melbourne and Barrow upon Trent--would welcome the opportunity to develop local plans and new solutions for services. Can he suggest a timetable for that?
Mr. Prescott: We would be happy to discuss that matter with town and parish councils as soon as possible. It is important to get on with it, and I am sure that many
of my hon. Friends will want to make that clear to parish councils. The ideas are innovative. I have always believed that parish councils have a role. They clearly do not have the major role of other local authorities, but they have a part to play and we have dismissed them for too long. An effective parish council could play an important part in democratic accountability, which the White Paper seeks to increase.
Sir Peter Emery (East Devon): The Deputy Prime Minister and his boss are always saying that they listen to people, so why will he not listen to the local authorities and give district councils the right to decide the level of new housing in their districts, rather than its being dictated by the Ministries?
Mr. Prescott: I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman attended the debates when the previous Government forced their housing requirements on Kent and other housing authorities.
Caroline Flint (Don Valley): As Doncaster council claims that it will take it 10 years to introduce 20 mph zones, will my right hon. Friend consider delegating responsibility for such traffic management schemes to parish and town councils, which represent people who are crying out for those zones now, not in 10 years' time?
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those are difficult matters. Certain rights are given under statutory powers to the various authorities involved. I have said that there is an opportunity now for us to decentralise some of those powers to the areas most affected by them. Speed limits may be suitable. It makes sense to give more responsibility to those who are directly affected in the immediate area.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke (Rushcliffe): I too welcome the interesting and worthwhile proposals in the White Paper, but does the Secretary of State recall that the main problem in my rural constituency is that the borough council is being required by a four-year-old structure plan to provide land for 14,400 new dwellings over the next 10 years, in a rural setting? Many thousands of commuters will move into new homes, yet the road developments have all been cancelled and the improvement schemes have been postponed. Why does the right hon. Gentleman still refuse to call in those old structure plans and reopen them in the light of the many new policies that he has announced over the past three or four years, which he says are designed to preserve the quality of life and the green fields in our rural environment?
Mr. Prescott: I think that I can recall demands for that road being made for some time under the previous Administration, who found that they could not provide either the resources or the time to build it--so he is not bringing a new problem to my attention, although it may be made much more difficult by the 14,400 houses. I do not know enough of the details, but I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had a meeting with some of my Ministers. Through PPG3--new planning guidance--we are trying to achieve a proper balance between such transport matters and housing development. I will look into the matter and write to him.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |