House of Commons Hansard Debates for 14 July 2006 (pt 0946)

Unfortunately, everything changed when the Thatcher Government, in their wisdom, decided that it was a good idea to do away with this country’s indigenous coal industry. As a direct consequence, they destroyed thousands of homes and hundreds of communities throughout the country—homes that were valuable to the people who lived in them but that, unfortunately, had no real value on the property market. They were in areas where there was no work and people had no interest in moving there; they continued to be lived in by people who could not afford
14 July 2006 : Column 1659
to move out because the houses had no market value. Eventually people did move out, or elderly people moved into homes or, sadly, died in their home, and the local authorities brought in people that they could not house elsewhere. That led to a spiral of despair: drugs, burglary, petty crime and violence sucked the life out of the communities.

Now, houses are being pulled down and we need new ones. We need new houses in a way that we have not needed them before. We do not need restrictions or any form of nimbyism to prevent the development that we need. We want high-quality, environmentally sound houses that our young people can afford to buy and live in. We do not want obstacles such as the ones that we faced when we were younger put in the way of positive, quality developments for the people of the future.

We in the north-east do not have some of the other problems that have been identified today. We have a plentiful water supply, mainly because we developed resources such as the Kielder reservoir. It was created to help the steel industry and the coal industry in the north-east, but in the 1980s, the Tory Government decided that they did not want to use British coal to keep the steel industry going; they bought Polish coal instead. As a result, we have a reservoir with underground links to three main rivers, but the water is not needed except for public consumption. We do not have the problem that affects the south-east, so why should we in the north-east be subjected to the limitations that the Bill would impose?

We do need infrastructure development. We need investment in new roads, we need our railways infrastructure to be built up and we need more and better housing. We are seeing quality development in houses and businesses across the north-east, but we want more. Obstacles are being thrown up in certain areas, with people saying that they do not want building in their area because they think that they have enough. That is nimbyism and it is not helpful. What my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) said was nimbyism, clearly is. It may be a sophisticated term and I am not the man to ask about sophistication, but it is clear that, if the Bill goes through as it stands, we will have a situation in which a private company can say, “We aren’t satisfied that we can deliver in the way that you are asking us to.” To me, that is a built-in veto.

If private companies such as Thames Water cannot produce enough water for the people of the area to use, why should we allow them to dictate the system and stop development? I have just moved into this area. I have bought a flat in Wandsworth common. I am told that I need to go carefully with my water. I am paying for it, so why should I go carefully with it? Twenty years ago, those people were allowed to take control of our public water supply—helped by investment from the Government. We were told that part of the deal—the reason we were giving control to the private companies—was that those people would develop the infrastructure, look after us and make sure that we had water, without any problems. That is not the case.

What is Thames Water doing to improve my water supply? Is it fixing the leaks? Is it employing mechanics and engineers to dig the roads up and put the leaks right? It has put adverts in the newspapers and on
14 July 2006 : Column 1660
billboards to say, “This is how much more water we will provide for the next 10 years.” There are adverts featuring Battersea power station and other buildings in London. Those adverts say, “This is how much water we will save.” Instead of talking about it, Thames Water should get on with it. It has had 20 years to get on with it and unfortunately it has not succeeded.

It is clear that one of the drives behind water privatisation was that promise and that promise is not being delivered. Why, then, should we allow those people to say to us, “We aren’t satisfied that we can deliver. Therefore we will block what has been suggested.” Those involved in running the sewage system can do the same, as can the Environment Agency and the people who get rid of our waste. In the area where I live, there are massive issues about waste disposal. There are already big planning arguments involving companies such as Sita which have long-standing contracts in our area to fill up old quarries and mine shafts. They are having massive planning arguments under present legislation. Why should we give them another veto so that they can say, “We are not satisfied, therefore this cannot go forward.”? That is not right or proper. That may not be the intention of the Bill, but I am convinced that it is how some people will use it.

The difference between what happens now and what is proposed is that, at present, any developer has to consult certain bodies. It has to say to people who provide waste systems, sewerage, water and power, “Can you deliver for us?” and they can say yea or nay. What they cannot do, and what the Bill will mean they can do, is say, “We aren’t satisfied we can do it, therefore you can’t move forward.” That is what we will end up with. Lectures from the Conservatives, who sold off social housing and then refused to build more houses to replace it, do not in any way enamour me of taking lessons from them on providing sustainable communities and decent-quality affordable housing for our young people. That is what this is about.

Mr. Soames: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Anderson: No, I will not, because you would not give way to me.

One of the questions that the hon. Gentleman raised was, how can we save water? Well, we could say to some of the millionaires in the south-east, “Why don’t you turn your swimming pool into a sandpit?” That could go a long way towards saving some of the water that we need. The clear intention in the Bill is nimbyism. The intention is to stop things moving forward and to block the development of quality housing in a particular area. That will have a massive impact on the rest of the country and that should not be allowed.

2.28 pm

Michael Gove (Surrey Heath) (Con): We have had an excellent debate. I hope that the Bill can now move quickly to Committee. I commend it to the House.

2.29 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (Meg Munn): I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman that it has been an interesting debate, but we have had a lot of
14 July 2006 : Column 1661
bluster about proposals that would add absolutely nothing to the processes that we already have in place.

My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mike Gapes) rightly said that the Bill amounts to sophisticated nimbyism. The current planning processes and the regional spatial strategies, linked with the local development framework, do everything that the Bill sets out to do. The hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) is completely wrong to say that there are no provisions for consultation with relevant organisations and with local and strategic health authorities.

It being half-past Two o’clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Debate to be resumed on Friday 20 October.

14 July 2006 : Column 1662