| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am sure that he is aware that Labour Members have been engaged with this issue for a long time. I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that villages are prepared to accept development. However, when the local plan is for 25 houses, that is what they want to end up with. Is my right hon. Friend prepared to consider means to ensure that the planning process is able to deliver that sort of development and not a great deal more housing?
Mr. Prescott: The judgment on how many houses will be in villages or in urban areas is best left to the new framework that I am proposing. The more flexible approach allows all the different bodies to reach agreement and decide on the areas. Whether it is 25 houses for a village or 1,000 for an urban area, the judgment will be made in the local area. The flexibility that I am introducing will make the system more effective than the existing arrangements.
Sir Paul Beresford (Mole Valley): The house projection figures reflect social change over the years. Some of those changes are definitely desirable, but many would consider some to be undesirable. Will the Labour Government attempt to influence any of the undesirable ones?
Mr. Prescott: The hon. Gentleman should be more specific about what he feels to be undesirable.
Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton): I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and in particular his reference to strengthening local responsibilities. Last year was the 50th anniversary of the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, and bringing responsibilities back to local areas is welcome. If he wants to develop a millennium village in West Yorkshire, I can offer him two sites. Horbury and the former mining village of Sharlston would make admirable sites for a millennium village.
Mr. Prescott: My hon. Friend has a long history of wishing to see the decentralisation of Government decisions, so I well understand why he welcomes the proposals that I announced today.
As regards making a bid for a millennium village, my hon. Friend's is the second application that I have received. The first was Hull.
Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham):
The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned the possibility of a tax on green-field sites, which was originally trailed some time ago. Will he confirm that if such a tax goes ahead, he will ensure that the proceeds from it are reinvested exclusively for the betterment of rural areas and will not be confiscated by the Chancellor for his own nefarious purposes?
Mr. Prescott:
I did not hear the last part. It did not sound as if it was worth while anyway.
On taxation arrangements, the decision will be made at the appropriate time by the Chancellor.
Mr. Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow):
My right hon. Friend was far too generous to the previous Government when he described their policies as "predict and provide". They may have predicted, but they certainly did not provide affordable social housing. I hope that he will ask regional planning conferences to set specific targets on social housing.
With regard to town centres, I ask my right hon. Friend to look at some of the schemes that were successful but grossly underfunded, such as living above the shop, and whether we can put more effort and money into such schemes.
Mr. Prescott:
We are looking at those matters. The judgments on social housing will be made by the local authorities with the regional planning conferences. We have a major part to play, with our housing programmes. My hon. Friend mentioned the "predict and provide" policies of the previous Administration. During their time in government, the Conservatives produced 1 million fewer houses than the average building programme of a decade earlier.
Mr. Cynog Dafis (Ceredigion):
I am glad that the Deputy Prime Minister spoke about a living countryside and thriving communities in rural areas, but how does he reconcile that with the Government's apparent intention to use the current crisis in farming as a way to bring about a radical downsizing of employment in agriculture? Does he agree that if that downsizing occurs and if the crisis continues, we shall see a catastrophic decline in rural areas, and their economic viability will be pulled out from under them?
Mr. Prescott:
I have a great deal of sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. There has been a massive change in the economic circumstances of rural areas, which is largely because of considerable changes in agriculture. The report that I mentioned shows the decline in essential services in rural areas. The solutions that we have put forward--to work with rural areas and to bring in regional development agencies--will play a major part in improving the situation in rural areas. It could not be worse than what happened under 18 years of Tory government.
Mr. Hilton Dawson (Lancaster and Wyre):
I commend my right hon. Friend's statement, which will be regarded
Mr. Prescott:
Under the new planning system, parish and town councils, while not making the decisions, will have greater influence through the regional conferences. Decisions will not be passed from top to bottom. Councils will be able to determine their own areas and decide, exercising greater flexibility, how they will be spread within the region.
Mr. James Paice (South-East Cambridgeshire):
Does the Deputy Prime Minister accept that bragging about the size of the green belt is irrelevant and that what matters is where it is? Constantly removing green belt from the inside and expanding by greater percentages outside does not protect communities in the cities from sprawl or the countryside from development. Unless the green belt is inviolate, it fails in its principal purpose.
Mr. Prescott:
It was not inviolate under the previous Administration. I can give the hon. Gentleman the figures, if he tables a parliamentary question. Previous Secretaries of State had to make balanced judgments. I do not criticise that. The green belt became an issue only because we were told that we were cutting it, and the record--[Interruption.] Every Government, including the previous one, built on green-belt areas. We have increased the green-belt area by more than 30,000 hectares in less than 10 months. That is a pretty good record.
The hon. Gentleman has a fair point, which Secretaries of State have to bear in mind when judging planning matters. I may allow house building on the edge of Stevenage's green belt, for example, and people may say that providing green belt elsewhere does not necessarily satisfy demand. I understand the point, but could be more sympathetic: people in urban areas, too, like green-field sites, but the Conservative Administration constantly sold such sites--school playing fields, for example--and were indifferent to green-belt considerations.
Mr. Mike Hall (Weaver Vale):
I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement, because it signals a significant policy change. The previous Administration's planning approach was guided by a presumption in favour of development. Local authorities would refuse planning applications, only for decisions to be overturned on appeal and costs awarded against them. A more democratic approach to local decision making will allow the protection of green-field sites.
Mr. Prescott:
How could I possibly disagree?
Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex):
May I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's policy change on targeting recycled sites? I should be grateful if he enlightened me as to where that leaves Essex, which has already agreed in principle to an extra 85,000 homes. Will he shed light on these shadowy new organisations, regional planning conferences? Is he aware that he has changed his policy?
Mr. Prescott:
As I said in my statement, the responsibilities of the Secretary of State have not changed.
Madam Speaker:
Order. I am bringing this debate to a close. We shall no doubt return to these matters very soon.
Dr. Nick Palmer (Broxtowe):
On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to correct a statistic that I gave the House two weeks ago. When I introduced the Acquisition and Possession of Air Weapons (Restriction) Bill, I said that 7,000 police officers had been injured and one had been killed by airguns in recent years. It turns out that that was the number of injuries sustained by the general public, whereas I interpreted it as injuries sustained by the police. I want to correct that. I am appreciative of the hon. Member for Blaby(Mr. Robathan), who drew the error to my attention. I apologise for unintentionally misinforming the House.
4.29 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |