Urban Renaissance

HC Deb 14 July 1999 vol 335 cc341-63

11 am

Mr. Anthony Steen (Totnes)

Here we go again: the same Minister, and the same hon. Member trying to persuade the Government to do better, to do more and to do it quicker. I am glad that the Minister for London and Construction has heard my previous speeches because we have known each other for a long time and he knows that I hold his job in high regard, and him in relatively high regard too.

We must congratulate the Government on commissioning "Towards an Urban Renaissance", and Lord Rogers on a tour de force. The report contains the same aims and ideals to which we all aspire and which were well rehearsed at the Rio Earth summit in 1991, where "sustainable development" and "integration" became the new buzz words.

Many of the conclusions in "Towards an Urban Renaissance" are similar to those in my book "New Life for Old Cities", which I published in 1982. My book only received coverage in the leader in The Daily Telegraph; it was not launched as dramatically as the Rogers report, and I did not have such a distinguished team of advisers. However, much of the report draws comparisons with my work of the early 1980s. During the intervening 17 years, the problems, strangely, have remained, and solutions still need to be found.

I was an inner-city Liverpool MP for nine years and have been an MP for south Devon for 15 years. In addition, I have worked as a social worker, community leader, youth worker and director of two national charities, one of which was launched by the then Prime Minister, Harold Wilson, in the late 1960s. The House may therefore feel that my experience has some relevance.

Every Government, for as long as I can remember, have launched urban initiatives with a fanfare of trumpets and announcements from the Front Bench. In the '60s and the '70s, there were social programmes. I believe that the Minister worked in the voluntary sector at the time, and he will remember the urban aid programme and its good work; the community development project; educational priority areas; and 1,001 other schemes with similar names.

The '80s saw a shift from social schemes such as the community development project to economic schemes. There were public-private partnerships to assist in urban regeneration. "Partnership" was the buzz word of the '80s. Free ports, development corporations and enterprise zones were dotted all over the country. In the early '80s, we saw my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine) swinging—if that is the appropriate term—into Merseyside, where he sought to inject new private finance. I remember that he frequently held breakfasts with the leaders of all the political parties. As I was the sole Conservative there, I always felt slightly left out because I was not asked to those breakfasts. If my right hon. Friend cannot achieve an urban renaissance, who can?

The Rogers report highlights the fact that in England, urban areas account for 90 per cent. of the population, 91 per cent. of the economic activity and 89 per cent. of the jobs. Unemployment in the inner cities runs at almost double the rate elsewhere, and 1.3 million residential and commercial buildings are currently empty. It is no wonder that, according to the report, one in four people living in urban areas thinks that things are worse there. The problem of lack of public transport is well rehearsed and it is high on the agenda.

In the late '80s, the cry went up, "Let's utilise derelict public land for urban regeneration." Our Government introduced the public land register to identify land for that purpose, and about 200,000 acres was identified. However, privatising the major public utilities—British Rail, gas and the water companies—to which much of that land belonged meant that land passed from public to private ownership overnight, so the public land register figures decreased dramatically as the privatisation of those utilities went ahead. We do not have much idea of the extent to which there is private vacant land because there is no register for that. We do not know exactly how much public vacant land there is—although we have a very good idea—because the register was closed in 1996.

One way to ensure that land is used, whether it is public or private, is to penalise financially those who hold on to it for commercial gain, rather than commercial use. Business rates could be doubled every year as long as the land remained unused without good reason. Although that sounds a draconian suggestion, the only way to ensure that private and public vacant, derelict or dormant land is used is to take a stick to the landowners to encourage them to develop their land. The best way to do that would be to use the business rate mechanism to punish them. There are so many thousands of acres of under-used land in cities that the idea strikes me as fitting in well with the Government's policy that 60 per cent. of all new house builds should be on brown-field sites.

The Rogers report is a wish list of things that cannot be achieved without political will. Regeneration cannot take place only with public money. Partnerships between the public and private sectors are a start, but without the political will, they are not enough. In addition to having the political will, we must lift the restrictions and burdens that suppress enterprise. We cannot change the location of Liverpool, which faces the United States, not the European Union. Nor can we change the pattern in which freight now comes by air rather than sea. The real change is to cultivate and sustain the enterprise culture, while protecting the community from possible abuses.

If our principal cities are to be places to which people will return to live and work, we must do more than tinker with the edges of council estates or refurbish listed buildings. If we are to inject enterprise so that our cities buzz like Hong Kong, we have to start by changing the attitude of the people living in those cities. There must be fewer rules, fewer regulations and fewer restrictions to inhibit enterprise. In effect, I am calling for a cultural sea change. The Government can provide the basic infrastructure and the climate in which city regeneration can and should happen.

Approximately 50 per cent. of the population of Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester and Glasgow has poured out of those cities since the end of world war two. The principal reason for that was the demolition of the inner-city slums and the cry that we must provide "homes fit for heroes". As the bulldozers smashed slums in the inner city, new slums were being built on the outer edges of cities. The inner city remained a repository for the old, the unemployed and immigrant communities, whereas the outer city was for upwardly mobile, younger people who moved there from the inner city but created new slums on the arc of council estates that surround many of our principal cities today. London may be the exception, but by and large people prefer not to live in inner cities, regarding the new towns and green-field sites as attractive places to bring up their families. If we want to make our inner cities comparable with Boston, Baltimore and Atlanta, there has to be more than the will; we need a financial carrot so that if the developers develop inner cities, they get the cream and strawberries, but if they build on green-field sites, they pay a financial penalty. There has to be some incentive.

The whole House—certainly the Conservative party—was disappointed that the Chancellor did not include that in his Budget, as we were all looking to him to carry out what we thought was the Government's policy towards urban regeneration and give people incentives to build in inner cities. The Rogers report also makes that point.

Local authorities cannot be expected to put the cities right. Their track record, however well-meaning, has been rather lacklustre. They are capable of spreading butter on the bread, but they have no idea about the ingredients or about how to bake the bread. It is not their fault; it is simply not their job.

Lord Rogers' s report lacks the political dimension without which the possibility of many of his recommendations being put into practice is unlikely.

Urban regeneration will not happen without a cultural and economic sea change. That entails a shift from increasing centralisation and enforcement to spreading responsibility and opportunity across an entire community. Downtown Atlanta is exciting and vibrant because the neighbourhoods hold real political clout and power and the mayor, who is the chief executive as well as the political leader, has maintained strong links with business communities, enabling him to drive through billion-dollar programmes to rebuild Atlanta. Did any of the money come from central or local government? I think not. It came from lifting restrictions and offering incentives to private enterprise. Britain lacks the climate in which cities can revive themselves.

The United States has offered real tax breaks and virtually no planning constraints, bar certain regulations ensuring that new buildings are safe. By constraining developers, British planners have unwittingly colluded with bad design and, in addition, have imposed their limited vision on our entrepreneurs, innovators and developers. If developers were given free rein, they would not build ugly buildings, because ugly buildings do not sell. They would build attractive buildings with high-quality design, because bad design does not sell. The market will see to that. Good design will sell. In any case, one can hardly imagine any of our major cities looking any worse if they did not have planning restrictions. Some of them look disgraceful despite all the planning restrictions that have been passed down over the years.

Each year, the srcutiny Committee, on which I have the honour—I am not sure that it is a privilege—to serve, approves around 2,200 rules and regulations from Brussels, each of which has some tiny impact on our daily lives. Those rules and regulations add layer after layer of additional bureaucracy. Additional fire, health and hygiene regulations make the regeneration of our cities that much more difficult, and there is no limit on public funds to be found if one shouts any of those three buzz words. There is always public money to deal with a fire risk, a health hazard or unhygienic conditions.

Cities such as Liverpool cannot be revived so long as there are competitors that are better placed to attract new enterprise. The Chancellor had an opportunity to offer in his Budget incentives linked to regeneration. The Rogers report relies heavily on local authority initiatives, assuming that local authorities are the engine for regeneration. Local authorities cannot take on that burden, largely because their traditional and accepted role is that of agents of Government. They merely do what they are told and the Government pay them. They have very little scope for enterprise, as they have very little money left over. Their hands are tied by central Government and they have very little spare cash, as most of their resources are spoken for by salaries. They may have a few bob left over, but they cannot fund massive change and city regeneration.

Where neighbourhoods are revived, it is usually because of a few exceptional leaders or an injection of special help such as the projects in the 1960s and 1970s initiated by Labour and Conservative Governments. Regrettably, people in the poorest areas have become too dependent and expect the state to do whatever is necessary to look after them. What I call the council estate mentality presents a problem for urban regeneration. In the inner cities and elsewhere, it robs people of the emotional ability to change the location and environment in which they live. They are totally unhelped by their local authority, often for good reasons.

Instead of public officials in town halls dealing with thousands of people in the community, we need those thousands of people to be active and fewer officials. In fact, if local government were scaled down, with correspondingly less bureaucracy and fewer rules and regulations, that might be sufficient to kick-start urban regeneration and self-help. Creating an elite to deal with urban regeneration and ordering change, as Rogers has proposed, is unlikely to do very much, but if planning regulations were lifted and taxation dramatically reduced, inner-city regeneration would occur spontaneously.

There is a new joker in the pack, and I am not referring to the Minister—although, if the hon. Gentleman plays it properly, it could be the catalyst for urban regeneration and inner-city revival: it is the 4.4 million new homes that were planned to be built by 2011. The Government have quite rightly reduced that number to 3.8 million, and I welcome that. The last place that such homes should be built is in the countryside, however; they should be in urban areas. That is why I welcome the Government's commitment to building 60 per cent. of new homes on brown-field sites—the sites that I identified in another of my excellent publications in the late 1980s, called "PLUMS—Public Land Utilisation Management Schemes". I proposed a glorious auction whereby every bit of vacant public land would be sold to the highest bidder with a covenant that they had to develop it within two years. Sadly, that did not happen, although it nearly did, as I shall explain in a moment.

Mr. Adrian Sanders (Torbay)

Before the hon. Gentleman moves on, I have read his booklet, "PLUMS". What he suggests is very close to the idea of site value rating. Does he consider that the taxation of the value of sites in a number of cities overseas ensures that brown-field sites are developed? Will he also congratulate the local authority, a quarter of which is in his constituency, on achieving well over 60 per cent. of new house building on brown-field sites?

Mr. Steen

The hon. Gentleman always has a little dig. It is clear that he would like me to congratulate the Liberal local authority on achieving 60 per cent. brown-field site development. Whatever the political complexion of a local authority, if it achieves 60 per cent. it has done very well. However, local authorities must do a little better. I hope that with the hon. Gentleman's help—and a quarter of mine—we might be able to get the Torbay unitary authority up beyond 60 per cent.

A problem with site valuation that is tied up with all the rules and regulations is historical value. A great deal of land has a value on it which it cannot command. If the Government and local authorities remain committed to historical value, they will not be able to get rid of it. I have a feeling that it is not possible to write down values at local authority level if they have reached an astronomically high level as a result of historical increment. That may need to be considered in the context of brown-field site development. Is that what the hon. Gentleman was considering?

Mr. Sanders

No. This is becoming quite an interesting debate—certainly between the hon. Gentleman and me. Putting a tax on the value of land to ensure that it is properly developed is a way of reducing the number of derelict sites in inner cities. 1 have in mind particularly taxing boarded-up shops, which are subject to a council tax reduction. Yet that reduction in footfall affects neighbouring businesses. That seems unfair to businesses that are still trading.

Mr. Steen

On this occasion, the hon. Gentleman has made rather a good point. All devices need to be considered to ensure that urban regeneration is occurring in the round and not only where there are individual Government projects. I welcome the hon. Gentleman's intervention in this instance and I hope that the Minister may be able to throw some light on the point that he has made.

I have mentioned the need for 60 per cent. of new developments to be on brown-field sites. I move on to the Government's consultation paper, planning policy guidance note 3. The new word is PPG3. As I walk down the Corridors in this place I hear colleagues asking, "What is going on with PPG3?" I hope that the Minister will tell us what is going on with it. There is a high level of expectation that any day now—I hope that it will be today—he will say something meaningful about the implementation of PPG3. I think that it is an excellent document. It was discussed widely throughout the country by interest groups, forums and focus groups. Many groups throughout the country were concerned that the Government should get PPG3 right.

The document contains a rather unusual idea—a sequential approach to building. I have never seen it before and it is extremely interesting. If the Government pull it off, it could be the beginning of a 20th-century urban renaissance. The idea is that green-field development would be halted until city sites had been used up. That would force developers to fill unused, under-used, vacant, dormant and derelict land in both the public and private sectors. If that was accompanied by tax incentives, urban regeneration would really take off.

If anyone doubts that successive Governments have failed, they should study the population shifts in our major cities. In the 1950s, Liverpool and Manchester were each represented by 11 Members. At the 1997 general election, that number had declined to five. The populations of Manchester and Liverpool declined by more than 50 per cent. between 1950 and 1997. Other principal cities throughout the country showed similar trends.

Developers need to be directed both to the inner city and the outer city. Some of the worst conditions remain in the outer city. There needs to be a central Government commitment to renew antiquated infrastructure. Rail links are only just able to cope and they are often unreliable. Main downtown stations are not properly served. If people are to flood back to the cities, the public sector must dovetail with private enterprise to provide the necessary schools, hospitals and recreational facilities. I am at a loss to understand why the Government have gone on talking—perhaps they have not, but we have—about road building. Why do we not have new rails? Instead of having new roads planned, why do we not ensure that in the next 10 years new railways appear throughout Britain? That is what I would like to see.

Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

Is that the new deal for the motorist?

Mr. Steen

Let us not worry about that. Let us worry about a new deal for the railways.

There is no point in building in the inner city if people have to commute to the outer city, to motorway intersections where many of the new business parks are located. The mismatch is a national problem. People criss-cross cities throughout the country and beyond, spending hours travelling in opposite directions, when the job could be just down the road. Jobs should be closer to home or people should be working at home.

Some say that high-rise flats are things of the past. However, high-rise, high-density housing can be beautiful and can provide alternative high-quality living. It is to be found throughout Europe and in the capital cities of the world. Middle-income earners will buy such properties, even on the 18th floor, if the flats are properly managed and there is a swimming pool and, particularly, a gym. Such housing needs to be well designed and made of high-quality materials and located in a community that is vibrant, exciting and safe.

Every Government, from Wilson's to Thatcher's, and including the new Labour Government, have initiated an urban inner-city strategy. However, they have been piecemeal and have succeeded only spasmodically because they have been based on small projects rather than on the social and economic regeneration of our cities. The best way of regenerating run-down cities is to offer special incentives to developers as well as additional financial incentives to those who choose to live in areas such as Brixton in London, Toxteth in Liverpool and Moss Side in Manchester.

There are fairly radical views that could be laughed at, but I do not see why. For example, what I said in the 1980s about selling off derelict land was laughed at. I wrote my book "New Life for Old Cities" 17 years ago. People said that what I advocated could not be done. Seventeen years later, however, people are now asking, "Why cannot we give tax incentives to those people who live in the poorest parts of a city?" Instead of paying 20 per cent. tax, they would pay 10 per cent. There would be an incentive for them to make money. There might be the problem of the yuppies returning, and so on, but we would be regenerating the areas about which we are all complaining.

Planning policy guidance note 3 could provide the rocket fuel by changing priorities and refocusing development from the countryside to the cities. I accept that there are problems. We have a problem with structure plans, which are fixed and are the basis for local authority local plans. I invite the Minister to advise district councils that, in preparing their local plans, they should be calculating the figures for new house build on the basis not of 4.4 million units but of 3.8 million. He has got himself in a bit of a fix. He has reduced the national figure from 4.4 million to 3.8 million, but county structure plans have already been fixed on the basis of 4.4 million. Local authorities are making local plans on the false original figure. The Minister should make a little adjustment so that local authorities do not continue planning for a figure which the Minister says is unsustainable nationally.

Unless PPG3 forces county councils to reduce the present projections in line with the Government's new target, we shall not even start to change thinking on numbers. We need to find the political will, which must go beyond one Minister and one Department—however good their work may be.

The vision of urban regeneration which Lord Rogers's report favours should herald a Cabinet commitment to a city pincer movement to squeeze out poverty and bad housing from down-town areas and out-of-city council estates, and replace them with new modern buildings for upwardly mobile young people, who can resettle in the area with their families—rather like settlers in the holy land in the 1950s and 1960s—as part of the urban regeneration dream.

This country has produced fine reports over the past 30 years, but little has changed. When I spoke in successive debates in the 1980s on these matters it was like preaching in the wilderness. When I suggested the privatisation of public land, everybody thought that I was mad. But they were wrong. When I suggest the privatisation of public land now, everyone thinks that it is a jolly good idea. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley who had the vision of urban regeneration necessary to take it forward, and to my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who was on the verge of implementing my proposals on the auctioning of public vacant land when he was promoted.

Cities remain sad places. In her book "The Life and Death of a Great American City", June Jacobs focused on how America has reformed its ailing north-eastern cities, rebuilding them as places where people where people want to live and work. Professor Alice Coleman of King's college has done amazing work in this country on how to rebuild safe inner-city council estates. I pay tribute to both of them, and I warmly welcome Lord Rogers's report.

The aspirations of the report would largely be killed off if it were placed in the unimaginative hands of local government for action. I have explained why. City councils often reflect the deprivation of the people living within their boundaries, rather than having the people needed to rebuild run-down communities and restore confidence by attracting new investment and funding. Only Government can provide the climate and fund the infrastructure. A pilot scheme for the city, with low taxation for those who return to live in it and incentives for those who build in it, could produce a Hong Kong mentality in microcosm across an entire population.

I am sorry that my party never ran with the ideas that I formulated and proposed to the House time and again. As a practising community worker, I thought I knew what I was talking about. Let us hope that the new Labour Government seize the opportunity for real regeneration of our cities, while also recognising the importance of protecting our rural heritage and our countryside.

11.31 am

Mr. David Drew (Stroud)

I am delighted to take part once again in a debate initiated by the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen), who deserves a prize for persistence, if nothing else. Given his wonderful self-justification and explanation of why his books did not sell as well as they should have done, and why his ideas were not taken on board as they should have been, perhaps his time has come, and the Government will reread some of his proposals.

The hon. Gentleman was a little churlish in some of his remarks about the impact of the report by Lord Rogers and the other members of the task force. I pay tribute to their work, which is a blueprint for the way forward. Their ideas could produce valuable work. The report contains more than 100 recommendations, and it is easy to say that many of them will fall by the wayside, but I hope that each will be considered by the Government in due course.

Although I was unable to attend the launch of the urban task force report, I know that there were slightly different interpretations in the press of what my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said. From what I have read, I think that he gave the report a warm welcome. The Government are committed to an urban White Paper and, linked to that, a rural White Paper, so they will have to be judged by what they do.

The Government certainly intend to make a start on the biggest national issue—the decline of our cities. That affects everything that we do, whether we live in the city, in a village, or, as I do, in a market town, because they are all inextricably linked.

I invited the task force to visit two of my market towns, Stroud—the main market town of the constituency—and Nailsworth. It was an enjoyable day. Members of the task force were open-minded and they listened, and I hope that the evidence that they took back helped to make the report the weighty document that it is. Unfortunately, we seem to have slipped out at the final editing stage, but I am assured that the ideas that we presented to the task force played an important part in its considerations.

We should not deal with the report in isolation, or see it merely in relation to the inner city. It has much greater resonance than that. The welcoming remarks of the Council for the Protection of Rural England sum up why it is such an important document: Urban renewal is essential if we are to tackle effectively the problems and pressures facing our rural areas. We now have a route map towards an urban renaissance. The Government as a whole needs to follow it with vigour and determination. The CPRE's director, Kate Parminter, said: Paradoxically the renewal of our towns and cities is the key to tackling some of our most pressing rural problems. I heartily concur. My main purpose in inviting the task force to visit the Stroud area was to enable its members to study problems on a different scale from those of our cities. Market towns, too, have experienced decline and face problems of their own. It is increasingly recognised that if we are to deal with the problems of the cities, we must deal with the problems of the market towns, and that we ignore rural decline at our peril.

I shall make five points—briefly, as I know that other hon. Members want to speak. My starting point is the urban-rural connection. If we adopt the report's recommendations, we must appreciate their knock-on effect on rural Britain.

As the hon. Member for Totnes said, housing development is a central issue, although it should not be seen as the only one. I myself could be accused of being obsessed with housing development and housing numbers, but other factors, such as where jobs, shops and leisure facilities are located, are important, too. Our postbags are full of letters from people who do not want a particular housing development, or do not want it on the proposed site, and so on.

The report revisits the questions of how we will achieve the goal of 60 per cent. of development on brown-field sites, how we will introduce a sequential test, and how we will manage the land supply more successfully than in the past. All those aims require us to get the relationship between urban Britain and rural Britain right. It is generally accepted, as the hon. Gentleman argued, that that relationship has been unsatisfactory for a generation, if not longer.

My second point is that to put matters right, we must revise and improve the planning mechanism. That is central to Rogers's argument. It is easy to cast aspersions, but we know that the planning process has been misused and even abused. People are dissatisfied. They think that it has been over-centralised and that local decisions do not hold sway.

The hon. Gentleman was a little unfair to local authorities. I agree with him that they do not have the means of reforming the planning process, but they can provide community leadership, which is vital to the Government's aim of making local government fit for the 21st century. That community leadership must work with the private sector, the public sector and the independent and voluntary sector.

Mr. Steen

I am a great supporter of local government, and would not want anyone to think otherwise, but I just do not think that it has the tools to do the job. if it had, it could make some progress, but unfortunately, local authorities' track record is not as good as the hon. Gentleman or I would like.

Mr. Drew

I do not disagree with that. We must renew local government, not it its traditional role as the only funder, but in partnership with other sectors. We must get the planning process right. I am pleased that the Minister for London and Construction and the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning have spent time on issuing consultation documents. People might say that that is a cop-out and avoids action, but I do not agree. We must take people along with us by ensuring that planning proposals are, if not universally popular, as consensual as possible. We all want the same outcome; the question is by which means we achieve it.

Given his interest and background, it is not surprising that Lord Rogers has a lot to say about the role of urban design in successful planning. I welcome much of what the report says about the need for that design factor to be paramount to make people want to live in our urban centres. We all know why they do not want to live there, and we must turn that round. Britain's cities are, if not unique, at least unusual by comparison with many continental cities that we all visit from time to time, which seem to be able to attract people to live in them. Even if those people have places elsewhere, their main residence is still in the city. As the hon. Member for Totnes made clear, the outward drift of people has become a torrent in Britain. We must turn that round, because we cannot afford to go on as we are.

Fiscal mechanisms are important. The criticism of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor was a little premature, because we have been waiting for the report for some time. It would have been wrong to introduce legislation, and certainly to introduce changes through budgetary mechanisms, beforehand. One is always open to criticism if one makes one's mind up in advance of a report. I hope that the fiscal measures suggested in the report are treated seriously. They do not involve a green-field tax, which some would feel is not a particularly adventurous decision. None the less, it is right to make it more difficult to develop green-field sites, whether by way of impact fees or any other means.

In addition, it is important to harmonise the VAT regime and ensure that developers and owners have real incentives to use the more urban settings and bring contaminated land back into use. So much of our inner-city landscape has been blighted, and putting it right will cost real money. It is no good talking as if that will occur as a matter of course. There are significant problems, and we must offer incentives.

I also welcome the renaissance fund of £500 million over 10 years. The hon. Member for Totnes said that it was small beer—unfortunately, it is—and he talked of the need to put in place some form of catalyst. The fund is a start, but much greater resources will be required. We are trying to solve the problems of our cities for the next millennium.

If I have a criticism of the report, it is that, although I agree that planning is the key, it looks more at structural approaches than at people. To encourage people back into our cities we must get the schools and the health service right. Therefore the social and economic environment—and, dare I say, the political agenda—must be put in place. The report was intended to consider the planning agenda, so it would be daft if it did not concentrate on that, but I hope that the two White Papers will ensure that there is an underlying emphasis on how people's lives can be improved. If that is done, the outward drift will at least be slowed down, and eventually it will be turned round. That is a criticism, but I understand why there is not much in the report about that aspect.

Planning is at the forefront of the way in which we genuinely want to turn things round, but more central to achieving that than anything else will be the way in which we improve transport, not just in the urban centres but in the rural areas. Transport is crucial to everyone's lives, and if we do not get that right, everything else will fall by the wayside, regardless of whatever wonderful new plans are put in place, and regardless of our attempts to improve design.

I welcome what the report says about planning for a different transport system. Some of its proposals, such as home zones, may be a little zany, but there is genuine evidence of the need for people to accept reductions in the number and use of cars—for example, by accepting parking space for one rather than two, three or even more cars. That seems a fairly minor matter, but try persuading planning authorities, let alone the people who submit plans, that it is the right approach.

We must change attitudes. We have the ambitious target of reducing car journeys by 65 per cent. That will be difficult to achieve. We know the problems and the pain that it will cause, and we know that people must be encouraged to consider alternatives. It is important to encourage rather than to make people take action, because people must have a choice. But we cannot pretend that our cities can survive into the next millennium unless we consider the thorny problem of transport and ensure that people have alternatives—not just those who live in the cities but those who travel there to work or for other reasons.

I welcome the report. I hope that it will do more than see the light of day and cause a bit of pzazz for a few hours. I hope that it will genuinely form the basis of the urban and rural White Papers, and help people to understand that this debate can affect their lives for the better. I hope, too, that it will ensure that appropriate resources will be provided. We are all grateful to Lord Rogers and everyone else involved for what they have done.

1.48 am

Mr. Richard Allan (Sheffield, Hallam)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing the debate. He has inspired me to look up his books in the Library. If they refer to concepts such as site value rating, they will be excellent bedtime reading for a Liberal Democrat, as we find such things fascinating in the extreme.

Mr. Sanders

Better than mogadon.

Mr. Allan

Indeed.

The report is an excellent contribution to the debate on urban policy. I have been conducting an urban policy review for my party, and often, while reading the report, I wished that I had thought of something that was in it. We may have to review our review.

Cities have had a bad press. Many people love living in cities. Most people in Britain do so. I love Sheffield, and I think that I speak for most Sheffielders when I say that I live in Sheffield because I want to. Nobody forces me to stay there. We can overdo the suggestion that cities are a zone of desperate flight out when in fact they are tremendously attractive places in which to live. I hope that we can move the agenda on to talking up cities a little more, talking about their advantages, particularly in terms of access to facilities.

Within striking distance of my home I have two excellent universities, two large and comprehensive hospitals offering a full range of services, two professional theatres and any number of amateur theatres to provide me with entertainment, and I can walk down Ecclesall road near my house and choose between 15 and 20 good restaurants. Not many rural dwellers have access to such a range of services. Those are real things that affect real people. To be able to walk out of one's door and have access to such a range of services is one of the principal attractions of living in a city. The real challenge is how to extend those advantages to everyone throughout the urban areas, and how to deal with some of the problem parts of those urban areas.

There is a huge difference between one part of a city and another. I am fortunate enough to represent the relatively well-off part of my city, but I know that, in terms of all the indicators—such as educational expectancy, and even life expectancy—there is a huge disparity between my area and other areas. We need to spread the advantages of living in some parts of a city across the whole urban area.

I want to discuss some key elements in the report. Mixed-tenure housing is crucial. Sheffield contains large estates where there is single-tenure housing, meaning that there is only one kind of tenant—the council tenant. It also contains housing association areas, where virtually everyone receives housing benefit. One problem is people's inability to stay in their areas; as soon as they can trade up, they get out. We should adopt some of the report's suggestions and bring about more imaginative sets of housing tenure. If we can do that, as people move up the social and economic spectrums they will choose to stay in their own areas, rather than fleeing to attractive suburbs.

Most cities suffer from the same inability to retain people in deprived areas as they move up the social spectrum. That is largely because the quality of housing that people expect as they move up the income scale simply is not there. Not many areas blighted by deprivation contain four and five-bedroomed homes with gardens. Sheffield has bold plans to redevelop some of the larger areas. I think that when cities redevelop they should concentrate on mixed tenure, rather than simply providing new housing with the same tenure as before.

A particularly bizarre scheme involves housing associations paying tenants to move out as soon as they have jobs and can afford their own housing. When those people are able to contribute to the local economy because they are in work, the housing associations want to replace them with people on housing benefit. That makes sense in terms of the housing association's role as a social housing provider, but I do not think that it does the areas concerned any good to bribe people to move out as soon as they become financially active.

Density is another important issue. The hon. Member for Totnes mentioned high-rise living. As we redevelop, there is a trend towards lower-density housing, but there is now scope for us to consider, for instance, new urban terraces. Terraced houses were very attractive in Georgian times: people do not think of terraces in Bath as being deprived housing. I think that we can move back towards higher-density housing if we can overcome some of the other problems, such as transport and parking. If we simply redevelop all inner urban areas with much lower-density housing to make them more attractive, we may miss some of the benefits of being able to absorb extra housing stock in urban areas.

Attracting jobs into cities is vital. In terms of job creation, the north-south divide is very evident, but I think that it can be reversed. There was a fair amount of scepticism when the Midland bank—or HSBC, as I think we are now supposed to call it—moved its headquarters to Sheffield and began shipping in people from other parts of the country, but I understand that the staff love it there. They do not want to move away from Sheffield, where they have a tremendous quality of life.

If firms are bold enough, they can put jobs into cities in the north, in particular, without experiencing the problems that some may fear. EDS, the computer company, has just brought several hundred jobs in information technology into Sheffield. It understands that Sheffielders love Sheffield. It knows that if it recruits Sheffielders it will keep them for a few years, whereas if it sets up a business in the south-east—as it has in the past—it will train people, and a year later they will be gone. Urban areas, especially those outside the south-east, have a great deal to offer in terms of recruitment and retention. We should take advantage of that, rather than simply tipping the whole population out of the north and into the M4 corridor—where I am sure they are often unwelcome, because of the extra development requirements that they impose.

As the report points out, new technology is a key aspect. I hope that we can take advantage of the universities that are generally found in our urban areas. Cambridge is a leading example of the university cities that have introduced science parks. York is trying to do a similar thing with its "science city York" initiative, using the university to add value to the local economy. I hope that the Government will encourage that trend and work with universities to enable them to add value in that way. Such action can give us a leading market edge. It will be easier for us to attract jobs into urban areas if there are high-quality universities producing high-quality graduates who can offer the industrial marketplace something that other areas cannot. Our cities need unique selling points, and universities can provide them.

The brown-field site development initiatives are welcome, but, as has been said, they require incentives. I would look favourably on a green-field development Act, especially if it enabled us to absorb the extra money from such development and recycle it into the brown-field clean-up. The absence of such a virtuous circle often presents a barrier. British Gas sites, for instance, are often left empty because of the phenomenal costs of cleaning them up. Not everyone can put up a dome to help with those costs.

As the report suggests, compulsory purchase orders need looking at. We need to assemble attractive packages of land, but new development is often prevented by the holding of "ransom strips", which means that developers cannot secure the attractive packages that will make their developments viable.

We should also examine the role of city centres. Sheffield has a famous—or infamous—shopping centre, Meadowhall. It was recently sold, and I understand that some of the proceeds will fund the anti-euro campaign—courtesy of Mr. Paul Sykes, one of the developers of the site. Given that many shopping facilities have moved out of the city centres, we should consider their future role.

There are some very hopeful signs. I do not often praise the former city council regime in Sheffield, but I praise it for having introduced a new redevelopment scheme to make our open spaces in the centre more attractive. There is, I think, a significant role for the city centre as an area of public open space, offering entertainment and service facilities of every kind and, perhaps, moving away from the model of the centre as primarily a shopping area. Of course we need shops, but we should accept that time moves on and that city centres can provide more than a monoculture of retailing. Certainly Sheffield is trying to provide more attractive facilities to bring people in.

As has been said, public transport is important, and mistakes have been made. I hope that the Government will think about that, and also that they will consider the issue of equalisation of VAT on refurbishment and redevelopment. There is also the question of local authorities and the repairing of listed buildings. Authorities are often scared to act because they fear that they will not be able to recover the money. I hope that the Government will consider ways of supporting local authorities wishing to serve repair orders on the owners of listed buildings who allow them to fall into disrepair, and guaranteeing the money if the authorities fail to recover it.

I commend the report and hope that the Minister will tell us that the Government intend to act on its recommendations.

11.58 am

Mr. Shaun Woodward (Witney)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on securing this important debate. I also join others in congratulating Lord Rogers and the members of the urban task force.

There is no doubt that it is right for us to consider this issue—albeit, as my hon. Friend said, yet one more time. The question is, what will now be done? Hon. Members have rightly praised aspects of the report, but where do we go from here? The report contains 105 recommendations, and yesterday the Government proudly claimed that they had already implemented one of them. That leaves 104. At that steady rate of progress, the Government should have worked through the report by 2003.

The Minister is clearly anxious for the White Paper to be published soon. It will be interesting to see whether the Deputy Prime Minister is prepared to take on what are undoubtedly powerful political interests. The crucial question is whether he will win the battle for money from the Treasury—and, indeed, where the extra money will come from for investment in public transport and housing. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to tackle local authorities, and ensure that their planning powers are loosened? Hon. Members have rightly mentioned that. The need for urban regeneration arises from the need to find 3.8 million extra homes in the next 25 years. Again, the crucial question is: where will they be?

In some respects, the report makes uncomfortable reading for the Government. Lord Rogers highlights the failure so far to meet the Government's targets on brown-field sites. As he says: Our model leads us to estimate that on the basis of current policies, just over two million dwellings will be developed on recycled sites over the 25-year period of the housing projections. This equates to 55 per cent. of the projected 3.8 million extra households being accommodated on brownfield sites. In other words, if we continue on the current path, we will fall short of the Government's target. The Deputy Prime Minister's response to that was interesting: We shouldn't become obsessive about the figure. That is an extraordinary signal for him to send. It is precisely the wrong signal to send to local authorities and to those involved in planning. As long as such sloppy signals are sent, green field will be built on and brown field will remain vacant. Such indifferent sloppiness from the Deputy Prime Minister will have a continually devastating impact and the targets will be missed.

By the same token, as we can see from the report, if the Deputy Prime Minister were to adopt a more rigorous, exacting attitude, enormous benefits would accrue and many areas of the countryside would be saved. Indeed, if he had read the report in detail, he would have seen that the potential for things to get worse in relation to the proportion of housing to be developed on previously developed land is considerable. We could fail to hit not just the target of 60 per cent. but the target of 55 per cent. Even worse, it could easily fall to 47.4 per cent.

By the same token, if the Government were to discount their sloppiness and go for a rigorous approach, as Lord Rogers rightly points out, increasing average density of new development on previously developed land by just 10 per cent. would allow them to hit the 60 per cent. target. He recommends other ways in which the Government could improve on their appalling record.

The report makes uncomfortable reading for the Deputy Prime Minister for other reasons. Despite Government claims, the report shows that Government spending on inner-city regeneration is behind Conservative levels when we left office. As the report says—[Interruption.] The Minister nods.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

indicated dissent.

Mr. Woodward

Let me refer the Minister to page 286 of the report, which is headed, "The big numbers". It states: Following the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review…the Government promised to increase its regeneration expenditure over each of the next three years. In real terms, however, the increase in expenditure only means that by 2001/02 we will have just overtaken the amount that the previous Government was spending in 1993/94.

Mr. Raynsford

What happened after that?

Mr. Woodward

The report shows that the levels in 1995, 1996 and 1997–98 were above the Government's levels in 1998–99. If the Minister doubts it, he should turn to page 286 and see for himself.

The Deputy Prime Minister must know the trouble that he and his Ministers are in with the report. Schemes to cut VAT rates on construction will not endear him any more to the Treasury. His disastrous transport policies will not win support in the country if he adopts the report's proposal to cut road spending. Perhaps the Minister could tell us this morning whether he intends to cut road spending further.

The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) rightly drew attention to the report's emphasis on the importance of public transport, yet the Deputy Prime Minister continues to preside over some of the worst transport chaos in decades. If we had to take just one example, we would take London. Let us look at investment levels on the tube in London. In 1996, the Government put in more than £1 billion. This year, it is half that: £564 million.

People cannot get to work in London. They cannot get from work to their homes in London. How on earth does the Minister intend to persuade people to follow the report's recommendation and to come to live in the capital when the Government have engineered chaos on its public transport?

People do not need Lord Rogers's report to tell them the truth. The Government have cut spending on the tube and it is getting worse by the day. The Deputy Prime Minister still has no proper agreement and implementation date for his PPP—the public-private partnership. He will almost certainly not be able to hand over London Underground to the mayor next April or May. He still has no agreement for extra money to finance the tube next year and beyond.

The report rightly highlights the fact that it is no use adding to all the derelict land throughout the nation and demanding that it be covered in new houses if no one wants to live there. Houses follow jobs, as all those Ministers who live in Admiralty Arch and Dorneywood know.

The report does not confront directly the fundamental loss of jobs in the north, which has led to the north-south migration. People are leaving the north in huge numbers. The Government continue to preside over that tragic collapse of northern urban areas. After two years, there is still no clear policy on how to reverse it.

At the heart of the report lies the following question: who will pay to halt the decline in our inner cities? Where will the money come from? It will be interesting to see whether the Minister even begins to answer that question.

Briefing before the report was published—unfortunately, as always with the Government, there is a fair amount of leaking before reports ever find their way to the House—estimated that, net, it would cost between £1 billion and £2 billion a year to implement the report's recommendations. The report believes that inner-city regeneration could best be achieved by, among other things, cuts in council tax in inner-city areas, cuts in stamp duty and, crucially, cuts in VAT on conversion properties.

In addressing that crucial question—it is crucial; it will be interesting to see whether the Minister addresses it this morning—the report says on page 255: Refurbishment or conversion of existing residential properties carries full VAT at 17.5 per cent. New housebuilding incurs no VAT, nor does conversion of commercial buildings for housing. There is therefore a strong case for harmonising the different rates, preferably by removing VAT on refurbishments or conversions of residential buildings, or introducing zero-rating. Therefore, as the report says: It is essential that the UK presses the European Commission to enable harmonisation to occur without the need to impose VAT on new build housing development. The crucial question for the Minister is: are the Government pressing the European Commission to enable harmonisation to occur without imposing VAT on new houses? If they do not, if the Treasury does not make extra money available and if the Minister's only solution is to cut VAT on converted property and to raise VAT on new houses, anyone who wants to buy a new home, any young couple, any starter group embarking on a new home, had better realise that the report carries a serious probability—unless the Minister will tell us today that he rules it out: a 5 per cent. tax on new homes over the next 25 years. Perhaps he will tell us whether the Government have plans to introduce that 5 per cent. tax, or say categorically that there will be no 5 per cent. tax on new homes, now or in the foreseeable future

There is no question but that harmonisation at 0 per cent. across the board would be welcomed by everyone. However, how will that be paid for? [Interruption.] The Minister rightly says, "Dream on." We look forward to seeing the White Paper, but can he tell us when it will appear? Will it be like his Department's Railways Bill, which was cancelled last year by No. 10 and delayed this year by No. 10? It is now anyone's guess when it will arrive, let alone be implemented.

Sadly, the true fate of the report rests in the hands not of the Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister, but of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In the Deputy Prime Minister's extraordinarily unwieldy and stagnant empire, it is not he but the Chancellor who makes the decisions. The Chancellor will decide which, if any, of those policies can be implemented. He will make the money available and he will tell the Deputy Prime Minister whether he can have his report.

From where will the money come, if not from the Treasury? The Minister nods, but perhaps he will answer that question. Will it come from current revenues—if so, what will be cut? Will it come from new taxes—if so, on whom will they be levied?

As so often, the success of the Deputy Prime Minister's policies rests in the Chancellor's hands.

Mr. Steen

My hon. Friend is, as usual, making a very powerful speech, for which we are grateful, but I think that he needs to deal with one point. He is going down the track—successive Governments have gone down it, as has been apparent in all the projects—of thinking in terms of injecting funds into bits of the inner or outer city. I was talking about creating an entirely new climate in which cities will regenerate themselves, rather than about pushing in bits of money to create an action area here or a rejuvenation or regeneration there. Although I support my hon. Friend's argument entirely, could he deal with that matter too?

Mr. Woodward

My hon. Friend makes an important point, on which he expanded at length in his speech. He is also quite right. However, that matter is not the report's fundamental tenet, as that wonderful new Labour document is all about going to the Chancellor for money—or going to the taxpayers and finding new ways of fleecing them to pay for regeneration. The report is not about enabling individuals to be free from the planning miasma that has developed, and it will be interesting to hear whether the Minister has anything to say about that.

I ask the Minister: what will be the report's fate? As The Independent recently inquired: But action? For all his bluster, it is hard to point to many of the Deputy Prime Minister's achievements. This is either Mr. Prescott's chance to show his worth, or, more likely, the final proof that nothing concrete will emerge to help our inner cities without a change of minister.

12.12 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Nick Raynsford)

I congratulate the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Steen) on raising this issue and, above all, for his tenacity, over a long time, in expressing his concerns about the importance of urban regeneration.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned his own two books on the subject—"New Life for Old Cities" and "PLUMS"—and, rather wistfully, commented that the first of them was published 17 years ago, when he found himself preaching in the wilderness. I am sorry for that, but, hope that, as I make my speech, he will realise that the Government are committed to pursuing policies designed to give effect to many of the ideas that he has expressed. Although I cannot accept all those ideas, many of the views that he has expressed today and in those books chime very closely with the Government's approach to regeneration.

The urban task force's report has attracted great interest, and I very much welcome hon. Members' comments on it today. The report has been widely welcomed, and the welcome that has been extended to it outside the House has been reflected in the comments made today by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I add my congratulations to my noble Friend Lord Rogers and all his team on a very comprehensive and detailed analysis of one of the most crucial issues confronting our society.

The hon. Member for Totnes mentioned London's relative success, but some northern cities—such as Manchester and Leeds and others—have also shown relative success. The nub of the issue is that, although some urban areas are successful, in past decades others have suffered serious decline. There has been an exodus from inner cities, driven by a lack of confidence in schools, fear of crime, an unhealthy environment, economic setbacks—such as loss of industry—and poor housing. One of the key challenges facing us is to make Britain's towns and cities not only fit to live in but thriving centres of human activity in the broadest sense, comprising economic and social activity, and other activity enticing people to move to and live in those locations.

The Government are trying to promote new thinking in reaching that objective, which is why we asked Lord Rogers and his team to undertake the study. The task force was asked to consider the reasons for urban decline and to recommend how to breathe new life into urban areas.

The task force's report was published on 29 June, setting out its vision for the future of our urban areas. It called for well-designed, more compact and better connected cities that support a range of diverse uses within a sustainable urban environment, with good transport links, and within a framework that is adaptable to change. We welcome the task force's broad vision and the various forward-thinking recommendations in its report.

It would be premature now to provide a full response to the task force's specific recommendations—of which, as all hon. Members will know, there are more than 100—as they merit detailed consideration. However, we shall be doing that in the next few months, before we publish a White Paper on urban policy.

The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) and others have asked when the White Paper will be produced. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it clear that we shall be producing it within the next 12 months. As it will be the first urban White Paper for 20 years—and should be prepared thoroughly and carefully so that it addresses all the issues—we are not committed to a fixed publication date. It would be a mistake to rush out a White Paper simply to give a quick response on an issue that really does merit thought and care.

We have, however, been able to respond immediately to one of the task force's recommendations—to create urban regeneration companies. The day after publication of the task force's report, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning launched the "Liverpool Vision". As the hon. Member for Totnes, in an earlier life, represented a Liverpool constituency, I am delighted that the city of Liverpool has benefited first from the Government's response to the task force's recommendations.

We also have invited a proposal for a second pilot, in east Manchester. We expect early results from the pilots to provide valuable information to feed into the urban White Paper and to provide a model for similar urban regeneration companies in other towns and cities across England.

The urban White Paper will deal with the challenges that must be met if we are to secure an urban renaissance. We must have cities that are prosperous, sustainable and socially cohesive, and offer attractive living and working environments. The urban White Paper will provide a framework showing how policies can be integrated effectively to achieve those objectives.

The task force rightly emphasised that there is no single solution to the problems faced by urban areas: we have to deal with economic, social and physical problems as a whole. The hon. Member for Totnes spoke, perfectly reasonably, about the limitations of local authorities' ability to achieve on their own a turnaround of urban areas. Although they have an important contribution to make, their contribution must be part of a wider partnership—and there must be the full engagement of the business sector, the voluntary sector and local communities. It must be a broadbrush and holistic approach.

I also noted that the hon. Gentleman mentioned the achievements of some American mayors. It is an interesting issue, as it suggests that there may be models of local government that may be more successful than others in helping to galvanise those partnerships and creating impetus for change. He will be aware that the Government are seeking to promote innovative thinking in local government on how best to meet the challenges facing local authorities. He will also know of my own role in creating a framework for London where there will be a directly elected mayor who we hope will perform exactly the role of acting as a leader for London, bringing together all the parties and helping to galvanise London in various ways.

Mr. Steen

I take the Minister's point, but the problem in London is the candidates.

Mr. Raynsford

I shall make no comment on that.

Planning is an essential tool in turning the vision for urban areas into reality. The hon. Member for Totnes rightly focused on planning issues, in which he has shown particular interest over the years. The Government have started work on modernising the planning system and welcome the overall direction proposed in the task force's planning proposals, many of which reflect our "Modernising Planning" initiative.

There is widespread support for our policies from a surprisingly diverse range of bodies, including the Confederation of British Industry and the Council for the Protection of Rural England. A recent CPRE press notice said: The Government's new planning policies begin to put teeth into its commitment to protect the countryside and revitalise the towns. They should have a significant impact on the geography of new building and help to contain urban sprawl. I quote that press release, bearing in mind the comments by the hon. Member for Witney, who used several selective figures, combined with a certain amount of political bluster, to imply that all the problems have arisen in the past two years and that nothing that went on in the previous 18 years, when the Conservatives were in government, contributed to the problems. A brief study of history will reveal that the impact of economic decline during the recessions of the early 1980s and early 1990s, and of the "let it rip" development mania of the 1980s, in which developers were encouraged to develop wherever they wanted—green-field site or not—entirely gives the lie to his extraordinary claim that the problems are associated with the present Government. I am not making a party political point when I say that we are seeking to deal with problems that have a long history. We are seeking to tackle them in ways that genuinely address the economic, environmental and social problems, to try to ensure a more sustainable and better basis for future planning.

We have already taken several steps. "Planning for the Communities of the Future" marked a break with the past and set out our objectives for an urban renaissance. It signalled a departure from the days of "predict and provide" in planning.

The hon. Member for Totnes mentioned the transfer from the previous arrangements to the current ones. That must be handled in an orderly way, taking into account the fact that structure plans and local plans in different parts of the country differ in their preparedness, but we are making that transformation. PPG3, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, is an important part of that process.

I very much welcome the very positive support that the hon. Gentleman has given to PPG3. We believe that it is the right way forward. It will help to encourage redevelopment in urban areas and to focus on quality, both of which are vital. We should be thinking as much about the quality of new development as about the numbers, because in the past one of the great banes of housing and planning policy was thinking mechanistically about numbers instead of thinking about quality and creating environments that people would want to live in and enjoy living in.

Mr. Steen

I think that we agree about PPG3. The only snag is, when will it happen?

Mr. Raynsford

As the hon. Gentleman knows, the procedure in respect of issuing planning policy guidance is that the document must be issued first for a period of consultation. We are considering the responses to PPG3, and we shall make a more definitive statement in the relatively near future. However, PPG3 is a material consideration already, as a draft document, and authorities may have regard to it in considering appropriate planning matters. Once the process of issuing new planning guidance starts, that becomes an influence on future planning decisions, so the impact of PPG3 policies, which the hon. Gentleman welcomes, should already be starting to be felt.

Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire)

I presume that the Minister will wait to hear the outcome of the consideration by the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs of PPG3 before he comes out with the final version.

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman, who is a member of the Select Committee, is well aware that we consider Select Committee reports very carefully. We do not always agree with everything that they say—he would not expect that—but we will look carefully at the Committee's conclusions.

Mr. Steen

Assuming that PPG3 comes into effect, whether or not it reproduces the original consultation document, the implication is that local district councils—planning authorities—will be able to refuse planning consent on green-field sites. If they do not have a city in their district, can they point to the neighbouring town and tell the developer, "Develop there"? What happens if the developer who wants to develop on the green-field site in the district council area appeals to the Secretary of State? Will the Secretary of State be able to turn down the appeal, pointing to PPG3 and saying, "Look in the city next door"?

Mr. Raynsford

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, under the plan-led system, we are seeking to encourage an approach in which sites are identified in advance—in which there is a more proactive approach to planning—so that developers are encouraged to consider appropriate sites. As I shall mention, the national land use database is designed to make it easier to identify brown-field sites in urban areas for development.

However, the hon. Gentleman must accept—as we all do—that, even if we achieve the 60 per cent. target, a certain proportion of development will continue to take place in non-urban areas. Indeed, there is a need, for the vitality of rural areas, for some development to take place in many of those areas, to provide employment and opportunities for people who must live there. A balance must be maintained. We cannot have a mechanistic approach which automatically refuses any green-field development. The purpose of the sequential approach that we are adopting is to steer development towards brown-field areas wherever possible.

I mentioned the national land use database. The hon. Member for Totnes highlighted the lack of knowledge about the extent of vacant urban land. We must have a better understanding of where the land is and where it is available. The national land use database published its first results on 20 May. I find it slightly shocking that that is the first effort of its kind to identify such land. Obviously, it must be developed. Although we only have the initial findings at the moment, it is a step in the right direction and will help us to pursue our policies.

In all these initiatives we are attacking the causes of urban decline and people's tendency to look for alternatives to urban sites for development. We want to reinvigorate cities and encourage people to return to and develop in cities. If we can reverse the decline—if we can make our urban centres more vibrant, exciting and pleasant places in which to work, live, and play—we shall have gone a long way to protect the countryside from unreasonable pressures for development.

I stress, therefore, that the Government are not only focusing on urban areas. We shall publish a rural White Paper to express our concerns for the countryside and the need for appropriate policies relating to rural areas.

My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made several very pertinent comments. He has taken a serious interest in the subject of development in both urban and rural settings and the inter-relationship between the two, which is rarely the subject of the careful thought of which he gave us the benefit this morning. From his perspective, the inter-relationship between urban and rural areas is hugely important.

The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) spoke about the benefits of city life and the need for more diverse tenure patterns and for more diverse mixed developments in city centres. I wholeheartedly concur with him. We believe that a greater diversity in tenure patterns and a mixture of residential, commercial and retail activities in city centres helps to keep vibrancy and avoid their going dead at night, which was often the problem of mono-tenure or mono-activity cities where all the business closed in the evening, people left and the areas were often very unwelcoming and sometimes crime-ridden. Bringing people back to live in the city centre can help to create greater security and vitality. There is an enormous amount to be said for that.

The hon. Member for Witney raised several issues, including that of fiscal instruments. The task force did make several recommendations on fiscal instruments, which the Government will want to consider carefully before replying. As he knows, final decisions on taxation are a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but it was always thus, even under Conservative Governments. I have no doubt that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will want to respond on several of those issues in due course.

The future is about harnessing growth to promote a better quality of urban living and to bring back life to the hearts of our towns and cities. Achieving an urban renaissance goes hand in hand with relieving pressure on the countryside. The task force's report is a challenge to the Government, public agencies, the private sector, local neighbourhoods and individuals. We must all play a part in ensuring that cities and towns become places where we are proud to live and to work. We need to think positively and work across all sectors to make an urban renaissance a reality. This is not a short-term programme—it is about long-term sustainable development.

The task force's report sets out the task before us. It has already started a major public debate about the quality of life in our towns and cities. The Government will continue to work in taking up that challenge.