14. What steps he is taking to protect the green belt.

The Government are committed to preserving green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades. We have not changed the five purposes of the green belt set out in paragraph 143 of the national planning policy framework. That framework still contains strong protections for the green belt, making it clear that inappropriate development should not be approved unless justified by very special circumstances.

The approach to the green belt taken by Labour Members is the clearest example yet of their saying one thing and doing another. The Secretary of State campaigns against building on green spaces in his own constituency, but he is more than happy to see green spaces in my constituency concreted over by developers. Can the Minister tell me why constituents’ green space in my area is apparently less important than the green space in the Secretary of State’s area?

As the right hon. Lady well understands—we have had this exchange many times—it is for individual local planning authorities to determine whether green-belt land should be released and the exceptional circumstances test has been met. All the clever questions that she comes up with—I admire her ingenuity in doing so—disguise her true position, which is that she does not want any houses built on any green-belt land in any part of her constituency or anywhere near it, even if that means preventing families from buying or even longer waits for people on housing waiting registers.

I call the shadow Minister.

Is the Minister confident that the Government’s invention of the term “grey belt” is providing protection to the green belt?

Well, it depends where you are, doesn’t it?

I am confident, Mr Speaker. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could confirm to me whether it is now the policy of His Majesty’s Opposition that if all reasonable options for meeting identified housing need have been exhausted, including grey-belt land, no green-belt land can ever be released, even in those very special circumstances. If that is their position, the Opposition are consciously and deliberately consigning people in this country to longer misery as a result of the acute housing crisis that got worse on their watch and is still causing misery, which we are undoing.

The Government have previously claimed that so-called grey-belt land is comprised of old petrol stations and disused car parks, but by December 2025, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes on so-called grey-belt land that had been approved by Government planning inspectors, 88% were due to be built on what had previously been undeveloped countryside. The evidence is unequivocal: the green belt is under attack from this Government. Why will the Minister not just admit that the term “grey belt” is in fact a dishonest concoction designed to mislead the general public?

It is anything but a dishonest concoction. As I have said, grey-belt land is determined by local planning authorities where it does not meet the purposes of the green belt, as set out. I come back to the question of what the hon. Gentleman is saying: is he saying that our strategic and targeted approach to the green belt should be replaced by the chaotic and haphazard approach that the previous Government took, under which we saw swathes of green-belt land released across the country, often in the wrong areas? The grey belt is ensuring that the right kind of low-quality green-belt land is released where all other options have been exhausted and where need for housing needs to be met through that avenue.