Self-build and Custom Housebuilding Bill

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Emma Reynolds

Friday 24th October 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I did hear the reference that the hon. Gentleman made—he would be surprised to know that I can do more than one thing at a time—but it is not normal for the Deputy Speakers to intervene. While I am on my feet, may I say that the provision has historically been done on a community basis, not only in Bristol, but in lots of places? Minister.

[Emma Reynolds]

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. You have just promoted me, and I am very grateful for that. The point I was making was not that this is not going on, because we know it is happening in Bristol, Cornwall and other parts of the country. My point is that in Germany and other European countries it is going on at scale, not only in self-build—so on an individual basis—but in collective build. I am referring to the group build discussed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North.

I also wish to say something about social housing, because some impressive Labour councils—I am trying not to be party political—have undertaken interesting initiatives using custom build. That is not happening in all parts of the country and it is not happening at scale, but we can learn and draw inspiration from it. In fact, in a new scheme in Lewisham, the local Labour council is running a custom-build scheme that allows residents—my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Heidi Alexander) knows about this—to choose the design, select the contractors and specify individual requirements. We should not limit this just to private sales: it is just as important to involve social housing residents in design and place shaping, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk said. That is an innovative way to go about new build.

Finally on the Bill’s specifics, I welcome the hon. Gentleman’s intention to delete the last part of the long title, which states:

“to allow volume house builders to include self-build and custom-build projects as contributing towards their affordable housing obligations, when in partnership for this purpose with a Registered Social Landlord; and for connected purposes.”

I understand that his intentions were good, but I agree with his analysis that, if we are not careful, that provision could be misused. We would very much like to protect section 106 arrangements and ensure that developers play their role in delivering affordable housing. I appreciate that he has not been allowed to delete that provision for some strange, technical drafting reason.

The Lyons housing review rightly identifies the problem of the availability and affordability of land as one of the main barriers to self and custom build. In fact, according to the National Custom & Self Build Association, 48% of would-be self and custom builders have a budget of £200,000 or less, which is simply not enough to cover both the construction costs and the land costs. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham North said, land is one of the key problems. Sir Michael Lyons specifically calls for land to be included in plans for self and custom build in a way that allows the kind of broad outline permissions that we see in the Netherlands and Germany to be granted. That is an interesting way to simplify the planning procedure for self and custom build, and it should be considered.

Sir Michael Lyons talks about the need to make land more affordable—the Government have spoken about this—and public land should be a priority. We should think about how public land could be invested as equity. In fact, the review makes recommendations about how we could use public land more innovatively for self and custom build and for other types of housing, too.

All too often, public sector land becomes a victim of the same process as private sector land, where the state—whether a local authority or a Department—sits on the land and waits to sell it off to the highest bidder, so that land is not built on because the process takes time. Sir Michael Lyons suggests in the review that the state take a more innovative view, perhaps by keeping a stake in that land or allowing deferred payments. That could unlock the potential for self and custom build and for other types of house building, too.

More widely, Sir Michael Lyons emphasises giving local authorities more power to be proactive in going about their planning and housing duties, rather than being reactive. In particular, the innovations of housing growth areas and new homes corporations proposed by the review will provide new opportunities for local authorities to assemble plots of land and, crucially, allocate some of that land for self and custom build.

Crucial to trying to drive this sector is the role of the small builder. The hon. Member for South Norfolk said that Mark Clare is on the expert panel of the Lyons commission. As important as Barratt and other volume house builders are, small builders are essential if we are to deliver a step change in the self and custom build ambitions that we all agree need to be furthered. Often, the smaller builders are doing the work and building these new homes.

Sir Michael Lyons and the Labour party more generally have been keen to seek ways to promote greater competition in the market, particularly by helping small builders to access finance. We have set out a help to build scheme, which would underwrite loans for small builders. Only yesterday, we had a meeting of five of the big banks with a number of small builders, facilitated by the Federation of Master Builders, and we were encouraged by the debate that went on between those two stakeholders. Again, if we could ensure that the banks were lending to small builders in a more significant way, it would help us to increase self and custom build in different parts of the country.

In January, in my first major housing speech, I talked about this subject and the need for small and custom builders to have access to land. I said—I still think that this is the case—that local and national Government ignore small sites too often and place much more emphasis on larger sites. Local authorities should include a higher proportion of small sites in their five-year land supply. Often, small sites are brought to market much more quickly. They are often simpler to develop and the projects are easier to get going.

I also said in my speech in January that more public land should be allocated to smaller firms and custom builders. In addition, we have committed to ensuring that a proportion of the homes built in new towns and garden cities will be built by smaller firms and self and custom builders. So there are lots of things that we can do in the land market.

The other aspect of the land market that we are poorly served by is the lack of transparency. We have committed to increasing transparency in the land market by ensuring that developers register the land that they own or have options on. Again, that will help people to identify plots of land for self and custom build.

European Elections 2014

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Emma Reynolds

Tuesday 18th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. Much as the hon. Lady might be tempted by that question, can we stick specifically to the European document before us? Manifestos can be written elsewhere.

[Emma Reynolds]

My overall objective in this House is obviously to make my hon. Friend the Member for Luton North (Kelvin Hopkins) happy, but I will defer to your instructions, Madam Deputy Speaker, and will not go down that line of argument.

In this case, and in others, the European Commission seems to have disregarded a very important principle that applies to European co-operation—that is, the subsidiarity principle. It is clear and obvious to me and Members across the House that it should be the decision of democratic political parties in the UK to decide how to approach European elections and how to campaign for them, and that it is up to Ministers in our Government and to this Parliament to decide on which day we should hold those elections. One of the most concerning elements of the proposals is the one to hold the European elections on the same day across the European Union. The Commission argues that member states should agree on

“a common day for elections to the European Parliament, with polling stations closing at the same time.”

That argument is problematic in two different ways. First, as has already been stated, we have a tradition in the UK of voting on a Thursday that, I understand, goes back to the 1930s. It is now fixed in law that local and general elections must take place on a Thursday. The date of European elections is not fixed in law but, according to section 4 of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 2002, European elections should be held on a date fixed by the Secretary of State for Justice. Nevertheless, here as well, the convention is that European elections take place on a Thursday, in line with other elections, as I described.

There are different traditions in different member states of the European Union. We, the Danes and the Dutch usually vote on a Thursday, the Irish vote on a Friday, and some other member states tend to vote on a Saturday or a Sunday. I strongly believe that it should continue to be a decision made by member states’ Governments as to which day of the week elections should be held. Here in the UK it is essential that there is uniformity across the different sets of elections, so general, local and European elections should all take place on a Thursday.

There is already a problem with low turnout in European elections. I would like to see a higher turnout in those elections. The Commission states that it wants to boost turnout and increase democratic legitimacy. I fear that its proposal to hold elections on the same day throughout the EU would do exactly the opposite of the stated objective. It might further decrease voter turnout and would therefore do nothing to improve democratic legitimacy.

Secondly, the idea that polling stations should close at the same time is also problematic because of the differences in time zones across the EU. Polls that close at 10 pm in the UK would close earlier in Greece, for example. As early as 1960, the European Parliament adopted proposals for a “uniform procedure” for its member states’ elections, to be used by all member states, but in reality, five decades later, there is no uniformity in virtually any aspect of European elections. In most member states, including the UK, voters choose from a party list, whereas in other member states the single transferable vote is used. Voting ages vary as well, so there is no uniformity in these aspects of European elections. Artificially imposing the same election day would be problematic and, as I said, counter-productive.

The Commission also proposes that national political parties make clear their affiliation to pan-European political parties. Again, the European Commission has disregarded the principle of subsidiarity. It is none of the Commission’s business how my party—the Labour party—or the Conservative party, the Liberal Democrats or others want to campaign in the European parliamentary elections. It is up to the respective national parties to decide how best to campaign in those elections. We strongly believe that it should be for national parties also to determine the content of their party broadcasts, without suggestions from the European Commission.

There are some questions that I would like to put to the Minister. Have the Government informed the Commission of their concerns about the Commission’s suggestions, as set out in the motion? What is the Government’s view on how the Commission is likely to follow up these two documents? What is the view of the other European institutions—the European Parliament and the rest of the Council of Ministers?

Increasing participation in European elections and improving the democratic legitimacy of the European Union are objectives that we share, but the proposals that we are debating today will not achieve that aim. They are counter-productive and ignore the fact that according to the principle of subsidiarity, member states and not the European Commission should have responsibility for administering elections within their borders. We agree, as the Minister set out, that national Parliaments should have a greater role and we congratulate the Foreign Secretary on adopting the proposal of the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire South (Mr Alexander), for a red card system, which my right hon. Friend proposed in January this year. It took the Foreign Secretary a few months to come round to the idea, but we are glad that he is there. Such proposals should increase the democratic legitimacy of European Union decision making.

We are therefore content to support the Government’s motion on the European Commission documents, and urge the Government to make the strongest possible representations to the Commission that these proposals should be taken no further.

European Union

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Emma Reynolds

Tuesday 13th December 2011 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

Sometimes the veto—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Dawn Primarolo)]

Order. I think that the hon. Lady has indicated that she is not giving way until she has made some progress in her speech. I heard it and I am sure that hon. Gentlemen did. Perhaps they could remain in their seats for a little while, and the hon. Lady will make it clear when she wants to give way.

[Emma Reynolds]

I promise hon. Gentlemen that I will give way, but I am attempting to give a shorter speech than the one we just heard.

Sometimes a veto is necessary as a last resort, but it is a negative device that can be used to prevent change that we oppose. Back in the early 1990s, John Major used the veto at the Maastricht treaty summit. He got something in return—an opt-out from the single currency, which the Labour Government used to full effect while we were in office. However, the veto cannot be used as a positive device to force change that we want, as the Prime Minister demonstrated last week. He failed not only to secure the changes he demanded, but to stop the changes he opposed. The former Prime Minister got something in return for his veto; the current Prime Minister got nothing in return. It was a phantom veto; it failed to stop anything.

The truth is that the UK has never been outvoted on financial services in the 38 years during which we have been a member of the Common Market. The Prime Minister has defended nothing—walking out of the summit, leaving us weaker, not stronger. It is the greatest failure of peacetime diplomacy in more than half a century. Our partners do not recognise the Britain that walks away from a battle. As one French woman said in a vox pop to The Observer at the weekend:

“I’ve never seen the British give up.”

This is not the bulldog spirit; it is a form of diplomatic defeatism.

It is not surprising that other European leaders did not even give the Prime Minister a hearing. They were completely taken by surprise by a list of demands that did not seem to have anything to do with the discussions in the summit. Not one single line in the summit’s conclusion refers to financial services. Baroness Thatcher pioneered a single market to be decided by qualified majority voting and signed the Single European Act in 1986. The Prime Minister sought to overturn that decision last week, arguing for a removal of qualified majority voting in single market decisions. Needless to say, the Prime Minister’s handbag was not as powerful as Baroness Thatcher’s.

Business of the House (Thursday)

Debate between Baroness Primarolo and Emma Reynolds

Wednesday 8th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Emma Reynolds]

I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. I agree entirely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), who expressed the concern that she has many potentially disadvantaged students in her constituency; I do too, and I should like to have the time to represent their concerns tomorrow. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Leader of the House was disingenuous in suggesting that we had sufficient time—

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

Order. I do not think that the hon. Lady should accuse the Leader of the House of being disingenuous. I am sure she would like to rephrase that.

[Emma Reynolds]

I apologise to the Leader of the House. He said only moments ago that we had sufficient time to debate these issues in the Opposition day debate, but does my right hon. Friend agree that, as the Government made a statement on that day, tomorrow will be the second time they have tried to curtail the time allowed to debate this issue?