Читать книгу Parliament - antony jackson - Страница 6

The Chamber was full. More than full. This was, after all, the first working session of the new parliamentary year and this opening debate would be the first real experience of their new job for three hundred new MPs. The past week of induction had taken them through the theory of working life, but this was the real thing.

The Speaker, no longer a sitting member as in the old days, called the house to order so that he could introduce the list of debates due to happen that day. The first was to be on the economy and would start with a statement from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, a mild-mannered ex-accountant from Cheshire, Greg Baldwin.

‘Ladies and Gentlemen, welcome to parliament. For those of you who don’t know me I’m Greg Baldwin. I spent the last session shadowing my predecessor and, subject to your continuing approval, I’ll be in this post for the next two years.

The main business of this government continues to be the economy. We are still re-paying our debts built up in the early years of this century and still coping with the world recession that had its roots in that same age. Growth has been very difficult to achieve over this period, when we have had to concentrate on getting the basic structure of our economy in order. Since 2015, ten years ago, the size of the State has reduced from just under fifty percent to thirty while, over the same period, the level of unemployment has remained at around two and a half million. Average wages over the same period have increased by twenty percent, just a fraction more than inflation. The Country stopped living beyond its means in 2015, with the moratorium on new capital expenditure and the drive to reduce the size of the State, but most of the financial benefit has, since then, gone to paying our debts. You should all have received an economic briefing from the Treasury laying out the numbers and, in line with the programme set out at the opening of Parliament on Friday last, I would now like to open a debate in the house. We are, as a nation, finally in a position to be able to start making some real investments in our future. It is proposed that during this session and the next one hundred billion pounds of new money will be available across the board for projects and policies aimed at securing employment for the future.

It is the view of the Treasury, and mine, that our priorities should remain in the field of macro-economic structure. We learnt many years ago that to rely on other countries to do our manufacturing for us not only reduced our own employment base but also left us well and truly up the creek when those manufacturers imploded, and the supplies dried up. The disaster that is now China has been a hard lesson for us and our European partners, and that story still has some way to run. Fortunately for us the resilience and imagination of the ordinary people in our country has helped us to weather the various storms. It is my view that we should now repay the trust they have shown in our Modern Parliament and come up with practical, well costed and controllable development plans.

You will see from the briefing paper that a number of MP’s have tabled specific proposals and I will now hand over to the first of these, the member for Yorkshire East, Joan Brampton.’

The Speaker called for Joan Brampton, the member for Yorkshire East, which, like many, was a new constituency mapped to include an average number of constituents. Joan lived in Malton, a market town under the North York Moors, but had her constituency office in York, the largest centre of population.

‘Good morning ladies and gentlemen. I’d like to start the ball rolling with a plea for the rural economy. As with all rural areas of widespread, but small, centres of population poorly connected with public transport East Yorkshire has greatly suffered through the inexorable rise in the cost of fuel and the lack of local employment. At the same time we have suffered from the reduction of financial support for hill farming. My constituents are accepting of the reasons for their difficulties but would now like to see policies enacted that could help them. On behalf of my constituents I would like to propose changes to Planning and Landowning legislation that, I think, will go some way to addressing some of the core problems that prevent a sensible realignment of the rural economy.

Despite the problems of the last two decades, it still remains true that a quarter of resources, such as land and property, of our Country rest in the hands of one percent of the population. In East Yorkshire this is most clearly demonstrated by the vast privately owned estates, unchanged for hundreds of years, that dot the landscape. These Estates add much to our lives, they give work to local people, they guarantee the stunning landscapes that tourists enjoy and they provide a link with our heritage. On the other hand their very presence distorts the local economy. The sheer size of their landholding squeezes the population and, coupled with regressive planning regulation and a second-home economy, leaves the native population struggling to keep its place. My proposition is that special provision should be made for populations that can show a connection to a rural area.

One of the problems is that housing, and housing costs, are too great for the relatively low-waged rural workers. Although house prices have reduced somewhat over the last decade it is still true that, nationally, the average cost of a home is around one hundred and fifty thousand pounds. In my constituency it is even greater, with the holiday home effect. Rental costs are related to the value of property. At the same time a farm worker can only expect to earn about twenty thousand pounds a year. We all know the story. Young families either stay and live in poverty or leave their roots and head for an easier life elsewhere. Many, of course, live in tied houses, or have inherited, and lead relatively idyllic lives. We mustn’t forget that. It’s not all bad news and there are many out there who do not wish things to change.

My proposal is to introduce a requirement for landowners to release under-used sections of their land to an agency, established by parliament, charged with distributing this land to qualifying local people. In my proposal the land will remain under the ownership of the original landowner, who will receive a rent based on the land’s agricultural value only. In most cases this rental will actually represent a net financial benefit for the landowner. The second part of my proposal addresses planning regulations.

For many years now the Planning and Building Regulations have required certain standards of construction and insulation. At a time when we were told ‘The problem is NOW, global warming is happening NOW’ we introduced legislation that effectively meant that every new home built would add hugely to CO2 emissions with only a vague promise that this CO2 investment would be paid back after fifty years with the improved efficiency of each new home. Worldwide, the building of new, efficient, homes has hugely increased the damage we have done to our environment. At the same time the extra cost of building-in this ‘efficiency’ has maintained inflated house prices at a time when we may otherwise have expected market forces to reduce them.

For some of us, the recent history, and by recent I mean the last two hundred years, of housebuilding has been an anomaly. We went from a tradition of building homes from whatever materials were available locally to a system of mass production of building materials that would be moved around the country to wherever there was a need. For cities this system is still appropriate but I would argue that there are many rural areas that have local resources sufficient for a new approach to the traditional methods.

I propose that, subject to a number of provisions, qualifying families be allowed to build their own homes with reference to a special set of regulations. The essential requirement will be that each home achieves carbon neutrality within five years. This requirement will be ensured by a number of restrictions imposed on the construction. For example, cement products will be effectively banned, except for small details where no alternative is available and ninety percent by weight of each home must be sourced from within thirty miles of the site. Fuel for space heating must be available from the same catchment and the whole plan for construction and use must be signed off by the statutory body responsible.

I further propose that the country supports this construction effort by providing cheap finance, to be repaid as an affordable mortgage of a scale appropriate to the normal rural income levels.

I further propose that limitations be placed on the onward sale of these homes to ensure that they never become part of the ‘normal’ housing stock.

I would welcome questions on my proposal.’

‘Angus McGregor, member for the Western Isles,’ called the Speaker in response to the raising of dozens of hands in the chamber.

‘Thank you Mr. Speaker.

The people of the Western Isles have, perhaps more than any other region, been at the hands of landowners over the centuries. Not long ago our houses were being burnt by these landlords to force us off the land. We hold no great love in our hearts for these people. On the other hand my descendants lived in small cottages made from whatever was available in the landscape and, while they might have been perfectly lovely in the few short weeks we call summer, they were hell on earth for the rest of the year. Is the lady proposing that we return to living in a barn with our animals to keep us warm? Myself, I prefer my cosy modern bungalow with double glazing and a reliable supply of electricity thank you very much.’

‘Joan Brampton’.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. In my view the Western Isles represents the ideal environment for my proposal. Of course I’m not proposing that we compromise the quality of life of any homeowner. It’s my view that a period of research, perhaps a competition open to the public, can describe building methods that, coupled with the best of modern technology, will ensure a high quality build. This is not about going back to the stone age. It is about taking a practical and cost-efficient approach. I would also like to point out how Mr McGregor’s constituents can benefit greatly from this proposal. There is a simple calculation to be made. If, by introducing this new plan, overall housing costs can be reduced by fifty percent, as my calculations suggest, then that either eases the strain on household income, allowing families to spend on other things, or allows those families to stay on the Islands who would otherwise depart. It also means that new businesses which may be created can become viable much more quickly, without the pressing need for an entrepreneur to earn a substantial wage just to pay his housing bills. It may also be the case that communities too small to provide a proper social existence can be enlarged and made to work again with an influx of new blood returning to their roots.

‘Mary Wells, member for Thanet’

Thank you Mr. Speaker.

‘Over the weekend I sent Mrs. Brampton’s outline proposal to my constituency overview group for their comments. I received a very thoughtful response which, broadly, was very supportive indeed. It was felt to be a very practical and positive addition to the national debate, and to be supported. If my own local overview group is typical, then I think the proposal is a winner. However, underlying the generally favourable reaction was a question which can be summed up as ‘Do we really want to go to war with the landowners right now?’

‘Joan Brampton’

Personally I think that the days when we should pay any attention to any pressure group or clique when considering the benefit of the wider population have long gone, or should have. On a practical level what I am proposing will only effect the margins of some huge landholdings. In some cases it would literally be the half acre corner of a field that could not be properly farmed anyway. It may even be that the more progressive and socially minded landowners will volunteer their land. Who knows?

The debate wound on, with several other ‘old’ members adding their own views and comments. Then, before winding up the debate, the Speaker asked for any questions from the new MPs.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Imogen Black, member for Suffolk East.

I find Mrs. Brampton’s proposal very interesting, and really look forward to seeing its implementation. However, I wonder whether it goes far enough and would like to suggest some other areas of concern that a slightly wider proposal could start to address.

I am particularly interested in promoting ways to even more reduce CO2 emissions, thus leaving a better planet for our grandchildren to inherit. As part of this plan, we must stop transporting food across vast distances. Wouldn’t it make sense, therefore, that each new hamlet has access to enough land to supply itself with produce and that a requirment to use this land is written into any contract?

In principle we should reward people who buy local produce, with some kind of tempting incentive-system. Local recognition, say, with stickers on the windows of participating houses: ’We buy locally & we save your taxes’ . Perhaps part of the plan should be to make other land available for community enterprises that can sell to their local shop. Of course what would work is a reduction in a family’s tax levy if they earn enough points by buying locally. Could this be considered?

To me, this new proposal, if it’s taken to its logical conclusion, seems to offer a way for people to become more self-sufficient, growing their own fruit and vegetables on their new plot of land. Apart from those obvious benefits, perhaps we could encourage non-gardeners with a different reward scheme?

Mrs. Brampton.

Thank you for your question Miss Black,

I think you’re correct in identifying potential symbiotic relationships. What I have done so far is to propose a general plan, a framework, onto which other things may be bolted. While it’s important to stay focused on the main target, which is to enable people to live economically in a rural environment, there will doubtless be ways to enrich the whole experience.

Thank you Mrs. Brampton.

‘Thank you all for your contributions to this debate. In common with our tradition I would now invite a show of hands to indicate an overall acceptance or denial of Mrs. Brampton’s proposal.

All ayes for the proposal. Thank you, the proposal clearly meets with approval. I now invite Mrs. Brampton to work up her outline proposal into bill form for presentation to the house for further approval. Sitting members will know the process already, but I would like to remind new members that if they have a special interest in any proposal they are at liberty to approach the proposer and join him or her in its development. However, this should only be done after informing your constituency of your support for a particular proposal. Opposition to any proposal can also be organised in the same way. In this way, when any proposed bill arrives back in the house for final debate we can be sure that both pro and anti arguments are properly organised and represented.’

The Speaker went on to introduce the next debate. A proposal to re-address one of the stalled infrastructure developments of the old Parliament, introduced by the member for Estuary North, representing the ribbon development of towns in South Essex. His proposal was to spend almost half of the available money in one enormous reorganisation of airports and associated infrastructure in the London area in favour of a new development in the Thames Estuary. The mood of the house was resolutely opposed to spending such a large sum on just one project but there were enough MPs from that region who wanted a say to ensure the debate would run on for some time.

It was only bought to a halt with the intervention of the Chancellor to remind the house that the expenditure plans would almost certainly be part of a referendum seeking broad approval before being passed into law. This would almost certainly preclude any single plan that would benefit one region at the cost of removing a development opportunity that could benefit many. In his opinion only those plans that addressed the general development of the nation should be considered.

During the day’s debate Guy Simmonds, Amelia St. Beuve and others of that induction group had been sitting together on the old green-leather benches of the chamber. They’d been joined by Henry Halliday, the sitting MP for Argyll and Bute. Henry had spent most of the previous week with the group helping them through the induction process and now knew them all quite well. Henry’s hand had been almost continually raised during the Brampton debate but he had not managed to catch the Speakers eye. However, when it became obvious that the proposal was meeting with approval he had visibly relaxed and now radiated an aura of contentment. It was now quite late in the day and time to think about knocking off for the day.

‘Right you lot. How about a celebratory glass of wine down on the terrace. This has been a great day, even though you may not realise it yet.’

‘Why is it such a great day Henry?’ quizzed Julie Smyth, MP for Winchester and a General Practitioner in that city.

‘Firstly, because this is the first time since the Modern Parliament came into being that we have been given a free hand to come up with new progressive policies that stand a chance of being funded and, secondly, because Mrs. Brampton’s proposal is such a brilliant idea. For me it really hits the spot. My constituency is part of the West Coast of Scotland and has been hugely effected by all the issues that Mrs. Brampton raised in her speech and in her notes. I suppose, because this is your first experience in the chamber, you must think it’s always like that, but it’s not. Usually we’re trawling through a minefield of small adjustments to existing policies. Fine tuning. Important, of course, and things which make a real difference to individuals but, today, it’s like being a thoroughbred horse that’s spent it’s life in a farmyard and has just been shown the field.’

‘Do you really think it stands a chance then?’

This was the first time anybody had known Archie Turnbull, MP for Solihull but once a shop assistant, to volunteer a question. Like many of them it was taking a while for him to find his feet in the company of so many.

‘Yes I do. One of the signatures of our ‘Lottery’ democracy is that it tends to select a mean average from the population. Within the six hundred MPs there are always going to be those who shine, people who’ve already had experience of decision making at a high level or who have professional knowledge that can add to a debate, those with attractive personalities or for more obscure reasons command respect. But, generally, we’re a conservative lot, with a small c, for whom change is difficult. This is usually a good thing because it makes it doubly necessary to present a policy change with care and a high level of proof for the argument. Because we’ve got nothing to gain from introducing flagship policies on a wing and a prayer to please some part of the electorate and make sure we keep our jobs, we tend to keep to the straight and narrow.

The overwhelmingly positive reaction to Mrs. Brampton’s proposal was atypical. There were only a few who questioned any part of it, and I had the sense that the rest of the house just found those interventions annoying. That makes me think that it has a really great chance, but what we all have to do now is show our support in practical ways, so that, when the bill returns, it can pass quickly into law.

‘So, how do we do that?’

‘Well, Imogen, it’s already clear from your question in the debate that you should be one of the contributors to the proposal at committee level, particularly with your degree in Ecology. What you need to do is run down the corridor to whatever committee room Mrs. Brampton has purloined and have a chat with her. The same applies to anyone else who feels strongly enough about the proposition.

Just to take a straw poll around the table, how many of you support the plan?

Including Henry Halliday there were eleven of them and all but two raised a hand. The dissenters were Indra Chowdary, Portsmouth, and Caroline Goubault, Swaledale.

‘Can I ask Indra and Caroline why you wouldn’t support the proposal?’.

Indra was the first to answer.

‘It’s not that I’ve got anything against it, it’s just that, as I understand it, we’ve got several more days of debate to consider any number of other ideas. Some of those ideas may relate to places like Portsmouth. We don’t have a lot of country estates in my neck of the woods, but we do have a lot of other problems.’ At the end of the day I will probably vote for it, if my constituency wants me to, but we’ll have to wait and see.’

‘Caroline,’

It goes against the grain. I don’t have a problem with landowners, I’d like to be one myself, and I think that once you start picking away at them it won’t stop until the whole thing has been wrecked. I work in a shop. I don’t have to, but I enjoy it and it keeps me in touch with my community. My husband is the manager for the Overhill Estate, so I guess I’ve got an interest in this. I think there is probably plenty of other land that could be used before you start having a go at private landowners. Also, I’ve kept my maiden name, Goubault, even though I’m married, to remind myself of my French heritage. The Goubault de Brugiere family were aristocracy before the revolution, and we know what it is like to lose everything.

‘Wow,’

‘Well it looks as though Caroline will be joining the opposition and Indra is a floating voter but how about the rest of us signing up to support this plan.’ Asked John Parker.

‘I’d really like to play a role. We’ve got lots of estates and big farms in Suffolk that could afford to lose some land, and plenty of builders who would love to get stuck in to something creative that didn’t mean having to put up with the building inspector as we now know him.

‘Years ago there was a building inspector in my area, one of three or four who covered the work. We had to phone up before ten in the morning if we needed an inspector to come out and sign off a trench or a bit of steelwork. Whenever any of us made the call we had our fingers crossed that it would not be Jack Higgins, because he always spelt trouble. He was an angry man whose pleasure in life was to put other people down by exerting his authority. You all know the sort. One day one of my friends called him out and, when it became clear that Jack was not going to be reasonable, lost his temper and laid him out. After the dust had settled we all waited for the inevitable enquiry and visit to the magistrate’s court, but it never happened. It turned out that he had a very bad marriage and it couldn’t stand the enforced two weeks off work. His missus walked out. When he got back to work he refused to press charges and, from that day, rejoined the ranks of the human race.’

‘Sorry about that, it probably doesn’t add much to the debate, but I always thought it was a great story.’

It was agreed that the ‘Estate Group’, as they would now refer to themselves, would, there and then, go off in search of Mrs. Brampton’s committee room, led by Henry, only just ahead of Imogen both physically, as they strode off, and in his determination to get stuck in.

Joan Brampton was soon found in committee room fifteen, given over to her by the house managers as an office from which to manage the progress of her proposal. The room was a hive of activity with a number of small groups talking animatedly, and Joan with her head down over a sheaf of papers.

Harry already knew Joan from the two years each had spent in one another’s approximate vicinity but had never worked closely with her. He quickly introduced the group, as like’minded MP’s, who would be very pleased to help Joan’s proposal in whatever role would be most helpful.

‘Thank you very much for your offer. Although I’ve already had a lot of messages of support, and you can see around you some of the volunteers that have already been playing a role in working up the idea, you are the first members to arrive on my doorstep. It would be lovely to have you on board. Henry may already have told you what a big day we all think this is. We’ve seen it coming for the past year but, given that my proposal only came out of the ballot of members a few days ago, there’s an awful lot of work to do to build it up into a complete project.

The most important thing we need to do is to put some numbers to the proposal. By the way we’ve chosen to call it P. One, for short. P for planning, but also for parliament, and one because it’s the first truly new proposal that we have been able to consider.

What will help us is to find a way to make P.One self-financing in the medium term and to be able to demonstrate this in very clear and simple terms to the electorate. It is certain that any proposals for expenditure coming from the Chancellors release of funds will be subject to referendum and we must prepare for that. It’s also true that there are bound to be other proposals competing for funds, so we’ve really got to do a good all-round job.

Perhaps you would all like to meet up in this Office on Thursday afternoon, two o’clock. There’s no debate planned for that afternoon and you’ll probably all want to get back to your constituencies on Friday. We can thrash it all about and share out some responsibilities if you’re in agreement.’

The next couple of days were busy for all. A variety of other proposals were debated in the chamber, including one for the creation of local community enterprises alongside an information, advice and training function that would help in their creation. The raison d’etre for this proposal was that it would be better for communities to supply many of the jobs and services that their members currently had to travel to, than to have to find the money to run their cars in a regular commute.

This proposal caught the eye of the ‘Estate group’, particularly because it could be seen to complementary to P. One. Perhaps the proposals could be linked in some way or exist in a beneficial symbiosis.

Thursday afternoon came around soon enough, and the meeting in committee room fifteen came to order. Joan Brampton chaired.

‘Welcome to P. One, everybody. The purpose of this meeting is to agree how we may all contribute to the working-up of P. One into a knock-em-dead winner. You’ll all by now be aware that the Press and Television have been lining up to take sides on the project. We’ve already seen some pretty outspoken comments from ‘the usual suspects’ but there has also been some more thoughtful commentary. It seems to me that, on average, the jury is out and may be sympathetic in the end, if we do our job well. Internally I’ve received a lot of encouragement from the Chancellors office, but laying great emphasis on value for money. We’ve been in an austerity economy for so long now it’s become a bit of a habit. A good habit, mind.

The House manager has also signed an expenses order for P. One, giving this office a budget for expenses and professional services that we may need to buy in. He’s also given us access to the house lawyers and some other internal services. I actually think that John Parminter is so inclined to help that if I’d asked him for a quick shag in the broom cupboard in the name of essential research, he would have said yes.

I’d like to suggest some of the general areas we need to concentrate on.

First. We need to come up with a physical plan for a typical development. We need to describe the amount of land needed, and to define the type and where it may come from. We can’t, for example, expect to take land that already has an important function, nor can we expect to take land, development of which will effect the ordinary enjoyment of his or her home by the landowner. As part of this we need to come up with some suggestions for scale. Is it, for example, sensible to have scattered single-dwelling development, or should all development be multiple. This will very much relate to the cost-effectiveness issue.

Secondly. We need to come up with costed designs, appropriate for different landscapes with different resources. To do this we need to prepare a briefing that will accurately describe the limitations applied, whether this be an overall price per dwelling or the types of material allowed. We also need to define in some measurable way the required efficiency of each home.

Thirdly. We need to get out there and talk to the local communities and to the landowners to try and measure their reactions, both positive and negative. We need to be able to show how things can work in practise, and give some examples.

We also have to give some thought to the construction of the new controlling body that will be needed if P. One is passed, and how this can be done without increasing the size of the State, which is, at the moment, embargoed.

Suggestions?’

In the room were around thirty MPs, both new and ‘old’, but the only ‘activists’ were the Estate Group. It was quickly agreed that all of those present would be ready and willing to assist in whatever way they could in response to Joan Brampton and her newly aligned ‘Estate Group’. It seemed a very sensible way forward that the work be shared out among this already close-knit group led by the parliament-savvy Henry Halliday and reporting to Joan. General meetings would be called from time to time to review progress. All press matters would be referred to Joan, who would speak for the project.

It was only left for the ‘Estate Group’ to share out their workload and it was decided to leave this until the following Tuesday, when they came back from what was going to be a long weekend in their constituencies. All were expected to report on their parliamentary week and look at any matters raised by constituents on a regular basis and, although much could be dealt with electronically from their cubby-holes in Westminster there was still a lot of organisation to get to grips with so early in their terms of office.

‘How are you getting back, John’ Asked Imogen.

‘I was hoping to get on the train this evening from Liverpool Street. And you?’

‘I’ll join you if you like, and then you can give me a lift to Bungay in that ratty old Citroen that I suppose you’ve still got.’

‘Happy days, but I’m now onto Peugot, give me a few more years and it’ll probably be a Volvo, but I’m too young yet. I’ll drop by your flat around six then, and we’ll head off together.’

‘Are you off to Argyll, Henry?’

‘Yep. Caledonian sleeper, leaving at midnight, and then three hours more to Oban, I’ll spend tomorrow in the constituency office and then get home to Ulva sometime on Saturday. It’s a long trip.’

The ‘Estate Group’ said goodbye to one another and to Westminster and all went their separate ways after what had been, for all of them, a memorable week. Joan Brampton stayed over that night but would head back to Malton, via her York office, the next morning.

She was feeling really energised by the project and really looking forward to working with her new colleagues. What a great institution this Modern Parliament was, with such a good spirit of co-operation and complete lack of the party-politics of old.